Tuesday, 13 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Wynyard Airport, Tasmania To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 551 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 17 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 Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 116 citizens), Harradine (from 266 citizens) and Messner (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State- Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State-Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from nine citizens), Georges (from 67 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from eight citizens) and Lewis (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally-funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Maguire (from 40 citizens), Robert Ray (from 77 citizens) and Sibraa (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved and in some cases, negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government will reconsider its decision, and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to Local Government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 29 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to collective agreements regulating the terms and conditions of employment of employees of corporations, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his capacity as representing both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to an interview with the Minister for Foreign Affairs this morning in which he said that he had had a telephone conversation with Secretary of State George Shultz who is in Madrid, in relation to the confusion and head of steam which has arisen over the statements by the Minister for Defence, concerning the visit of HMS Invincible, and its implications for visits by allied naval vessels, particularly from the United States. I ask the Attorney- General: Have officers from the United States Embassy concluded the discussions with officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs which Mr Hayden said would be held this morning? Have these talks 'nipped in the bud'-to use Mr Shultz's words-any misunderstanding, confusion or ambiguity which has resulted from the confusing statements by the Minister for Defence in relation to the HMS Invincible visit? What assurances are being sought, have been sought or have been given to the United States at today's talks? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, did speak with the United States Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, by telephone this morning. Mr Shultz was in Lisbon at the time, in transit. Mr Shultz volunteered that there was a need to 'nip in the bud', as Senator Durack said, very quickly any misunderstanding which might have been generated in the public commentary on this matter, especially insofar as that commentary might be related to United States attitudes. In consequence of this discussion, the United States Charge d'Affaires, Mr Lyne, was shortly to have discussions with the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am not clear as to whether those discussions have taken place or are now taking place; they were certainly, as I understand it, to take place very soon. The discussion between Mr Shultz and Mr Hayden was, I am told, extremely cordial. Secretary of State Shultz stressed the strength and the welcome nature of the relationship that existed between Australia and the United States. He particularly expressed his pleasure at the fact that both the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, have established a confident and mutually self-respecting association with United States Administration officials such as himself. Such association allows direct and immediate communication such as that which took place on this occasion to take place on matters of interest to the respective parties to the Australia-United States alliance. It is very apparent from the terms of this exchange this morning that the United States Administration does not share the concern being unjustifiably developed in some quarters about what are the purported as distinct from factual circumstances about HMS Invincible; nor does the United States Administration wish to contribute to that concern. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy . I refer to representations made over recent months by the operators of the Greenvale nickel project in northern Queensland for Commonwealth assistance by way of exemption from the excise on fuel oil used by that project. I ask the Minister: Has the Government considered these representations? Is the Commonwealth able to offer Greenvale any assistance? Senator WALSH —The Commonwealth has received representations from a number of people, not the least of whom are Senator Reynolds and Mr Lindsay, the member for Herbert, who have both made very strong representations on this question. The Commonwealth has decided to remit the excise. There are two ways in which this can be done: Either by way of a section 96 grant to Queensland to compensate the company for the excise which is paid; or the possible alternative of some by-law type arrangement-I do not want that to be taken too literally- exempting that particular mineral processing plant from the excise on fuel oil. The principal reason the Commonwealth has taken that decision is that fuel oil used in the Greenvale nickel smelter is not just used as a fuel but as a chemical reductant. Exemption from excise of fuel oil used for that purpose is consistent with the arrangements under which petrochemical plants which use fuel oil as chemical feed stock are exempt from the excise. In those circumstances, both the petrochemical plants and the Greenvale nickel smelter, since they are not using fuel oil as a fuel per se, do not have the option of using alternative fuels. The Greenvale plant is unique among mineral processing plants in that the fuel oil is not used as a fuel. As a result of the Commonwealth decision to exempt in one way or another the Greenvale project from excise on fuel oil, at present production levels within that smelter the company will benefit by about $1.5m in a full year. I spoke yesterday to the Queensland Government about this matter, with a request that it consider some type of what could roughly be called matching assistance, given that because of the depressed price of nickel and a number of other factors, this project has been marginal for some time. The Queensland Government collects by way of overt taxes from the project at present levels of production about $140,000 in royalties and $780,000 in payroll tax. I can understand, of course, that the Queensland Government may be reluctant to consider remitting or reducing either of those charges because it would create precedence for extension to other projects. It would be difficult to quarantine a charge of that nature. However, the rail freights charged by the State railways for the transport of ore do include a profit component which I am advised is probably in the vicinity of $1.5m I believe that the Queensland Government should give very serious consideration to reducing the rail freight currently being charged to that extent, particularly in view of the fact that the 240 kilometre railway was paid for by the company, along with the locomotives and the rolling stock which operate on it, and transferred as a gift to the Queensland State railways on 1 January 1975. I do not know whether the Queensland Government will consider our request seriously. I am somewhat alarmed that, I understand, the Queensland Government had earlier had a proposal to escalate the pure profit component-in other words, a hidden tax-of that rail freight and that that matter is currently before the Supreme Court of Queensland. But the Commonwealth has made its contribution to secure the continued operation of this plant, recognising its importance to the Townsville region. Although we have clearly no control over what the Queensland Government does, we sincerely hope that the Queensland Government will make a similar gesture. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Hawke Government sought, and, if so, will it continue to seek, declarations from allied governments as to whether naval ships visiting Australian ports are carrying nuclear weapons? Did not the Attorney-General concede on Friday that for sound operational reasons our major allies neither confirm nor deny the carriage of nuclear weapons on board their war ships? So what point is there in continuing with this policy? If it is to be pursued, and given the inevitable response, does not this mean that we are likely to witness a repetition of the HMS Invincible fiasco every time a possibly nuclear armed allied warship is in need of Australian docking facilities? Is this a sensible policy to pursue towards our allies? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is long-standing policy applied by conservative governments as well as Australian Labor Party governments that naval vessels using dry docking facilities in Australia have to disarm. Certain exemptions can be made under specified conditions but that is and has been always the practice. There is no question that Australia could ever allow the safety of the crew of any ship, whether it be naval or merchant marine, to be put at serious risk by refusing to provide assistance for a vessel suffering from some disability that endangers its sea-going capacity. But I understand that was not the situation in this case. To the extent that there is any continuing ambiguity or confusion about these matters and about the preliminary matters thereto, to which Senator Hamer referred-questions in turn being put to the people running those ships which want to dry dock-these matters will be the subject of consultation with our major allies so that there is a clear understanding about how these established practices should apply. I should add, however, that most of this discussion is largely hypothetical and theoretical because the situation remains as I stated in this place last week and as Mr Scholes has stated on several occasions. There has been no question of a refusal or prohibition of entry of the Invincible to dry docking in Australia because no actual request has been made to Australia by the British authorities. It is true that the possibility of dry docking has been canvassed by the British but, in the event, they decided that dry docking would not be required in Sydney for what they described as operational reasons. Senator HAMER —I ask a supplementary question on the Attorney-General's rather curious reference to the ship being disarmed, which I think is only one example of a very poor brief. On that question I ask him: How much closer to the centre of the city of Sydney would be HMS Invincible if it were in the Captain Cook dry dock rather than alongside Garden Island? What increased dangers would be involved in the ship being in dry dock? Senator GARETH EVANS —My brief, for the benefit of Admiral Hamer or anyone else, does not extend to the answer to that particular question but I will seek further particulars from the Minister concerned and let Senator Hamer know. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and it refers to the Government's decision to float the dollar. Can the Minister indicate the likely impact this decision will have on import competing industries, particularly the motor vehicle and white goods manufacturing industries, both of which I add are crucial to my home State of South Australia? Is there any cause for the alarm being expressed by metal trades industry employers and unions over the possibility of job losses in these import competing industries? Senator WALSH —If, as a result of the decision to float the Australian dollar, the Australian exchange rate was higher than it otherwise would have been, the answer to Senator Foreman's first question is yes, such a movement would adversely affect not only import competing industries but also exporting industries-in fact probably more so exporting industries. The second question he asked was whether there was any cause for the alarm being expressed by metal trades industry employers and unions and so on at prospective job loss. The answer to that is no, not at this stage. There is no cause for alarm because there is no evidence to suggest that the value of the Australian dollar has gone up as a result of the decision to float it. Indeed, to this stage the evidence suggests that the value of the Australian dollar is, as a result of the decision to float it, lower than it would have been had previous practices been continued . Of course, the background to this is that in March and late February, largely because of grossly irresponsible statements by the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, the foreign currency speculators raided the Australian dollar. As a result of that successful raid-I stress 'successful' because it was assisted by the present Leader of the Opposition and without dissent from any member of his party-foreign speculators succeeded in stealing-I do not think that is too strong a word to use-from the citizens of Australian several hundred million dollars because of the devaluation of the exchange which was caused by that run on the dollar. The decision by the present Leader of the Opposition to try to induce a run of the dollar followed, of course, the decision of the discredited former Prime Minister to try to induce a run on the banks. The run on the banks piece of irresponsibility did not succeed but, lamentably, the run on the dollar piece of irresponsibility did. In an inverse way foreign currency speculators have been trying to do the same thing in the last few weeks and have been pouring foreign capital into Australia with the view to forcing a revaluation, an upward movement in the value of the Australian dollar, and then picking up the resultant gains from their anti-social activities. With a view to putting an end to that attempt yet again to raid and rob the citizens of Australia, the Reserve Bank of Australia tried in several days of last week to get through to foreign speculators the message that their antisocial activities would not be rewarded and it adjusted the exchange rate of the Australian dollar back to 0.9025 vis-a-vis the United States dollar. Of course on Friday, as is well known, it suspended trading in the dollar altogether pending a decision by the Government. That decision was announced by the Treasurer late on Friday afternoon and was a decision to float the dollar. As a consequence there was some movement in the exchange rate yesterday. I am going through these figures quickly but at one stage the Australian/United States dollar ratio peaked at just over 92c but fell to 91.5c towards the end of the day's trading. The latest advice which I have been given is that the rate today was in fact down to 90.25c. That is the level to which the Reserve Bank had depressed it, quite deliberately, last Thursday afternoon. Bearing in mind that that was a conscious decision by the Reserve Bank to try to warn off the foreign speculators, it would seem that, as a result of the floating of the dollar, up to this stage the exchange rate is somewhat lower than it would have been in the absence of that decision. I give due credit to the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition for supporting the Government's decision made last Friday. It was supported also by a surprisingly diverse group of people-exporters, the National Farmers Federation and miners-and received general support throughout the community. There was some criticism, although qualified criticism, by a respected economic journalist in the Melbourne Age. There was also criticism by Dr Theophanous, on the extraordinary ground that he had not been consulted on the matter, as if it were customary for a Treasurer or a government to consult widely as to whether they were going to change the value of the Australian dollar. I found that criticism rather bizzare. The decision was criticised also by Mr Kevin Parry in Perth. He is a director of Western Mining Corporation Ltd. His basic rule, when commenting on Government policy, seems to be to oppose everything the Labor Government does . The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is tending to debate the answer now. Senator WALSH —I am just about to close, Mr President. He was out of step with the mining industry. In general, the Government decision was broadly and well received. The judgment, at least to this stage, has been vindicated. Senator CHIPP —My question also is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I hope his answer is as full and informative as were the answers to his two Australian Labor Party colleagues. Are there three contracts for uranium from Mary Kathleen involving 4,225 short tonnes of yellowcake yet to be fulfilled? As Mary Kathleen mine was closed over a year ago and its plant sold, where is the uranium coming from to fulfil these contracts? Is the answer that the Australian uranium is stockpiled at present at conversion or enrichment plants in Canada or France? Does India have a nuclear bomb today essentially because of Canada? Is nuclear testing in the Pacific taking place because of France? Will the Minister inform me what safeguards apply to these