Tuesday, 11 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) —by leave-I move : That the Senate- (1) expresses its profound sympathy at the loss of the lives of Ministers and officials of the Government of the Republic of Korea in the bomb explosion in Rangoon, Burma on Sunday 9 October; (2) reaffirms its abhorrence of and opposition to terrorism; (3) reaffirms its support for the people of the Republic of Korea and calls on all nations with interests and concerns in the Korean Peninsula to exercise restraint and moderation at this difficult time; and (4) requests the President to convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. Mr President, last Saturday, 8 October, President Chun Doo Hwan of the Republic of Korea set out from Seoul to visit Burma, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and Brunei. He was to arrive, together with a substantial entourage, in Perth next Sunday, 16 October. He was to come to Canberra on 17 October and hold discussions with us on 18 October before visiting Sydney on 19 October and departing for New Zealand on 20 October. As a result of tragic circumstances, that visit has been postponed to another time. The members of the Korean official party who were killed in the bomb explosion included the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Economic Planning Board, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Commerce and Industry, the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Secretary-General to the President of the ruling Democratic Justice Party, the Vice-Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Senior Secretary to the President for Economic Affairs and the Co-ordinator of the Overseas Co-operation Council. Those seriously injured included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Vice-Minister of Finance. The Governor-General and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have both sent messages of condolence to President Chun. On behalf of the Australian Government and people they have expressed deep shock in learning of the tragedy which befell President Chun's party in Rangoon. They have conveyed our condolences to the Government and people of the Republic of Korea and reaffirmed Australia's support for the Republic of Korea at this troubled time. They have asked President Chun to convey to the families of those who died our deep sympathy and we have wished a speedy recovery to the injured. These messages and the statements by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) have pointed to the fact that a number of the people who died were known personally to us and other members of the Government. President Chun had embarked on this overseas tour as part of the Republic of Korea's broadening of its contacts with the region. We had welcomed the growing role of the Republic of Korea in the region's affairs and the growing significance of its links with Australia. Since our Government took office we have had close and productive contact with the Republic of Korea. Before the visit planned for next week by President Chun there had been four high level visits between Australia and Korea since this Government took office. In May the Secretary-General to the President, Dr Hahm Pyong Choon, visited Australia. He called on the Prime Minister and several other Ministers. Dr Hahm had been for many years one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Republic of Korea. He was formerly an Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States. Dr Hahm died in Rangoon. His death is recognised by us as a great loss to his country and he will be remembered with respect. In July, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, visited Seoul. He talked then with President Chun, with Dr Hahm and with a number of others who died in Rangoon, including their distinguished Foreign Minister Mr Lee. At the end of August-six weeks ago-the annual round of ministerial trade talks between the Republic of Korea and Australia took place in Canberra. The Leader of the Republic of Korea delegation was Mr Kim Dong Whie, Minister for Commerce and Industry and, at that time, I had the opportunity of lengthy discussions with him. Mr Kim had had a distinguished career in the foreign service and was until, his appointment as Minister, Permanent Head of the Korean Foreign Ministry. Mr Kim also died in Rangoon. He will be remembered not only as a friend and a tough bargainer for his country but also as a man of great enthusiasm and energy whose personal character contributed much to our relations . Mr Suh Sang Chul, the Minister of Energy and Resources, had a particular connection and affection for Australia and had many friends here. Until several years ago Mr Suh was the Republic of Korea's representative at the World Bank in Washington. Australia and the Republic of Korea are members of the same constituency in the World Bank and so Mr Suh for several years worked closely with the Australian representative at the bank. Mr Suh also died in Rangoon. Among the officials who died, Mr Kim Jae Ik stood out as an outstanding technocrat of great intellectual ability who had many friends in Australia. I have mentioned these names to provide some indication of the depth of personal connections developed between Australia and the Republic of Korea at a very high level and to underscore the personal loss that we share. The Republic of Korea has lost a number of its most important leaders. These were men of intelligence and vigor, among the brightest and most open minded of leaders in a society undergoing great changes. They will be very difficult to replace. We also had been looking forward to President Chun's visit, in the expectation that it would contribute greatly to the growth of an already substantial and positive relationship. Australia has given consistent and principled support to the Republic of Korea for 35 years since its foundation in 1948. Australians fought and died in the Korean war. In a continued environment of hostility on the peninsula since then, South Korea has been obliged to maintain very large armed forces and there have been many difficulties and frustrations in the development of a more open political system. We nonetheless have remained confident, and continue to remain confident, that the basis for a strong, growing and beneficial relationship between our countries can be sustained. The bomb explosion at the Martyrs' Mausoleum was a cruel blow. It has done nothing to contribute to a peaceful settlement of the problems of the Korean peninsula. It has deprived Korea of men of great experience and ability. No one can gain or draw satisfaction from this wanton act of terrorism. We can only hope that it will not irreversibly damage the cause of peace in an area where the balance of forces is otherwise so delicately poised. We convey to the Korean people our profound sympathy. As a mark of our respect, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House, Mr Lionel Bowen, will leave Australia tonight to represent the Government at the memorial service to honour the dead. The honourable member for Hawker, Mr Jacobi, who is currently leading the Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Seoul, will also attend the service. We would also urge all nations with interests in the Korean peninsula to exercise restraint. The cost of the losses suffered to Korea and to all those with an interest in peace is already too high. They should not now be added to or compounded. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and joins with the Government in expressing its condolences and sympathy to the President and the people of the Republic of Korea. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, sent the following message to the President of the Republic of Korea: The Federal Opposition expresses its sympathy to yourself, your Government and the people of the Republic of Korea. We extend our special condolences to the families of those killed in this tragic attack which has outraged the Australian people. I also extend my deep personal sympathy. All Australians have been appalled by this assault on a presidential party comprising the highest holders of executive office in that nation. We have been reminded of the capacities of members of the President's party by the speech which has been just made by the Leader of the Government. Many were known in Australia to members of the Opposition. They were men of achievement and distinction who contributed to the singular success of the Republic of Korea's modernisation programs and the enhanced international stature of their country. It is virtually without precedent that a nation has had much of its leadership destroyed while on a goodwill visit to another country. This, surely, must be one of the most ruthless acts of modern times. The Australian Government will have resources, including international contacts, which may help to bring to account those who perpetrated this dreadful deed. It is clear that it constitutes an affront to international morality of the utmost gravity and tragically it follows the shooting down of a Korean airliner just a few weeks ago. Increasing acts of violence and terrorism emphasise the importance of the international community uniting against those who would have recourse to such measures. Australia has an important role to play in this process. Clearly, in current circumstances, the Korean people need the reassurance of friends such as Australia and it is the wish of the Opposition that every effort be made by the Australian Government, in collaboration with Korea's other friends such as the United States of America and Japan, to bring to the Korean people in their moment of national distress the strength of Australia's sympathy and support. This act of terrorism heightens the importance of maintaining a fundamental understanding of the role that the Republic of Korea has played in developing into a modern nation with an aspiration to play an increasingly constructive and creative part in world affairs. The purposes of this mission-to improve the links between the Korean people and Asian peoples of non-aligned pursuasion- remain as valid today as at the moment of inception. The goodwill of the people of the Republic of Korea, demonstrated in the decision to embark on this mission , has received a terrible set-back but it would be a very sad development for the world if the high purposes that President Chun had in mind were allowed to be dissipated by these events. The Republic of Korea has been a bastion of stability in north-east Asia, and this is sometimes overlooked by those who have expressed dissatisfaction at the pace of political development. But the contribution that the Republic of Korea makes to the security of the region, particularly Japan, is of the highest importance. It is with regret that we have to accept the abandonment of the presidential visit and the cancellation of the tour of the Korean National Dance Company. When the time comes again for the visit to be reconsidered-and we hope that that will not be too far into the future-we on this side of the Senate would want the Korean people to be clear that Australia welcomes it. I am sure that many Australians who have had contact with the Republic would join the Government and the Opposition in this wish. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I would like to associate myself and members of the Australian-Korean parliamentary group with the motion moved by the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney). I was for some time president of that group. With a number of our colleagues, I visited Korea earlier this year and was able to meet the Foreign Minister and one or two other Ministers who met their deaths. I believe that our sympathy goes to their relatives who are left in these tragic circumstances. Earlier this year I was privileged to attend the South Korean Embassy with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and other distinguished guests and have dinner with Dr Hahm who, as the Leader of the Government said, was a most articulate representative of the Korean people. I believe it is tragic that this should have happened. I do not think that we in Australia appreciate the sensitivity of the political and military confrontation that takes place in that part of the world. Tragic events such as this recall to our minds how lucky we are to be so remote from that sort of confrontation. I am very pleased that Mr Jacobi, the President of the Korean-Australian Parliamentarians' Friendship Association, is able to make arrangements to attend the memorial service along with, I hope, some of our colleagues. I believe it is most important that we recognise the significance of the bond of friendship that has grown between Australia and the Republic of South Korea since the Korean War when Australia was to the forefront in defending that country against aggression from the north. On behalf of the Australian-Korean Parliamentarians Friendship Association, yesterday I sent a telegram to the Ambassador asking him to convey to the President of his Government our regrets at the barbaric act that resulted in the deaths of very prominent and respected Korean people. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —The National Party of Australia in the Senate wishes to be associated with the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and supports the thrust of it. Our leader, Mr Doug Anthony, will be supporting a similar motion in the House of Representatives. As Minister for Trade and Resources in the previous Government, he had many personal friends who were killed or severely injured in this outrage. At a time when there is a lot of misunderstanding and turmoil in the world it is important that world leaders, politicians and community leaders move around the world and try to cultivate a better understanding. It is, of course, a tragedy that this outrage happened on such an occasion. Lest we get too complacent, may we be reminded that at an international conference held in Sydney not too many years ago something along this line could have happened in Australia. The fact that two innocent people who were going about their normal work were killed does not detract from the enormity of the intent of that bomb explosion there. In an age when this sort of thing is becoming all too prevalent, may we never cease to be outraged at the effrontery to honest, decent civilised people that such an explosion caused. Mr President, may you convey the sympathies of the National Party, along with all the others, to the relatives of those who were killed and to the people of Burma and the Republic of Korea. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I associate the Australian Democrats with the terms of the motion as moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and note in passing that less barbarous acts than this have led to and caused major conflagrations. We hope that this act by itself will not worsen the relationship between the Republic of Korea and its immediate neighbours. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I wish to associate myself with the motion. In fact , I intend to support the motion wholeheartedly. I wish to place on record my support for the messages sent by the Governor-General and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as outlined in the speech by the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button). The PRESIDENT —The Speaker of the House of Representatives and I, as Presiding Officers, have sent a telegram of condolence on behalf of the Australian Parliament to the Speaker of the South Korean Parliament. Also I have been informed today, in my capacity as Joint Chairman of the Australian Branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, that the members of the Australian delegation in Seoul in South Korea have been most active in conveying the sympathies of members of the Australian Parliament to the people of South Korea. I invite honourable senators to signify their assent to the motion by standing in silence . Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS Allowance) has been progressively reducing in real terms throughout the 1980s, and is no longer at an adequate subsistence level. 2. that the situation where the independent TEAS allowance is substantially below the single, no dependant, unemployment benefit is inequitable and not supportable by cost relativities. 3. that the low level of TEAS allowance is detrimental to maintaining the proportion of students currently partaking in tertiary education. 4. that effective immediately the TEAS allowance should be increased to the same level as the single unemployment benefit and thereafter be maintained in line with changes in said benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 31 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. Reverse 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 Martin (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State', and Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Government of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 345 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to became involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 13 citizens), Coates (from 81 citizens) and Grimes ( from 169 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament 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-Labour 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 for peace, disarmament and a nuclear free future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 52 citizens), Jack Evans (from 52 citizens), Macklin ( from 52 citizens) and Mason (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and Senator Susan Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from accepting or passing Senator Ryan 's Sex Discrimination Bill. Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Giving effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (clause 3). (2) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels being a disruption of traditional values and likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. (3) The rewriting of school textbooks and curriculum (article 10c UN Convention ) to eliminate any reference to stereotyped roles of men and women. The Bible comes into this category. (4) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of child care centres is likely to result in maternal deprivation and anxiety states in children. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 222 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials and the importation of nuclear hardware, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator CHANEY —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy believe that the Leader of the Tasmanian Opposition, Mr Wriedt, is correct in saying, as he did on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio yesterday, that Australian Labor Party policy quite clearly prohibits development of any new uranium mines? If that is so, does he see that as being in conformity with the reported view of the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Campbell, that the left wing of the Labor Party, in opposing uranium development, has allowed itself, as Mr Campbell said, 'to become an irrational blancmange quivering in whatever mould the middle class trendies have chosen to pour it'? Does he dispute Mr Campbell's claim that Australia has the potential for a $1 billion a year industry and very large scale job creation through development of uranium deposits and the synroc waste disposal system? Senator WALSH —I was not aware of the statement made by Mr Wriedt. I will take Senator Chaney's word for it that he made it. Mr Wriedt is a State parliamentary Labor Party leader, but he is no longer a member of this Parliament or of the Federal Caucus and therefore will not be participating in the final decision on Government policy in this area when it is made by Caucus this month or perhaps early next month. I should like to see the context in which that remark was made . A quite common interpretation of the existing Labor Party platform is that it precludes the development of any new mines, except that there is the overriding clause 64C, I believe it is, which, although it does not explicitly refer to Roxby Downs, is generally conceded and is known by those who were actually present at the conference discussion to refer to Roxby Downs. This can be quite clearly seen from the transcripts, if anyone would like to check them. I am broadly aware of Graeme Campbell's views on the matter. I question very seriously the estimate of $1 billion a year additional income. Senator Chaney —He said 'a $1 billion a year industry . . . through development of uranium deposits and the synroc waste disposal system'. Senator WALSH —No time frame has been put on that. The present uranium exports have a value of about $350m. At some time in the distant future I expect it is conceivable that a billion dollars a year could be earned from export income. However, I believe that that is a very long way down the track and, without taking political considerations into account at all, very much further down the track than most people in, if one may use the term, the pro-uranium lobby will concede. Senator COOK —I ask whether the Attorney-General is aware of an article in the Perth Sunday Times of 25 September headlined 'Gems Bribe to Taxmen' wherein it was reported: A startling new claim that tax department officials took diamond bribes to ignore a massive tax evasion racket has been made by runaway Perth financier Christo Moll. Moll . . . told Channel Nine's Sixty Minutes that tax officers took bribes of diamonds worth $25,000 in 1977-78 . . . The article went on to say: . . . that his fellow tax conspirators are still in W.A. but have not been charged because the tax department is blocking police investigations. The article further stated: But the Dutch financier, who mixed regularly with Perth's jet-set, told Sixty Minutes that he was told to leave W.A. by his clients-who included members of the Western Australia Liberal Party. Have these allegations of corruption in the Taxation Office and by members of the Western Australian Liberal Party been investigated? Is the Attorney-General considering whether Christo Moll is to be given an indemnity to return to Australia to give evidence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have had the article to which Senator Cook refers drawn to my attention. I have no particular information on the specific matters he refers to in that article, although it is of course the case, as has been widely reported, that an ongoing and major investigation is proceeding under the auspices of the Australian Federal Police both in Australia and overseas. I will seek from the Special Minister of State any further particular information in relation to these matters that he is able to provide me with. As to the question of an indemnity, I have not yet received any application for an indemnity either for or on behalf of Mr Moll, although one has again been widely foreshadowed in the media. In this respect again I am awaiting not only the formal receipt of such an application but more particularly a full report from the Australian Federal Police on all aspects of this matter. As honourable senators will be aware, the granting of an indemnity in a major criminal prosecution is not a matter that is entered into lightly at all. There are many criteria which have to be satisfied in a particular case before consideration can even be given to the granting of such an indemnity and that matter is simply not on my desk at the moment, although I expect it to be at some time in the reasonably foreseeable future. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the statement by him to the Senate on 22 September on the matter of public duty and private interests. Specifically it refers to that part of his statement which says: I shall be presenting a notice of motion today giving further details and proposing referral to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report . The Minister went on to say: One question is whether the registration system should be compulsory or voluntary. Is it the intention of the Government that the Standing Orders Committee should report on that question and that its report be debated before any decision is made? Senator BUTTON —I do not recall the precise details of the statement although I read it to the Senate. But, as I recall, it is the intention of the Government that in respect of non-Ministers who are members of the Parliament the question which Senator Sir John Carrick quoted as one which should be addressed to the Standing Orders Committee should be addressed to the Standing Orders Committee and that consequent upon consideration of that matter by the Committee it would then be debated again in the Parliament. Senator HEARN —Has the Acting Minister for Health seen reports in the Tasmanian Press that a group of general practitioners intend to sabotage Medicare by refusing to bulk bill their patients? Who are these general practitioners and what is the possibility of their succeeding in their aims? Senator GRIMES —I did see and hear reports in the Tasmanian media of a meeting held in Hobart on the weekend after which it was announced that the group of general practitioners present would sabotage Medicare by refusing to bulk bill their patients. It turns out, in fact, that this meeting was organised by the General Practitioners Society in Australia. It was also paid for by various drug companies in this country. The General Practitioners Society is a small group of general practitioners; as well as being made up of doctors, it is an extreme right wing political group. In the words of some of my colleagues, it is to the right of the soup spoon. Its members are mostly associated with right wing political parties in this country, such as the Workers Party and the Progress Party which seem to have gone the way of all such parties. They are opposed not only to Medicare but to any form of health insurance involving government in this country. In fact, they described the previous Government as a socialist government; at one stage they described it as more socialist than the Labor Government was when Mr Hayden was Minister for Social Security. The great characteristic of this group, however, is that it will attempt to sabotage any health insurance program in this country, not at the expense of its members but at the expense of their patients. These practitioners will fight to the death against Medicare; they will fight to the last patient. They are never willing to make any sacrifices themselves. They claim that they will stop Medicare by depriving their patients-including their pensioner patients-of the privilege of being subject to bulk billing. They have done this since the organisation was inaugurated in 1974. They have failed to gain much support within the medical profession. They have gained considerable support from some members of the Opposition present, one of whom I notice has remained silent for the first time while I answer a question. I believe that the organisation should be exposed for what it is-an extremist political organisation which is willing to take any steps to defeat the introduction of any health insurance scheme in this country, as long as those steps do not affect the incomes of its members or deprive them of any of the money they receive. They are not at all concerned about how they will inconvenience their patients in this regard. They are a disgrace to the medical profession. They are even a disgrace to the political profession. I believe that they will not succeed in their aims in this regard any more than they have in the past. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that nuclear energy contributes about 3 per cent of total energy supplies for the United States, a percentage which is roughly equivalent to the contribution made by firewood in that country? Is it the case that since 1978 no new nuclear reactors have been ordered for the United States and that all nuclear reactors ordered in the United States since 1974 have been cancelled? How does the Government assess the impact of this demise of the United States nuclear power industry on the demand for Australian uranium? Senator WALSH —I am not able to confirm precisely the accuracy of the statement by Senator Macklin that nuclear energy in the United States contributes 3 per cent of that country's total energy supplies. When it is restricted to electricity-I acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the two -I think that, in the United States and in Western Europe generally, nuclear power supplies about 10 per cent of total electricity demand. I am not specifically aware either of whether there have been no new orders for nuclear reactors in the United States since 1978 or of whether all of those ordered since 1974 have been cancelled. However, in general terms I know that the construction rate for nuclear reactors which had been projected in the United States some years ago has been revised downwards very drastically, and that obviously has had an effect on the commercial demand for uranium which was anticipated at the time that forecasts for new reactor construction in the United States-and, I interpolate, in many other countries-were published some years ago. Whether one should refer to the demise of the United States nuclear power industry I am not so sure; but certainly the deferral and/or cancellation in the United States, and in many other countries, of previously planned new nuclear reactors has had a substantial effect on the global commercial demand for uranium. That is a point that has been made frequently by me and by other members of the Government. My attention has been drawn to a very recent report, of which I have not yet been able to obtain a copy, of a paper delivered at a seminar in London recently at which it was predicted that there would be no additional commercial demand for Australian uranium for the rest of this century . The Government's assessment, up until now, has been that there would be no commercial demand for Australian uranium for the rest of this decade-at least additional to that which could be supplied from the two existing mines. But Senator Macklin's question, in general terms, correctly draws attention to the fact that the projections of demand for nuclear power which were commonly accepted some years ago are now known to be very substantial, if not gross, overestimates of the real commercial demand for uranium for at least the rest of this decade and maybe for the rest of this century. Obviously that has had implications for the potential-and again, I stress, independently of any political considerations-for the development of a uranium mining and/or processing industry in Australia. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen Press reports that claim that the Government is softening the former Government's tough stand against apartheid? Can the Minister confirm or refute these allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —There has been speculation in the media that the Government will be softening its policies towards South Africa as a result of its reviews of civil aviation links between Australia and southern Africa and of sporting contacts with South Africa. There is absolutely no question of the Government relaxing its firm opposition to the evils of the apartheid system as practised by the South African Government. This has been stated many times. The Prime Minister made it quite clear in answering a question in the House of Representatives on 5 October. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, restated the Government's attitude towards apartheid in his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week. On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in this place, in answering a question two or three weeks ago, I made the same point. The Government's review of policy on sporting contacts with South Africa has not yet been completed. That point does not seem to be appreciated by those who seek to criticise the Government. The objective of the policy review is simply to set out clear guidelines and to eliminate past inconsistencies. The Government has already expressed its strong opposition to apartheid in sport and its continued support for the Gleneagles declaration, and there will be absolutely no weakening of this position. Concerning civil aviation, interim measures have been introduced for the convenience of passengers during the forthcoming peak holiday season. The Government's review of civil aviation links generally with southern Africa, however, has not yet been completed. I am sure that when it is completed there will, given the mood within the Government on this issue, be no basis whatever for any concern by those opponents of apartheid who are expressing that concern so volubly at present. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question, which refers to public duty and private interests, is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Under the Government's disclosure requirements for Ministers, is it possible for a Minister with a family company or a trust to own any number of shares in any number of companies, public or private, without disclosing that ownership? Senator BUTTON —I may have missed the last part of the question. Let me just paraphrase the question and then answer it, if I can. I am asked whether it is possible for a Minister, with a private company or trust, to own X number of shares and not-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —In any number of companies, without naming them . Senator BUTTON —In any number of companies without naming them, without disclosing those interests. My answer is that I believe not and it is certainly the intention of the Government that that situation should be disclosed. Senator Chaney —In the register, in those published documents? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Government in the Senate is answering the question. Senator BUTTON —I am just being assisted a bit. In endeavouring to answer the question, let me say that the Government's intention was that Ministers should disclose any interest in respect of which there may be a conflict, without indicating necessarily the extent of that interest. Senator Chaney —The value. Senator BUTTON —The value of that interest, yes. So there is no requirement, I would imagine, that the precise numbers of shares at particular values be disclosed, but the interest should be disclosed. Senator COLEMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to an answer given during Estimates committee hearings when advice was given that a surcharge of 60c is charged by doctors who treat veterans. Could the Minister give me an indication of the cost of this surcharge to the Government and what possible justification there is for paying it? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Robertson, during the Estimates Committee hearing relating to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, did ask a question about the justification for the Department paying an additional fee of 60c to local medical officers for every consultation or visit to a repatriation patient. I understand that the LMO scheme began in 1918 when, after the war, a whole number of veterans from World War I dispersed to country areas where they were not able to get ready access to the medical profession or to the facilities of the Repatriation Department, as it was then known. However, the situation has changed very considerably since then and, of course, in today's times, doctors do not have to look for business from repatriation or veteran patients. In fact, the converse is the case. In looking at this matter, I have established that in the 1982-83 financial year the cost to my Department exceeded something like $1.7m. Consequently, one is entitled to examine whether that is a justifiable charge on expenditure, particularly when the Prime Minister has written to all Ministers asking them to establish a better system of savings in respect of expenditure. One is entitled, therefore, to look at this matter to see whether there is justification for this expenditure that has been with us for 65 years. The justification was that there were extra records and extra work involved by the local medical officer who was appointed by the Department. However, given recent developments in data storage and processing, as well as the volume of business which my Department now generates for local medical officers, it may well be that that margin, that payment of 60c per consultation, which is paid in respect of something like 2.8 million consultations a year, is rather difficult to justify in these economic times. I am currently examining the situation. I probably will have consultations not only with the Department but also with the medical profession to see whether in fact that expenditure is justified in today's conditions. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Under the Government's disclosure requirements for Ministers, will the apparent position of a Minister with a $100 deposit in a bank account be the same as the apparent position of a Minister with a $1m deposit in a bank account ? Senator BUTTON —The apparent position of a Minister with $100 in a bank account will be the same as the apparent position of a Minister with $1m in a bank account. The Government made it quite clear that the value of interests would not be disclosed by Ministers, and it is not suggested that it be disclosed by anybody else in the Parliament. If we think about our own case, as members of Parliament, there are very good reasons for that. The Government, after two inquiries established by the Parliament, one in 1975 which produced a unanimous conclusion, signed by Peter Nixon, James Killen and others, to the effect that there should be full disclosure of these matters-- Senator Chaney —Full disclosure? Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator Chaney —Is that what you are advocating? Senator BUTTON —No. If Senator Chaney would listen to the answer, he will learn that I am talking about what the report of the Riordan Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament said. Senator Chaney's Government ignored that report for seven years. I also refer to the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, about which precious little was done by the conservative governments in this country. There is a lot of concern on the Opposition side in relation to the question of disclosure. As far as the Government is concerned, and it has been made quite clear since these returns were first disclosed, we are prepared to disclose all that we believe is necessary in order that people may make judgments about the two questions of pecuniary interests-- Senator Chaney —Ten of you got it wrong. Senator BUTTON —Yes, ten of us were wrong. All members of the Opposition are wrong at this stage because they have not disclosed anything. The intention of the Government was that Ministers should disclose all those matters which would enable people to make a judgment, firstly, about their pecuniary interests and, secondly, about a situation of conflict of interest in which they might be placed as Ministers of the Crown. We have invited members of the Opposition to do the same sort of thing, and I reissue that invitation. Finally, in relation to this whole debate, let us look at it this way: Let him who is without Sin- clair cast the first stone. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Attorney-General to concern in the community that persons associated with the production of the film Allies have been smeared by allegations that they have been associated with the KGB. Can the Attorney- General say whether the Government has any evidence to support any such claim? If there is none, is he in a position to convey an apology to the people involved in respect of these allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that an officer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation stated in evidence before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies that ASIO had assessed the film Allies as being part of a KGB-backed disinformation operation. As a result of those references and certain other representations and questions that have been put to me, I have sought further information from the Director-General of ASIO. On the basis of the report I have received from the Director-General, I have now come to certain conclusions, which I think it is appropriate to put on the public record. While I can understand that there may have been reasons for suspicion on ASIO's part based on its previous experience of KGB disinformation activity, and on the previous activities of Mr Allan Francovich, the American who was billed as the co-producer of the film, it does not appear, on the information available to me, that there is evidence in this case which would sustain an assessment that this film was any part of such activity. In particular, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the funding for the film was raised otherwise than-as has been claimed by its producers-from ordinary investment sources within Australia. As I have made clear in my own evidence to the Hope Royal Commission, I do not always draw the same inferences from available information as does ASIO. On the contrary, I consider it a vital part of the proper relationship between myself, on behalf of the Government, and ASIO that I be in a position to disagree on occasion with ASIO's assessments and recommendations, as I have done in this case so far as the particular evidence of the ASIO officer before the Hope Royal Commission was concerned. Finally, may I say that, in a highly sensitive area such as this, where judgments made in good faith can nevertheless vary, I believe it is unfortunate, although probably inevitable, that this particular suggestion has received such widespread publicity to the understandable concern of the film makers and of other members of the public. I regret any embarrassment which this episode has caused to those associated in good faith with the film and I trust that my comments today have given them appropriate reassurance. Senator MESSNER —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to Kate Legge's article in Friday's Age newspaper detailing a draft Cabinet submission which apparently seeks to exempt leisure equipment, which may include a holiday home, a caravan or a campervan but not a boat, up to the value of $30,000, from the proposed assets test. Does the Minister recognise the obvious inconsistency in exempting to a certain value these types of leisure items but exempting, regardless of value, items such as antiques, paintings and jewellery? Is this not another anomalous and iniquitous situation that the Government will build into the proposed assets test? Given the obvious continuation of the Government's ad hoc, piecemeal and confused approach to retirement income, will the Minister accede to my request to release the reports of the three working groups it established on retirement income policy so that the basis of its policy can be determined? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I saw Kate Legge's article. As there is no Cabinet submission-the submission is not before Cabinet yet-I can assure Senator Messner that Kate Legge is talking about something which has not yet gone to Cabinet and , indeed, something which I and other Ministers have yet to finalise. I am very interested in the point that Senator Messner makes because the implication of what he says is the same as what his leader says; that is, that in fact we should assess and value all things in homes such as individual antiques and other such items. Of course, this would involve sending inspectors into every home in the country to have every bit of furniture and jewellery valued. If that is the sort of behaviour that Senator Messner and Mr Peacock want to introduce into this country, they can. But, rather than sit in here and snipe and carp about an assets test, Senator Messner should do what most other responsible people and organisations in this country have done, and that is to contact the Government about what he may or may not see as worries and we can have a discussion about them. I am even willing to do that with the honourable senator rather than have him come in here, or in public outside and worry individual pensioners in the way he is doing. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's typical blustering reply, I just make the point that one of the best ways of making communication about any question at all is in this Parliament where the issues ought to be raised. Obviously this kind of question is not one that the Government wants to debate or else it would release the reports. I ask the Minister again to address himself to that part of the question. Senator GRIMES —I apologise, Mr President. I omitted to answer that part of the question. My attitude to those reports will be exactly the same as my predecessor's attitude. They are Cabinet documents. The one which is not a Cabinet document is a working document of the Minister and it will not be released, unless it is released like the Spender report which was dropped off the back of a truck. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister for Primary Industry would be aware of, and no doubt disturbed by, the actions of the management of the Australian Wine Research Insitute when, in April this year, two long-serving scientists at the Institute were dismissed without warning and for no stated reason. The dismissals provoked a week-long strike by the employees at the Institute and the scientists association, the Association of Professional Scientists of Australia, sought reinstatement of the dismissed workers through arbitration. However, before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Institute argued that the case was a legal matter and this prevented Commission Neyland from making any recommendation. Is the Minister aware that since the dismissals in April the management of the Australian Wine Research Institute has continued to provoke further disputation by attempting to breach existing contracts of employment with remaining staff? Given that the Institute is funded primarily by the Federal Government, through the Department of Primary Industry and a statutory levy, does the Minister regard the Institute as a government body? If so, to what extent is the Government responsible for the proper running of the Institute? Is the Minister aware of the claim that the management of the Institute regards the Institute as a privately funded entity? Further, is the Minister aware that the Institute has moved unilaterally to alter the terms and conditions of employment of the Institute staff to lesser conditions? Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the actions by the management of the Institute, staff members have been forced into a legal battle with the Institute ? Is the Minister aware that government funds are being spent in this way by the Institute on attempts to downgrade the working conditions of Institute staff? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is a little too long. Senator CROWLEY —I am finishing now, Mr President. Is the Minister aware that the staff has repeatedly requested that an elected staff representative attend Council meetings to put forward its views on relevant matters and has as often been refused? Senator WALSH —In the strict technical sense, the Australian Wine Research Institute is not a government body in that it is in fact a company registered under South Australian company law. But it is correct, as Senator Crowley has stated, that it is funded substantially, if not primarily, by both direct general taxpayer contributions through the Commonwealth and by an industry levy. Therefore, as is usual with such institutes and such funding arrangements, the Minister for Primary Industry has some ministerial responsibility for the body to the degree to which the Commonwealth is involved in it. The Minister is aware and has been aware for some time of the unfortunate industrial relations situation which currently exists and has existed, I understand, for some time at the Institute. In response to that, the Minister has written to the Chairman of the Institute Council, which is the governing body, expressing his concern about the situation and requesting that the Council seek a mutually satisfactory resolution of the issue as quickly as possible. At the Minister's request and, I expect, in response to that letter, a meeting is being arranged between members of the Council and officers of the departments of Employment and Industrial Relations and Primary Industry to establish the facts of the situation and to explore means of achieving a satisfactory resolution. I understand that that meeting is likely to take place this week although I cannot be sure of that. The Minister has indicated that he made clear to all the parties concerned his belief that they should achieve a settlement which is just, equitable and prompt. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . Does the Minister agree that, in general, Queensland coal mines are very low cost and thus more profitable operations than mines in New South Wales? Does he also agree that if the Commonwealth Government introduces a resource rent tax on coal, the Queensland mines will pay more tax than they do now while the New South Wales mines will pay less? Does this not mean that a resource rent tax on coal would result in more tax being paid in Queensland and less in New South Wales? Senator WALSH —It is correct as a generalisation that Queensland coal mines are lower cost than coal mines in New South Wales. It is possible that the lowest cost coal mines in the world, all things considered, are located in Queensland. It is correct that if the present industry levy system, including the rather rapacious rail freight charges of the Queensland State Government, were to be replaced by a tax aimed at economic rent, a tax more commonly, if not so accurately, described as a tax based on profits, low cost coal mines would pay at any given level of total industry taxation more tax than they currently pay and high cost coal mines would pay less. It follows from that that in periods of economic duress, such as that through which the industry is currently moving, higher cost coal mines would not unnecessarily be driven into a position of insolvency because of the charges which they must pay in common with low cost mines as some low cost mines are currently being driven into insolvency. That much of Senator Martin's question is correct. The implication which she appears to have drawn from those facts, however, is not correct. The clear implication in or inference to be drawn from her question is that Queensland, as a State, will be disadvantaged if such a system of taxation were introduced. That is not correct because it would depend on who collected the tax. I have made it plain on a number of occasions that what I and the Government are primarily concerned about is not who actually imposes and administers the tax or receives the revenue; it is the system of taxation that matters. A change in the system of taxation towards a rent based tax as distinct from the prevailing overt and covert production based taxes would be to the advantage of the industry as a whole. But if Senator Martin has any difficulty in accepting the proposition that a change towards profits based taxes would be beneficial to the industry, I suggest she pursue that matter with the Liberal Party leader in her own State of Queensland who only last week stated, presumably-- Senator Robert Ray —He is too busy calling Gray treacherous. Senator WALSH —Yes. He stated, presumably as the policy of the Queensland Liberal Party for the forthcoming election, that taxation of the coal industry should be changed in that way. I note two things: One, that such a view as expressed by Mr White is fully compatible with the policy being advocated by this Government-- Senator Martin —I take a point of order. Senator WALSH —Oh, the honourable senator does not like it. Senator Martin —Mr President, I was going to ask a supplementary question. As Senator Walsh earlier seemed to have misunderstood my question, I was going to repeat the last part of it. What he is talking about now has nothing to do with what I asked. I asked: Does this not mean that a resource rent tax on coal will result in more tax being paid in Queensland and less in New South Wales? That is the question. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —It would result in more. As I have already said, it would result at any given level of total industry taxation in more tax being paid by low cost mines and less tax being paid by high cost mines. The clear implication of Senator Martin's question, however, is that such a change would disadvantage the State of Queensland. I have already explained why that is not correct. The proposition that the system of taxation in regard to the coal industry ought to be changed apparently does not appeal to Senator Martin. I suggest that if that is the case she take it up with the leader of her own party in her own State who only last week advocated such a change. He advocated a policy change consistent with that being advocated by this Government and consistent, at least in broad terms, with what is being advocated by the Australian Labor Party leader in Queensland but which is at variance with the policies actually applied by successive Liberal Party Treasurers in the State of Queensland and former State Liberal parliamentary leaders in Queensland who, as always, were under the thumb of the Queensland National Party. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . Is consideration being given to changing the restrictions on land development in the 1.6 kilometre to 4.8 kilometre area surrounding the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's research establishment at Lucas Heights? If so, what are these new restrictions? Why are they being altered? If the existing restrictions are to be lifted, does this mean that the Commonwealth will accept liability for any effect on the health and safety of residents living in the areas surrounding the Lucas Heights research establishment? Senator WALSH —The imposition of land use restrictions in the area surrounding the Lucas Heights establishment is strictly a matter for the New South Wales Government authorities, although the Atomic Energy Commission does provide technical advice to the New South Wales authorities. The present restrictions, based presumably on the advice of the Atomic Energy Commission, have been in force since 1967. Following the refurbishing of the HIFAR reactor, the Commission decided earlier this year, on technical grounds, that the continued operation of the reactor did not require any restrictions outside a 1.6 kilometre radius from the reactor. The Commission has recommended that the present 1.6 kilometre radius exclusion zone be retained. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations, Mr Lionel Bowen, wrote to the Acting Premier of New South Wales in June advising him of the Atomic Energy Commission's decision, but whether there is, consequential to that advice, any change in the present land use restrictions is, I emphasise, entirely a matter for the Government of New South Wales. In response to the last part of the question, the Atomic Energy Commission would accept liability under common law for any effects on local residents and property resulting from the Commission's operations, irrespective of whether the land use restrictions were lifted or changed. I am informed that the former Treasurer, in answer to a question on 21 October last year, indicated that the Commonwealth would stand by the Commission in respect of any damages awarded against it under common law. I would expect this Government to stand by that undertaking in the unlikely event of such action being taken and being successful. Senator HAMER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It concerns the disturbing development in the delicate and important relationship between Australia and our northern neighbours, the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Is the Minister aware of the rift that is developing between Australia and the nations of ASEAN, that there has been talk of sanctions being introduced by ASEAN against Australia and that ASEAN has actually deferred consultations between Australia and ASEAN at senior official level, talks which had been scheduled for later this month? Can the Minister explain why Mr Hayden has repeatedly said that Australia will not sponsor the United Nations resolution for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea and for free elections to decide the future of Kampuchea, as Australia has done in past years? Why has the Foreign Minister given no adequate reason for this dramatic change in foreign policy, even on his current brief visit to Australia? Is the Minister aware that some of the ASEAN countries feel that Australia should be consistent on this matter and that, if the Australian Government will not sponsor the measure which has been specially redrafted to meet Australian requirements, then it should also vote against the resolution? Will the Minister tell the Senate of the real situation? Are we really on the side of the Soviet Union, as Thailand and Singapore have come to believe? Senator GARETH EVANS —Developments in recent days, despite some Press reports to the contrary, certainly do not justify the description 'disturbing' which was given to them by the honourable senator, let alone some of the more extravagant commentary which then followed later in his question. As I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the situation is this: While Australia does not propose this year to co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution on the situation in Kampuchea, for reasons which I will come to in a moment, Australia does, of course, intend to vote for that resolution because it supports the following: The withdrawal of Vietnamese troops; an act of self-determination by the Cambodian people; guaranteed borders for all territories in the region; and the re-establishment of a normal relationship between the countries of the region. The fact of our not co-sponsoring this year should not be blown out of proportion. The terms of the resolution are not the same as they were last year. There are a number of assertions contained in the resolution as to matters of fact, or matters which are stated to be matters of fact, relating to the Vietnamisation of Kampuchea and the success of the present coalition group within Kampuchea to which Australia is not prepared to accede to the extent of co-sponsoring the resolution in question. Australians, furthermore, have certainly not forgotten the brutal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot. The Pol Pot forces make up the largest part of the coalition now very overtly supported in the ASEAN resolution. To put this matter further in context, it needs to be appreciated that a number of important countries very friendly to ASEAN did not co-sponsor the resolution. These included the United States of America, China, France, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Greece, Burma , Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I inform the honourable senator that the only new co- sponsor at this stage is the Maldives. We have to recognise that where we have a policy which is carefully reasoned, is thoroughly responsible, is moderate in its presentation, and which is appropriate in all the circumstances, then if that policy expressed in those terms is in our national interest we should persist with it. Some of the Press items, I am instructed, have very considerably exaggerated current differences between Australia and ASEAN over the handling of the Cambodia issue at the United Nations. Reports, for example, that the Malaysian Foreign Minister walked out of the United Nations chamber before Mr Hayden had finished his General Assembly address completely misinterpreted what occurred. The Minister in question left the Assembly hall earlier because a Peruvian delegate had wildly overrun his speaking time. The Malaysian Minister in question was obliged to attend a luncheon, at which Mr Hayden subsequently arrived and sat next to the Malaysian Minister, who immediately apologised for having to walk out of the chamber when he did because he was enormously interested in the content of Mr Hayden's speech. We understand that the ASEAN countries wish to postpone the ASEAN-Australia forum of senior officials in Sydney later this month. That is regrettable but, nonetheless, the relationship is in thoroughly good shape. Differences of emphasis with ASEAN are not new. It will be recalled that there was a far more strident reaction in previous situations, such as the question of the Khmer Rouge's United Nations credentials when Australia, under the last Government, took a policy on that, and on matters of civil aviation policy. Finally, on behalf of the Foreign Minister I say that it is a healthy part of all robust relationships, including our close and wide-ranging links with ASEAN, that genuine differences of perception occur from time to time. We are not claiming that solutions to the Cambodian problem can be quick or simple. Of course, we recognise ASEAN's continuing role in that respect. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is directed to you, Mr President, and refers to Joint House Department circulars giving notice of pest control treatment of the parliamentary refreshment rooms on 23 and 30 September. What pest control agents were used and for what purpose? What quantities of agents were used and how were they applied? How often is it intended that these areas will be treated? On what occasions has East Block been treated for pest control since November 1982? Are there any plans for future treatment? The PRESIDENT —I will obtain the information for the honourable senator and advise the Senate subsequently. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the Minister's address at Hurstville two weeks ago where, it is reported, she directly attacked the well-established principle that taxpayers may expect some support from the taxes they pay to cover at least some of the costs of their children's education. Is it true that the Government has now completely abandoned this principle? Is it also true that the Minister called this principle 'a specious argument'? What was the Minister's response when those offended by this attack on taxpayers described the Minister's view as specious, ideologically subjective and sectionally political? Finally, does the Government threaten to carry the abandonment of this taxpayers' principle to health with regard to non-government hospitals and the abandonment of any other provisions which currently accrue as benefits to all taxpayers and not just to those taxpayers whom the Labor Government chooses to serve? Senator RYAN —In reply to that very long and convoluted series of questions and accusations I will try to clarify the point I was making when I addressed a very large meeting of Anglican schools in Hurstville recently. I pointed out our view that being a taxpayer does not of itself automatically entitle one to total subsidy if one chooses a service outside the public service. Senator Teague —Some subsidy. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Teague, you have asked your question. I call the Minister. Senator RYAN —The question arises because some people have criticised our decision to reduce very moderately the Commonwealth grants to some private schools as being a denial of the rights of taxpayers. Let me make a couple of things clear: First of all, the extent of Commonwealth subsidy to private schools is still considerable. There is still several hundred dollars going to each child, even in the very well resourced private schools, so there is no question of those taxpayers receiving no assistance. It is still the case that every non-government school in Australia is receiving substantial Commonwealth and State subsidies. I do not accept the argument and the Government does not accept the argument that because a person is a taxpayer he or she is automatically entitled to a total subsidy of a service he or she chooses to take in the private sector. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ryan, please address your remarks to the Chair and ignore the interjections. Senator RYAN —It is the case that the Commonwealth is prepared to subsidise private choice in regard to education on a needs basis. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I interjected because the Minister answered a different question from that which I asked. So I ask the supplementary question: Does the Government now abandon the principle that taxpayers can expect some support from the taxes they pay to cover at least some of the costs of their children's education? Senator RYAN —No, the Government does not do whatever it is Senator Teague is implying it is trying to do. I refer him to the speech I made when we debated a matter of public importance on the question of the funding of non-government schools in this chamber some weeks ago, when I set out very clearly the way in which the Government currently subsidises the choice of those people who choose education outside the government system. Senator Withers —The Government does not subsidise it; the taxpayers subsidise it. Senator RYAN —I also refer Senator Withers to that debate. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the new Calaid frequency modulation hearing aid will not be available to patients in the Northern Territory as claimed by the Northern Territory Minister for Health, Hon. Nick Dondas? Senator GRIMES —No, it is not true, and Mr Dondas knows it is not true. The Calaid FM hearing aid has been a very important development of the National Acoustic Laboratories and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Some 30 are being released this month for field testing. It is terribly important that as part of that field testing they be tested in tropical areas. As a result of that, I think, two are being tested in the Northern Territory, which is the same number as are being tested in Western Australia and Tasmania. After the tests have been completed and the producer has established its production lines effectively, some 6,000 of these very important but expensive hearing aids will be distributed throughout Australia. As a result, distribution on a per capita basis will be made to the Northern Territory. In some cases there may be special need for more than that number to be distributed in the Northern Territory. Mr Dondas knows this and has always known this. It is outrageous that he should go to the media in the Northern Territory claiming that the Government would not assist children with hearing defects in the Northern Territory. It just demonstrates that Mr Dondas is willing to use the disabled in the Northern Territory for his own political ends and to create unnecessary anxiety amongst the families of the disabled. As Senator Robertson says, it is despicable behaviour. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows the question asked earlier in Question Time by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle about pecuniary interests of members of parliament and the disclosure of those interests. I ask the question to seek clarification of the reply given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Under the guidelines which the Government has laid down, are Ministers obliged to disclose shareholdings in public and private companies when such shareholdings are held by a private company or a family trust which is owned or part owned by a Minister? If they are so obliged, does the Leader of the Government in the Senate say that Ministers have disclosed all such shareholdings in the returns tabled by him? Senator BUTTON —I would like to examine Senator Chaney's question in detail and provide him with a quite lucid and explicit answer, but let me say that insofar as shareholdings in public companies are concerned I understand the principle to be that those matters be on the public record. If a Minister is a shareholder in a public company or a director of a public company the question of the shareholdings of that company is a matter of public record. That is the desirable principle which the Government seeks to establish. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —If he holds them through a family trust? Senator BUTTON —Of course, if the Minister is a shareholder through a family trust, the shareholdings of the company are matters of public record. With regard to the question of private companies, I would like to refresh my memory because I do not want in any way to mislead the Senate in this matter. It is clearly a source of concern to many senators and we in the Government are concerned that we get it right. There is no desire to hide anything. There is rather a desire to see that we can work together towards a system which ensures that all Ministers and senators disclose the interests which might bring them into public conflict of interest or disrepute. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the same spirit of wishing to get considered replies, I ask the Leader of the Government to consider all the replies which he has given on this matter and to let the Senate know if there is any element in what he has said that he wishes to correct, preferably by tomorrow. Senator BUTTON —Okay. The PRESIDENT —At Question Time, Senator Zakharov asked me a question about pest control treatment in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms and East Block. The Joint House Department has provided me with the following information . Pest control treatment was undertaken in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms on 23 and 30 September 1983. The treatment related to the control of cockroaches in the refreshment rooms and adjacent areas. The product used by the pest control company was Killmaster II. This product's generic name is chlorpyrifos. On each occasion 15 kilograms of the product was used. It was sprayed into the atmosphere from cylinders pressurised with carbon dioxide. The frequency of future pest control treatments depends on the extent to which cockroaches are controlled. However, the Joint House Department considers that throughout this spring and during the coming summer, monthly treatments will be necessary. Pest control treatments have been carried out at East Block on eight occasions since November 1982-on 20 and 23 December 1982, 7, 14, 17 and 29 January 1983, 12 March 1983 and 30 April 1983. The treatments related to severe infestations of fleas. Future treatments will again depend upon the re-emergence of fleas. However, the Joint House Department has currently programmed for a further treatment on 27 October 1983. The need for future treatments will be assessed in the light of future infestations. The requirement to carry out pest control treatment in all areas of Parliament House and the parliamentary annexes is constantly kept under review and is undertaken only when necessary. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 7 October, Senator Robertson asked me a question concerning International Red Cross activities in East Timor. I noted that according to the information available to me as at 30 September-I said that I would check further as to the situation subsequently-the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jakarta had denied media reports that the ICRC had been refused access to East Timor. The representative said that the ICRC still had access to the territory although with significant restrictions of movement on the main island. He confirmed that relief operation on the main island had not yet resumed due to limitations imposed by the Indonesian authorities on the ICRC delegates. I am advised today that the situation remains as set out in my reply on 7 October. Report The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1983. The PRESIDENT —I present a report by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to proposed works in the parliamentary zone; namely, Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue extensions to the new Parliament House, construction of pier protection under Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, and construction of two standard bus shelters and one additional street light in King George Terrace. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Stratplan Computer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria. Ordered that the report be printed. The PRESIDENT —We now proceed to General Business notice of motion No. 39 standing in the name of Senator Georges relating to meetings of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts. Is that formal or not formal? Senator Georges-Formal. Senator Chaney-Not formal. The PRESIDENT —Not formal. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-The action of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in declaring the matter 'not formal' means that the motion of which I gave notice will now go on to the Notice Paper and we may not debate it for some time. The purpose of the notice of motion was to bring before the Senate the request of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to sit tomorrow, Wednesday, and again the following Wednesday. As I have stated before, the Public Accounts Committee now is faced with great difficulty in carrying out its program because of decisions taken by the Senate. I do not doubt that the Leader of the Opposition has objected to those decisions which have extended the sitting times of the Senate in such a way that they have interfered with the work of committees. They have certainly interfered with the work of the Public Accounts Committee which now finds its program, in some cases, almost two years behind because of the election and other matters. It is necessary for the Public Accounts Committee to carry out the work that the Parliament has given to it. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have given the Public Accounts Committee a program which derives from the Auditor-General's report. I notice that today you, Mr President, have put down further material from the Auditor- General. That will add to the work of the Committee. The Committee is a statutory committee which operates under an Act of Parliament and is directly responsible to the Parliament for its work. It is not that it is not endeavouring to meet the wishes of the Senate provided for by one of its standing orders, which has recently been looked at by the Senate Standing Orders Committee. The Public Accounts Committee now sits on Tuesday night. It will sit tonight from 8 o'clock possibly until 11 o'clock. Tomorrow we intend to have witnesses appear before the Committee and that would take us through until 1 o'clock or not much later than 1 o'clock. So what we are asking for is the facility to sit the extra time in order to carry out our work. We will sit again on Thursday. On Thursday we will conform to the standing order of the Senate which says that we shall not sit after the Senate is called together. But nevertheless we do sit in order to carry out certain formalities of the Committee and to facilitate its program. The Senate also decided that it would sit every second Friday. That means the work of the Committee has been further constrained because Friday was the day on which we carried out our field work. This is a committee which is endeavouring to carry out its work and it now appears that it is to be frustrated in that endeavour by the Leader of the Opposition. I know the Leader of the Opposition well enough to appreciate that he would not frustrate the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which is concerned with the supervision of the financial efficiency of a variety of departments. I know that he would not do that, so he must have some other purpose in mind. Could I suggest to him that he ought to put those other considerations to one side and allow the Public Accounts Committee to meet in order to carry out its work. It cannot do so at the present time. The Public Accounts Committee will bring before the Senate, I trust in time, after it has been discussed at various levels, a request to enlarge the size of the Committee so that it may break up into various sub-committees. At the present time it has three sub-committees operating. Two inquiries are being carried out at the one time. We still cannot manage our work under the constraints which are now being imposed upon us. We will seek to increase the size of the Committee and that is a matter which I hope in time will come before the Senate. I put down an opinion, which I think has gone before the Standing Orders Committee, and the Committee has considered that opinion. The matter has not been debated, so perhaps I ought not to go too far. But there is some recommendation which the Standing Orders Committee will bring before the Senate which says that the Standing Orders of the Senate ought to be observed and that subsequently the matter be clarified by amendment to the Act. I know that is there but, out of courtesy to the Senate, until the matter is resolved, I decided this time to bring this matter before the Senate by way of notice of motion. I had hoped by so doing that the Leader of the Opposition would allow that matter to go through formally. What he has done today is exactly what he did on the previous occasion, that is, to refuse leave. He has now, by asking that this matter be declared not formal, done exactly the same thing; in other words, frustrated the Public Accounts Committee from doing its work. All I am suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition is that if that is the position he wants to take then we shall have to, by debate and comment and statement, point out that the Opposition in the Senate is preventing the Public Accounts Committee from carrying out its program. What he is saying to us now is that the investigation by the Committee of the Auditor-General's report on the Department of Defence shall be delayed. This is a very important report. It refers to HMAS Tobruk. Consideration of this report will have to be deferred. The investigation of the gathering of excise in this country, which is a very important reference before the Committee, will have to be further postponed so that revenue to which this nation is entitled will continue, in some way, to be lost to the Treasury, mainly because of the obstruction that we are now being faced with in the Senate . The medifraud inquiry is still in the process of being further investigated. We are looking at patient fraud, fraud in private hospitals and over-servicing in the area of doctors' activities by way of unnecessary operations. All of these inquiries are before the Committee and we cannot at this stage carry out that program effectively. I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition that we are not asking for the right to leave the Parliament or to leave this House to carry out our inquiries. We are not even asking for pairs. We are merely asking for the right which was given to us by the House of Representatives to sit while the Senate is sitting. Senator Chipp —Has the House of Representatives agreed? Senator GEORGES —The House of Representatives agrees, but every time we sit everything that we do before that Committee is subject to considerable doubt. It is even subject to the matter of privilege. If we were to get a witness before the Committee at this stage and sit without the consent of the Senate, until the matter is determined there is some doubt as to whether those proceedings are valid and whether privilege prevails. So we are in great difficulties. We will sit tomorrow, we have no option. We will sit until the Senate makes a determination on this investigation before the Standing Orders Committee. But if we sit tomorrow and we have a witness before us who says some things which are subsequently reported and the Senate's desire that the Standing Orders should prevail is subsequently upheld, all that evidence before the Committee is not covered by privilege. In fact, according to the standing order of the Committee, that meeting is null and void. I am suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition that he should think again before he determines on the course of declaring this matter informal. Perhaps he could allow the matter to be put again and the matter to be declared formal so that the Senate can determine it. I believe the Senate will give permission to the Public Accounts Committee to sit tomorrow and the following Wednesday. The Public Accounts Committee, until the matter is determined, will continue to seek permission of the Senate to sit. But if it is to be obstructed in this way then it has no other option. But at least tomorrow' s meeting will have to be held, in spite of the risks which are entailed. There are other means that I could take to bring the matter to a decision. I am not prepared to do that because I cannot take the business of this House out of the hands of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) or the Whip . I could move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving this motion. I could do that now, but I have not discussed it with the Leader of the Government in the Senate or with the Whip. I am not in a position now to move that proposition in order to frustrate the Leader of the Opposition. I come back to the plea to the Leader of the Opposition- Senator Chipp —You would certainly have our support. Senator GEORGES —I believe I have the support of the majority of the Senate. All I am suggesting is that the Leader of the Opposition think again and allow this proposition to pass. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Last week Senator Georges told me that he was proposing to give notice of motion in regard to the matters he has raised and we had some discussion on them. At that time I said that I thought that was the appropriate procedure for him to follow rather than seeking leave, as he had in the past, and I undertook to raise the matter again in the Opposition party room. I have not had an opportunity to discuss that further with Senator Georges because we met just prior to lunch and I was engaged right up to the time of this sitting. The Opposition has given the matter further consideration and stands by the position I outlined on behalf of the Opposition on a prior occasion, namely, that it believes that the principle that committees should not sit during sittings of the Senate is one that we should seek to uphold and maintain. We do not take the view that that is a principle which applies without any exception. Indeed, within the last couple of months we have joined with the Government in agreeing to the sitting of a Senate committee-the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations-during two of the Senate's sitting days. We did that because the Senate itself had put a time limit on the deliberations of the Finance and Government Operations Committee with respect to its inquiry into withholding tax. That was necessary in order for us to be effective in our work and we regarded that as an undesirable but permissible exception. In the present case we face the situation where in many respects the present sittings of the Parliament give rise to enormous inconvenience. In my own case, I have to leave Western Australia at midday on Sunday at the latest in order to be able to meet my duties in this place. That is because the Government has changed the sitting pattern to remove one of the free mornings which were available under past sitting programs for party or shadow Cabinet meetings. I give that as just one further example, on top of the example given by Senator Georges, of the inconvenience which is currently being occasioned. It is the view of the Opposition that we should not start to allow breaches of the principle that Senate committees should not sit while the Senate itself is sitting just because we have an inconvenient set of sitting hours and it is difficult for committees, and indeed all of the organisations that surround this Parliament, to operate. So, Mr President, we take the view that it is-- Senator Chipp —When would you suggest that committees should sit? Senator CHANEY —I hear the interjection from behind me. I did not set these sitting hours; the Government set them, and it had a great deal of co-operation from the Australian Democrats in getting the sitting hours it wanted. Quite frankly, I think that is a problem which has to be ironed out. We do not believe it is properly to be ironed out by having any committees-joint committees, Senate committees or whatever-sitting while this chamber is sitting. Mr President, if you look at the time that has been requested by Senator Georges you will see that he is seeking a right for a Senate committee to sit tomorrow. Tomorrow the Senate will be considering constitutional legislation. It will consider a series of Bills, put forward by the Government and some honourable senators, seeking amendments to the Constitution. After that we will consider some highly contentious legislation with respect to taxation law which is the subject of very considerable concern and interest in the community. To suggest that the Public Accounts Committee should carry on its separate work at a time when this chamber is dealing with major issues which face the Australian people is self-evidently a false proposition. Senator Chipp —All your senators will be in the chamber during that debate, will they? Senator CHANEY —There have been a lot more Opposition senators than Government senators in this chamber over recent weeks. There has been a particularly poor attendance in the chamber. I believe one should not run this place on the assumption that honourable senators should have their heads down in committee meetings, where they cannot possibly be keeping up with what is happening in the chamber and where they cannot be doing their duty by the chamber. Whilst the Opposition sympathises with the plight of the Public Accounts Committee, it says that the Public Accounts Committee is but one body which is facing difficulties under the present sitting hours. Members of the Opposition do not propose to facilitate the extension of what we see as a bad principle, namely, to have committees sitting while the Senate is sitting. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-May I say that I appreciate that attempts have been made over some weeks to conciliate this matter and I have had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, about it. I have also had discussions with Senator Georges about it. Senator Georges —And correspondence. Senator BUTTON —And correspondence. It is now reaching the proportions of a Dreyfus case which has to be resolved. Let me say that this matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. Senator Chaney was not able to be there that night; I understand he had a dinner engagement, which is something that happens to us all in the Senate. We are often not able to attend because of other engagements. Senator Chaney —It was a royal command; it was with the President. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says it was a royal command, with the President. The President was able to be at the meeting. I take it he left his guests behind . On all these occasions there are difficulties of that kind which honourable senators have to confront. I must say I am not persuaded by Senator Chaney's resolute display of piety on this matter. Frankly, I do not see the connection between the general question of sitting hours and the sittings of the Joint Committee on Public Works, although honourable senators have sought to make that point on numerous occasions. I have the gravest difficulty in seeing what sitting hours Senator Chaney suggests would accommodate Senator Georges's problem. Certainly no sitting hours that we have had since I have been here would have accomodated the question of the sittings of the Public Accounts Committee. Senator Chaney —It always has in the past. Senator BUTTON —No, it has not. I was referring to the meeting of the Standing Orders Committe of the Senate. At that meeting it was agreed that the Public Accounts Committee should be considered in the same way as the Public Works Committee, which has a legislative provision which enables it to sit during parliamentary sessions with the leave of the Senate. The consensus, if not the unanimous view, of the Standing Orders Committee was that the same sort of provision should apply in respect of the Public Accounts Commitee, and that until such time as the legislation could be amended in order to make that provision for the Public Accounts Committee the same practice should apply and the Public Accounts Committtee should be able to sit with the leave of the Senate. Senator Harradine —We have not debated the report of that Committee. I am anxious to see the report and debate it. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. Senator Harradine is anxious to see the report and debate it. I am sure we all are; it is a scintillating topic. We discussed it for a couple of hours. The only point I seek to make, having due regard to the fact that the deliberations of the full Senate on that question have not yet been heard, is that that was the spirit with which the Standing Orders Committee approached the problem. In my view it is the spirit in which the Senate should approach the contemporary problem of the Public Accounts Committee, which has sought the leave of the Senate to sit on two occasions, namely, tomorrow and some subsequent Wednesday. And that is the subject of Senator Georges's motion. I regret the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in the sense that we have, I believe, made a quite genuine attempt to accommodate the Opposition on the longer term question of hours and will continue to do so. I really do not see a very powerful connection between this mini-problem and the overall question of the Senate hours. I believe that Senator Georges's motion should be adopted. Senator Chipp —Are you calling Senator Georges a mini-problem? Senator BUTTON —If I might rephrase that, in view of the interjection, some might think it a mini-problem but it has been raised to great magnitude by Senator Georges's eloquence. I believe that issue ought to be resolved and at the placing of business I will move to give the Senate the opportunity to resolve it. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That, intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of General Business notice of motion No. 39 standing in the name of Senator Georges relating to the sitting of the Public Accounts Committee and also order of the day No. 84 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus relating to a proposed reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.52) —Mr President, I have tried to outline to the Senate why the Opposition thinks that we should not deal with this motion and why the motion should not meet with the agreement of the Senate. The fact is that the sitting hours of the Senate remain in the hands of the Government. The Government has chosen to vary the sitting pattern and to produce a longer period of hours in the week than has been traditionally required. That has put a number of different parts of the Parliament at a considerable disadvantage. For example, it has disadvantaged the shadow Cabinet; it has disadvantaged the Opposition parties; it has disadvantaged the Joint Committee on Public Works-- Senator Button —And the Government. Senator CHANEY —I now have an interjection from the Leader of the Government that it has disadvantaged the Government. That makes it very hard to understand why we are all suffering this disadvantage since it seems to be shared equally around the Parliament. The fact is that we believe that the general principle of maintaining sittings of parliamentary committees outside the timetable of the Parliament is a principle which should be upheld. We particularly believe that the arrangements which this Government has introduced should not be used as an excuse to break that principle. On behalf of the Opposition I oppose the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.53) —I too oppose the motion on the ground that it is putting the cart before the horse. It appears that the matter relating to the sitting of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. There has been no debate in the Parliament as yet on the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Proposing this motion now is pre- empting a proper and deliberative debate on that matter to which the Standing Orders Committee has addressed itself. That is the reason that I oppose this motion at this stage. If the motion is carried, I will have something more to say about the essence of the proposition put forward by Senator Georges, which is a different matter. Question put: That the motion (Senator Button's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.00) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent such senators as are members of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts attending meetings of the Committee during sittings of the Senate on Wednesday, 12 October and Wednesday, 19 October 1983. I have already made a speech on this subject. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.01) —The Opposition is opposed to the motion which has been moved by Senator Georges because we do not believe that it is appropriate for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to be sitting tomorrow when the Senate has major items of business before it, namely, constitutional amendments and income tax legislation . We believe that committees of the Parliament, like committees of the Senate, should find times during the week which are not part of the parliamentary sitting time in which to transact their business. Whilst I have been complaining about the sitting hours which have been laid down by the Government-I intend to go on complaining about them until the Government completes its exercise in finding a more sensible set of sitting hours which will meet the needs of the Parliament, the parliamentary committees and the parties which operate here-the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of times during the week when this Parliament is not sitting and when the Public Accounts Committee could transact its business. There is, for example, all day on Mondays. Even with the sitting hours and days which are proposed by this Government Mondays are left free. I commend to the Public Accounts Committee the use of Mondays when we are not dealing with constitutional matters in this place. I also refer the members of that Committee to the freedom of Tuesday mornings. Tuesday mornings are free of parliamentary business and are available to the Public Accounts Committee. I commend Tuesday mornings to the Committee. I see that Senator Georges is shaking his head. Senator Georges, of course, as a good Labor man has to go to his Caucus meeting on Tuesday mornings. The fact of the matter is that all of the members of the Public Accounts Committee would not agree to sit on Tuesday mornings because their parliamentary parties meet then. That gives honourable senators a fair idea of the sorts of priorities that exist in this Parliament. None of them will ask to sit on Tuesday mornings when their precious Caucus or parliamentary party is meeting. Instead they say: 'Oh no, let 's sit while the institution to which we are elected, which we are paid to attend and in whose deliberations we are supposed to take part is meeting. Let's have our parliamentary committee meetings then.' I commend Tuesday mornings as a possible time for the Public Accounts Committee to meet. If it is looking for time, why does it not try sitting on Tuesday evenings? Under the arrangements which have been entered into, Tuesday evenings are free. The Public Accounts Committee could meet on Wednesday mornings until 10 o'clock. That is not a bad time for it to use if it wants to. It could meet on Thursday evenings or all day on Fridays. In terms of available time which is not parliamentary sitting time, the fact of the matter is that plenty of alternatives are available. The fact of the matter is that the Public Accounts Committee is seeking to sit on Wednesdays because that would be less inconvenient to the Committee. Some Committee members would rather miss Parliament than miss Caucus meetings. They would rather miss Parliament than have to leave home at midday on Sundays which, I suggest, is an excellent way to start the week. The Opposition is not moved by what has been said by Senator Georges. The fact of the matter is that this motion is a very good indication of the priorities which people are developing in this Parliament . The last priority is this chamber, which is supposed to be the place that has some authority. As it is, we will debate major constitutional issues. We will debate issues of taxation which go to concerns of many Australians and we will do it to a near empty chamber because Senator Georges and his colleagues want to be somewhere else ferreting about, working out what has gone wrong with the administration of the law. Maybe they should be here, Mr President, trying to ensure that we do not pass stupid laws which are wrong and which give rise to problems of all different sorts. On behalf of the Opposition, I firmly oppose the proposition which is before us. We do not believe that it is desirable in principle for parliamentary committees to meet while the chambers are in session . For that reason, we oppose the motion which has been moved by Senator Georges. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.05) —I can understand the concern so eloquently expressed by Senator Georges and also the legal implications that he, as Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, must consider. But there seems to be a conflict of interest between the duties that are imposed upon Senator Georges as Chairman and the other members of the Public Accounts Committee and their duties as members of this chamber. I believe it would be unfair to the individual members of the Committee for the Senate to agree to the motion before us at this time as it is constructed. We have been given some indication by Senator Georges of the times that the Public Accounts Committee desires to meet. It is obvious that those times will coincide, both tomorrow and on Wednesday of next week, with times when matters of major national importance will be debated in this chamber. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) said, tomorrow matters of very major importance relating to the Constitution of this nation will be debated and determined. Another matter listed for consideration relates to taxation. It has been evident in previous debates on both of these major matters that adherents of the political parties have taken for granted what has been stated by their Ministers in the case of the tax matter or by their Ministers or shadow Ministers in the case of the other matter. The proposal would be unfair to those members because they would not be able to hear for themselves the arguments advanced in this chamber on these matters of national importance, one of which they will have to defend before the people when the referendum is held. On Wednesday of next week it appears that we will be considering the sex discrimination legislation. Would it be fair to individual members if they were not present for that debate? We will be considering the sex discrimination legislation and the House of Representatives will most likely be considering the family law legislation. Both pieces of legislation raise matters of very grave importance to the social fabric of this society. Not only that; they are matters of importance to the individual consciences of the members of the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, I feel it would be unfair to deny the members of the Public Accounts Committee the opportunity to be informed in a way that would not be available to them in the Caucus room. Senator Button —Great speech, Senator. Senator HARRADINE —Since Senator Button interjects, I take up the point he made about the spirit which was abroad in the meeting of the Senate Standing Orders Committee when this whole question was being debated. I reiterate that we seem to be putting the cart before the horse. We should have had before us for debate the report of the Standing Orders Committee- Senator Button —The spirit before the bottle. Senator HARRADINE —Before we make a decision on this matter. Yes, there was apparently a great spirit abroad. For the Leader of the Government's information , we are faced with the problem of having to be in two places at the one time. That problem could be overcome by a gift more likely to be found with spirits than with us mere mortals; namely, the gift of bi-location. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Georges. Senator Georges —I will be closing the debate. The PRESIDENT —Does anyone else wish to speak? Senator Georges —I have the call. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.11) —I rise- Senator Georges —You realise, of course, that you take away the time that we need? The PRESIDENT —Order! I have called Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr President. I rise to support what Senator Chaney and Senator Harradine have said. I am reminded of something that Senator Harradine said here last year in relation to committees. He said: 'I am going to institute a committee called the Senate'. Senator Harradine —Yes, I forgot that. Senator LEWIS —I am sorry to remind the honourable senator. It seems to me to be very important that a committee of 64 senators should be meeting and debating matters that are, as Senator Harradine says, of vital interest to this nation. Honourable senators should not be wandering off to committee meetings at times that suit them. I am a member of a number of committees. I find myself meeting with other senators, and in one case with members of the House of Representatives, at 8 a.m., 8.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. (Quorum formed). I was saying how important the work of this chamber is as opposed to committee work. Certainly committee work is of great importance. I do not deny that committees put forward important matters for debate in this chamber. But the fundamental things of importance to the people of Australia are dealt with in this chamber. As Senator Harradine has rightly pointed out, tomorrow we will be discussing the Constitution Alteration Bills. They are of national importance and clearly all members of all committees should be present in the chamber for the debate. This Government, with the support of the Australian Democrats, has altered the hours of sitting of the Senate to such an extent that we now sit at the most peculiar hours ever known. It has become almost impossible to do any work for anything of any importance in this place. We are trying to assist this Government get its legislation through. We have been pushed into sitting on two Fridays out of every three. I think it is up to committees such as the Public Accounts Committee to find the time to do its work within the days that are now available. As Senator Chaney pointed out, committees can sit on Mondays, on the Friday during the second week of the sittings and also during the week the Parliament does not sit. If Senator Georges can come into this chamber and detail the hours that the Public Accounts Committee sits and it seems that that Committee is taking advantage of all the opportunities which other committees have to take advantage of to sit, perhaps I might support the proposal. At this stage I am yet to be convinced. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Walters. Senator Georges —Can I get the call? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, Senator Georges. If I called you, the debate would be closed. I will not do that while other honourable senators wish to speak. Senator Walters has the call. Senator Georges —Is that going to be the precedent from now on? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, that would be the precedent, Senator Georges. Senator Georges —In other words, you will call senators from the other side of the House and you will not call anyone from this side of the House? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will call anyone else on your side of the House but you, Senator Georges. I will call you when there is no further debate. Senator Georges —I think there is something wrong with that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.15) —Senator Georges's only other mate is walking out of the chamber at the moment. Senator Georges has received an offer from Senator Lewis which I think is most appropriate. Senator Georges —You did not even listen to what I said. Senator WALTERS —If the honourable senator can bring before this chamber a list of the hours sat by the Public Accounts Committee during the last week that the Parliament did not sit, on Mondays and Fridays and during the mornings that are available on sitting days, and can demonstrate that that Committee sat day after day in the up week-- Senator Georges —The honourable senator is a disgrace. I think that any person here who has been a member of the Public Accounts Committee and who is not prepared to get up here and support the motion-- Senator WALTERS —Senator Georges, I do not happen to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Senator Georges —Yes, but you ought to be for a change. You might learn something. Senator WALTERS —Senator Georges, I would dearly love to be on your Committee. Senator Georges —What you and the Opposition are doing is an absolute disgrace. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walters to address her remarks through the chair. Senator Georges —You are not a member of the Public Accounts Committee but you are trying to stifle it. Senator WALTERS —The committee of which I am a member sat for three days during the up week. I ask Senator Georges whether the Public Accounts Committee took advantage of the up week and sat for three days? Senator Georges —Two days. Senator WALTERS —There are seven days in a week. I would forgive Senator Georges for not sitting on a Sunday, but there is nothing wrong with sitting on the Saturday of the up week. Senator Macklin —Well, Saturday-- Senator WALTERS —Senator Macklin may not work on a Saturday but there are many Opposition members who do. It seems to me quite incredible that the Public Accounts Committee does not take full advantage of the up week. Maybe Senator Georges feels that he does not have to listen to or take part in the debate in this chamber. Maybe Senator Georges believes that the Public Accounts Committee can sit when matters are being discussed in this place. It is obvious that his thinking is influenced by the fact that the Caucus vote is supreme. Australian Labor Party senators do not have to listen to any opposition that is put forward to legislation. They have not been given the right to cast a conscience vote on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 so why should they listen to any debate. They are bound to vote in a certain way anyway. We are told that they did not have a conscience vote in regard to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. Eventually that restriction was changed half way through the debate. However, we still did not see anyone from the other side exercising a conscience vote. Perhaps Government senators think that they do not need to listen to debate in this place as they are not given the opportunity to cast a conscience vote. But this restriction does not apply to all members of the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that we should make sure that the Public Accounts Committee sits at the appropriate times. (Quorum formed) Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.20) —The matter of whether committees should sit during the sitting of the Senate has arisen time and time again. I think it is true to say that the decision of the Senate has been that leave has been given if the committee that requested leave to sit wished to consider a matter of extreme urgency. Generally speaking, the matter has to be very urgent. On very many other occasions leave has been refused. I would agree that the Senate committees are under stress. When one looks at the standing committees, the joint committees and the select committees, all of which have very many references in front of them, one will see that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is not the only committee that is under stress. As a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I can remember only one occasion on which leave was given for the Committee to sit during the sitting of the Senate. The Committee was able to consider a very urgent matter. I have just forgotten what it was, but it was some time ago. Honourable senators-Ha, ha! Senator KILGARIFF —There is rather a lot of noise coming from one section of the Senate. Senator Robertson —It is your side. Senator KILGARIFF —It may be on our side, but it is not on our side, if the honourable senator knows what I mean. At present there are 10 references in front of the Public Works Committee. The amount of money involved runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. That Committee would like to be able to have more time to sit and to carry out the consideration of its references. The Committee sits during the mornings before the Senate meets on Mondays and on weekdays when the Senate is not meeting. As I have said before, the committees are under pressure. But are they to be given first priority, the utmost priority , so that the Senate will be cast to one side, so that honourable senators will be present in the Senate only when they are not occupied in the sittings of a committee? I think that we are getting all our priorities wrong. The Senate comes first. The committees should sit at the convenience of their members when the Senate is not meeting. Surely that is the more responsible attitude to take. I have a sympathy for the Public Accounts Committee, but that Committee is not the only one experiencing these problems. It is up to those committees to find time to carry out their work when the Senate is not sitting. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.23) —I wish to express my sympathy to Senator Georges regarding the problem he has. I accept that it is not of his making. I believe he is an unfortunate victim of the ridiculous sitting hours with which we are all saddled. I do not see how we can start to give approval for various committees to meet during the sitting hours of the Senate. I believe one has only to look up the track a little to find out what would happen if three committees sat at the same time. It would be an appalling state of affairs. I too am a member of a committee which, because of the bad hours that we work, had to set down hearings for just about every Friday from now until Christmas. Now, because the Senate is sitting on Fridays, we have lost those days. When are we supposed to fit in those hearings? I think it is quite ridiculous that we should lost all this time and, as a result, be so short of time. Senator Robertson —It could have been fixed an hour ago. Senator ARCHER —I do not think it is a matter that could have been fixed an hour ago. The problem we have is one that we set up for ourselves. That problem is creating these sorts of difficulties. Until we are able to look at what are reasonable times to do reasonable things I think we deserve to stew in our own juice. I regret very much that there is no way in which I could vote for providing Senator Georges with sitting time during a sitting of the Parliament while we are doing nothing about trying to rectify the hours from this nonsense which exists at present. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.25) —in reply-I intend to close the debate quickly because we have lost as much time debating the matter as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts sought to get tomorrow by leave of the Senate. I make a couple of points. I have never known the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, to show such stubbornness-I might even say bloody-mindedness- about a matter on which I believe, on reflection, he would have agreed to quickly. Let me make it clear: The Public Accounts Committee sits on Tuesday nights, Wednesday mornings and Thursday mornings. Up until now it sat on Fridays . It will now sit on Mondays. During the recess we sat for three whole weeks. The week before last, which was an up week-in spite of the accusations of the Opposition-we sat for two days. I make it clear that as far as party meetings are concerned, I have noticed that honourable senators who are members of the Committee were called away from the Committee meeting to attend party meetings of the Opposition, and rightly so . Senator Lajovic was a member of the Committee. Senator Watson is still a member. It is a pity that he is not here today, because he would have placed the Opposition in a very difficult position. He might even have placed himself in a difficult position by supporting what I am seeking here today. It has always been mandatory for members of any party to attend party meetings. They take priority, because that is where legislation and party attitudes are discussed and where decisions are made. Members give those meetings a priority. Therefore, the Committee changed its meetings from Tuesday mornings to Wednesday mornings. We sit four times a week. We are now being deprived of some of that time. If the other committees have a problem they ought to put it before the Senate. I am certain the Senate would agree to a request by them. The Senate may not agree to more than one committee sitting at the one time while the Senate is sitting. We have to come to some sensible decision on this matter. I suggest that we should not have gone through the whole of this process, because I think we threw reason out of the window. I am pretty certain that the reason that prevailed last week suddenly disappeared this morning, without my knowledge. I am sorry about that. Possibly I ought to have taken another attitude and just withdrawn the motion and proceeded to sit, but we are endeavouring to do what the Senate Standing Orders Committee has indicated at present, that is, until the matter is clarified, leave should be sought of the Senate. That is what I was endeavouring to do. I have got myself into all sorts of trouble. I have taken the advice of Senator Chipp that I should not become irate or highly emotional about these matters, but I felt very tempted to do so early in the piece. Question put. That the motion (Senator Georges's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Bolkus, N. Hearne, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Elstob, R. C. Scott, D. B. Button, J. N. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(4.34) —I seek leave to amend General Business, Order of the Day No. 84, standing in my name. Leave granted. Senator BOLKUS —I move: That the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege be requested to consider, as part of its report on the law and practice of parliamentary privilege, such policy issues as arise from the matters raised by Senator Bolkus in the Senate on 4 October 1983 relating to certain statements made by counsel appearing before the Hope Royal Commission. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.35) —I express some satisfaction at the move made by Senator Bolkus to substitute this new motion for the one he moved in the Senate on 4 October 1983. On 4 October 1983, Senator Bolkus made another speech on the goings-on in the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. He finished his speech by saying : . . . 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 Commission Act, especially section 73 thereof . The 'thereof' indicates that he is a lawyer, as he claims. That is a definite indication. He continued: 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. That seemed to be yet another inappropriate episode in a series of grossly inappropriate episodes which have been brought on us by everybody opposite, from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down. This is, of course, part of the saga in which the Prime Minister of Australia endeavoured to prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) from daring to comment on matters relevant to the Royal Commission. All honourable senators should remember that the Prime Minister, the Honourable Bob, although he seems now to have gone to the Honourable R. J. Hawke , chose to threaten the Leader of the Opposition when he commented on the Royal Commission. Indeed, apparently he instructed counsel for the Commonwealth to raise the matter before the Royal Commission. It is common knowledge, because it was published, that Mr McHugh did raise this matter before the Royal Commission. The Leader of the Opposition publicly took the view at that time-I commend him for it-that he would not be prevented from commenting on matters of public interest by threats of the sort which were made by Mr Hawke. The fact is that this is but one example of a government which seems very ready to preach openness and to talk about the virtues of open government and civil liberties and all the rest, and yet we had the extraordinary situation that the Leader of the Opposition in Australia was threatened by the Prime Minister because he dared to comment on a matter of public interest which was before the Commission. It is in that context that we see how extraordinary is this follow- up action by Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus proceeded to tell us about some of the things which had been said both by counsel instructed by his Government, Mr McHugh, and counsel instructed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He complained that there had been a breach of privilege and he sought to move for reference to a committee of which he, Senator Bolkus, is a member. This motion which is now before us is something of a step forward because Senator Bolkus is seeking to send to a committee not an allegation of a specific breach of privilege but such policy issues as arise from the matter raised by Senator Bolkus in the Senate on 4 October 1983 relating to certain statements made by counsel appearing before the Hope Royal Commission. If one examines the terms of reference of the Committee to which Senator Bolkus is now seeking to have this referred, it is quite clear that this is a very considerable climb down by Senator Bolkus and, I might say on behalf of the Opposition, a very appropriate climb down. Of course, the behaviour that he was indulging in was not particularly helpful to the Government of which he is supposedly a supporter, with the great difficulties it has within its own ranks about the way it has handled this matter. The handing of this matter has been a travesty often of the sort of principles for which this Government is purported to stand. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) sits there looking seedy, as well he might. Mr President, if you look at the reference to the Committee to which Senator Bolkus now wants to put these questions of policy, we find this statement: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to review, and report whether any changes are desirable in respect of- (a) the law and practice of parliamentary privilege as they affect the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Members and the committees of each House; (b) the procedures by which cases of alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege may be raised, investigated and determined, and (c) the penalties that may be imposed for breach of parliamentary privilege. So we have a broad philosophic, academic and theoretical inquiry into these very important matters which go to the functioning of this Parliament. I believe that the inquiry is one which is warranted and I hope that the Joint Select Committee will produce a useful report for our guidance. I also hope that following the passage of this motion-I am sure it will be passed as it will be supported by the Opposition-some of the interesting questions which go to possible conflicts between the privilege of this place and the privileges which might be enjoyed by royal commissions and the possible restrictions on free speech which exist both outside this place, before royal commissions and in this place might also be examined. So I think some good may come out of what was a rather foolish expedition at the beginning and I hope that we will get something useful which might prevent some of the sudden sallies which we were treated to on 4 October and which I thought were puerile and certainly did nothing for the dignity of this place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.41) —I had understood that this motion in its revised form was to proceed to a vote without substantive debate in this place on the basis of its clear acceptance on all sides of this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), as so often, has stretched the tolerance of members of the Government Party, and I would think any other objective observer at the moment, by the conspicuously offensive and tendentious character of the remarks that he has just made. I say only this: I have views of my own as to the particular matters that have been raised by Senator Bolkus and I have expressed them to Senator Bolkus on one or two occasions. But there are questions of very real policy involved in the matters that Senator Bolkus has raised in good faith in this place concerning the capacity of members and senators to discharge their functions as senators and members without fear or favour and without anything that they might perceive as intimidation. It is entirely appropriate that the underlying policy issues that have been there and raised by Senator Bolkus be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I would have thought it might be possible for the Senate to proceed to produce that result with rather more dignity than that with which it has just been treated by the Leader of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983 Public Service Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1983 Debate resumed from 14 September 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.43) —The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2) corrects a number of anomalies and inconsistencies in sales tax law and makes certain structural changes that were announced by the Government at the time of the Budget. Some items are taken into a higher category, some other items are exempt, some items are to be taxable at lower rates and other previously exempt items become taxable. I make some observations with regard to some of the decisions that will result from the Bill , but I indicate on behalf of my colleagues that it will not be opposed. It ought to be said that the Bill does contradict some of the rhetoric that we heard when in government with regard to proposed changes that were introduced by us. I think it is of interest to see the changes in attitude that have resulted in the Government's measures on its accession to government. Some of the matters that have been raised by a lot of concerned manufacturers and individuals may be raised by some of my colleagues, but I would like to point to one or two of them. Decisions have been made that will now result in air conditioning ducting, which was previously exempt from sales tax, being included in the tax schedules. This is of concern to a number of the building industries. It is one area to which the present Government, when in opposition, took exception when we introduced legislation with regard to building materials. I point out that at that time the building materials were to be introduced at a tax rate of 2 1/2 per cent but the air conditioning ducting referred to in this Bill is taxed at an effective rate of 20 per cent. I am advised that in a typical commercial building project air conditioning comprises about 10 per cent of building costs. Of this 10 per cent, 20 per cent is for ducting. So this effective tax on building materials is quite contradictory to the then Opposition's stance at the time that we were making some modest changes to a broader indirect tax base. A number of representations have been made to me, and I am aware that these representations regarding air conditioning ducts and costs have been made to the Government. It is obvious that the Government does not respond in a positive way unless it intends to move amendments to legislation. I simply point out the fact that those who are involved in building have pointed to the increase in costs that will result from this new tax on the air conditioning materials. I found some matters of interest in the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning this sales tax legislation. It particularly drew attention to the provision of goods to be used by the profoundly deaf. This is a measure I certainly welcome-that consideration was given in the use of these materials to those who are profoundly deaf. But the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did draw attention to the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation with regard to his capacity to determine the value of and the level at which it would be appropriate for this measure to be considered. People who work with the profoundly deaf have also drawn attention to the inadequacy of the definition, if it is to have the effect of giving relief to those who could benefit from it. As I understand it, the Government has also been made aware of these representations and I am not aware of any changes it wishes to make. But I do welcome the fact that there is some relief to the profoundly deaf in the use of these benefits. I think that some of the representations made to me were made quite seriously and with concern that perhaps an amendment to the definition may result in it being more widely able to be of benefit to a larger number of people. I have had a lot of representations with regard to swimming pools, and again I am aware that the detail of these has been referred to the Government. The representations did result in some amendments being moved by the Government when the legislation was debated in the other place, but I am advised that there are still problems. There are now anomalies with regard to the treatment of materials used in the swimming pools. Proposals that have come through from the Australian Spa and Pool Associations Ltd are to the effect that a number of items should be restored to exemption and that changes should again be made to remove the anomalies that now exist. Again, I understand the Government has not found it possible to respond positively to the representations that have been made. Representations were made by cosmetic and toiletry manufacturers who have pointed to some of their difficulties. Other manufacturers have pointed to a whole range of difficulties, in particular some berry fruit industries in Tasmania and the effect of changes with regard to closer economic relations with New Zealand. As I have said, we have listened to all of these representations. We are aware that they have been made to the Government. As this Bill introduces changes announced in the Budget which the Government desires to make to sales tax legislation, the Opposition does not oppose it. I hope that those representations which have been made seriously and conscientiously are considered by the Government, and that where anomalies still exist or have been created by the changes in this legislation, the Government will address those in its own time and that it may make some relief to those who are adversely affected by the proposed changes. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.50) —I rise to make one or two comments on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2). I recall that some time ago, when the Fraser Government was in charge of the country's economic welfare, I made some comments about the support that I would give to sales tax measures in order to broaden the taxation base in Australia. I pointed to a list showing that Australia, when compared with twenty-three other countries, raised the second lowest percentage of total revenue through sales tax. I pointed out at that time-on 8 September 1971-that Australia raised 6.8 per cent of its revenue through this source, whereas France raised 23.7 per cent and Austria 21.7 per cent of their revenue in this way. We raised the second to lowest amount of revenue through this source. It is important that we examine this method of taxation with the object of reducing income tax, which is too high in Australia at present. On the previous occasion to which I referred I pointed to my concern about the way in which sales tax changes were introduced and the disruption and dislocation that this caused industries throughout Australia. I pointed also to my concern about the retroactive effect of these measures. At that time, I believe, a number of companies in Australia were disadvantaged because, having made financial or contractual arrangements well before the Budget date and having been assured that no sales tax applied to the various commodities that they were dealing with , they were faced after the August Budget with retroactive tax going back something like six months. The same, of course, applies with this legislation. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle mentioned particularly the Council of Australasian Spa and Pool Associations Limited. That body has made representations to me, as it has to a number of other senators. I think that the points it raises are quite pertinent to the debate and ought to be borne in mind by the Government on future occasions when it contemplates sales tax increases of this character. As far as the swimming pool associations are concerned, the legislation is discriminatory because it discriminates against various types of pools. I think that in itself is bad. I will elaborate on that later. The Council of Australasian Spa and Pool Associations Ltd has indicated that it appreciates the Government's initiative and sympathy in its amendment of the sales tax measures affecting the industry. However, it has indicated two major areas of concern which will have an adverse effect on the industry and will cause serious dislocation. First, the measures still discriminate against and within two major market segments, albeit less severely than those previously announced, because some changes were effected. Secondly, the Council is concerned about the retrospective or retroactive effect of these amendments, particularly by taxing pre-Budget contracts. It indicated that this will cause disputes and cancellations to the detriment of the industry and the consuming public. It also pointed out that it viewed those issues so seriously that it wanted to pursue them in an effort to avoid potentially inequitable and burdensome features of the revised tax measures. The Council informed me that it has approximately 480 members Australia-wide and also represents the industry in New Zealand. Its members represent approximately 85 per cent of the swimming pool and spa industry's total sales and employ 10,000 people who rely directly on the pool and spa industry for their work. The industry's total turnover is approximately $400m a year at retail prices and it uses a considerable amount of Australian-made products each year. It uses approximately 4,000 tonnes of galvanised sheet steel, approximately 10,000 tonnes of reinforcing steel, approximately 600 tonnes of plastic raw material for swimming pool filters only, approximately 200,000 cubic metres of concrete, approximately two million linear metres of vinyl, about 85,000 electric motors, approximately 1,200,000 kilograms of fibreglass, about 2.4 million kilograms of rosin and approximately 400,000 kilograms of gelcoat. In the last two years the industry has suffered a downturn. The Council pointed to the fact that in New South Wales alone the downturn was about 40 per cent. Throughout Australia I think it is between 20 and 25 per cent. The thing that interested me was that the Council made a very constructive proposal to the Treasurer and pointed out that if the sales tax were applied in an equitable way it would have no objection to it. It indicated that the Government could raise of the order of $ 16.1m whereas at present, I believe, the figure is projected to be $12m. Raising revenue in this way is certainly discriminating against many pool makers in Australia. I sympathise with these people and I deplore the attitude of the Government for not recognising that they were trying to be helpful to the Government in raising revenue. In effect, their suggestion would have raised $4m or $5m more than is to be raised under the measures contemplated in this legislation. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to incorporate in Hansard a list of the various types of pools to which I am referring, the tax effect, the average retail price and the percentage increase that would apply under this legislation. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Table 1 Average Per- Tax retail centage Name effect price increase $ $ % Concrete 200 9,500 2 Fibreglass 800 8,000 10 In-ground vinyl liner 750 8,000 9.4 Above-ground pools 100 670 15 Table 2 Units Taxable Revenue per annum value obtained $ $ Fibreglass pools 6,000 24,000,000 4,800,000 Vinyl liner-in-ground 3,500 14 ,000,000 2,800,000 Concrete 8,500 7,000,000 1,400,000 Above-ground 55,000 27, 000,000 5,400,000 Privately owned public pools, spas and water slides 100 5,000 ,000 1,000,000 Replacement filters, pumps 10,000,000 2,000,000 Spa pools and spa bath components 10,000,000 2,000,000 Replacement spare parts 5,000,000 1, 000,000 Chemical usage 35,000,000 7,000,000 137,000,000 27,400,000 Table 3 Taxable Revenue value obtained $ $ Filtration, pumps and motors, skimmers, main drains etc. on new pools of all types 23,000,000 4,600,000 Spa equipment 2,500,000 500,000 Replacement pumps and filters-all types of pool 10,000,000 2,000,000 Privately owned public pools , spas and water slides 5,000,000 1,000,000 Chemicals 35,000,000 7,000,000 Replacement spare parts 5,000,000 1,000,000 80,500,000 16,100,000 Senator JESSOP —I have some letters from people concerned in this matter, one being the letter I referred to from CASPA Ltd. Another is from Firmstone and Vos , a firm of chartered accountants in Sydney, which points out its concern with respect to some aspects of the legislation. I also have another letter from G. V . Cahill Insulation Pty Ltd indicating its concern. I seek leave to have these letters also incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- C.A.S.P.A. LTD. Council of Australasian Spa and Pool Associations Ltd. 19 September 1983 KAB/ct Senator D. S. Jessop, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Jessop, We wish to draw your attention to one of the problems being faced by the swimming pool industry as a result of the sales tax changes announced in the recent Federal Budget. The retrospective effect of these amendments by taxing goods supplied under contracts executed before the Budget (as well as in the interim period between the Budget date and the date on which the Bill received Royal assent-presuming this occurs) will cause serious disputes and cancellations to the detriment of our industry and the consuming public. We have noted from Hansard reports of the time that in September 1981 you expressed concern about the disruptive, inequitable, confusing and costly impact of the retrospective effect of the sales tax measures introduced in the August 1981 Budget. The issues which are of great concern to us are essentially the same as those debated in the Senate at that time, particularly those aspects covered by the attached Hansard extracts. At the conclusion of the September 1981 debate, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle , then representing the Treasurer in the Senate, stated that the Government had requested the Commissioner of Taxation and the Comptroller-General of Customs to provide a paper concerning the way in which sales tax, customs and excise changes could be effected with a view to alleviating problems brought to light in the Senate debate, particularly by yourself and Senator Townley. We were astounded to learn that the paper in question was never prepared for public debate and consideration by Parliament. We are now faced with serious problems which could easily have been ameliorated if some follow-up action had been taken in relation to the similar 1981 amendments, as promised. We respectfully request that this whole matter be taken up during the forthcoming Senate debate on the sales tax Bill. We would also welcome the opportunity to fully discuss our industry's situation with you, should you so desire. The swimming pool industry is not alone in facing these problems. Similar problems have been experienced by others affected by the amendments, particularly the air conditioning industry. Yours faithfully, K. A. BRISCOE Vice President FIRMSTONE & VOS Chartered Accountants Partners 130 Phillip St, Sydney GPO Box 4644, Sydney 2001 Adrian J. Firmstone Telephone (02) 231 2933 David R. Vos Telex AA72058 19 September 1983 Our Ref: AJF/ct Senator D. S. Jessop, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Jessop, I refer to your letter of 5 October 1981 being the culmination of your efforts at the time to convince Parliament that the way in which sales tax changes are instituted requires review as current procedures are disruptive, inequitable, confusing and costly both to industry and the consuming public. A copy of your letter together with relevant Hansard extracts are enclosed. In spite of your endeavours, the recent changes to the sales tax legislation announced by the Treasurer in his Budget speech incorporate the same problems as existed with the 1981 changes. By making changes effective on date of announcement, industry is still faced with a retrospective impact in relation to contracts executed but not completed before Budget as well as those executed and completed in the interim period between the Budget date and the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent-assuming this occurs. In response to your representations of the time, Senator the Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle foreshadowed the introduction to Parliament, for debate, of a discussion paper by the Commissioner of Taxation and Comptroller-General of Customs concerning the means by which sales tax, customs and excise changes may be effected without causing the problems experienced under the current procedures. I was astounded to learn that the paper in question was never prepared for public debate and consideration by Parliament. Taxpayers affected by the current changes are now faced with serious problems which could easily have been ameliorated if some follow-up action had been taken in relation to the similar 1981 amendments, as promised. I respectfully request that this whole matter be taken up during the forthcoming Senate debate on the sales tax Bill. I would welcome the opportunity to fully discuss the relevant issues with you, should you so desire. Yours faithfully, A. J. FIRMSTONE Att. G. V. CAHILL INSULATION PTY LTD 81 Stephen Road, Botany 2019 PHONE: 666-4084 666-4086 22 September 1983 Senator The Hon. Donald Jessop Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Re: Amendments to sales tax legislation Dear Sir Information has filtered through to our firm that an amendment to current sales tax legislation has been recently passed by the House of Representatives, making air conditioning ductwork and accessories subject to a 20% tax. Please allow us to make the following protestations: 1. This legislation effectively increases the cost and therefore the price of an air conditioning project by 7%. The result of this increase will severely dampen current investment enthusiasm. 2. Information we have received would suggest that if this legislation received a clear passage through the senate, then upon the bill being passed we can expect that legislation would be retrospective to the date the proposed legislation was announced, i.e. on the night of the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Thus, we have a situation where we would be supplying goods on which no sales tax is payable, these goods retrospectively becoming subject to sales tax upon the amendment to the legislation becoming law. 3. The lack of publicity surrounding this matter has attracted an enormous amount of uncertainty within the industry, resulting in the withdrawal of several contracts pending a satisfactory clarification of this whole situation. This has further added to the irate feelings which we all feel about this proposed legislation. We will be pleased to receive any advice regarding clarification of both the legislation and the intention regarding its retrospective implications forthwith, in order to relieve the uncertainty that prevails our industry at present. Yours faithfully G. V. CAHILL INSULATION PTY LTD Senator JESSOP —Another point that I would like to raise is that when I spoke on sales tax legislation in 1981 Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was very kind in her reaction to my concern, although she did not accept the amendment I proposed which would have dealt quite effectively with the retroactive effects of the legislation. But she did sympathise with my concern. I was also interested in the sympathy I aroused in Senator Gareth Evans, who said: If we look at the merits of these Bills, as we should, it is apparent that they leave very much to be desired. Senator Jessop, in his speech just concluded, made a very effective critique of one aspect of the legislation, namely, the hopelessly disorganised, confused and dislocating mode of implementation of the changes to the tax law involved in these Bills. When Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle responded to the debate in 1981, she said: It seems to me and to the Government that the best way to consider matters that have been quite properly and thoughtfully raised at this time would be to have a paper submitted by the Commissioner for Taxation and the Comptroller-General of Customs. We could then consider the problem as a whole. Recommendations and suggestions could be proposed. They may be acceptable by the Government. Certainly they would be considered by it. The Government is not able to accept the amendment moved by Senator Jessop in this instance and suggests that at some time soon such a paper be provided to allow us to discuss these matters in a broader context, rather than simply deal with the amendment concerned. I commend that thought to Senator Walsh. I suggest to him that such a paper looking at the history of the implementation of sales tax measures should be presented to the Senate. I think I said at the time to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that just because we have been applying these measures historically-or hysterically; whichever way one cares to look at the matter-for 50-odd years, there is no reason to suggest that that is the right way to do it. I suggest to the Government that it would be very helpful for the Senate to have a paper so that we can discuss the matter in full debate in this chamber and so that the debate can be subjected to public examination and public comment. From that exercise we may be able to come to some arrangement whereby transitional provisions can apply so as to cause a minimum of disruption to Australian industries. That would be only helpful. I commend the suggestion for the favourable consideration of the Minister in charge of the Bill and to the Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.02) -There are two areas in the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 to which I should like to refer. The first appears on page 7, in the Schedule, at paragraph 11, which relates to Item 36A. That concerns the abolition of the sales tax that was previously imposed on concentrated fruit juices coming in mainly from New Zealand, juices that were to be manufactured into cordial, primarily, or into other products here in Australia. The sales tax has now been taken off those concentrated fruit juices that are coming into Australia. This will make a great difference to the berry fruit industry in Australia and, indeed, to our apple industry. The berry fruit industry, particularly in my State, has had a very rough time in the last couple of years, and particularly last season. As a result of the bad seasons, it has decided to restructure. It has moved to buying , at considerable expense, harvesting machinery for the berry fruit. We are told that the New Zealand situation will be righted eventually, after several years, when New Zealand producers will no longer get a subsidy for their exports, which they are presently getting, and that therefore things will even out. However, I do not believe that our industry will survive that long. It cannot afford to have this unequal competition from New Zealand. As I have said, New Zealand producers are already heavily subsidised with their exports by their Government. As a result, this change will do tremendous harm to our berry fruit industry. The second item on which I speak appears on page 11 of the Bill, in the Schedule. I refer to the closed captioning for television, which was instigated by the former Government some time ago and has now come into effect. The closed captioning was intended to be of great help to the hearing impaired. Indeed, it was meant to be of tremendous help to a large number of people in Australia. However, under the Bill before us the exemption will apply to that very small handful of people, the profoundly deaf. As I have indicated, the profoundly deaf are a small handful of people; but there are so many others. For instance, there are those suffering from industrial deafness. Perhaps the best way to put this matter across is to read from one of the telexes that I have received. There are three main bodies-the Australian Deafness Council, the Australian Medical Association, and the OLSA. They have all supported the widening of this exclusion from sales tax from the profoundly deaf to all those who need the closed captioning to make television plausible for them even to listen to. I should like to read from the Australian Deafness Council's remarks in support of the widening of this exemption: The current usage of the words 'profoundly deaf' would, if used in this legislation, be extremely prejudicial to the very many people who experience hearing impairment such as they would require the goods described in Item 123A of the First Schedule. All too often hearing impaired people, because of their disability, exist in the lower socio-economic segments of our society. These people need the assistance inherent in this Bill and should not be penalised for requiring additional equipment for their disability. OLSA, in its support of this request, says: There is no satisfactory clinical definition that would adequately cover all the people who would require these aids. Profound deafness would describe some, but not all, who should be eligible for sales tax exemption on the goods referred to in Item 123A of the First Schedule. The final guidelines of eligibility should be decided in a consultative process involving the Director-General of Health, through NAL the OLSA and ADC. There would seem to be no apparent reason why the appropriate certifying person should not be a general practitioner following the guidelines decided upon such as in the case of sickness benefits, et cetera. The Australian Medical Association says in its support: The real disability of handicapped deaf persons is a function of both (1) the amount of loss measured using an audiometre, and (2) the environment under which a person lives or works. The discriminating function of the sense of hearing is most affected in the presence of background noise. The kind of noise can be associated with television, for example. This kind of deafness is especially found among metal workers, miners, boiler makers and workers using noisy power tools. The handicap these people suffer is profound but the actual measured hearing loss does not necessarily qualify on the decibel count. In relation to the matter of a medical practitioner being the certifying officer for the exemption, medical certificates as to the clinical condition of the patient are accepted by a variety of Government instrumentalities in support of a claim for benefit. Examples include applications for benefits under invalid pensions and sickness benefits and in respect of leave following sickness or injury. So it is not setting a new precedent. It is going along guidelines that have already been set . The Bill really makes it very difficult for even the profoundly deaf to register, and there is no guarantee that even the profoundly deaf will be able to get the exemption under this particular legislation. On a $1,300 set, the sales tax is approximately $300. The exemption will be a great help, and it will not cause great monetary loss to the Government. I believe that the Government, following all its news releases and advertising, has been getting a tremendous amount of kudos for this because people believe that the term 'deafness' is used to describe people who are really impaired in their hearing. They do not understand that the Government is restricting it to such a very small group. I hope the Government will accept that this is a problem and will make an amendment in line with what I have suggested. I note that the Australian Democrats have already decided to move such an amendment. Of course, it cannot be accepted in the lower House if the Government will not accept it here, so there is not much point in doing that. I hope that the Government will now accept the amendment so that the lower House can pass it. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.11) —The Australian Democrats accept that the Government wishes, quite responsibly, to make some changes to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. We applaud the Government particularly in several areas where it has picked up some anomalies which existed. I refer specifically to the anomaly of the tourist boats, which has now been finally corrected-retrospectively, I am delighted to say. Also-this matter was mentioned earlier-with respect to the problem of deaf people having to pay more than is appropriate for videotex and teletext equipment, we feel that generally the Government has presented those amendments which it felt it had a mandate to present. I wish to express my appreciation to the Acting Treasurer, Mr Hurford, who received representations that I made on behalf of a number of constituents to have changes made to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 [No. 2]. We were quite delighted with the result of representations, for instance, that we made to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to have reductions in the sales tax on fibreglass swimming pools. We preferred a reduction to zero, but in the event the Treasurer felt that there should be some sales tax imposed on fibreglass swimming pools and reduced the amount in the original Bill from 20 per cent down to 7 1/2 per cent. I express my appreciation to the Treasurer for that move and I am sure that I speak for the industry in expressing that appreciation. However, I stress again that the industry feels that there is an anomaly and I would like to speak more on that in the Committee stage. We also requested that a new sales tax be imposed on fortified wines, to replace the excise on those wines, because of the problem that arises in the introduction of that excise. If that excise were replaced by sales tax, the tax would be imposed only at the time of sale rather than at the time of production which means, as far as the industry is concerned, that it has to pay its excise sometimes many years ahead of when it gets the revenue in from the sale of the wine. I have heard some comments from the Opposition regarding items with which it is not happy. In fact, Senator Walters just indicated that she felt that it would be a waste of time for the Opposition to support the Australian Democrats' amendment. That is very disappointing because there is no way that these amendments are likely to be considered in the House of Representatives unless we make the amendments in this chamber. Frankly, I find it a fairly lame excuse to say that the Senate can anticipate that these proposed changes that the Democrats have in mind will not be accepted by the House of Representatives and therefore let us not vote for them. If we do not have the courage of our convictions and a belief in the parliamentary process and make those changes in this chamber, we might just as well go home and leave everything to the House of Representatives to determine. That would solve a number of constitutional problems. I would particularly like to ask the Opposition to support the Democrats on items such as tyre retreads, a provision on which I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage; on air conditioning ducting; on a proposal on fruit wine and honey mead which Senator Macklin will be introducing at the Committee stage; on the amendment to cosmetics taxation, which is about to be changed; and, of course, on the fibreglass pools that Senator Jessop referred to earlier today. That is a matter on which I think we do need to stand up and be counted, because this is another critical area which will have a substantial impact on an important industry. I would like to speak very briefly on two important aspects of this Bill, which perhaps cannot be changed at this time. Evidence is provided that we need to be giving more thought to the retroactive effect of some sales taxes. I will refer to that again in the Committee stage but because it is a more general item that I would like the Governmemt to take on board, I believe that there is a case in regards to certain items such as fibreglass pools and air conditioning ducting, for having a phase-in period provided in the legislation. There will be other legislation coming through in the future in which much of the damage done to these two industries can be avoided by providing for phasing in. Even if it were simply to provide that all contracts that exist on Budget day be honoured at the original rate of sales tax, that would be one way of handling it. Certainly the repercussions in those two industries-the fibreglass pools industry and the air conditioning ducting industry-have been quite severe and need to be taken on board by the Government. Overall, as I said, the Democrats are content to pass the bulk of this legislation. We hope that our amendments will be supported in this chamber and will be thoroughly considered. They have already been given a preliminary consideration by the Acting Treasurer and, at this stage, I have to confess that I am not very optimistic that the Government is willing to reduce its revenue from this Bill by one dollar. Therefore we are going to have to put even more convincing arguments; I hope to do that during the Committee stage of this debate. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.20) —I wish to raise a couple of matters that have already been alluded to but which I think are important enough to require some repetition. I wish again to draw the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to the fact that there have been considerable representations on behalf of the fruit juice industry in Tasmania, as well as in other States, concerning the problems that will arise from the legislation as it affects imported fruit juices from New Zealand. I am not opposing the fact that we have complied with the items under the closer economic relations agreement; I believe it was only right that we should. However, I believe this is a case where special consideration is necessary and should be produced. I believe that, under article 17 of the CER agreement, we could apply for an easing of the position. We must remember that the arrangements on our side were that we would eliminate the appropriate sales tax and that in return New Zealand would reduce the benefits to its producers over a five-year period. Unless in the meantime something is done to compensate this very small industry, by the time the five years is up there will not be an industry. At a time when we are desperately striving to keep whatever industries we can and establish new ones wherever we can, I think it would be self-defeating to add this to the long list of industries which in a few years time we will be able to look back on and say: ' We used to do that too'. The total small fruits industry in Tasmania amounts to only about $1m a year and the sort of recompense to that industry for the advantage being provided to the across-the-Tasman cousins is only small. I believe it is quite reasonable that the Government should negotiate on some basis to provide an equivalent benefit to that given to New Zealand, phasing out over the period during which the New Zealanders will be getting their benefits. On that basis, I am quite satisfied that by 1987 true competitiveness will again be restored. I am well satisfied that if, at that time, the local producers are unable to compete, they should not compete. In the meantime, I believe it is desirable that they be given this opportunity. I do not have any fixed views one way or the other on whether swimming pools should be subject to sales tax. It appears that at present there are three entirely separate rates of tax, depending on the sort of swimming pool. There is one rate for an in-ground pool, one rate for a totally prefabricated pool, and one rate for a partially prefabricated pool. The way the tax is worked out is the reverse of the way we would hope it would work. People buying the cheapest pool pay tax on everything. People who buy the medium grade pool-one which they buy as a unit and install themselves-pay tax on only a portion. People who dig a hole and prepare their pool in-ground do not pay any tax on the pool. We find that for the better middle class pool it is almost cheaper to go for the Rolls Royce design than for the prefabricated design. There will also be a use of part -prefabricated panels as a way of avoiding the intention of the tax. I accept the fact that the Government has the right to tax these items as it sees fit. I simply draw its attention to the fact that this is inequitable and should be regularised so that not only is it meant to be but actually is the same rate for each type of pool. If Senator Walsh feels so disposed, I should like as a matter of interest to know the amount of tax that is likely to be collected from baking powder, cream of tartar and bicarbonate of soda for use for other than culinary purposes. I understand they are used a little in the swimming pool business. For the trouble involved in an alteration of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to try to cover that, it would be interesting to know how much revenue will be collected. I venture to suggest that it will probably be even less than the amount involved in the fruit juice item. I should like Senator Walsh to consider these anomalies and report on them at the Committee stage. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.25) —This may not be the definitive answer but, in regard to the question about baking soda, cream of tartar and bicarbonate of soda, in the estimates given to the revenue committee at the time the decision was made no revenue figure was stated . I am afraid I cannot answer that unless I am given some later information. I am afraid I did not hear many of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's remarks, but I will comment briefly on the other points made. I take Senator Jessop's suggestion, which was encapsulated in the table incorporated in Hansard, to be a proposal that rather than taxing some components of swimming pools, or some swimming pools that are delivered as prefabricated units, all the components which go into a swimming pool ought to be subject to tax. This is something which could well be considered in future years, but it seems that at least one difficulty arising from that proposal would be that, for example, for a concrete pool which uses cement upon which sales tax is not normally applied special arrangements would have to be made to apply a sales tax to cement used for swimming pool construction. Obvious administrative difficulties would flow therefrom and also, of course, it would involve the potential to evade the intended tax on cement supposed to be used for a swimming pool by saying that the cement would be used for other purposes. I have quickly noted a considerable discrepancy between the figure of $7m put by Senator Jessop, in the table he incorporated, as the estimated revenue from a 20 per cent tax on all chemicals used in swimming pools and an estimate supplied to the Government some months ago of $1m for what appears to have been a similar tax. Senator Walters and later Senator Archer took up the question of the abolition of a sales tax previously applied to some fruit juice and fruit juice products imported from New Zealand, and I believe from two or three other countries. Although that is included in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill, as I think both the speakers realised, that decision is something consequential to the closer economic relations agreement which was signed on 28 March and which I understand was approved in that form by the previous Government. It was not included as a decision by this Government in the Budget making process. I have noted the points taken but there seems to me to be some incongruity between, on the one hand, the argument presented by both Senator Walters and Senator Archer that, without what was effectively a 25 per cent protection for a local product applied through a sales tax on imports, the industry in Tasmania will have difficulty in surviving and, on the other hand, the Tasmanian Government announcing its decision to proceed with the Craigbourne Dam, at least one of the major projected products from which will be these same berry fruits. In relation to the point raised by Senator Walters concerning hearing aids for the profoundly deaf, it ought to be noted again, although I am sure she is aware of it, that until this Budget even the profoundly deaf were subject to a tax of 32 1/2 per cent on these aids. I am also advised that the Director-General of Health, in consultation with the Australian Taxation Office, is presently considering guidelines to cover the circumstances in which a hearing impaired person is to be taken to be profoundly deaf for the purpose of the exemption item. These guidelines will be published in the near future. When the guidelines are issued it is expected that some hearing impaired persons, with hearing that is less than 90 per cent in both ears, will satisfy the criteria for exemption. The only other observation I have to make is that I do not recall Senator Walters raising that same question last year when even the profoundly deaf or those who may be taken to be profoundly deaf were required to pay a 32 1/2 per cent sales tax on these aids. Senator Jack Evans raised the question which has been raised before-that it may have been preferable to impose a sales tax at some rate on all wine rather than to impose an excise on fortifying spirit. That is a matter which has been the subject of considerable debate and comment in the Senate in recent weeks. I do not propose to go through that again except to make the point that those products to which fortifying spirit is added and which are held for a long period in stock prior to final sale, are almost by definition products of the high price end of the market. It does not apply to the great bulk of fortified wines to which fortifying spirit is added. The great bulk of those wines are sold in a relatively short period. While it is correct that the cost is compounded over time for stocks which are held for a long period, generally speaking those stocks which are held for long periods are high quality and high priced ports. It could be argued that the people who buy those high priced products can afford to pay the final price. That is from the consumer's perspective but from the perspective of the producer, I would expect that for existing stocks-honourable senators must remember that we are talking here about products which are normally held in stock for a long time-the cost of the excise on fortified spirit would be added to the selling price of the existing stocks, leaving the producers virtually in a neutral cash flow situation. The amendments of which Senator Jack Evans has given notice-I am afraid I did not see them very long ago-I understand were discussed at some length last Thursday with the Acting Treasurer, Mr Hurford. Many of the amendments are, as Senator Evans is well aware, outside the scope of this Bill. They seek not to request amendments to the Bill which is actually before the Senate but to achieve more wide-ranging amendments to the sales tax Act in general. The Government cannot accept the amendments. Some items on which the Government has already received substantial submissions have had the rates originally proposed in the Budget altered but the Government is not prepared at this stage to accept varying rates for any items other than those to which changes have already been announced. I suggest that if the Australian Democrats are serious about pursuing some of the matters that they raise here that they should present them in a submission to the Government or to the revenue committee some time well before the 1984 Budget. But at this stage for both revenue purposes and the need to finalise the legislation, the Government is not prepared to accept any of those other amendments. In regard to Senator Evans's suggestion about phasing in changes to sales tax, this is a matter which has, of course, arisen before. A contract may be signed to supply a product, the lead time for the production of which is quite extended and, therefore, the final purchaser is required to pay a significantly higher price than had originally been anticipated simply because a sales tax has either been imposed or increased on that product. I see some merit in that argument. It has been traditional practice that sales tax changes become operative from the date of announcement. That again is something which I suggest the Australian Democrats, if they seriously wish to pursue these questions, present in a submission to the Government in time to enable adequate consideration to be given to it in the 1984 Budget. As I said earlier I did not hear everything that Senator Dam Margaret Guilfoyle said but I understand that the Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill or the individual components of it. It is, of course, a Budget measure and while there will always be, in my view, some grounds for legitimate argument or differences of opinion both about the rates of sales tax which ought to be applied, the absolute amount of revenue which ought to be raised from sales tax and the definitions of goods for sales tax purposes, no reasonable person could expect that an absolutely immaculate system could be devised. The Government at some future time would be willing to look at suggestions for changes while, at all times, of course necessarily keeping an overview of the revenue objectives and revenue needs. Senator Jessop —Would you give consideration to presenting statements from the Treasury and from the Comptroller-General of Customs as I suggested so that we can debate the issue? Senator WALSH —Are you talking about the amount of revenue which ought to be raised from sales tax? Senator Jessop —No. Will you give us an opportunity to look at statements from the Treasury and from the Comptroller-General of Customs with respect to the methods used for introducing these measures? Senator WALSH —I will pass on that request to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and ask him to respond to it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.37) —I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, after sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: '(2A) The amendments of the principal Act made by clause 30A of the Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 June 1983'. The purpose of moving this amendment is to ensure that a damage which has been done to the tyre retread industry is undone. The Australian Democrats have previously put before this chamber a Bill endeavouring to undo this damage. That Bill still sits in limbo. The difficulties expressed at that time regarding the tyre retread industry have come about-people are being sacked in the industry and companies are in danger of being liquidated in this industry, as a direct result of an interpretation by the Commissioner of Taxation which reversed the previous interpretation which allowed retreading to be seen not as a manufacturing function. The whole point of the Australian Democrats' Bill and of this amendment is to reverse the situation so that tyre retreaders in this country can compete with imported, cheap tyre products and will be allowed to get back into a competitive position which will enable them, to survive in many cases. I think the main point that needs to be stressed is that this difficulty is simply a matter of definition. The Government seems to have bowed to the entreaties of the Commissioner of Taxation to change the interpretation of ' retreading'. There is an interpretation of 'retreading'. Under AS 1973-76 of the Standards Association of Australian retreading is defined as: A process of reconditioning a worn tyre by top-capping, full-capping or remoulding. We simply ask that that interpretation be accepted by the Government, that it be applied to this legislation and that the Government instruct the Taxation Commissioner to use that interpretation in the application of this Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.41) —I have already indicated that the Government cannot accept any of the proposed amendments to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2). In particular, even if one accepts all that Senator Evans has said as being correct, particularly the belief or allegation that people have been dismissed from retreading plants because of this measure, backdating a change to 1 June will not reverse actions which have already been taken. In the extreme case, say, of a plant which has closed down allegedly because of the change, not in the sales tax law but in the interpretation of the Commissioner of Taxation of the sales tax law I hasten to add, there seems to be no point at all in making a gratuitous retrospective payment aimed ostensively at achieving an objective which is no longer achievable. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.42) —I simply ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh): Is it a fact that Mr Howard made a categorical promise to the industry to instruct or to take whatever action was necessary to reclassify this item so that retreading would not be susceptible to sales tax before the election campaign? Is it also not a fact that during the election campaign Mr John Dawkins promised on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that if elected to office he and the Labor Party would undertake a similar move? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.43) —I am not certain whether either of those things happened. It is conceivable that both those statemens were made during an election campaign. Although Senator Chipp has not actually said so, I assume he is implying that some undertakings and promises have been broken. If, indeed such a statement as he attributes to Mr Dawkins was made, I suppose that is a criticism which could legitimately be made . There is, however, a difference between the statements made by Mr Howard and Mr Dawkins and that is that. Mr Howard knew, within quite a narrow margin anyway , at the time he made that promise, the prospective deficit which was being faced in the coming financial year. Mr Dawkins did not. I remember this matter being considered by Cabinet. Among other things which were taken to be relevant in making the decision was the fact that we were faced in March-I believe the decision was made then-with a desperate revenue situation for the forthcoming year. The Government, once it became aware after the election of the desperate financial situation, was not able to do many of the things which it had previously planned to do. In response to the honourable senator's specific question as to whether such firm undertakings were given, I will seek to establish the facts and supply them either in the Senate or by correspondence. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.45) —My amendment is linked with proposed amendment (20), which will be moved later in the debate if the amendment now before the Committee is passed. I ask the Opposition to uphold the promise made by the previous Treasurer and to vote for the amendment so that all of us will be in a position to keep the promises that were made by both sides of the Parliament. I would hope that, despite the indications given earlier by the Opposition, we will have its support on this occasion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.46) —I support the amendment to the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2). I understand the arguments that have been put forward by both the Government and the Opposition. It may be said that it is all very well for honourable senators to attempt in this place to exempt certain items from sales tax. One can understand that. A number of matters were canvassed during the second reading debate, one of which concerned the Tasmanian berry fruits industry. I understand that the industry, which is subject to closer economic relations arrangements, is taking this matter up directly with the executive Government. Our attention has been drawn to one matter into which we can get our teeth and upon which promises have been made or indications have been given by the major parties. Representations have been made to me, and I suppose to other honourable senators, concerning retreaded tyres. I am attracted to the viewpoint put forward by Senator Evans concerning a group who, because of an administrative interpretation, have found that quite a substantial level of sales tax has been imposed on certain items. To whom do these items go? Who buys retreaded tyres? They are certainly not bought by the well-heeled individual. The battler buys retreaded tyres. In view of all of those circumstances, I wonder whether on this occasion both the Government and the Opposition could break their normal practice, see the logic of the argument that has been put up by Senator Evans and others in this place and support the proposition. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.48) —I would like to make a general comment on the amendment before the Committee and other amendments that will be moved by Senator Evans. The amendments which have come to us during this debate are not matters that previously have been considered by the Opposition. When making a general statement on behalf of the Opposition at the second reading stage of the Government's Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2) I indicated that the Opposition would not oppose the Bill. We regard it as one of the Government's Budget proposals. I think we said enough about our attitude to sales tax Bills when we were in government. Our attitude is that we will not seek to amend the legislation, nor will we support amendments to it, other than those that may have been introduced by the Government as a result of representations that were made on the matters to which I referred. Many of the matters contained in Senator Evans's amendments were referred to us. I am aware that items such as air conditioning, boats and swimming pools which were referred to me as a member of this place were also referred to the Government. I am aware of the consultations that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) had with a number of the people who made these representations. As the Government has not seen fit to respond at this time I simply indicate the general approach of the Opposition to this Bill, and that is that we will not be seeking to amend it, nor will we be supporting amendments other than those that may be introduced by the Government as a result of representations that were made. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.51) —The position put by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in relation to the amendment moved by Senator Jack Evans is extremely interesting. It was probably best articulated by Senator Archer in his speech at the second reading stage when he said that the sales tax is what the Government puts on. Our position has been-I would have thought that it would have been accepted by now, because it is history-that the sales tax that is put on is what the Parliament puts on; it is not what the Government intends. The Government comes to the Parliament seeking the Parliament's acquiescence. It is the Parliament which has to pass the legislation. If the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill is passed in this place it will be with the acquiescence of the Opposition, because there is a majority in this place that can stop that occurring. I put on record very clearly that previously in relation to a sales tax measure the Australian Democrats pushed this chamber and the other place to a vote. That action was successful. Senator Walters's objections to this legislation are historical and merely a quibble to be able to escape when people go to her to ask why the Opposition did not take any action. The Opposition has it within its power to take certain action which many of its members indicated at the second reading stage they would do. If members of the Opposition do not support this and other amendments everybody in the community will know that they agree with them. By not voting against them they are showing their acquiescence. In this place finally it is one's vote that counts and not what one talks about. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.52) —I would like to respond to Senator Macklin. I made a speech which, I thought, was sympathetic to some of the industries which came to me complaining about the lack of consultation and the way in which the sales tax measures have been introduced. These measures could be detrimental to the industries concerned. I believe the Australian Democrats are behaving predictably because, from the general thrust of this and their other amendments, they are going to reduce the revenue available to the Government. That is not the role of a minority party in this Parliament. It is certainly not the role of the Senate. Senator Macklin, of course, displayed total ignorance about the function of this place. He marched in with his colleagues and said: 'We will keep people honest. We are not going to worry about the rejection of supply'. No, they would not do that! Yet they did it last year. They denied the Fraser Government something like $350m. Senator Macklin talks about responsibility. In my view, he displayed tremendous irresponsibility . He knows very well that he will never be in government. He and his party will never have the responsibility of raising or expending revenue. I believe it is quite incredible that Senator Macklin should stand here and talk to us about these matters. I believe the Australian Democrats have to re-examine their whole approach to their representation in this place of the people of Australia. I think that there should be more consultation with industry. We ought to come to grips with the whole question of raising revenue from sales tax so that we can reduce personal income tax. We have to get people to come to the party and present us with a paper that we can discuss intelligently. Perhaps then we can offer some guidance so that disruption to industry can be minimised and so that the people for whom we are all concerned can be cared for better in the future. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.54) —I too take affront at this pompous nonsense that Senator Macklin has been going on with. I make no apologies for getting upset about the sort of tripe he comes out with. He beats his breast about things that he knows he can never institute. It sounds good for the public. He likes to get the point over to the rabble he represents. As far as I am concerned, he can speak for himself. He does not speak for me. I too recall the days when the Australian Democrats, in great fervour, were saying: 'We will do this, we will not do that and we are not going to obstruct the Government in the course of its duties'. What happens now when a bit of publicity is at stake? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —They want to rewrite the Budget. Senator ARCHER —Yes. What about a little bit of publicity about honesty and morality instead? For goodness sake, I am sick to death of the way in which Senator Macklin tramples about the place looking for these tiny one per cent or half a per cent issues in an attempt to try to make a big fellow of himself. What for? Senator Macklin —Oh, do not carry on. Senator ARCHER —I know the honourable senator does not want me to carry on but I feel like carrying on for quite a while. I am sick of the way he does it so regularly. It is absolute nonsense. I made my point to the Minister in charge of the legislation. He knows the areas with which I am not satisfied. The people whom I represent know exactly where we stand. I do not need Senator Macklin to tell me what I think. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (Pre-fabricated buildings). Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.56) —This is another of those clauses which will be opposed by the Australian Democrats. It introduces for the first time the concept of taxing building materials. The effect will be that the cost of air-conditioning will be increased substantially at the very time that this Government is trying to help the building industry. It will tend to dampen some of the current investment enthusiasm that the Government has worked assiduously- I give it credit for it-to generate in the housing and construction industry. This is a real kick in the teeth to that industry and to one particular segment of it. It was interesting that earlier the Minister for Resources and Energy (Mr Walsh) indicated that there would be great difficulty in distinguishing between building materials that went into a swimming pool and building materials that went into other parts of construction. Let me assure him that the industry sees even greater difficulties in distinguishing between those elements which go to make up a building and those which go to make up air-conditioning ducting. If the Minister is not aware of that anomaly, I am sure the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is, of course, the Minister for Housing and Construction, is very conscious of it. Walls, ceilings and floors do make up components of air- conditioning ducting at times. I believe that in addition the Government has not given adequate consideration, once more, to the transitional provisions that need to apply when a new sales tax is increased, particularly in this case. While sections 70A and 70B of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) allow for agreements to be altered when the rate of sales tax is altered, these provisions refer only to the sale of goods and, therefore, are not adequate to deal with fixed price lump sum fabrication supply and installation contracts. In these instances the labour costs, as well as the materials, need to be included when considerating contracts entered into before the change in the sales tax. I have made representations to the Acting Treasurer on this matter. I received a fairly lengthy response from him. I prefer not to take up the time of the Committee in reading that response. I think it is important to have it made known because many people will be relying on this interpretation in their approach to the Commissioner of Taxation for some relief from the retroactive aspect of this Bill. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard part of the response from the Acting Treasurer. Leave granted. The response read as follows- I have looked into this matter and I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that in his view the law adequately provides for the passing on of the sales tax increases in all cases. The relevant sections of the law are sections 70A and 70B of Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1). You are, of course, aware of the operation of section 70A which relates to the passing on of sales tax increases in the case of sales of goods but your concern was with section 70B. Here the Commissioner said that in his view it is appropriate to regard the expression ''the material'' in section 70B as the duct work because it is the duct work that is being supplied for use in connexion with the contract by the air conditioning contractor. This being the case, section 70B would allow for the passing on of sales tax payable by the contractor in respect of the duct work. On a further view, it is arguable that section 70B applies to all the material supplied under the contract which becomes the property of the other contracting party i.e. sheet metal, nuts, bolts, etc. and because the duct work is part of the material so supplied, the contractor may pass on the sales tax increase attributable to it. The Commissioner added that there is also another possible remedy for the contractor under the law. There is a provision, section 3 (4) of Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1), which deems a sale of goods to take place where, in a work and labour contract like the contracts currently under consideration, a person (contractor) supplies goods the property in which passes under the contract to some other person. The Commissioner said that there is no doubt that property in the duct work passes under the terms of the contract to the other party. This being the case, section 3 (4) deems there to be a sale of goods, namely, the duct work, which then brings section 70A into play and would allow the contractor to pass on the sales tax increase. The Commissioner also said that sections 70A and 70B were inserted in the law expressly to give certain rights to contractors to allow them to pass on tax increases that occur after they have contracted to supply goods. Those sections are for the benefit of the contractors and it is not a matter in which he considers that he should intervene. The Commissioner is of the view that the law as expressed provides for the tax to be passed on and whether a contractor wishes to avail himself of this is a matter between himself and the other contracting party. I might add that I am in agreement with this view. It seems to me that the appropriate course to take in this situation is to let, in the first place, the contractors sort out the matter between themselves. If it transpires that, contrary to the Commissioner's view, section 70A and 70B do not allow for the tax to be passed on, then the Government will give consideration to remedying the situation. However, I think that no action is called for on the part of the Government until such time as the law is shown to be defective. Senator JACK EVANS —The problem is that because of this increase there will be a reduced demand. There will be a situation where systems will, from here on, be redesigned to reduce the duct work components of air-conditioning. This, in turn , will lead to increased unemployment. I think the Government has lost sight of what are its real goals. I know that it has a revenue-raising goal. But surely to goodness it has a goal also of stimulating certain industries whose effects flow on right through the community. Speakers from the Opposition have referred already to certain problems that will arise from this part of the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill, but I think it is worth stressing that the introduction of the air-conditioning duct work sales tax increase will have a serious impact, not just on the building industry as a whole, but on that part of the industry which was a growth industry. More and more of the new modern buildings in this country are automatically incorporating air-conditioning. This is quite a serious set back just at the time when the industry has survived a downturn and a lot of organisations were gearing up to be able to move into a higher turnover period. Unfortunately, this will set them back. Again I ask the Government to reconsider its position on air-conditioning ducting and once more I make an appeal to the Opposition. I feel that, in this case, I can ask for Opposition support because I know that the industry has been placated by the Opposition. It has been told by the Opposition that it is a bad part of this Bill and has been given to believe that the Opposition is 100 per cent sympathetic to the industry. We would like that sympathy extended a little further than a couple of tut-tuts to industry leaders. We would like it extended to the point where the Opposition is willing to vote in support of my amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.03) — Amendments (2) and (3) also effectively cover amendments (8), (9), (11), (13), ( 15), (18), (19), (20) and (22). The CHAIRMAN —I think we will concentrate on the opposition to clause 3 at the moment. Maybe Senator Evans will not wish to move the subsequent amendments to the Schedule. Senator WALSH —I wanted to make the point that, in fact, in dealing with this clause, we are dealing with about half of the total number of amendments. I want to make only a couple of points. As I said before, the Government cannot accept the opposition to the clause. Firstly, according to inquiries made from the building industry, this change would add, at the most, about one per cent to the cost of a building in which air-conditioning is installed. Of course, air- conditioning is not installed in all buildings. Secondly, matters of quasi arbitrary judgment are involved as to what boundaries ought to be set on the application of sales taxes to particular items. The relevance of that here is that, although Senator Evans has argued that sales tax should not be applied to the ducting used for air-conditioning, in fact, for many years, sales tax at a rate of 20 per cent has applied to air-conditioning units. It is arguable and disputable, I suppose, whether the arrangement should continue that the air- conditioning unit is taxed and the ducting remains untaxed; whether both should be taxed at the same rate; or whether both should be exempt. The judgment made by the Government after considering all factors, including, admittedly, the revenue implications, was that the tax currently applicable to the air- conditioning unit ought to be extended to the ducting which is functionally inseparable from the unit. Whether air-conditioning ducting ought to be regarded as a building material is again, perhaps, arguable. But I think that the judgment on the argument against that being considered as a building material, on balance, ought to come down negatively, that is, it should not be considered as a building material but as an ancillary to a building. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. The Schedule. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.06) —Mr Chairman, with your permission, I will not move amendments (2), (3), (8), (9), (11), (13), (15), (16), (18), (19 ) and (22). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.07) —I move: (4) Page 7, Schedule, after clause 10, insert the following clause: ''10A. Item 36 in the First Schedule is amended- (a) by inserting in sub-item (4) ', that is, the fermented juice of the grape, or of any other fruit or plant' after 'Australian wine'; and (b) by adding after sub-item (4) the following sub-item: '(5) Australian mead Nos 1 to 4 and 9'.''. This amendment deals with an interpretation of what is Australian wine. Australian wine is exempt under the Act. The problem lies with what one might interpret to be Australian wine. The Commissioner of Taxation has made an interpretation in relation to the fermented juice of fruit and plants and also in relation to fermented honey which is Australian mead. In closing the debate for the Government at the second reading stage, Senator Walsh said that if the Democrats were serious they would put a submission to the Government before the 1984 Budget session. I am not sure what more is necessary. I have put submissions, not only to this Government, but also to the previous Government. It goes on and on, year in and year out. Senator Walsh —You wrote on 5 July, did you not? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, that was only my first attempt at this Government. I put the issue to the previous Government. It said it wanted a submission. That submission has been made. It has been considered and no reply has come back. I wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) again on this issue to reactivate this matter with the present Government. I raised this matter in an adjournment debate yet again and I admit I received a reasonable response from the Minister. I have made these representations on behalf, I admit, of only a small number of people in this country. To my knowledge there are five producers of fruit wine in Australia who operate, in any way, at a commercial level. There are five much smaller Australian mead producers. In total we are only talking about 10 producers. Their production, because of the nature of the industry, tends to be small. They are almost all connected with tourism in one way or another. The Government has already initiated very good moves in relation to the promotion of tourism in Australia. The mead producer at Manilla and the fruit wine producer at Bundaberg, who are quite large producers although not the largest, gear their production quite specifically to the tourist trade in those areas. They are small business people who are attempting to make a living and it is extremely difficult for them to do so. As I have emphasised by way of letters and speeches on innumerable occasions, those producers are not looking for any special privileges. They are merely looking to be treated in the same way that producers who make wine from grapes are treated. They are simply asking that their products be treated in that way, and I believe that that is reasonable. Some noise has been made in relation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Quite frankly, that is a complete furphy. The situation is that the amounts we are talking about are absolutely negligible, and to suggest that we are in any way involving the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is to stretch a point to absurdity. I suggest that if the Government seeks to rely on that it should inform the Committee of the severe breaches of GATT that are committed by France in relation to wine, to which we make no retaliation. To suggest that we ought to observe GATT for a few producers in this country who use our own products and at the same time not object to France, a major producer of wine, flouting GATT in this regard is to draw the whole analogy to absurdity. I am suggesting that the Democrats cannot be expected to make yet another submission to the 1984 Budget session if indeed the types of representations we have made so far are simply shuffled off into some corner. We have not yet discovered, either from the last Government or from this Government, a willingness to make a decision in this area. I believe this is a matter similar to the first one raised by Senator Jack Evans in the first of the Democrat amendments. It refers not so much to the item itself but to the problem of a definition that has been brought about by the Commissioner of Taxation. It is not a matter for legislation by this Parliament; it is a matter of a decision by the Commissioner. In a sense, those producers do not have anywhere to go because it is that sort of decision. I believe that this Parliament ought to have a chance one way or another of saying: 'Yes, we do want a sales tax put on these items' or 'no, we do not'. This is a chance for the Parliament at least to say deliberately whether it believes there should be a tax on wine made from fruit and plants and a tax on wine made from Australian honey. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.13) - Again, there is something to be said for the argument that Senator Macklin has put forward. For many years, perhaps too many, taxes have not been applied to alcoholic beverages in a neutral way. While the Government will not support the amendment at this stage, I repeat that it is something I believe ought to be taken into consideration in framing the next Budget, and that at least some move should be made in the direction of tax neutrality on different forms of alcoholic beverages, particularly those which are close substitutes for each other. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.14) -Did I understand the Minister correctly that this whole matter of alcoholic beverages is currently under investigation and that therefore we can expect some resolution of this issue in the future rather than it being left in limbo, where it is now? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.15) —I am sorry if I gave that impression. I stated a personal view that I believed it was something which ought to be considered, and that there was a valid case to be put for a movement towards a greater degree of tax neutrality than presently exists. Amendment negatived. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.16) —I move: Page 7, Schedule, leave out clause 11. This amendment deals with the problem arising from closer economic relations with New Zealand and the need to protect fruit juice products that are produced in Australia from New Zealand juices or juice concentrates. It was interesting to hear honourable senators from Tasmania beating this particular drum and indicating that it was going to be a problem for their constituents. Frankly, if this House has any purpose at all surely it is to allow honourable senators from States which are about to be disadvantaged by the legislation going through this chamber not only to express their concern but also to vote, so that it will be recorded that their concern is genuine, that they believe what they are saying and are not just uttering a few meaningless words to mollify their constituents. The present item 36A of the Schedule allows producers a sufficient market share to enable the industry to restructure in order to increase its efficiency. In anticipation of continued protection, some growers had already invested in things such as mechanical harvesting equipment which would have made them efficient by world standards. Unfortunately, this proposal cuts them off just as they are about to become more competitive in the world market place. Now the New Zealand growers will be in a position to exploit the Australian market because of the heavy government assistance that they get through export incentives, loans and other means. I should like particularly to draw to the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) who is at the table, the effect this will have in our State-his State and my State. I have had an indication from the Western Australian Fruit Growers Association that the impact of this legislation will be devastating on apple juice concentrate producers in Western Australia, with consequent serious disadvantages flowing on to the growers. I think it is worth while spelling out again that if the Tasmanian senators are willing to stand up for their constituents they will help to save a very important industry in Tasmania, the Tasmanian berry fruit juice industry and the concentrates from that. I have had an indication that the blackcurrant industry is in some jeopardy as a result of the proposal inherent in this change and that Tasmania, along with Western Australia and probably all States, will suffer simply because we have what was seen as one kind of anomalous situation in the CER agreement being remedied by creating another anomalous situation. I ask the Government to reconsider this. To enable it to do that I ask the Opposition to support the proposal that clause 11 be omitted. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.18) —This really is not a sales tax matter. I do not wish to be offensive, but it is an attempt to amend the closer economic relations agreement through the device of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2). On those grounds alone I do not think it is appropriate to support it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.19) -Mr Chairman, this is a matter about which I and a number of other senators have had representations from the soft fruit industry in Tasmania and the Soft Fruit Industry Board. In particular the representatives of the Soft Fruit Industry Board, representing as they do the soft fruit industry in Tasmania, came to Canberra and had discussions with the Government about this matter. I am concerned, quite frankly, about the fact that this industry, a small but nevertheless very important industry in Tasmania because of its decentralised character, is being affected quite dramatically at a time when New Zealand is expanding, for example, its blackcurrant production at a significant rate. In fact, New Zealand plans to increase exports from 631 tonnes in 1980-81 to 9,000 tonnes in 1990-91 and has already begun to attempt to take mainland markets from a Tasmanian processor. The point is that we have an opportunity here to do something about it. I acknowledge what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has said. It is an attempt to use the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2), in effect, to interfere with an international agreement, namely the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. I would like to have had this amendment adopted so as to put a little bit of ginger into the renegotiation of that aspect of the CER so that this issue would not be left on the long finger. I seek from the Minister an assurance that it will not be left on the long finger and that continuous discussions will take place between the Government and the representatives of the soft fruit industry in Tasmania or wherever else people are affected so that a rapid resolution of this problem can be effected. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.23) —I would like just to repeat the matter that I raised with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, during the second reading debate on this Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2) to see whether the Government is prepared to consider an alternative to assist the growers of the fruit concerned during the period between this season and 1987 on a basis certainly not exceeding that which the current advantage to the New Zealanders will be. The industry in the various States has the advantage of its smallness and its diversification. There are pieces of it all over the place and they are all small and all in places where every State and the Commonwealth would want them to continue. We would like the Government to give us an undertaking that it will at least look at the industry with a view to seeing whether it can give an admittedly very small amount of compensation in terms of national revenue but an important amount for the people involved in the industries. I believe that there is a provision under the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand under which this could be looked at. I request that the Minister, possibly in conjunction with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), have a look at it with a view to seeing what can be done. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.24) —I will pass Senator Archer's request on to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) without prejudice. I have an additional comment to make on this matter. In replying in the second reading debate I raised the question of the Craigbourne Dam which the Tasmanian Government has recently announced it intends to construct. This very matter was raised in discussions between the Tasmanian Premier and me on or about 30 June this year when he was putting the case for the Craigbourne Dam. In reply to a question about what would be produced in the proposed irrigation area if the Dam were built, he provided a list of proposed products. Featured importantly on that list were berries, soft fruits and vegetables. I then observed that I recalled requests frequently coming to the Government from Tasmania seeking additional protection, or protection against imports from New Zealand. The Premier's reply was that that was just playing politics, clearly implying that there was, in fact, no substantial justification for demands for additional protection. Perhaps that is something Senator Archer might like to take up with the Premier as well. But I will pass the suggestion on to the Minister for Primary Industry. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.26) —In speaking to clause 13 of the Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2), which deals with suntan lotions, I move: (6) Page 7, Schedule, leave out clause 13. I refer in particular to the Government's new move in relation to cosmetics. The situation is that death rates from melanomas in Australia are the highest in the world. In my State of Queensland the death rate has doubled in the decade from 1951 to 1960. It doubled again in the decade 1961-70 and again in the following decade. It is not a minor problem. It is an extremely difficult problem in Queensland where, as I say, the incidence of melanoma heads the list throughout the world. Many organisations have conducted campaigns throughout Queensland and other States, probably the best known of which is the 'Slip, Slop, Slap' campaign that ran very heavily on television and radio last year and was very successful in getting people to use suntan lotions, to put on hats and so forth, to try in some way to cut down the ever rising incidence of melanoma. The Queensland Government, with the support of the Federal Government, is spending a considerable amount of funds in attempting to prevent melanoma. One of the best ways is to get individuals to take their own preventive measures, to look after their own health and thereby not become a burden on the community in this way. This amendment to the sales tax Bill exempts certain types of face creams, face oils, lotions, body creams and so forth which are in the nature of cosmetic preparations. The problem with this and, I think, with the approach the Government has taken in this matter, is that by and large the various items listed here are certainly cosmetic, but many of them are also extremely effective screening out agents of ultraviolet rays. I believe it matters not one whit whether an item is sold on the basis of being a cosmetic or on the basis of being a suntan lotion or a lotion to prevent burning, providing it does its job. I would have been quite happy to accept the Government moving an amendment here to put sales tax on ineffective items or to put the tax on in such a way that those which are extremely effective are not taxed, because the problem here is one of production. Because of this sales tax, particular production companies will not include this agent in their production line in the future because it involves an added cost. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Aussat Communications Satellite-Skyhawk Fighter Aircraft-Chairmanship of Northern Land Council The PRESIDENT —It being after 6.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.30) —I wish to bring three matters to the Senate's attention. I shall be brief. The first matter to which I refer is the Aussat communications satellite. I refer to a conference that took place in Alice Springs in July, which was attended by 100 delegates from all parts of Australia. Their views were then passed on to government. At the conference a delegation of 10 people was appointed. They came not only from the cities but also from the outback, and from most of the States. This delegation was to wait on the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, and outline to him the feelings of this most important conference which, as I have said, was very well attended. But time has passed by. It has been most difficult for the delegation and its leader, Mr Ian Tuxworth, a Minister in the Northern Territory Government, to come to an arrangement whereby the delegation could come to Canberra. What has happened now is that Mr Tuxworth has written to the Minister and has reminded him of the various motions that were passed at the conference. One of those motions recommended that control of the satellite should be vested in Aussat and that that body should continue as a relatively small, independent and effective organisation. A further motion was passed at the conference calling on the Government for the allocation of necessary financial and physical resources for modern telephone, television and radio services to Australians in remote areas as quickly as possible. Mr President, I seek leave to have this letter, dated 4 October, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION DARWIN Hon. M. Duffy, M.P.,Minister for Communications,Parliament House,CANBERRA, A.C.T . 2600. My Dear Minister, Thank you for your telex dated September 16 in which you state you are prepared to make time available to meet with the delegation nominated at the AUSSAT Conference held in Alice Springs on July 16, 1983. Since the Conference was held, I have attempted to ascertain from you a convenient date and time for the delegation to meet with you in Canberra. As you can appreciate, the lack of efficient communication and the logistics involved in co-ordinating ten people from all over Northern Australia to travel to Canberra to meet with you is not an easy task. In an attempt to help you, September 22 was suggested as a suitable date for the delegation to meet with you, however no response was received from your office. I enclose a copy of the AUSSAT Conference proceedings for your information. I would have liked to have handed this to you personally but time is passing quickly and I feel you should be aware of the Conference's feelings as early as possible, so that the representations from people most likely to be affected by the satellite project can be considered when final decisions are taken on how AUSSAT should be operated. Following your Government's firm undertaking that the satellite project would proceed two days prior to the Conference being held, the main concern of the meeting was the operation of the project. The Conference passed a motion (Page 113) that recommended control of the satellite should be vested in AUSSAT and that body should continue as a relatively, small independent and effective organisation. The Conference felt it would be unacceptable for the project to be channelled into the Telecom network. In the past Telecom had shown no desire or capacity to operate the satellite system, in fact in 1970 when the proposal was first put to them they rejected it. As you are aware this led to private sponsorship of the project and the recommendation of a Government task force that the satellite project should proceed independent of Telecom. The fact that the satellite system is so close to introduction is despite Telecom's indifference and due solely to private enterprise sponsorship. A further motion passed at the Conference called on the Government for the allocation of necessary financial and physical resources from modern telephone, television and radio services to Australians in remote areas as quickly as possible. On reading the proceedings of the Conference you will understand the critical need for effective communications in the vast area of Australia; an area of immense growth and vitality which even now plays a key part in Australia's export earnings as well as an area which is the gateway to Asia and all the possibilities of trade open to us there. Also enclosed are letters from the Gulf Local Authorities Development Committee addressed to the Prime Minister and yourself. The Council asked that these be handed to you when the delegation met with you. The message from the Conference in Alice Springs is that the satellite project is vital to the further advancement of Northern Australia and that effective telecommunications are the right of every Australian, not just those living in the heavily populated areas of the nation. Your sincerely, IAN TUXWORTH. Senator KILGARIFF —As Question Time is most competitive these days and at times it takes a while for an opportunity to come around to each senator, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question with reference to a report sent to the Minister for Communications regarding the proceedings of the Aussat Conference held in Alice Springs on Saturday 16 July: First, when will a decision be made on the operations of the Aussat satellite; secondly, does the Minister accept the report of the conference, and in particular the recommendations that control of the satellite be vested in Aussat and that the Aussat body continue as a relatively small, independent and effective organisation; thirdly, what plans does the Government have for the allocation of the necessary financial and physical resources to ensure that Australians in remote areas receive modern telephone, television and radio services as quickly as possible? This is an extremely important subject, particularly to the people of the outback and remote areas. I seek that information from the Government. The second question that I ask the Government relates to the Skyhawk fighter aircraft. Is the report correct that the Royal Australian Navy surplus Skyhawk fighters that were previously based on the aircraft carrier, Melbourne, were offered to the Royal New Zealand Air Force but were rejected as the price was considered too high? Having in mind the close association of New Zealand in defence, right back to the days of ANZAC, when the New Zealanders were complete comrades, and the fact that Australia and New Zealand are both signatories to the ANZUS Treaty, will the Australian Government offer the Skyhawks to the New Zealand Government at an acceptable price so that they become part of this region's defence? It is most unfortunate that because we no longer have an aircraft carrier the Skyhawk fighters are surplus. They could be sent to any part of the world, wherever there is a buyer prepared to pay the right price. I believe that such fighters should be retained in this area. The price should be such that it is attractive to New Zealand, so that they can enter the Royal New Zealand Air Force and become part of the defence of this region. Lastly, I refer to the tussle that is taking place regarding the chairmanship of the Northern Land Council in the Northern Territory. It was indicated in the Northern Territory News yesterday that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, has appointed an interim chairman to the Northern Land Council, a Mr Silas Maralugurra. The Chairman who has been replaced is Mr Gerry Blitner. On 7 October he sent a telegram to Mr Clyde Holding, saying: By letter of 23 August 1983, you extended the term of the Land Council and I claim that I am still the Chairman of the Northern Land Council on the basis that the Minister, under the provisions of the Act, extended the term of the Council including my own term. As such, the chairmanship was not declared vacant , and I ask you to immediately confirm that I am, under the Act, the legal Chairman of the Northern Land Council until midnight on 12 October 1983. I expect another election to take place then. I seek the Federal Government's advice as to why this action has been taken. First, as the Minister has claimed that he has the power to extend the term of the Northern Land Council, which he has done, he has appointed an interim chairman; but at the same time he says that he has no legal power to extend the chairmanship of the Northern Land Council. Of course, the Chairman is Mr Gerry Blitner. This matter has left a bad taste in the Northern Territory. It is unfortunate that there should be this wrangle over the chairmanship of the Northern Land Council. It is unfortunate because, as there is to be an election for the chairmanship of the Northern Land Council, Mr Gerry Blitner could have remained in the chair. But the Minister says that he has no legal power, although apparently he has legal power to do other things. I ask the Government for a report on this matter indicating why this action has been taken. Was it really so necessary to remove Mr Gerry Blitner from office? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.38) —Senator Kilgariff has raised three matters. On the basis of the information available to me, I shall do my best to answer at least two of them. As to the Aussat matter, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has supplied me with notes as follows: The planning of the satellite and the decisions relating to it are following a countdown leading to the scheduled launch date in late 1985, and planning is on schedule against that time-table. The Government recognises the need for control of the satellite to be effective and responsive to needs, as it does for the whole communications system. With regard to the actual form of organisation there is a need, in the national interest and to ensure the greatest economy, to ensure that its use is properly co-ordinated with the existing system. The Government is aware that there are a number of ways in which this might be done, and they are being closely examined. One of the purposes of the satellite and other programs, such as the remote or underserviced communities scheme in radio and television, is to eliminate the penalties with respect to communications which arise from remoteness and are well understood and, of course, acknowledged by the Government. The Government is actively supporting all of these programs and others such as School of the Air services as much as resources permit. To the extent that Senator Kilgariff has raised other questions that are not answered by that general statement, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister and seek such early reply as may be appropriate. As to the second question, concerning the possible sale of surplus Skyhawk aircraft to the Royal New Zealand Air Force, I am afraid I have no information on that presently to hand. I will refer Senator Kilgariff's expressions of concern to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and seek an early reply. As to the question of the chairmanship of the Northern Land Council, I do have a fairly detailed note from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) which, if the Senate will bear with me, I will do my best now to explain for the record. It is the case that Mr Blitner is no longer Chairman of the NLC. His term of office expired on 29 August 1983. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act provides that the Chairman shall hold office for three years but makes no provision for the extension of that term in any way. Under normal circumstances, the election of the NLC would have occurred prior to 29 August 1983 but the life of the present Council was extended-pursuant to provisions which do exist in the Act, unlike in relation to the chairmanship-to facilitate the expansion of membership for the Council. The particular circumstances, I am told, leading to the conclusion of Mr Blitner's term of office prior to the election of a new Council are as follows: On 12 August Mr Blitner and the Minister discussed the desirability of expanding the membership of the NLC so that greater representation could be given to Aboriginals in a number of communities throughout the Top End of the Northern Territory, particularly those residing on pastoral properties. In order to allow the necessary communications to be made and nominations to be received, the Minister agreed to extend the life of the present Council in order that this work could be carried out. On 19 August the Minister received a formal request from Mr Blitner to extend the life of the present Council to midnight on 26 September. He approved the request in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. On 21 September the Minister received a further request from the Acting General Manager, Mr Tietzel, to further extend the life of the existing Council to midnight on 12 October. This was to allow additional time for those communities who had yet to nominate members to respond and also to ensure that all members could travel to Darwin for the proposed elections. The Minister approved that request. Whilst the legislation, as I have indicated, allows for the Minister extending the life of a council, it does not provide any authority for the Minister to extend the term of office of the Chairman beyond the three years set down in the legislation. Consequently, as a result of the Minister extending the life of the Council as requested, the three year period during which Mr Blitner held office as Chairman did expire. The situation as it now stands is that a new Council with expanded membership will meet on 13 October-in a couple of days time-and elect a Chairman, Deputy Chairman and executive officers. The Minister says that while he regrets any misunderstanding that may have resulted as a consequence of extending the life of the Council, particularly in relation to the legal implications of such an extension, he is confident that all actions have been taken in good faith and within the law. He also remains confident that the new Council will be more representative of the Aboriginal people in the Top End of the Northern Territory . I believe that does at least clarify the basis for the Minister's actions in this respect. I will ensure that Senator Kilgariff's remarks are drawn to the Minister's attention. If there is any other aspect of Senator Kilgariff's remarks on which the Minister cares to add some further comment, I will ensure that that reply is forthcoming. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.44 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 13 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister requesting the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What was the rate of inflation for each calendar year from 1972 to 1982 inclusive. (2) What was the percentage increase in: (a) personal income tax; (b) wages and salaries in money terms; (c) total taxation; and (d) wages and salaries in real terms in each of those years. (3) What was the relationship between the rate of increase in real terms of wages and salaries and the increase in the rate of inflation in the periods: (a) 1973 to 1975); and (b) 1976 to 1982. (4) Did real wages and salaries increase at a rate proportionately faster when related to inflation in one period than in the other; if so, by how much. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are various indicators of inflation. Two commonly used measures relevant to the honourable senator's question are the consumer price index (CPI) and the implicit price deflator for private consumption expenditure (derived from the national accounts). Annual percentage increases from 1972 to 1982 in the CPI (six capital cities) and in the implicit private consumption deflator are shown in the following table: PER CENT CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 CPI 5.8 9.5 15.2 15.1 13.5 12.3 7.9 9.1 10.2 9.6 11.1 Implicit Private Consumption Deflator 6.1 8.6 15.7 16.7 14.3 10.6 8.4 9.6 10.1 8.9 10.4 mc1600 (2) The information sought is shown in the following table: PER CENT CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Personal income tax 15.8 13.5 51.9 14.1 29.0 21.3 0.4 14.1 14.8 18.9 22.0 Wages , salaries and supplements 9.8 16.9 28.7 19.3 15.1 10.3 8.3 9.7 14.5 15.0 15.0 Total taxation 6.9 12.9 43.6 17.0 13.8 24.7 5.4 10.8 16.9 19.3 16.0 Wages, salaries and supplements in real terms (a) 3.5 7.6 11.2 2.2 0.7 -0.3 -0.1 . . 4 .0 5.6 4.2 (a) Deflated by implicit private consumption deflator. (3) and (4) Information on the rate of increase in real wages and salaries and the rate of inflation over the periods 1973 to 1975 and 1976 to 1982 is shown in the following table: PER CENT CHANGE (Annual average compound rate) 1973-1975 1976-1982 Wages, salaries and supplements in real terms (a) 6.6 2.2 CPI 15.1 10.0 Implicit private consumption deflator 16.2 9.7 (a) Deflated by implicit private consumption deflator. Over each of the two periods shown, wages and salaries in money terms increased faster than prices, so that wages and salaries increased in real terms. Question No. 14 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What are the national and State by State figures on foreclosure of mortgages by banks, building societies and financial institutions for the years 1978-79 to 1981-82. (2) Did the former Government use such figures to establish the level of tax rebate on home loan repayments announced in the Budget; if not, what statistical base was used to calculate the level of rebate. (3) Can the Government be sure that the system is not open to abuse as an avenue for avoiding tax if there was no statistical base. (4) Does the Government intend to monitor the operation of the rebate scheme in light of suggestions that it may be open to tax avoidance. (5) Would the Government tighten up the conditions under which people are eligible for the rebate if there was evidence of tax avoidance. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Foreclosure is a legal process involving the transfer of title to a mortgagee and is rarely invoked in Australia. The general means of enforcing a mortgage security is for the mortgagee to sell as mortgagee-in-possession. The essential difference is that under the second approach any surplus funds are returned to the mortgagor and not retained by the mortgagee. Official statistics on foreclosures or sales by mortgagees-in-possession are not available. Against that background, I am advised that official comprehensive statistics on housing loan foreclosures for the period 1978-79 to 1981-82 are not available. This is due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the wide and varied number of financial institutions which lend for housing. In addition, not all of these institutions fall under Commonwealth Government legislation. For example, non-bank financial institutions, including building societies, fall under the authority of State Governments, while State banking, apart from that part of it extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, is constitutionally a matter of State responsibility. (2) For reasons of Cabinet government proprieties which the honourable senator will understand, I do not have access to any advice on the matter which may have formed part of the deliberative processes of the previous Government. (3) and (4) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that, as with many other claims that taxpayers make, his Office will rely primarily on voluntary compliance by taxpayers in making their claims for home loan interest rebates. It can be expected however that, in the light of the information to be provided in return forms, a reasonable percentage of taxpayers will be asked to supply evidence in support of the details on which their claims are based. The guidance notes being issued for taxpayer use in connection with the rebates indicate that the Taxation Office may ask for evidence to be supplied. A claim could also be checked during the course of normal investigation and audit activities. The Commissioner has also pointed out that the law provides severe penalties for taxpayers who make a return which is false in any particular. (5) If the circumstances were thought to warrant it, the Government would give serious consideration to measures designed to prevent tax avoidance through the rebate arrangements in line with its announced policy of giving high priority to combating tax avoidance and evasion. Question No. 122 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) What means does the Government use to monitor transfer pricing activities by trans-national companies engaged in resource projects in Adelaide. (2) What action is the Government taking to eliminate this avenue of massive tax avoidance. Senator Walsh —The Acting Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Minister for Trade, whose comments were sought on this matter, has advised that the Government, through the administration of export controls, monitors the prices, including transfer prices of trans-national companies, of exports of some resource commodities. Those controls provide the means for the Government to be informed of the terms and conditions of those exports and to pursue the objective of fair and reasonable prices. (2) Insofar as the question concerns taxation laws, the Commissioner of Taxation has advised that within the Australian Taxation Office there are specialist units which monitor international transactions by trans-national enterprises to detect profit shifting activities. For this purpose, information is obtained from a wide range of sources including government departments and agencies and, where relevant, from overseas taxation authorities under comprehensive double taxation agreements. New provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act introduced last year and effective from 27 May 1981 empower the Commissioner to deal more effectively with arrangements involving the shifting of profits out of Australia through transfer pricing and other means. The operation of these provisions is being closely monitored by the Commissioner of Taxation. Question No. 124 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: Will the Paraguayan businessman, Dr Shrian Oskar, need to obtain approval from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) before attempting to establish an oilseed crushing plant at Port Alma in Queensland; if so, will the FIRB be examining the business background of Dr Oskar before granting any such approval for this venture, and if not, what other avenues are open to the Federal Government to ensure that Dr Oskar's proposed crushing plant does not jeopardise the interests and viability of the Queensland oilseed industry. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Any proposal by a foreign interest to establish a new natural resource project involving total investment of $5m or more is examinable under the foreign investment policy. The formulation of recommendations to the Government by the Foreign Investment Review Board is based on an examination of the net economic and other benefits of the proposed foreign investment and the opportunities offered for Australian equity participation. In the examination of economic benefits, the Board takes into account the background and expertise of the foreign investor and the circumstances of the industry in which the investment is proposed. I might add that, as the honourable senator is no doubt aware, in 1979 the Commonwealth, under its regional development programme, advanced a loan of $1.6m to Bunbury Foods Pty Ltd, a company controlled by Dr Oskar, to assist in the construction of an oil-seed solvent extraction plant at Bunbury in Western Australia. This loan was subject to a guarantee by Dr Oskar that he would repay the loan in the event that Bunbury Foods defaulted. Such default has occurred and, on 31 May 1983, the Supreme Court of Western Australia handed down a judgement that Dr Oskar pay the Commonwealth $1.9m (plus costs) as repayment of principal and interest on the outstanding loan. Question No. 167 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) What is the number and percentage of the work force covered by superannuation broken down into public, private, and self-employed categories. (2) Will the Government be using this basic data before taking any action with regard to superannuation. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following figures show the superannuation coverage in September- November 1982 of employed persons who usually work 20 hours or more per week: SUPERANNUATION COVERAGE (a) Per- Category of wage and salary earners ('000) centage Government 1,090.2 70.0 Private 1,288.1 39.2 Not stated 19.7 36.0 Self- employed 208.8 25.0 Total 2,606.8 45.5 (a) Includes Defence Force personnel not living on bases. These are preliminary figures obtained from responses to the 1982 Income and Housing Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (some information derived from the survey was publicly released on 16 September 1983). (2) As the honourable senator would be aware, certain changes to the taxation of lump sum superannuation and kindred benefits were announced by the Treasurer in the Government's economic statement of 19 May 1983. The data generated on superannuation coverage from the income and housing survey will, of course, be taken into consideration in future Government deliberations in the superannuation area. Question No. 211 Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1983: (1) Did Treasury provide the Government with an after-tax cost of introducing an income test on the component of age and service pensions for persons aged 70 and over, which is presently paid free of any income test since these payments, when aggregated with the incomes, could be taxable depending on the level of the other income. (2) What are the after tax estimates compared with the figure in the economic statements showing a swing in budget outlay of $167m in 1983-84. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It was estimated that outlays would be reduced by some $167m in 1983-84 as a result of the new income test on the currently free-of-income-test component of the age and service pension for persons 70 years and over. Taxation effects were taken into account in determining the net effect on the deficit but these effects are likely to be negligible for 1983-84. Question No. 239 Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Under what conditions do associations obtain tax exemption status for donations to their funds. (2) Has there been an application by the organisation known as 'Right to Life' for such status; if so, what was the result. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Income tax deductions are authorised in respect of gifts to the funds, authorities or institutions specified in the relevant provisions of section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that deductions for gifts to the 'Right to Life Association' are not so authorised. Question No. 245 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Did the Treasurer say on 30 May 1983 that, although employees in superannuation schemes have contributions which are rebatable per tax, they frequently have insufficient eligible expenditure to earn them the benefit of the tax rebate for expenditure totalling more than $1590; if so, (a) how can the benefit of such a rebate be applicable to the greatest proportion of employees; and (b) will many more employees now be disadvantaged by the increase of the rebate from $1590 to $2000. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A concessional rebate at the standard rate of tax is available to taxpayers on the excess of expenditure above a threshold level on certain eligible items, including superannuation contributions and life insurance premiums up to $1200 per annum. In the Government's economic statement of 19 May 1983 I announced that the threshold expenditure level for rebate purposes would be increased from $1590 to $2000, with effect from the 1983-84 income year. I pointed out at that time that the then existing concessional rebate cost over $100m per annum but only about 10 per cent of taxpayers had sufficient total eligible expenditure to derive any benefit from it. In answer to the honourable senator's specific question: (a) In1981-82 the concessional rebate cost the revenue $110m. In order to spread such a benefit to the maximum number of taxpayers it would be necessary to reduce the tax of all taxpayers. If the rebate were abolished and the $110m spread as an equal benefit to each taxpayer, the average weekly tax paid would be reduced by about 35 cents per taxpayer. (b) It is estimated that around 6 per cent of taxpayers will be able to derive a benefit from the concessional rebate to operate in 1983-84. Question No. 260 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) How many supporting parents' benefits (SPB) are paid as portable pensions overseas. (2) What conditions must be fulfilled before a SPB may be portable. (3) What is the cost of paying SPB overseas. (4) How many staff are involved in the overseas payment of SPB, and at what cost. (5) How many, if any, contrived cases of overseas SPB were detected in: (a) 1980-81; (b) 1981-82; and (c) 1982-83. (6) How many claims for overseas SPB were rejected, terminated or lapsed in: (a ) 1980-81; (b) 1981-82; and (c) 1982-83. (7) Will the Minister be undertaking a review of portability provisions of SPB; if so, when will this take place. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The number of supporting parents' benefits being paid as portable pensions overseas at 30 June 1983 was 532. (2) Generally there is no barrier to the continued payment of supporting parents' benefit when the beneficiary leaves Australia provided the eligibility criteria for benefit continue to be satisfied. However a former resident who is granted a benefit on returning to live in Australia may not receive that benefit while overseas if he or she leaves Australia within twelve months of the date of return to Australia, unless there are unforeseen circumstances. (3) Expenditure on overseas payment of supporting parents' benefit was as follows for the financial years indicated: 1980-81 $0.9m, 1981-82 $1.3m, 1982-83 $2.0m. (4) It is estimated that the equivalent of approximately one person, nationally , would be involved in the overseas payment of supporting parents' benefit at an estimated cost of $31,000 (which includes salary and all costs relating to accommodation, furniture et cetera). (5) In the years specified, one contrived case involving nine claims for supporting parents' benefit was detected. This occurred in 1981-82. (6) The statistics requested by the honourable senator are not available. (7) The present arrangements for the portability of supporting parents' benefit , along with the portability of other pensions will be examined in the context of the Government's consideration of the matter of reciprocal Social Security agreements. On 29 April I announced jointly with the Italian Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs the commencement of negotiatoins with Italy and these are now in progress. If a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be reached it could be used as a basis for agreements with other countries. Question No. 275 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Has the Minister for Trade's attention been drawn to reports that France is considering producing large quantities of bomb grade plutonium from its Superphenix fast breeder reactor now under construction to make large numbers of nuclear weapons; if so, will this be taken into account when considering renewing uranium exports to France? Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of two articles in Nucleonics Week of 28 April 1983 which contained reports that France was not excluding the possibility of using plutonium produced in the Superphenix breeder reactor in the French nuclear weapons program. I presume these are the reports to which the senator referred. All uranium supplied to France by Australia is subject to a pledge of peaceful, non- explosive use and to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, (under the agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic concerning nuclear transfers between Australia and France, signed on 7 January 1981). The Australian Government is currently undertaking a wide ranging review of Australia's uranium development and export policies. French nuclear developments, including the fast breeder program, are included in that review. Question No. 277 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has Indonesia discussed the possibility of buying Australian uranium; if so , what is the Government's attitude to such sales? (2) Did the Prime Minister discuss the possibility of selling Australian uranium to Indonesia during his recent visit to that country? Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is not aware of any approaches by Indonesia for the supply of Australian uranium. (2) No. Question No. 291 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Do hotel and motel owners require approval from Telecom Australia for the amount they charge to guests for telephone calls, including registrations for local, STD and ISD calls and for placing reverse charge or credit card calls; if so, what are the current maximum approved charges; if not, are hotel and motel owners able to set any level for guests' telephone calls. 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: Telecom allows hotel and motel owners to apply a surcharge on telephone calls originated by guests who make use of the hotel/motel's telephone facilities. The current maximum surcharges which may be applied by hotels/ motels are as follows : A. Where the hotel/motel telephonist obtains the called party for the guest (i) where the call is dialled directly by the hotel/ motel operator- (a) Local calls- Surcharge of up to 35 cents per call. (b) Long distance calls- Surcharge of up to 35 cents for the first meter registration and up to 10 cents for each additional meter registration, in respect of each call. (ii) Where the hotel/motel operator books the call with an exchange telephonist- (a) Local calls- Surcharge of up to 35 cents per call. (b) Long distance calls- Surcharge of up to 25 per cent of total charge levied by Telecom. B. Where the guest dials direct from his/her room and there is a record of meter registrations but nothing else (i) Where the extension telephone is restricted to local calls in an outgoing direction- Surcharge of up to 35 cents per call. (ii) Where the extension telephone can be used to dial local and long distance calls- First 10 meter registrations-Surcharge of up to 35 cents each. Additional meter registrations-Surcharge of up to 10 cents each. C. Where the guest dials the calls direct from his/her room and the hotel/motel has a complete record of all outgoing calls (i) Local calls- Surcharge of up to 35 cents each. (ii) Long distance calls- Surcharge of up to 35 cents for the first meter registration and up to 10 cents for each additional meter registration, in respect of each call. Note 1: In the case of an outgoing reverse charge, credit card or particular person call or an incoming reverse charge or particular person call, a further surcharge of up to $3 may be applied by the hotel/motel. Note 2: The maximum surcharge applied for any one call shall not exceed $25. Question No. 292 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Did the Queensland Government accept its allocation from the Federal Government for the mortgage and rent relief scheme for 1982-83; if not, for what reason. (2) What was the Queensland Government's allocation. (3) Did other States accept allocations from the Federal Government for the mortgage and rent relief scheme; if so, what were their allocations and were the funds put to use in 1982-83. (4) Is the Queensland Government participating in the scheme in 1983-84. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Queensland Government did not accept its 1982-83 allocation under the mortgage and rent relief scheme. Queensland was not prepared both to administer the scheme and meet the matching requirements. (2) The Queensland Government's allocation for 1982-83 was $3.11m. (3) All other States and both Territories participated in the mortgage and rent relief scheme in 1982-83. Details of the Federal Government's allocation for this Scheme for 1982-83 to other States and the Territories were as follows: State-Territory Allocation $m New South Wales 7.03 Victoria 5.30 South Australia 1.76 Western Australia 1.74 Tasmania 0.57 Northern Territory 0.18 Australian Capital Territory 0.31 16.89 Total expenditure of Federal Government funds by participating States and Territories in that year was $16.043 million. (4) A review of the guidelines for the Scheme has recently been completed in co -operation with the States and Territories. As a result of this review States will be given increased flexibility in the operation of the scheme to meet housing needs more effectively. The Queensland Government has now announced that it will be participating in the scheme from 1983-84. Question No. 312 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) In terms of values, what percentage of all imports to Australia for the year ended 30 June 1982 entered: (a) duty free or at a rate of 5 per cent or less, (b) at a rate of between 5 and 30 per cent, and (c) at a rate in excess of 30 per cent. (2) What is the average rate of duty over the total value of imports. (3) To what general categories of goods do the rates of duty in excess of 30 per cent apply. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) duty free under 5 per cent. 69.0 per cent; (b) 5 per cent and under 30 per cent. 17.7 per cent; (c) 30 per cent and over. 9.7 per cent. The balance (3.6 per cent) comprised fixed rates, other non-percentage rates, rates not elsewhere specified and the rate for imported petrol for which excise duty was paid. (2) 9.3 per cent. (3) A list of particular items bearing a general rate of duty in excess of 30 per cent can be extracted from the Schedules of the Customs Tariff Act and supplied to the honourable senator should he wish to have this. The following is a broad list of the main items where the rate of duty is in excess of 30 per cent: clothing, footwear and certain textiles assembled passenger motor vehicles certain machinery (engines, cranes, loaders and parts thereof, etc.) certain electrical appliances plywoods some petrochemicals (synthetic rubber, high density polyethylene, pigments, etc .) sound and recording equipment including tapes, etc. Information for the first two parts of the question was provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which has advised: (i) the ranges shown in part (1) are the nearest available to those requested. (ii) the total value of imports cleared for home consumption, used to calculate the average rate of duty given in part (2), excludes the value of imported petrol for which excise duty was paid. Question No. 342 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 September 1983: (1) What is the purpose of the spouse carer's pension. (2) What pensions or benefits will it replace. (3) How many people (men) will be eligible, and from which benefits/pensions will they become ineligible. (4) What measures will be undertaken to make potential recipients aware of the availability of this pension. (5) What will be the estimated take-up rate of this pension and what is the full year cost. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) To provide income support for men providing constant care and attention for their severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner wives at home. (2) The spouse carer's pension will be a completely new form of assistance. However it is expected that most men who currently receive special benefit because they are required to provide long-term care for an invalid wife will transfer to the pension. (3) It is not possible to estimate accurately the likely number of recipients of the new pension or its cost. A best guess is that some 2,000 men may be eligible for the spouse carer's pension at a cost of some $2.3m in the current financial year and $5.0m in a full year. Recipients of the pension will be ineligible to receive simultaneously an age or invalid pension, unemployment, sickness or special benefit or a service pension. (4) My Department is currently examining special measures to make the spouse carer's pension more widely known to potential recipients. (5) No accurate estimate of take-up can be made. It is not known how many pensioner wives are in need of constant care and attention, nor how many eligible husbands, now in the labour force, will be encouraged to provide such care. See also (3) above. Senator Walsh —On 10 May 1983 (Hansard, page 307), Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the Budget deficit and whether any of the $1.5m appropriated by the previous Government for publicising its policies on the issue of the deficit had been spent. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question: The initial appropriation in Vote 978-01 of the Treasury for the special information campaign was $1,500,000; of that appropriation $442,748.95 was spent on the 'Family Budget' advertising campaign of the former Government. Senator Gareth Evans —On 24 May 1983 (Hansard, page 699), Senator Cook asked the following question, without notice: Has the Attorney-General seen an article headed 'Court finds Tubemakers guilty of WA steel ''fix'' ', which appeared in yesterday's Australian Financial Review ? Did the article report that companies associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, namely, Steel Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd and Tubemakers of Australia Ltd, and a Steel Supplies director, Mr Barry Neil Bint, have been convicted by Mr Justice Toohey under section 45 of the Trade Practices Act of ' illegally attempting to control steel prices in Western Australia'? Is the Minister able to say how much these price fixing activities have cost consumers in Western Australia? Will the Government consider amending trade practices law to enable injured consumers to take a class action against offenders of this type? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In answering Senator Cook, I said if I could get further information about how much the price fixing activities in question may have cost consumers, I would advise the honourable senator accordingly. On 26 August 1983, Toohey J. fined the respondents a total of $27,000 plus costs in respect of the attempted breaches of the Trade Practices Act. He stated that no loss or damage had been suffered in the case except by the respondents themselves. He also stated that, had the steel merchants arrived at an arrangement or understanding to control discounts, there would have been a serious infringement of section 45 of the Trade Practices Act and one with serious commercial consequences. Senator Walsh —On 26 May 1983 (Hansard, page 899), Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning whether the new tax arrangements to apply to lump sum superannuation and kindred payments would apply to such payments at death. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Following representations and submissions to the Government on the scope of the new lump sum tax measures, it has been decided to exclude from their ambit lump sums paid by a superannuation fund or employer to the estate, widow, widower or dependants of a deceased fund member or employee. Such payments will therefore continue to be exempt from tax in the recipient's hands. It was never proposed to include within the new lump sum tax arrangements non-superannuation life policies purchased by individuals. Senator Walsh —On 20 September 1983 (Hansard, page 762), Senator Lajovic asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Can the Minister obtain for the Senate the following information regarding the composition of the consumer price index basket: Firstly, what is the present composition of the basket? Secondly, who decides, and on what basis, the actual composition of the basket? Finally, is there any intention to change the present composition in the near future? The Treasurer has provided the following supplementary information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Statistician is responsible for producing the consumer price index-CPI-and for determining its composition and method of construction. In July 1982, at the time when the tenth series of the CPI was introduced, the Australian Statistician published an information paper 'Review of the Consumer Price Index'-Catalogue No. 6450.0-which covers the questions asked by the honourable senator. That paper describes how the review was undertaken and includes details of the areas of expenditure included in the index, the relative weighting assigned to each in compiling the index, and information on the goods and services for which prices are collected. Copies of this paper are available in the Parliamentary Library and I am making separate arrangements for a copy to be sent to the honourable senator. The Statistician advises that there are no plans to change the composition of the CPI in the near future as the last major review has only recently been completed.