stockpiles outside Australian jurisdiction and tell me how we can be absolutely confident that our yellowcake, totally beyond our control, is not being diverted into nuclear weapons? Senator WALSH —The first question was: Are contracts for some 4,200 short tonnes of yellowcake yet to be fulfilled by Mary Kathleen? I am advised that the answer is no. Approximately 200 tonnes of yellowcake has been committed under contract and is yet to be delivered. I understand that that is currently in enrichment plants or somewhere in the delivery pipeline, probably in Canada and France. That answer deals with the second and third question as well. The fourth question related to India having an atomic device. Of course, as is well known, India does have an atomic device which was exploded in 1974 and which was constructed from plutonium derived from uranium supplied by Canada but, I note importantly, used in a research reactor and not in a power reactor. That is an important distinction because I am advised that-- Senator Chipp —Doesn't the bomb that comes from that hurt anybody? Is that why it is different? Senator WALSH —Hear me out. While it is possible to make atomic weapons from fuel rods irradiated in a power reactor, power reactors are not the ideal source of raw materials for atomic weapons. Senator Chipp —Pathetic. It is still a bomb, isn't it? Senator WALSH —Does Senator Chipp want to know the facts? The point I am making is that somebody whose sole ambition was to make a bomb would not go down the power reactor route towards making that bomb. I believe that is an important distinction. Bombs can be made from research reactors, one of which, incidentally operates in Australia, although it is not operated with the intention of producing plutonium to make atomic weapons. The final question that Senator Chipp asked concerned safeguards. I have given a fairly full answer on this before, to the effect that Australian uranium is subject to bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements with all customers which require an input and output balance for Australian uranium going to enrichment plants or reactors. I am advised it is not possible to get a precise balance of what goes in and what goes out; there is always a very small quantity not accounted for. But in addition, as a backup safeguard to the in and out counting, those plants are also subject to inspection by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. I say, with respect, that I am disappointed with the answer because the Minister's Department has had that question since last Friday. Do I take it from the Minister's answer that only 200 tonnes of Australian yellowcake is stockpiled overseas, in France and Canada , which is bound for Japan and America to fulfil contracts? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Department that, yes, 200 tonnes of yellowcake is yet to be delivered and that delivery has actually been made of all the other amounts specified in Mary Kathleen contracts. I have not had a chance to check with the Department today. I saw a note from it- Senator Chipp —But why are we storing it in Canada to sell it to America? Senator WALSH —I am not sure to whom it is ultimately to be delivered. I am advised that the 200 tonnes in question is currently in conversion plants in France and in Canada. I am not aware at this stage of the country to which it is ultimately to be delivered. Senator PRIMMER —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the allegation in the Bulletin of 13 December that Mr J. E. Ryan, the head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, was caught out in falsifying information in a letter to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Don Willesee? Is this allegation correct and, if so, will Mr Ryan be stood down from his post while matters pertaining to the Sheraton fiasco are investigated in order to prevent any chance of a cover-up? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer this further allegation in relation to Mr Ryan to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for such answer as he may care to provide. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General, representing the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs. I refer the Attorney-General to the following extract of words of the Minister for Defence on the AM program this morning: But with regard to the Invincible, the British Government advised us that it would not be taking up the offer of docking in Sydney. When was the offer made and at what level was it communicated to the Royal Navy? Is the Minister able to advise the Senate just what were the terms and conditions of the offer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am afraid I have no information before me as to the precise words utilised by Mr Scholes on AM this morning and I am somewhat surprised to hear the suggestion being made that there was some formal offer of dry docking. That is not my understanding of what occurred, but clearly this is another matter on which my brief, undernourished as it is, will need supplementation by some further request to the Minister concerned. I will do my best to get an instant reply. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Attorney-General seen Press reports that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham, has said that despite a letter he received from the Prime Minister on the subject, he intends to introduce the Northern Territory Criminal Code on 1 January 1984? Is there any action which the Attorney can take to protect the people of the Northern Territory from a code which has been described as one of the most regressive, outmoded and unfortunately drafted pieces of legislation in the history of this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen reports that Mr Everingham has been less than his usual gracious self in responding to the Prime Minister's reasonable, moderate, constructive and responsible proposals to him in his letter of 17 November with respect to the Code. Indeed, I understand that Mr Everingham's graciousness has not so far extended to the point even of replying to Mr Hawke's letter which Mr Everingham was kind enough, I understand, to describe as a crude piece of electioneering. In fact, it was very far from that. The Prime Minister's letter, which was tabled or incorporated in Hansard by me in an answer a few weeks ago, reflects a very serious concern which many responsible Australians feel about the terms not by any means of the entire Code, but certainly a number of provisions of it, which break innovative ground in establishing new kinds of criminal offence which do so in many respects in ways that have hitherto been thought incompatible with State or Territory law as distinct from Commonwealth law, and which in many other instances produce results which are quite at odds with fundamental principles of criminal justice. I refer in particular to questions about necessary state of mind in offences involving intoxication. They are serious and important matters which have been raised with Mr Everingham and it is to be hoped that the Northern Territory Chief Minister will take seriously the points that have been made and reply sensibly and constructively to them. The problem is that the Code comes into force in its present form on 1 January. The Government would certainly prefer that a co-operative approach were adopted to the resolution of this matter, following discussions that have taken place at officer level between someone from my Department and the relevant people in the Northern Territory. Certainly we would prefer that any changes that were to be made to the Code were made within the Northern Territory, rather than by virtue of any exercise by the Commonwealth of its residual constitutional power over the Territory and, in particular, the powers that it possesses under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. In the event that it becomes apparent that Mr Everingham, when he gets around to replying to Mr Hawke's letter, will not co-operate in any kind of constructive way in trying to remove these sources of very serious concern, it will be necessary for the Government to review its position further on this matter. Until then, I think any further discussion of this whole issue would be premature. We continue, as I say, to nurture the hope that some kind of reason and sanity will prevail and that it will not be necessary for any more extreme action to be taken by the Commonwealth. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw his attention to an answer by the Minister for Defence in the House of Representatives last week when he said: The question of the visit to Sydney by the HMS Invincible has been under active discussion for some considerable time. When did the discussions begin? At what level were they conducted? At what point in the discussions and for what reasons did the British High Commissioner seek an interview with the Minister for Defence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no information on the particular matters to which the honourable senator referred. I will seek it as soon as possible from the Minister for Defence. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I ask him: Is he satisfied with the operation of the repatriation hospital system at present? Senator GIETZELT —I think in a short answer, I would have to say no, I am not satisfied with the repatriation hospital system. I believe that governments in the past have placed too much emphasis on cash benefits for veterans and paid insufficient attention to the maintaining of a separate hospital system comparable with that provided by the States. When I acknowledge that, I do not wish in any way to be derogatory about the administrators of the repatriation general hospital system because I think they have been victims of government policies which have been designed to maintain the hospitals as they were rather than as they should progress. We live in a world today where most of the State hospital systems have had access to specialised equipment and new technology which have kept them abreast of the developments in medicine. That has not occurred at the same rate in our repatriation general hospitals. It is my view, having looked at the hospital system, that the repatriation general hospitals generally could be put in a second rate category rather than in a first rate category in which I believe they should be. I point out that, having regard to the fact that the great bulk of veterans are now in the 60 and 80 age group and, therefore, would be obviously eligible for treatment in such hospitals, it is clear that this Government will have to spend a lot more money on equipment to modernise our repatriation general hospital system. As I have indicated, I do not in any way criticise the dedicated staff who work within our hospital system. I have been recently advised by the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, that his officers have been looking at representations that I made in respect of the last Budget. Whilst there were very substantial increases in allocations to our hospital system, the Minister's advice to me is that he agrees with the Department of Veterans' Affairs that there does need to be a great deal more work done in the hospital system in the provision of specialised equipment, and that is something that will be attended to in the budget considerations for 1984 -85. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I again refer the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence to the statement of the Minister for Defence that: . . . the British Government advised us that it would not be taking up the offer of docking in Sydney. My question is in four parts. First, what is the Government's understanding why the captain of HMS Invincible did not accept the offer? Secondly, is there any reason known to the Government why the captain might conclude that the maintenance and repairs of the ship would not be done expertly and speedily and the ship released in reasonable time to continue its journey? Thirdly, did the Government give any assurances to the captain of Invincible that the work would be performed effectively and speedily? If not, why not? Finally and fourthly, alternatively, did the Government or the captain have any reason to believe that this might not be so and that such assurances could not be given? Senator GARETH EVANS —The only answer I am able to give to Senator Sir John Carrick is essentially the answer that I have given previously: That my understanding is that no formal request was made by the British authorities to Australia; that, to the extent that any language was used by the Minister for Defence suggesting that an offer of dry docking facilities was made, I will need to check that further and establish with him whether that is in fact (a) what he said and (b) what he intended to say; and, thirdly, that, to the extent that the question of dry docking was ever canvassed between the British authorities and made the subject of discussion between them and the Australian authorities, the decision by the British authorities, in the event, was that the dry docking would not be required for what were described as operational reasons. Now whether those operational reasons extended to a consideration of the time that would be taken, bearing in mind the non-essential character apparently of the repairs in question so far as ensuring the seaworthiness of the ship is concerned, I do not know. I will have to seek further information. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Would the Attorney-General, in the light of his last few comments, look at any specific information he could give me on each of the four specific parts of my question and let the Senate know? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will, of course, as I always do, communicate the text of the question to the Minister concerned and elicit from him such response as he may be prepared to make. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to the recent statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, regarding alternative job creation proposals. Can the Minister say what reaction the Government has had to the concept of community co-operatives since it was first mooted by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, earlier this year? Is the Government giving serious consideration to developing a wider range of options to cope with future unemployment and labour projections? Senator BUTTON —I cannot say what response the Government has had to the suggestions made about community co-operatives as at least a partial solution to the unemployment problem. I think I can offer the comment that whatever response there has been has been pretty mute. Nonetheless, that is a matter which, together with a wide range of other matters, is under consideration by the Government. As the honourable senator is aware, the Government has been looking at issues involving part time employment. Various statements have been made by Ministers relating to the length of the working life in Australia. I think it is fair to say that there has been no decision on any of these matters at the moment. However, they constitute a variety of issues which are being canvassed. In due course the Government will reach a decision on those matters and an appropriate announcement will be made. Insofar as the community co-operatives question is concerned, I think many of these issues, particularly that one, will await the outcome of an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of manpower programs as they relate to young people. Those matters will be considered in that context after that report is tabled by the OECD. Senator MACKLIN —Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the situation surrounding the Jackson oil pipeline and in particular the situation with regard to Red Ru Pipeline Constructions Pty Ltd which started with 100 per cent equity and finished with none after the intervention of the Queensland Government? Has the Government given any consideration to investigating the commercial and political events that have taken place with regard to the exclusion of Red Ru to ascertain whether or not there have been any breaches of Federal laws? Has the Government considered referring the whole affair to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge of the matters to which Senator Macklin refers. I hope I am not supposed to have some knowledge. If I am, I will no doubt have an appropriate bit of paper by the end of Question Time. I will just have to take the question on notice at the moment and give the honourable senator a considered response as soon as I possibly can. Senator COLSTON —My question, which I direct to the Attorney-General, relates to prisoners who are serving sentence after having been committed of an offence against Federal legislation. Is a prisoner who is serving a sentence in a Queensland prison able to be considered for release on licence after half of that sentence has been served? Is this different from the situation which prevails for Federal prisoners who are serving their sentences in other States of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer to Senator Colston's question is yes. The reason for this is that State offenders in Queensland are considered for release on parole in these circumstances. It has been in the past the policy in appropriate cases to treat Federal offenders in the same way as State offenders in the State concerned. This same general policy of treating Federal prisoners the same as other State prisoners in that State is applied elsewhere. As a result, where State laws provide, as they usually do elsewhere, for fixing minimum terms of imprisonment and for release on parole where a State offender has served a minimum term fixed by a court, a minimum term may, under the Commonwealth prisoners legislation, be fixed by a court in relation to a Federal offender in that State and the Federal offender may be considered for release on parole after serving that minimum term. Queensland law, by contrast, does not provide for the fixing of minimum terms of imprisonment by the courts. As I indicated a moment ago, offenders in Queensland serving more than six months imprisonment are considered for release on parole after serving half of their sentences without remission. That flows through to Federal prisoners in that State. The general situation as to Federal sentencing practice is the subject of a continuing reference now before the Australian Law Reform Commission. We are hoping that the Commission, in collaboration with Professor Richard Harding, the new Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, will shortly be able to allocate resources to complete that sentencing reference. There is a fundamental policy dilemma here as to whether we have a single national code for all Federal offenders, whichever State prison they happen to be in, or whether we continue to adopt what has been the past practice of treating Federal prisoners the same as those in the State in question. There are obvious pros and cons for both approaches. Traditionally, it has been a very difficult and contentious matter to sort out but we are still trying with the help of the advice giving agencies that I have mentioned. Senator BOSWELL —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of the Premier of Queensland's public offer to use the Queensland Cairncross dry dock to repair the carrier HMS Invincible? What would the Government's attitude be to the Premier's public offer of support to our allies which would save it the enormous embarrassment of ratting on its friends? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is no more likely, in the present context than in any other, to have the Premier of Queensland handling either its foreign affairs policy or its defence policy for it. I am sure that with all the grace we can muster we will tell him what he can do with his dry dock in this instance . Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer him to recent allegations that Australian migration officials in Suva were being both racist and sexist in their approach to applications from Fiji for tourist visas. Has the Government noticed these allegations? If so, have they been examined and is there any substance to them? Senator GRIMES —I and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs noticed the articles, particularly in one Sydney newspaper, making such allegations against the Australian High Commission in Suva, Fiji. Visitor entry from Fiji is approved for a short term stay, family reunion, tourism purposes, business purposes and, frequently, for medical treatment. Entry is approved on the clear understanding that visitors will not engage in employment or study and will depart by the end of such stay. They are not permitted to remain as settlers. But these criteria are applied universally and without discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion or political opinion. The program will continue to be so administered. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates to the most serious and devastating situation which exists in Africa at the present moment where it is claimed that over 6 1/2 million people are dying from the effects of long periods of drought. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is the Government aware that 14 countries stretching from the Red Sea across Africa to the Atlantic Ocean and down as far as Mozambique are suffering the effects of drought that, in some cases, has lasted for more than seven years, and that in Zimbabwe alone 62,000 children are dying from starvation? Secondly, what aid and other assistance is the Australian Government currently providing, through non-government organisations such as the International Red Cross, to these African nations? Thirdly, in the light of the severity of the prolonged drought and the resulting mass starvation, will urgent consideration be given by the Government to increasing immediately Australia's aid to Africa in an an effort to help alleviate the widespread hunger and suffering? Senator GARETH EVANS —My briefing note on this matter is some two weeks old so it may need to be supplemented by further information if circumstances have changed . I can give the honourable senator the following information: Australia is bound to provide 400,000 tonnes of wheat or wheat equivalent under the terms of the Food Aid Convention which is part of the International Wheat Agreement. In 1983-84, Australian food aid to Africa will be valued at approximately $32.6m. African countries to receive that aid in the 1983-84 financial year are Mozambique, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Sudan, Madagascar, Somalia, Zambia, Mauritius and Egypt. In addition to providing relief for humanitarian reasons, Australian food aid does, of course, assist the economic development of recipient countries. I will come to the nub of the honourable senator's question which is about the drought stricken areas. The Government has been conscious for some time of the plight of African countries facing severe food shortages. In response to the continuing very difficult food situation in Africa about which the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Director-General made a special appeal at the recent FAO Conference in Rome, the Prime Minister has confirmed to the leaders of three African Commonwealth countries, that is, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Zambia, that Australia will provide additional allocations over and above the amounts I have already mentioned that have been approved for 1983-84. This is a clear indication of the concern which Australia shares with other donors and United Nations agencies at the risk of starvation in African countries. It may well be that the amount of that additional assistance has now been determined since this note was written for me. If so, I will supply the honourable senator with such further information as I can, as quickly as I can. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the report in the Adelaide Advertiser on Wednesday, 7 December describing the findings of the South Australian Public Accounts Committee in examining the school dental service? This Committee reported on the school dental service as a 'well-managed, cost effective and efficient organisation', but stated that the Dental Practitioners Association which had put 'ill-researched and inaccurate evidence' before the Committee had wasted public time and money. In the face of this clear affirmation of the school dental service, can the Minister say, first , when the Government will extend this excellent service to secondary school children and other needy groups, particularly pensioners? Secondly, will this be the last waste of public money in unnecessary evaluation on behalf of private practitioners in the profession? Senator GRIMES —I have not seen the article referred to by Senator Crowley, but I certainly have an interest in the school dental service in South Australia and elsewhere, as my own State of Tasmania some years ago was the pioneer in this country in introducing such a health service and in introducing dental therapists. It later received assistance from the Federal Labor Government, and other States received assistance which was modelled on that. Certainly, whenever such a dental therapy service or school dental servie is established there are complaints from members of the dental profession who see it as a threat to their professional monopoly in this area. Therefore, I am not surprised at the Committee's report on the evidence, or at the reaction of the people in South Australia and the Committee to such evidence. From memory, it is my understanding that school dental service assistance is at present given through the community health grant. Certainly, this Government and the Minister will be interested in extending this service in this area. The difficulty at the moment, as in many things of this nature, is economic restraint. However, I will pass the honourable senator's comments on to the Minister, draw his attention to the article if he has not seen it and get an appropriate and detailed reply for the honourable senator. Senator JESSOP —I refer the Attorney-General to the unprecedented and disgraceful Government appropriation of funds amounting to at least $1.25m for the promotion of the Yes cases at the referendum to be held on 25 February to the exclusion of the No cases. Can the Minister say whether any of this money has been spent? If so, how much has been expended? In what way has this been used? If the expenditure has been committed, who was responsible for authorising this action? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, the question is out of order because the matter is currently the subject of debate before this Parliament. I do not mind answering some aspects of it if I have your dispensation to do so. The PRESIDENT —Yes. As I understand it, a House of Representatives message rejecting the Senate amendment is before the Senate. In that respect, the question is out of order if the matter is before the Senate. Senator Jessop —Mr President, I ask for your ruling. I understand that, prior to the amendment that was moved in this place and has been dealt with in the House of Representatives, the appropriation had already been made. I just wanted to know whether any of that amount was expended prior to the action taken by the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am able to answer that. Senator Chaney —I understand the Attorney-General is prepared to answer, so I might talk-- Senator Robertson —In that case, sit down and let him answer it. Senator Chaney —I am now getting assistance from the Government Whip. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has taken a point of order. Senator Chaney —Mr President, you raised the question whether the whole of the question was in order because of the situation of the Bill. That was a point of concern and I do not canvass your ruling. Following the explanation given by Senator Jessop, I suggest that elements of the question were in order. In particular, the commitment of funds and the extent to which those funds had been committed, and by whom and for what purpose, seems to me to be within the responsibility of the Attorney-General, or one of his colleagues and of public interest and concern. It seems to me that it is in order that those parts of the question be asked. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question insofar as it relates to the funds previously mentioned. I understand that the amendment before the Senate suggests that the funds be allocated equally. In that respect, I will allow the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —No funds have been formally appropriated in the sense that they have been the subject of line items in the appropriations for this financial year. Such moneys as have been expended, or in relation to which obligations to expend have already been incurred, have been forthcoming from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. As I indicated previously, the budgetary allocation in the normal course would be made up from the Attorney-General's Department's appropriations, being the Department responsible for consitutional form and the conduct of referendums. I cannot give an accurate indication of what money has been expended so far, but there have been already printed the information kits which were the subject of launch by me on 21 November and which involved packages essentially of parliamentary material-the second reading speeches, the Bills and the explanatory memoranda, with a short accompanying booklet. Some 10,000 of those have been printed for distribution to schools, libraries, business and trade union organisations, not for direct access to voters but for those in the business of communicating with people about these things. That money has already been spent. Some money has already been spent on market research and on preliminary arrangements with the advertising agencies. I am not in a position to specify how much, but I will do my best to find out and let the honourable senator know. The Government makes no apology whatsoever for proposing to spend money differentially on the Yes case in addition to that which is equally expended on the referendum pamphlet which goes out to all voters' letter boxes. The reasons for that have been amply and fully articulated by me in previous debate, and no doubt will be again. The importance of this to the Government is such that is it is clear that any attempt to continue blocking the capacity of the Government to spend money on the Yes case, which had bipartisan support, will clearly put the future of these referendums at risk. Senator SIBRAA —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is another good news question. As unemployment is at its lowest level for nearly a year and as the economy has grown in the September quarter much faster than was expected when the Budget was drawn up, is the Minister aware that statistics published today reveal that consumer spending in October was the highest this year? Is this not further evidence of the strengthening of the economic recovery? Senator WALSH —The answer to the final part of the question is yes. Moreover, the bulletin before me shows that consumer spending is at its highest since at least July 1982. The bulletin in front of me does not go back any further. I am not sure how much further beyond July last year one has to go before one finds consumer spending at the levels that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey showed for October. The reservation should be added about those figures that possible sampling errors are involved, but the seasonally adjusted figure for October over September represents an increase of 2.6 per cent, which is an extraordinarily high increase in one month. I repeat that caveat that there is in all probability some degree of sampling error in that figure. Coming on top of the quarterly estimates of national accounts, which again must be taken with some reservations because they are frequently revised from quarter to quarter, and which showed in the September quarter an increase in the non-farm gross domestic product of 2.3 per cent, or more than 9.3 per cent over the full year, the consumer spending figures for October reinforce the trends which have already been made apparent by a wide variety of economic statistics. It also appears to be correct that private investment in particular remains very slack. That is not unusual. In virtually every recession the pattern which has been followed is that consumer spending and replenishment of stocks precedes in the recovery phase the resumption of growth in private investment spending. So there is nothing unusual in the recovery which, clearly, the Australian economy is going through. There is no departure from the normal pattern of recovery from a recession and, hopefully, private capital investment at some time in the future will follow the trends that have been clearly established by a number of other indices. I say again, as the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and various other Ministers have said, that the degree to which the recovery that is quite clearly under way is sustained is dependent to a much greater degree upon adherence to the prices and incomes accord than on all the other factors put together. Whether the recovery which is clearly under way is sustained and produces sustained economic growth rates at sufficiently high levels to make significant impacts on our very high level of unemployment depends to a very great extent, and probably crucially, on adherence to that prices and incomes accord. The Government cannot stress too strongly that it is vital that that accord be respected. Senator MESSNER —Can the Minister for Social Security advise the Senate whether any additional staff have been employed in anticipation of the Government's proposed assets test? If so, how are they being employed and from what funds are they being paid? Senator GRIMES —There has been some recruitment of staff in anticipation of the introduction of the assets test. I am uncertain as to exactly how many, if any, have been employed to date. I will get the information as soon as possible and bring it back to the honourable senator. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the Victorian branch of the Minister's Department has frozen employment levels because it has worked itself up to a point of uncertainty as to the future passage of legislation? Senator GRIMES —I will seek the answer to that flippant question from the shadow Minister for Social Security. No section of my Department has worked itself up to any state of uncertainty in this matter. The only uncertainty, I suggest, appears to come from the Opposition. First of all, we had its Leader saying that it would block the legislation. On the same afternoon the Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, said that the Opposition would not block the legislation, and on the very same day that the Leader of the Opposition made his statement that the legislation would be blocked Senator Messner at a meeting in Sydney said that the Opposition would not be blocking the legislation but only delaying it. So it seems to me that the only real uncertainty in this matter over the last few weeks has come from the front benchers on the other side of the chamber. I note that neither Mr Howard nor Senator Chaney, who were well known to be in favour of the reintroduction of the assets test in past years, had very much to say about it until they were instructed by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented and misreported. I make this statement because I have been publicly misrepresented in an article which appeared in the Age newspaper on 10 December 1983. I have made copies of it available to honourable senators so they will know what I am speaking about, and I seek leave to have a copy of this short Age article incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Use public cash for poll: MP from KEN HALEY CANBERRA.-Public funding, an established part of campaigns in the United States, may be used for the first time in Australia in February. A Victorian Liberal, Senator Missen, yesterday suggested that public funding could be the way to resolve a Senate confrontation that has paralysed Government plans for television and radio advertising for the Constitutional referendums. Under the system of public funding at elections, political parties receive a sum of taxpayers' money in proportion with their support at the previous election. Applied to the five Constitutional changes proposed on 25 February, the Liberal , Labor, National and Democrat parties and Independent Senator Harradine, would divide up an agreed amount. Each would be free to promote the ''Yes'' or ''No'' case or both on the air and through television. Pressure of other business yesterday led to the deferment until next week of the bill which would have authorised TV and radio expenditure for the ''Yes'' case only, if the Government's original plan had passed through Parliament. Earlier this week, the Opposition and the Democrats amended the bill to disallow this spending which they said was partisan. The Missen proposal is believed to appeal to the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, although he has made no public response to it. Parliament last week passed legislation guaranteeing that public funding of political parties will occur at the next Federal election. Still the most likely solution for the referendum advertising appears to be the equal spending of a specified amount-probably not much more than $500,000-on electronic media promotion of all the arguments for and against the proposals. That compromise was worked out by the Democrats and the Government on Thursday. It is not known whether the Liberal Party would back Senator Missen's suggestion but the Democrat Senator Macklin said in Brisbane last night it had the advantage of making public funding common to all Australian polls. But he said he could not see how it would achieve equity. ''There could very well be a decisive lack of balance. It's difficult to know which way it would go but the 'No' case could be massively disadvantaged.'' Senator MISSEN —I thank the Senate. The article contains a number of misrepresentations that concern me. Even the heading of the article, 'Use public cash for poll: MP' is incorrect. I at no stage proposed the use of public moneys . This was a decision by the Government and any comment I have made is only as to the distribution which might be made of such money. The facts, Mr President, are as follows: Early on Friday morning I had a casual conversation, by chance, with Senator Macklin and Senator Mason of the Australian Democrats outside my door in a corridor of this building. It was at this time that Senator Macklin informed me that there had been negotiations the previous evening between the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party involving, as I understood it, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke , and that as a result of those negotiations, the amount of $1,250,000.00, which the Attorney had earlier disclosed was to be used for the promotion of the Yes case in the referendum campaigns in February 1984, was now to be divided equally between the Yes and No advocates. The precise amount of $1,250,000.00 was not mentioned in this conversation although I understood it to be the same amount that Senator Macklin was speaking about. This was the first I had heard of this arrangement and the only comments I made to Senator Macklin then or in our later conversation were that it would no doubt reduce the controversy, but it would be a somewhat unfair division because surely some part of the moneys should go to the Opposition parties, who have taken a stand on the referendum questions and will be campaigning on the referendum, and also to the Australian Democrats. I emphasise that this was a casual private conversation in the corridors and at no time did I make any public statement on the matter. I informed my Senate leader, Senator Chaney, of the information which I had just heard. He made inquiries and I was informed later that the Prime Minister's office denied any knowledge of this arrangement and my leaders had therefore assumed it to be a furphy. A short time later I happened to meet with Senator Macklin again in the corridor and told him that I understood that there was no truth in this proposal. He strongly reaffirmed it and gave me some detail about it. He said that the Government was preparing documents to cover it. It appears that, later in the day, he conveyed my remarks to some representative of the Age newspaper, giving a clear impression, as honourable senators will see from the article, that I had made some public statement on the subject. This was not true. Furthermore, I made no reference in my conversation to public funding or giving any consideration to the new law in respect of public funding, which applies to elections. I would not have considered that law as directly appropriate to referenda campaigns, because the public funding arrangements are based upon first preference votes of candidates and are not, therefore, easily transferrable to the referenda proposals. The statement in the Age indicates that the so-called 'Missen proposal', which was a casual remark made in private conversation in the corridors, was some reference to the public funding arrangements and apparently the article makes no reference to my suggestion that the other parties as well as the No advocates should receive some funding to assist in campaigning if this were to be done at all. I want to emphasise that at no stage did the Age newspaper or any of its representatives speak to me or apparently endeavour in any way to communicate with me to ascertain whether I had made any statement or what was the nature of it. It will further be observed that the article reports as follows: The Missen proposal is believed to appeal to the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, although he has made no public response to it. It should also have said that the so-called Missen proposal 'is believed to appeal to Senator Missen, although he has made no public comment on it'. It will be further observed from the article that Senator Macklin, having not only misconceived my comment, goes on to claim that he could not see how it could achieve equity. He said: It's difficult to know which way it would go but the 'No' case could be massively disadvantaged. The proposal which he puts forward as the Missen proposal is one which apparently does not make any provision for financial assistance to No case advocates and is quite contrary to the comment which I made. I must say, Mr President, that I do deplore the misuse of private and casual conversation in this way by both Senator Macklin and the Age newspaper. I can conclude only that it was designed to cause mischief in the Opposition parties. I might say that I do think there could be sensible arrangements whereby moneys could be provided for all parties and groups in the Parliament that desire fully to inform the electors about referenda proposals, but the details of any such proposal have not been considered by me. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-Senator Missen has claimed that I gave a clear impression to a reporter from the Age that he has made some public statement on the matter of public funding. He also said that he did not speak to the Age, so I have no idea how he was able to ascertain what I said to the Age. To make matters clear, I gave no such impression. At the time of the interview I was totally unaware of whether Senator Missen had made any public statement on the matter since I had been in transit to Brisbane and had only just arrived home when the Age reporter rang me. The reporter, in putting questions to me, seemed to have a full understanding of the various discussions which had taken place over the last couple of days. I do not know the source of his information, and even if I had inquired I am sure he would have refused to divulge his source. Like any good reporter, presumably he was on top of his story. At no stage did I give the impression that Senator Missen had said anything about public funding. I was unaware of Senator Missen's views on this matter as it affected the referenda campaign specifically in relation to public funding, if that is to be distinct from the way in which amounts of money are to be distributed. I spoke to the Age reporter about public funding and gave my view that a proposal to fund through political parties would have the advantage of bringing it into line with the electoral situation. The disadvantage is accurately summarised in the Age report referred to by Senator Missen. In regard to Senator Missen's final point, that I was attempting to cause mischief in the Opposition parties, it would indeed be a pleasant thought if it could be achieved so easily. Unfortunately, the political situation is otherwise . But if it will help Senator Missen, I will state now what I have always thought to be the standing of his comments to me; that is, that it was an idea to be included amongst other indeas as a way around the impasse which currently faced the Parliament on this matter. As such it was indeed worthy of consideration and debate. I had in fact discussed this matter with some honourable senators. It was as a result of such discussions that I formed the view that, on the face of it, it would be unworkable. I presumed Senator Missen wanted the matter discussed with others otherwise he would not have passed it on to me. He did not ask that the source be kept confidential. Out of fairness to colleagues and others, I believe that unless specifically requested the source of various ideas for action with regard to legislation before this House should be made known to them. If Senator Missen is now saying that I should not raise his ideas about legislation with colleagues and others I will certainly accommodate him. However, in relation to Senator Missen's ideas on this and other matters I believe that that would be a pity. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-To tidy up the facts, I do not recall being present at any conversation with Senator Macklin of the kind mentioned by Senator Missen. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Commonwealth Ombudsman-6th Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 2. Australia-China Council-Annual Report 1982-83-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to the report 3. Advance to Minister for Finance-Statement on Expenditure for October 1983 4. Australia New Zealand Foundation-Annual Report 1982-83 5. CSIRO-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 57 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 6. Department of Aviation-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920 7. Trans Australia Airlines-38th Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 8. Bureau of Air Safety Investigation-Special Report into the Search and Rescue Action Associated with the Ditching of Rockwell 685 Aircraft, VH-WJC, in Bass Strait on 17 July 1983-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aviation relating to the report 9. Commonwealth State Housing Agreement-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 15 of the Housing Assistance Act 1981 10. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd-Annual Report 1982-83 11. Review of the Program Commissioning and purchasing Policies of the Special Broadcasting Service-Report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Communications relating to the report 12. The Environmental Implications of Three Synthetic Liquid Fuel Technologies- Report 13. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Report on Radiation Safety Standards, Practices and Procedures for Uranium Mill product Drying and Packing Operations Conducted by Era Ltd, at Jabiru, Northern Territory-pursuant to sub-section 36 (3) of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 14. Canberra Development Board-Annual Report 1982-83 15. The Australian Forestry Council-Summary of Resolutions and Recommendations of the 20th meeting held in Melbourne 6 June 1983 16. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Reports 1981-82-the Reports of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 1982-together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements-together with the text of a statement by the Treasurer relating to the report 17. Commissioner of Taxation-62nd Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 140 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Corresponding Provisions of the Statutes related to Recoupment Tax, Sales Tax, Bank Accounts Debits Tax, Payroll Tax, Estate Duty, Gift Duty, the ACT Stamp Duty Tax, Wool Tax, Tobacco Charges and Stevedoring Industry Charges 18. United Nations Commission on Human Rights-Report of the Australian Delegation to the 39th session Geneva 31 January-11 March 1983 19. Aboriginal Development Commission-Interim Annual Report 1982-83-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in accordance with 34 (c) (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 20. Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs- Report-Volume I and II-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to the report 21. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Recommendations for 1984- Supplementary Report on Participation initiative in Higher Education-together with the text of a statement relating to the report (which the Minister will seek to have incorporated in Hansard) 22. Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review-Report-together with the text of a Statement relating to the report. Senator GRIMES —In connection with Paper No. 21, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission supplementary report on participation initiatives in higher education, I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator GRIMES —As leave is not granted and as this is a statement by a Minister , I assume the best thing to do would be to have that statement made at the time of ministerial statements. I merely remind the chamber that those honourable senators opposite who come to me and others in the Government asking to ensure that the Senate will adjourn this week are not helped by the behaviour of the shadow Minister in refusing leave in that regard. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, we will gladly give leave to incorporate- The PRESIDENT —Order! Leave is not granted. It is up to the Government whether the document will be tendered in the course of ministerial statements. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I take this opportunity to remind the Senate again of the Commonwealth Ombudsman . I do this with reference to the Ombudsman's sixth annual report. I find the reading of the report almost as exciting, and certainly as salacious, as the medical defence annual report on cases that nearly got away or did get away. The Ombudsman certainly has a very fascinating series of cases to address. More importantly, in the six years of operations of the Ombudsman's Office more than 66,000 people have sought assistance and some 59,000 complaints about actions of Commonwealth departments have been processed. Over the six years, that leaves a backlog of some 7,400 complaints still to be addressed. The large majority of complaints are oral complaints-made personally or by telephone. Written complaints remain relatively constant at about 2,500 to 3,000 per annum. Oral complaints to the Office have increased quite markedly. In 1982- 83 the Office received over 13,000 oral complaints in a total of 16,400 in the year. I agree with the Ombudsman, who reports that this reflects an increasing awareness and accessibility of the Office in the community. However, I think it is terribly important to note that many people may have the idea of complaining but the task of sitting down and putting that complaint into words that actually convey the sense of the complaint is too much of a challenge for them. The fact that the Ombudsman is prepared to accept oral complaints is a matter of considerable importance and I think the Office deserves congratulations on that. The other point in this report that I think is worth mentioning is the lack of sufficient staff in the Ombudsman's Office to deal with the backlog of complaints. Processes are under way to investigate whether more staff is needed. I believe that at this point that matter is not finalised. The Ombudsman is aware that a backlog of complaints is not a happy state. Most of the people who make complaints do not want to wait for months or years before they are addressed. In order to deal more thoroughly with the report one would need to illustrate some of the examples. I shall not take the Senate's time to do that now. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-93 Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to comment briefly on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation annual report. What is most impressive is the remarkable dearth of Australian application towards areas of renewable energy research revealed in the report. It is interesting that under the heading 'Institute of Energy and Earth Resources' on page 165 the Institute's aims are given as fostering: . . . scientific and technological research aimed at contributing to the better definition, utilisation and management of Australia's mineral, energy and groundwater resources, with due recognition of the environmental consequences of these activities- including planning the effective use of our energy resources and- . . . consistent with the minimization of environmental stresses. I would have thought that those aims would have been no more than pious platitudes, given the comments made in the rest of the report. When one gets into the nitty-gritty one finds on page 16 that 0.8 per cent of total research, that is under one per cent of the expenditure, and 0.9 per cent of professional research staff are being utilised in the field of renewable energy research. All of this is apparently devoted to research on solar energy systems. On Saturday night in North Sydney I spoke at a meeting under the chairmanship of Alderman Ted Mack. More than 200 people attended that meeting and they did so because they were interested in hearing Dr Mark Diesendorf and others talk about the very real possibilities of creating a significant area of additional energy in this country through the utilisation of known windmill generator technology. It is of interest that last week I received from a Minister in this place a written reply talking about large-scale utilisation in the megawatt range of wind generators. A statement was made in this Parliament that these things were at the demonstration stage. I am impressed by the sort of Rip Van Winkle attitudes that we apparently have at the highest possible levels in our science and research areas. Machines of that type have been operating and delivering power under the grids of a number of countries for four years, yet we talk about these things being at only the demonstration stage. Apparently because of this we feel consoled by the idea that CSIRO is to do no work at all in this area this year. Other countries are spending millions of dollars on it. In Denmark hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured into this area, and it is proving successful. The technology exists. Certain areas of this country, especially Tasmania, have been proven to have the best wind velocities and consistency in the world for the use of this source of renewable power. If this indeed is the case-it has been demonstrated to be the case-one would have thought that we would have been engaging in this research. The technology is known. We do not have to do any work. It has all been done for us. But no, some sort of blockage at the CSIRO level-or possibly in the policy area, which is more to the point-is preventing this research. Instead resources are being devoted to vain and rather silly projects such as shale oil. Look at the time and attention that was given to that project a year or two ago. The result has been a complete chimera. If page 21 of the report is to be believed, the tiny amount of expenditure on renewable energy, moreover, was regarded as an expanded effort. That expenditure is less than one per cent of actual expenditure. Less than one per cent of the staff is being utilised in this area. The only direct reference to renewable energy research in the text of the report that I can find in the brief time I have had to look at it is half a sentence on page 14, which states: In renewable energy research more attention was to research on high temperature solar selective surfaces . . . It seems clear from all this that all research into wind energy has been or is being terminated and that CSIRO does not intend to begin any research into any other form of renewable energy technology. Unlike every other country, we are going backwards. We are retreating further and further back towards the nineteenth century, whereas all other major industrial powers are placing major emphasis on and are putting many millions of dollars into this important area of technology. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am pleased to have the thirty-eighth annual report of Trans Australia Airlines , but it is regrettable that it reflects yet another disappointing year. It was interesting to see the capitalisation problems referred to and the fact that the Government has now injected advances of up to $130m into TAA. It will be very interesting to see what happens as a result of that. Various projections were made as to how it would assist the company. I certainly look forward to its doing so. I find it difficult to understand the philosophy that exists in the Australian airline business at the moment, and I do not learn much from the comments in the report. To add the $7.6m loss from 1981-82 and an $18.3m loss in 1982-83 does not produce the answer. It seems that we are chasing reducing occupancy with higher fares. I am not sure that that is the right way around. I believe that we could achieve higher occupancy with lower fares; but I guess that that is a bit simplistic. If Senator Rae had been present, I am sure that he would have expected the superannuation contingency to be raised. I am interested to notice that the ground staff superannuation as at 30 June 1983 was estimated at $147m. I am still at a loss to understand how it is proposed that this amount should be funded, and how the amount of money itself will be covered, and when. As I look through the report and see the fleet equipment, I see that we are still obviously gearing up and geared up to a stage that is beyond the present and even the near future expectations of use. I am somewhat alarmed to find that the likely levels of utilisation are still a long way short of what we are able to provide. Clearly, we need to have a change in the present system and approach. Australian fares are far too high by any standards. The operating costs of our airlines are enormous. The competition and the varieties of service are inadequate. The fare increases will only inhibit expansion and further reduce passenger numbers, with the way that we are going. International travellers will avoid Australia if they can go somewhere else. I hope that in the year ahead-and I mean this year ahead-we shall try to get some rethinking on the fundamentals of air travel and get down to designing what Australia can afford, what is appropriate and just what is the best way to achieve it, for clearly we do not have that now. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.27) -In speaking to the 38th annual report of Trans Australia Airlines, or the Australian National Airlines Commission as it is more properly known, I should like to comment on some of the major features of the report. It documents a $18.3m operating loss for the financial year 1982-83, which is quite a significant rise over the $7.6m operating loss in the previous financial year. After the incorporation of abnormal items in the accounts, the net loss for 1982-83 was reduced to $10.9m. That followed the sale of certain property. It is interesting to note in connection with the losses by TAA that that airline is required to operate certain loss-making services, and that that is something that is not fully required of its principal competitor. TAA has responded to its difficult financial circumstances by embarking on a cost-cutting exercise, and it has embarked on other measures with the objective of boosting productivity. The directors now report that TAA is operating profitably in the first part of the 1983-84 financial year after a difficult period in which, in the previous financial year, the number of passengers carried fell by over 10 per cent and during which there was a huge reduction, 16 per cent, in cargo carried by the airline. So, the circumstances of TAA are very much a barometer of the circumstances of the economy, with passenger travel and cargo carriage falling enormously. At the same time, the airline has been required to service loans in respect of capital equipment, basically aircraft, totalling over $300m. That suggests a very large interest bill, which has to be met by the Australian National Airlines Commission. Earlier this year this Government injected an extra $90m of capital into TAA. That followed a commitment of $25m from the previous Government, thus ensuring an extra $115m of capital for the airline. That is designed to enable it to reduce its debt servicing problems in respect of capital loans for capital equipment. It is striking to note the tardiness with which the former Government put extra capital into TAA. It was in fact the first injection of capital by a conservative government into the airline since it was established by the Labor Government in 1946. Of course, we know from our reading of history that the Opposition parties are not great supporters of public enterprise in this country . The debates of the last few years show quite clearly that they would prefer to sell the airline to private interests. I believe that the doubts engendered by that debate about the so-called concept of privatisation have had adverse effects on the circumstances and operations of TAA. I am pleased to say that that debate has been killed once and for all. It is estimated that the increase in capital provided to TAA, the nation's airline, by the Government will enable it to save interest this financial year, 1983-84, totalling between $17m and $ 18m. I think it is unfortunate that, in the present circumstances of depressed passenger loads, the basic response is to seek higher air fares. I certainly concur with the suggestion of Senator Archer who asked whether we are on the right track. According to my calculations domestic air fares have risen more than 30 per cent since 22 July last year. One of the other features of the activities of TAA during 1982-83 was the delivery of the fourth Airbus. I note that, because of poor loads, the fifth Airbus will be delivered this month, a delay of more than 12 months on the originally announced delivery date. I hope that, with the introduction of the fifth Airbus, my State of South Australia can share in the benefits of travel in this more comfortable, wide-bodied domestic aircraft. Adelaide at the moment is the only mainland capital city not serviced on a scheduled basis by the Airbus. I think it is high time that South Australians were able to travel in such aircraft. It is also high time that they were able to travel in a Boeing 767 aircraft operated by the other domestic airline. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report and Ministerial Statement Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report concerned a special investigation into the search and rescue activities associated with the ditching of an aircraft in Bass Strait on Sunday, 17 July 1983. On that day, at about 3.05 p.m., an aircraft which was on a flight from Hobart to Moorabbin ditched in Bass Strait. All honourable senators will know that the work associated with flying and the control of aircraft is sometimes boring, frustrating and, more often than not, is just a matter of sitting and watching dials to make sure that things go right. But when things go wrong we know that enormous pressure is immediately put on the parties who are involved in the aviation procedures-the pilots, the navigators and the air traffic controllers. That is why those people are so well paid. They are trained to respond to these events of absolute crisis. On this particular day, the matter was one of absolute crisis. We do not know why the aircraft went into Bass Strait. Something went wrong with its fuel supply. A pilot and a passenger were on board. Unfortunately, those two lives were lost. They were lost in circumstances which this report shows was a cruel saga of lack of proper communication, lack of clear understanding and direction and some errors of judgment. When the aircraft went into Bass Strait, other aircraft which were in the air at the time were dispatched to the area. Within 45 minutes of the last call of the pilot, a Fokker F27 VH-FNO sighted a slick. Within another eight minutes, a survivor in a lifejacket was sighted. That was an excellent piece of work by that pilot and his crew. They are to be praised. The people who directed them to the area, all those who were involved up to that stage in keeping contact and the pilots thereafter involved in the process are to be very highly praised. They were flying in big circles and flying into the sun. They were able to pick up the reflection of the slick on the surface of Bass Strait. That indicated the area in which what appeared to be the only survivor was floating in the water in his lifejacket. The pilots kept that up for an hour and a half. The Fokker aircraft and another aircraft which took over kept flying around in this area for an hour and a half while a saga, as I have said, involving the failure to communicate properly took place. There was a failure to get in touch with people who could have assisted and rescued this fellow. The people in charge of this rescue operation no doubt feel a degree of responsibility which would make us have some sympathy for them, I suppose. But we must have desperate sympathy for the people involved, particularly the fellow, whoever he was, who survived in the water for an hour and a half. I can assure the Senate that all pilots throughout Australia are greatly distressed at this failure to rescue this person when they had him in sight in Bass Strait for an hour and a half. The report states: No evidence was found of any negligence . . . There are two reports of so-called errors of judgment. I do not know what the difference is between an error of judgment and negligence. This report states that there was no evidence of negligence, just a couple of errors of judgment. The report states: The deficiencies in performance which occurred were the result of working under pressure. That is what these people are trained for. As I said, I do have some sympathy for them. I do not want to be too critical but they are trained to work under pressure. They did not work properly under pressure on this particular occasion as the report shows. Reference was made to deficiencies in the system. Unfortunately, the deficiencies in the system are so grave that I hope this Government will do something about making sure that these deficiencies are rectified in the future. This is a matter of such grave concern that I do not want the debate concluded. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to refer to some aspects of the report. In particular, I refer to page 3 which deals with the 1982-83 highlights. It sets out just how well things have been going during that year and shows the developments which have been brought forward by the Canberra Development Board. The report sets out also the Board's functions including that of promoting private enterprise development in the Australian Capital Territory having regard for the commercial, industrial and tourist potential of the Territory. It lists a number of other relevant matters and goes through what has occurred during the 1982-83 year. This was the first year in which incentives were available for the purpose of attracting to Canberra suitable business and industry which would be of benefit in creating employment in this community. The report quotes from the speech the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), gave to the National Economic Summit Conference in which he said: Canberra is entering the era when diversification of its economic base is the priority-diversification through new forms of economic activity, diversification through a bigger private sector. The national interest will be best served by a national capital that reflects in its own community the diversity of Australia as a whole. As I have said on other occasions, the Minister has repeated that sort of sentiment at other meetings in Canberra. The fact is that things have been going well. Without developing them, I refer briefly to two matters which we dealt with last week, one of which is set out in great detail in this report. I refer to the proposed hotel-convention centre. I said that I thought it would be a great pity if the Government were vindictive and refused to go ahead with the project. I welcome the report that the Minister had discussions with White Industries Ltd last Friday about going ahead with this project. I certainly hope that it will go ahead quite soon. I point out that the Victorian Government just last week gave as an incentive $30m cash to the development of a convention centre in Victoria, yet the Federal Government quibbled over a far lesser amount, not in cash but in kind, towards the development of this project. I ask it to reverse its concept of incentives as far as development in the national capital is concerned and to acknowledge its role in Canberra as both State Government and local government as well as Federal Government, and not to regard that incentive package as excessive. The report refers to the retirement of the Executive Director, Mr Neville Whiffen, and I pay tribute, as I have before, to the work that he did with the Board. I regret that even now the Minister has not reappointed an executive director. Again, the Minister has not put his words into practice. He speaks of development and diversification and does not do the sorts of things that would ensure such development. The report also refers to a shortage of skilled staff. It says that the Board has no staff establishment of its own and relies instead on secondments from government departments and agencies. The Board is doing a good job and is attracting business to Canberra. Let it not be hamstrung in a way which means it cannot be as effective as it otherwise would be. The end result of its being effective is a greater range and variety of jobs in Canberra and more jobs in Canberra which we surely need. I ask the Minister to take note of these matters and to act in a way that is in the best interests of this community and the development and diversification of the economy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Summary of Resolutions and Recommendations Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Interim Annual Report 1982-83 Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I move : That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 217th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-The 217th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's earlier report No. 186 on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Appropriation Acts 1979-80. The Department of Finance Minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's 186th report, which examined departments' expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Appropriation Acts 1979-80, was tabled in Parliament on 13 February 1981. In accordance with normal practice the Committee obtained from departments 128 explanations relating to items from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1979-80. Four departments, the departments of Finance, Social Security, Transport and Veterans' Affairs, were selected for public examination and additional written information was requested from a further 11 departments. The only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills Nos 3 and 4 and the close of the financial year. The Committee, in its examination, seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or Additional Estimates . The Committee concluded that in most cases expenditure was used according to the accepted guidelines. In other cases, in particular the Department of Transport, there was evidence of clerical errors, inefficient estimating procedures, and delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the Advance when provision should properly have been made in the Additional Estimates. The Committee is satisfied with the Department of Finance response to report 186. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present Report 218 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —I seek leave to have a short statement on the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report 218 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's 187th Report. Report 187 was tabled on 7 April 1981. It considered the Reports of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1978-79. The Department of Finance Minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. The Twelfth Public Accounts Committee sought written submissions from 14 departments on matters raised in the Auditor-General's Reports. After scrutiny of the submissions, the Committee heard evidence from four departments. These were the Departments of Defence, Primary Industry, Social Security and Transport . The item at issue within the Department of Transport, the purchase of ultra large fire tenders, was the subject of a separate report by the Committee-Report 189. The Report incorporating the Finance Minute on this matter is to be tabled shortly. The items at issue in the Departments of Defence, Primary Industry and Social Security formed the basis of Report 187. The Committee's investigation of the Department of Defence was in relation to repair and overhaul of aircraft. The Committee examined the practice of removing serviceable components from aircraft to remedy defects and supply spares to other aircraft as well as the effect of current repair, maintenance and stock holding procedures on the availability of aircraft. With regard to the Department of Primary Industry, the Committee considered the matter of the apprehension of foreign fishing vessels. Specifically, the Committee examined the administrative problems associated with the apprehension and disposal of foreign vessels found fishing illegally in Australian waters. The Committee suggested procedures relating to disposal of apprehended vessels and disposal of catches. The Department of Social Security was examined regarding the payment of pensions and benefits overseas. The Auditor-General's report for 1978-79 had drawn attention to deficiencies in the procedures for payment and review of pensions and benefits overseas. The Committee was concerned that with the increasing volume of payments of pensions overseas, the reported deficiences might have led to significant payments in excess of entitlement. Accordingly the Committee examined several issues. These were the procedures for payment and review of pensions and other benefits, reciprocal payment arrangements with other governments, staffing of overseas offices and the internal audit procedures applying to overseas payment functions. The Committee made recommendations designed to improve the system of payments, audit and review. Its recommendations related to the regular reconciliation of records of beneficiaries and those eligible, use of banking facilities to transfer payments in respect of short term visits overseas and reciprocal arrangements to localise administrative functions. With this background on Report 187 in mind, let me talk briefly about the Government's response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee. The Government's responses were presented only after some considerable delay and , in the first instance, a number did not satisfactorily address the issues raised by the Committee. Adequate responses were not presented until October this year-some 2 1/2 years after the Committee's report. While the matter of timing is not satisfactory, the information ultimately provided is generally quite acceptable. However, if departments were to give more extensive information in the first instance, this of course would reduce the necessity of follow-up approaches to departments. With regard to content, the Committee notes unfavourably the lack of detail provided to support some Departmental responses. The Committee would have been interested, for example, to see the detailed calculations which 'appeared not to justify' the placement of Social Security officers in Rome and Athens to carry out continuing entitlement reviews. The Committee is convinced that the burden of disclosing a reasonable amount of supporting data imposes a desirable discipline on Departmental analysis. Several administrative changes have been effected in the areas scrutinised by the Committee in Report 187. To summarise, these include: 1. Progressive introduction in the Department of Defence of a six months 'buffer ' stock of aircraft spare parts to reduce the incidence of long lead times in item acquisition; 2. development of a Defence replenishment provisioning model and associated financial estimating and budget-tailoring models to improve procedures for estimating the real costs of procuring additional aircraft spare parts; 3. amendment of the Manual of procedures for Recording and Disposal of Fisheries Forfeitures to give added emphasis to the timely disposal of forfeited boats and catch, taking into account anticipated net realisable value; and 4. restriction of payments of pensions to overseas addresses to clients whose absence will exceed 12 months. As I mentioned earlier, the Committee is generally satisfied with Departments' responses. The Committee is particularly pleased to note the recent media reports of negotiations of reciprocal pension arrangements between Australia and Italy and Australia and Greece. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard information on the National Film Archive received in response to questions I asked during consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1982-83 in Committee of the Whole. Leave granted. The information read as follows- Senator David Hamer D.S.C. Senator for Victoria Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Hamer During the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in the Senate on 10 November 1983, you raised a number of matters concerning the National Film Archive in the National Library of Australia. I am aware that your concern that the Archive be properly supported and developed is widely shared throughout the community. I am also aware of a view held in some quarters that the National Library is not the most appropriate location for the Film Archive. The Government has undertaken to consider both these matters and I will be making a submission to Cabinet in the near future. Meanwhile, as you have acknowledged, the nation owes a considerable debt to the National Library for having taken the initiative in establishing the archive and for having supported it for nearly fifty years. Without that initiative and that continuing support the nation would be immeasurably worse off than it is today in respect of its film heritage. No-one denies that the level of support for the Archive in recent years has not been sufficient to enable it to carry out its responsibilities satisfactorily, but it is a fact that the Library has made quite strenuous efforts to remedy these deficiencies within the very severe budgetary constraints that have been imposed on it. It should also be said that the Library is placed in a particularly difficult position with regard to answering its critics or commenting on statements made about the present and future of the Archive. The National Library Council has given careful consideration to the views that have been expressed in public and to the recommendations made to it by its Advisory Committee on the National Film Archive and by the consultants it appointed on the recommendation of that Committee. It has conveyed its advice to me in the proper degree of confidence and that confidence must equally be respected by the Library. Since many of your questions raise matters of detail which appear to continue the line of inquiry posed at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing, I have sought the advice of the Director-General of the National Library and this is indicated below where applicable. Otherwise I have answered your questions to the extent possible at this stage. I believe that it would be a pity if, in their anxiety to establish that the Archive would be more appropriately located outside the National Library, the proponents of that view tended to diminish in any way the very real importance of the National Library and its considerable contribution to the preservation of Australia's cultural heritage and to the provision of library and information services to the nation. QUESTION 1From 1979-80 to 1983-84 inclusive, the funds allocated to materials for the National Film Archive (i.e. other than for staff and equipment) increased by 123 per cent. 1979-80 expenditure $141,000, 1983-84 budget $315,000 , i.e. 123 per cent. This compared with an increase of 52 per cent in the funds for the purchase of all Library material, i.e. 1979-80 expenditure on library materials $2.869m, 1983-84 budget on library materials $4.350m, i.e. 52 per cent. Thus, while overall the Library's purchasing power has not kept pace with inflation, the real provision for the National Film Archive has been very considerably increased. QUESTION 2The Library has informed me that the following requests for access were received: 1980 931 1981 1533 1982 1721 to end August 1983 872 60 per cent of requests over this period have been satisfied. The remaining 40 per cent either: (a) fell outside the Library's range of activities and services; or, (b) were referred to other bodies; or (c) exceeded the capacity of the Archive's record system to provide the information. The computerised record system being implemented in 1984 will assist with the third category. It is estimated that at present 20 per cent of the Archive's staff time is devoted to handling requests. QUESTION 3The Library advises that the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Committee on the National Film Archive record very few specific recommendations to the National Library Council. The written response given by the Library on October 6 referred to the Committee's major recommendations to that date. These were contained in a paper prepared by the Chairman of the Committee and presented to the Council on 3 March 1983. The full paper could be made available , if required, but the recommendations were as follows: ''(a) That the NFA be moved to Sydney as the permanent central location of its departments and collections. (b) That the NFA maintain a permanent staff and offices in Melbourne to provide access service and acquisition activity in co-ordination with the Sydney headquarters; (c) That a purpose-built home for the NFA in Sydney be adopted as an objective for the Bicentennial 1988; (d) That the National Film Lending collection remain in Canberra as it is separate from the NFA and subject to different geographical considerations.'' In the same document it is stated that: ''In the context of the foregoing the AC (i.e. the Advisory Committee) recommends that the NFA remain part of the NLA. It would be more than regrettable and most unwise if location separation from the Library resulted in the NFA being absorbed by another statutory authority-such as Australian Archives, the Australian Film Commission, or Australian Film and Television School. In the course of time its relationship to the NLA will become clearer and the possibility that it may grow into an Authority in its own right cannot be discounted. Whether this would be desirable is not yet apparent.'' These recommendations were discussed by Council but, at the suggestion of the Director-General, no decision was arrived at, pending the report of the independent consultants mentioned earlier in this letter. The Advisory Committee made further recommendations to the Council at its meeting on 7 October. These recommendations were contained in a document prepared by members of the Committee other than the Director-General. Contrary to the Committee's previous advice to the Council, that document recommends early autonomy for the National Film Archive and immediate separation from the National Library. The firm of Nicholas Clark and Associates was retained by the Library as the independent consultants to report on developmental options for the National Film Archive. The reference to an enquiry is misleading. The Committee's report to Council on 7 October did include recommendations relating to the Clark Report. The Committee has so far commented on only one of the 29 recommendations in that report. The Library's response to Senator Baume's question of 16 September, which was sent to the Department of Home Affairs and Environment on 27 September, does accurately report on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. It does not take account of a telex to the Director-General dated 20 September conveying the views of the Advisory Committee. The telex expressed support for ''the generality of 13 resolutions from the A.F.I. Conference''. I am aware of Ms Lovell's resignation from the Advisory Committee and intend to discuss her reasons for resigning with the Director-General. However I am informed that excluding the recommendations made in the two documents referred to above, the Committee has made six formal recommendations to Council or to the Director-General since its first meeting on 10 December 1981. Two have been rejected, three have been accepted and action has been taken on the remaining one. The cost of the Advisory Committee has been quite slight. The members serve in an honorary capacity. Meetings are held in Sydney because most members reside in Sydney. The Library pays the fares of two other members, plus those of relevant Library staff, and other incidental expenses. The Committee has held eight meetings, seven of them in Sydney. QUESTION 4I am advised that information on the questionnaire, organisations responding to the questionnaire, the responses to it and other related matters are set out in the report of another investigation commonly referred to as Nicholas Clark Report Stage 1. The full title of this report is: Survey of organisations involved in collection and preservation of films and video tapes of moving images and Survey of existing and potential depositors and users of film archive facilities, January 1983. The report, which was commissioned by the Australian Film Commission, contains information supplied by respondents on the understanding that the report would not become a public document. In preparing its responses to Senator's Baume's previous questions, the Library understood that you had already received a copy of the report. If this is not the case, I am prepared to make a copy available on an in-confidence basis. The firm states that the submission from the Australian Screen Studies Association was considered inappropriate at the time it was submitted because it related to matters which had already been dealt with in that first report. The consultant's terms of reference for the second report were to prepare developmental options for the Archive based on the evidence in the first report, and the consultants were not required to seek new submissions. The principal of the firm has advised the Library that he has no further comments to make on this matter. QUESTION 5The circulation of this kit was an initiative undertaken by the Library on its own responsibility without reference to me, which would not be required anyway. I have no comment to make on its contents. QUESTION 6The National Library intended by use of the phrase, 'total record', the role of the Library as defined in its legislation. The National Library Act 1960 requires the National Library, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to ''Maintain and develop a national collection of library material including a comprehensive collection of library material relating to Australia and the Australian people.'' Library material is defined in the Act as books, periodicals, newspapers, manuscripts, films, sound recordings, musical scores, maps, plans, pictures, photographs, prints and other recorded material, whether in writing or in some other form. The National Library has well-understood and co-operative collecting arrangements with the National Gallery, the Australian War Memorial, the Australian Archives, the Museum of Australia, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the Parliamentary Library-each of which has its own national collection development responsibilities, mostly defined in legislation. QUESTION 7I am informed that the officer-in-charge of the Film Section was not consulted about the press release of 21 October because he was absent from the Library on that day. He was informed subsequently. An extra position is being created for the National Film Archive bringing the total to eleven. This position has been made available within the Library's existing approved staffing level following a review of staffing priorities. The restrictions on access to the Archive were imposed originally on the recommendation of the officer-in-charge of the Film Section. The reasons were published by the Library on 23 June 1982 when the introduction of restrictions was announced. In view of the extra staff made available, the progress of the Library's Task Force (18 part-time officers equivalent to 15 full-time) in clearing backlogs, and the stage of development reached in completing and implementing the computerised management information system, the Director-General concluded that access restrictions could be eased somewhat. QUESTION 8I am advised that an error in drafting occurred in the News Release issued by the Library on 21 October. This related to the statement that 'access restrictions for the television industry had been lifted in September 1982'. In fact, only some restrictions had been lifted. As a result of this the Library is considering how to lift all access restrictions for television producers. Users of the Archive will be informed of new arrangements for access by means of a ' For Information' sheet when these are implemented. QUESTION 9I am advised that the Nicholas Clark report on Developmental Options for the National Film Archive cost $15,000, and was paid for on receipt of the account from the firm. The National Library Council considered the Nicholas Clark report along with other reports in the preparation of its submission to me on the National Film Archive. The Council's submission to me on the future of the Archive is confidential at this stage. QUESTION 10The Last Film Search was conceived by staff members of the National Film Archive, part of the film section of the National Library of Australia. Several overseas film archives are considering conducting similar projects. The Library's news release of 21 December 1983 stated that two million feet of film had been discovered during the search. I am advised that not all this footage has yet been transferred to the Library's custody. The Library advises that material acquired as a result of the Last Film Search is not distinguished from other film in the determination of priorities for copying, but estimates that 100,000 feet of film secured through the search has been copied to date. This has involved an expenditure of about $100,000 for the preparation of preservation master copies. Viewing prints of some of this material have also been prepared. The Library intends to seek provision of funds in 1984-85 for copying nitrate film and to implement a nitrate ageing test, as part of the normal operations of the Archive's preservation work. This test will enable staff to determine the expected life of any film and, consequently, to allocate more accurately an order of priority to copying so that all film is copied before it deteriorates. Experience over the last two years now indicates that the Last Film Search needs to be expanded. So far as the Corrick Collection is concerned, in my letter of 11 August 1983 referred to by Senator Peter Rae I indicated that copying of the Corrick Collection would be resumed. I am now advised that indeed further prints are being prepared for Mr Corrick. The full preservation of the Collection is on the Archive's current program and will be undertaken as resources permit and I am assured certainly before the nitrate stock decomposes. Investments of Last Film Search funds first matured in 1982-83 and appeared in the accounts for that year. The Library's annual report for 1982-83 is expected to be tabled before the end of these Budget Sittings. The Library has made a substantial financial commitment to the Last Film Search and already has provided considerable financial support. The Library intends to seek further provision for copying all nitrate film discovered as a result of the Search. It is estimated that the preparation of preservation master copies and viewing prints may involve a total expenditure of about $2 million. The Library has provided administrative support for work undertaken on the Search by the officer-in-charge of the Film Section and the curator of the National Film Archive, in addition to one staff member involved wholly with the Search. Other support provided to the Search includes publicity backup from the Library's Public Information Officer. In addition, the Australian Film Commission has provided funds as one of the sponsors for the Search. QUESTION 11The remarks made by the Prime Minister indicate the Government's concern for the adequate support and development of the National Film Archive. The question of the future administration of the Archive and the resources to be provided for it, will be raised in a submission which I will be making to Cabinet in the near future. QUESTION 12The Director-General advised me that the Council discussed the AFI resolutions at its meeting on 7 October, before it submitted its confidential report to me. I have undertaken to take this report into account and to include the Council's views in my submission to Cabinet. The Library will consider making its views on the AFI recommendations public at an appropriate time. QUESTION 13I am advised that a report was prepared by Mr Edmondson on the basis of an independent overseas visit when he was officer-in-charge of the Film Archive. He submitted a copy to the Library for its information. The report by Mr Clyde Jeavons was not commissioned by the Library. It was based on a comparatively short visit. The report was published by Cinema Papers. The Easton Report was an internal report commissioned by the Library. Further funds are being sought by the Library to implement, in stages, the main thrust of Mr Easton's recommendations. In the course of his report the consultant commented on some matters outside his brief and for this reason and because the Library was still considering the report, it has been kept as an internal working paper. The 1980 report of the Australian Film Commission Working Party on the National Film Archive has been the subject of continuing consideration by the Library since it was issued. The National Library Council accepted the recommendations of the Working Party and, with the concurrence of the Australian Film Commission , forwarded them to the then Minister in 1980. The Minister noted that the question of implementation on the recommendations was a matter for the Library to address within its appropriation and since that time progress has been made in all the areas covered by the report. I again assure you of the Government's concern on these issues. Yours sincerely BARRY COHEN 1.12.83 Ministerial Statement Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —by leave-I present a ministerial statement on the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's Supplementary Report on Participation Initiatives in Higher Education. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- For the information of honourable senators, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's Supplementary Report on Participation Initiatives in Higher Education together with additional advice from the Chairman of the Commission. Honourable senators will recall that on 18 October I tabled Volume 4 of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report for the 1982-84 triennium. I now present a supplementary report from the Commission on participation initiatives in higher education in 1984. This report and additional advice from the Chairman of the Commission of 28 November set out the Commission's recommendations for the allocation of the additional $10.47m-$10m in December 1982 prices-the Government has provided for 1984 to increase participation in higher education. In providing additional recurrent funds for higher education in 1984, the last year of the triennium, the Government has made clear its commitment to increase the level of higher education participation in Australia. The Government recognised that the tertiary education policies of the previous Government provided limited opportunities for young people and the Government has initiated action to overcome the difficulties this has caused. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendations on the allocation of increased funds for universities and colleges of advanced education. A total of 3,000 additional higher education places will be available in 1984 as a result of this initiative. A table which summarises the allocations to individual institutions is attached to this statement and with the concurrence of the Senate the table will be incorporated in Hansard. The Commission has advised that a number of other institutions have also been prepared to accommodate additional students within their existing funds to meet the Government's objectives. In making its recommendations the Commission was asked to give particular attention to proposals which take account of the Government's concern to increase the participation in higher education of Australians from disadvantaged groups including Aborigines, migrants, low income families, women and the handicapped, especially those who live in outer metroplitan areas where there are large populations with relatively little access to higher education. The Commission has, therefore, given particular weight to proposals from institutions with a record of commitment to facilitating access by such groups. I am encouraged by the Commission's advice that many universities and CAEs are working towards the objective of improving access to higher education among such groups. Increased funds in 1984 will enable activities in this area to be expanded and new measures to be introduced. A number of the new places have been specifically set aside for Aboriginal students, particularly in teacher education courses. I see this as a further step in reaching the Government's target of 1,000 Aboriginal teachers by 1990 and increasing the extremely low rate of participation by Aborigines in higher education. A large proportion of the additional places has been directed to higher education institutions in the outer metropolitan areans of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth-areas which have large and rapidly growing populations and which are under-served by higher education. The high cost of travelling to inner city institutions has deterred a number of young people, especially those from low income families, from participating in higher education. Expansion will take place particularly in those course areas of greatest relevance to young people, such as economics, business studies, science and the technologies. Extra places will also be provided in areas of high migrant density such as Wollongong and the western and northern suburbs of Melbourne. The Government's initiative will thus increase opportunities for children from migrant families and will enable courses that are particularly relevant to those students to be expanded. The expansion of places at regional institutions in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, together with increased funding for off-campus programs and the proposals of institutions in Western Australia and Tasmania to open up study centres in country areas will increase opportunities for the population of rural and isolated areas where participation rates are low. In 1983, about half of the students entering higher education were female. The Government would expect this pattern to be reflected in the additional places now available in 1984. Special programs at institutions such as Deakin, Griffith and Murdoch Universities should facilitate access for those women returning to study after a long period of absence, or unable to regularly attend lectures on campus. I am also pleased that steps are to be taken to attract more women into traditionally male-dominated courses such as science, computing science, engineering, the technologies and management. The CTEC has advised that most universities and CAEs already make some special provisions to assist disadvantaged groups to enter and participate effectively in higher education. These provisions include special entry options, the offering of courses by external study, scholarships directed to specific groups, modification of courses and facilities and the provision of special bridging and supplementary courses. I note that a number of institutions will be further developing these special provisions. I am pleased to see that institutions such as SAIT will be making special efforts through advertising and other means to encourage people from disadvantaged groups to apply for admission. Footscray and Phillip Institutes of Technology and La Trobe University plan to further develop support programs such as counselling services, bridging and course supplementation programs and tutorials in English. The development of off-campus programs at Deakin and Griffith universities should benefit women as well as assisting the participation of disabled students, while initiatives such as pilot courses at Flinders University to attract women into non-traditional areas are also very encouraging. It is of course important to ensure that there is no fall in the quality of education. The Commission is satisfied that while the proposals involve providing extra help at entry, the academic standards of graduating students will be maintained. As a result of the Government's initiative, it is expected that some 250 to 300 extra academic staff will be taken on in universities and colleges, together with a limited number of non-academic staff. In making academic staff appointments, the Government expects institutions to take account of the Senate Committee's recommendations on tenure in its Report on Tenure of Academics, and the CTEC's published advice on those recommendations. The Government expects to announce its decisions on the Senate Report early in the new year. I am pleased to see that the technical and further education sector is taking further initiatives in developing programs such as the Tertiary Preparation Course, which I understand will commence in N.S.W. next year at Randwick and Blacktown TAFEs. These courses are designed to give mature-age students study skills which will ease their return to tertiary study after an absence of some years and are an example of initiatives which are very much in line with the Government's aim of increasing participation of disadvantaged groups in tertiary education. While I am encouraged by the positive response from most institutions to the Government's initiatives, I note with concern that a small number of institutions have announced their intention to reduce intakes in 1984. The Government appreciates that higher than expected enrolments in 1983 have placed extra pressures on institutions. However, the Government expects institutions to make every effort not to reduce intakes in 1984 and in particular to avoid reducing opportunities for school leavers and those entering higher education for the first time. I have noted the Commission's comments concerning implications for future years , both in terms of recurrent and capital expenditure of the provision of additional recurrent funds for increased participation in higher education in 1984. I have also noted the Commission's proposal that construction should commence on a small number of important capital projects towards the end of 1984 . Next year is of course the last year of the current triennium and funding decisions for the 1985-87 triennium will necessarily be made in the context of the 1984 guidelines and budget. While the Government intends to continue to encourage increased participation in tertiary education, particularly by disadvantaged groups, it is also concerned, because of overall budgetary constraints, to contain the additional costs so generated to the greatest possible extent. In accordance with the Commission's recommendations, an allocation of $260,000 has been set aside in 1984 for the initiation of pilot projects which will contribute to the development of future initiatives and to the longer term improvement of access by disadvantaged groups. The Government has also asked the Commission, in the context of its report for the 1985-87 triennium, due early next year, to bring foward recommendations to achieve greater equality of participation by social groups in tertiary education. The Government will look to the Commission to monitor progress towards this objective and will take full account of the Commission's proposals when making plans for the next triennium. ALLOCATION OF 1984 SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION PARTICIPATION INITIATIVES1 Institution$'000 New South Wales University of Wollongong 765 Armidale College of Advanced Education 35 Hawkesbury Agricultural College 105 Macarthur Institute of Higher Education 505 Mitchell College of Advanced Education 175 Nepean College of Advanced Education 700 Newcastle College of Advanced Education 140 Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education 225 Orange Agricultural College 140 Riverina College of Advanced Education 140 New South Wales Institute of Technology 140 Total advanced education: 2,305 TOTAL NEW SOUTH WALES 3,070 Victoria Deakin University 390 La Trobe University 355 Total universities: 745 Ballarat College of Advanced Education 155 Bendigo College of Advanced Education 195 Chisholm Institute of Technology 185 Footscray Institute of Technology 865 Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education 165 Institute of Catholic Education 95 Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences 45 Melbourne College of Advanced Education 110 Phillip Institute of Technology 270 Swinburne Limited 195 Victoria College 180 Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education 155 Total advanced education: 2,615 TOTAL VICTORIA 3,360 Queensland Griffith University 210 James Cook University of North Queensland 180 Total universities: 390 Brisbane College of Advanced Education 640 Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education 155 Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education 210 Queensland Agricultural College 65 Queensland Institute of Technology 275 McAuley Teachers College 40 Advanced Education in TAFE 80 Total advanced education: 1,465 TOTAL QUEENSLAND 1,855 South Australia Flinders University 135 South Australian College of Advanced Education 345 South Australian Institute of Technology 345 Total advanced education: 690 TOTAL SOUTH AUSTRALIA 825 Western Australia Murdoch University 260 Western Australia College of Advanced Education 505 Western Australia Institute of Technology 175 Total advanced education: 680 TOTAL WESTERN AUSTRALIA 940 Tasmania University of Tasmania 25 Tasmanian College of Advanced Education 135 TOTAL TASMANIA 160 TOTAL 10,210 (1) These amounts are expressed in the cost level of the November 1983 Amendments to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act. The amounts will be adjusted in accordance with the approved cost supplementation arrangements applying to higher education recurrent grants. An amount of $260, 000 (in the November 1983 cost level) has been allocated to support a small number of specific projects in 1984 which will contribute to the longer-term improvement of access by disadvantaged groups. These will be the subject of later recommendations by the Commission. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. The Senate is in its last week and it is not desirable that anyone should take undue time in debating any matter. The statement the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has brought down is significant, relating, as it does, to her portfolio and to the report from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission which she tabled today. It relates to the provision of extra places in higher education and to the Government's proposal to provide money for 3,000 such places. I will be very brief and say that the only concerns people have are that the Government, in providing extra places for those it calls disadvantaged, should not in fact fail to provide places for those students who could not consider themselves disadvantaged but who also wish to have places in higher education. The move the Government has made has attracted comment from within the tertiary education sector. I remind the Minister that the higher education round-table, representing as it does the staff associations from within universities and colleges of advanced education and the students, has said that the Government's proposals will not improve access sufficiently and do not go far enough. For a government which is preaching extra participation as a major strategy it will be necessary to provide many more places. I remind the Minister-indeed, her statement refers to the fact-that some universities will have to cut their intakes for 1984. I refer particularly to Macquarie University where first year intakes will have to be cut from 2,700 to 2,000 students. There will be a large number of students qualified by examination for whom there will not be places at Macquarie University in 1984 and for whom there would have been places in 1983. Whilst I applaud much of what the Minister has done, there are still deficiencies. I am also attracted to the Minister's recognition in her statement and to her acknowledgment that most universities and colleges are already working to improve access for groups which have been called disadvantaged. That has been our sense all the way through. There was some concern that the Government was, in fact, failing to make that recognition. We welcome the inclusion in the Minister's statement of that recognition of what the universities are already doing. As one who had something to do with the formation of the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, I am delighted to see that it will have some part to play in the new places which are available. One would want to say more on the report brought down by the Minister but it will keep until another time. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —I inform the Senate that Mr President has received a message from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the following members of the House of Representatives have now been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: Mr Kent, Dr Klugman and Mr McGauran. I also inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) nominating Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Reynolds to be members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the Provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Reynolds be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Consideration resumed from 9 December 1983. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.56) —I seek the concurrence of the Committee with some procedural suggestions which might expedite our consideration of this matter. The words we propose to leave out of this clause are identical to the words we propose to leave out in another part of the Bill where similar clauses occur. It might suit the convenience of the Committee if I made a number of procedural suggestions which might allow us to bring together the propositions which are identical in wording and which might be considered together. Accordingly, I seek leave to consider clauses 3 and 24 together. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —Having already moved amendment No. (2), I seek leave to move amendments Nos (3) and (4) together. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (3) Page 10, sub-clause 3 (10), lines 31 to 34, leave out the sub-clause. (4) Page 10, sub-paragraph 3 (11) (a) (i), lines 38 and 39, leave out the sub- paragraph. Clause 3 (Interpretation) and clause 24 (Grants for recurrent expenditure of non-systemic schools). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.57) —There are several amendments to clause 24. At a later stage I might suggest that final consideration of that clause be postponed until we get to another set of amendments, just to keep our votes together. I now seek leave to move amendments Nos (11), (12) and (13) together. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (11) Page 31, paragraph 24 (1) (a), lines 11 to 28, leave out all words after ' 'commencing day'', insert ''or''. (12) Page 31, sub-clause 24 (2), lines 32 to 35, leave out the sub-clause. (13) Page 31, sub-paragraph 24 (3) (a) (i), lines 39 and 40, leave out the sub- paragraph. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Button, J. N. Rae, Peter Cook, P. F. S. Lajovic, M. E. Walsh, P. A. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.04) —We did not repeat the arguments which applied to amendments (2), (3) and (4) or (11), (12) and (13). They were rehearsed when the Committee was considering this matter last week. I now move on to amendment (5) which has been circulated in the name of the Opposition and I seek leave to move together amendments (5) and (14). Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —Amendments (5) and (14) are identical in their terms. One of them refers to non-government systemic schools and one to non-government non- systemic schools. They relate to different clauses of the Bill and it is for that reason that I have sought leave to consider them together: There is one common argument which relates to both of them. In each case I will move that certain words be left out and that extra words be added which relate to the viability of schools. The words which we seek to leave out seek to make the approval for funding of certain schools dependent upon a number of matters which we believe are difficult to define and perhaps onerous. The first stipulation is that 'a school has been the subject of adequate consultation with educational authorities of the State'. We do not know what the word 'adequate' means. It is a word which could have a different meaning in the eye of the beholder. We think it is a word that will give the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) considerable difficulty. What is adequate consultation? That is how the Bill is presently drafted and we think that those words should come out. Secondly, the Bill provides: if the school is, or is to be, situated in an area other than a developing area- the school is not likely to have a significant adverse effect upon the viability of the existing government or non-government schools (if any) in that first- mentioned area; Last week, by way of one example, we discussed what might happen if within a developed area the need emerged for a new school. It could well be, in terms of this sub-clause, that such a school could be situated other than in a developing area and it could be a school which might have a significant adverse effect on some other school in the area. This sub-clause as drafted, if it applied to such a school, would be onerous and inappropriate. It is for that reason that we seek to have those words taken out. Finally the clause stipulates that 'the school has reasonable prospects of long term viability'. Again, as that is drafted, it could be read to mean long term viability on its own, whereas in fact the viability of non-government schools is the viability they have in association with the funding they receive from government because part of their income will be by way of government subsidy. I suggest that many group 3 schools today would not be viable if it were not for the subsidy they receive by way of government grant. Therefore, in terms of liability, we seek to add the words 'if the level of assistance applicable in relation to the school were to be the level numbered 3 in column 1 of Schedule 8 , the school would have reasonable prospects of long-term viability'. All we are trying to say is that, if one is assessing the viability of a school, it should be a school that is receiving adequate government subsidy. We try merely to set into the concept of long term viability the necessity for that school to be able to count into its income, for the purposes of viability, the support it would receive from Government. We are concerned that in the clauses concerned decisions are to be made about funding levels but the criteria laid down are vague and arbitrary. They should be better understood. The meaning of the words 'adequate consultation' is not spelt out. I would like the Minister to explain what she understands by the word 'adequate' in this context. That is the word that concerns some people. We want to know what she means by 'significant adverse effects' and we want to know whether, if a non-government school remains open and functioning perfectly well, even if it has fewer students, this will mean that the school would be considered to have been adversely affected? If not, we would like to know what are the dividing lines. Even if one wanted to say that one has to have a proper regard to the balance between systems, a number of matters here remain too vague to give people likely to be affected great confidence in their application. Accordingly, I move: (5) Page 11, paragraphs 3 (11) (e), (f) and (g), lines 9 to 15, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following word and paragraph: ''and (e) if the level of assistance applicable in relation to the school were to be the level numbered 3 in column 1 of Schedule 8, the school would have reasonable prospects of long- term viability,''. (14) Page 32, paragraphs 24 (3) (e), (f) and (g), lines 9 to 15, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following word and paragraph: ''and (e) if the level of assistance applicable in relation to the school were to be the level numbered 3 in column 1 of Schedule 8, the school would have reasonable prospects of long- term viability''. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.10) — The Opposition's amendments seek to amend, first of all, clause 24 (3) (e), which states: the school has been the subject of adequate consultation with education authorities of the State; I admit that I am not quite sure what that clause means. It does not mean anything in English so presumably it means something in draftese. The subject of that clause is missing. I presume that it is not the Minister as referred to in clause 3 (11). The assumption must be that clause 24 (3) (e) does not refer to adequacy of consultation between the janitor and somebody else so I suppose it must refer to the school authorities. It does not really make much difference, because sub-clause (3) (c), after all, is all-encompassing. It states: the school has been recognized as a school by the State Education Minister of the State; If that has occurred it means that it has been the subject of adequate consultation, as the Minister in each State is required to go through a process in order to decide whether to recognise a school as legitimate. After the meeting which was held between the State Ministers and the Federal Minister for Education, there is a hope that every State will follow a much more rigid and encompassing method of registering schools than has been the case in the past. I think that will be welcomed by everybody. We have debated this previously so I do not think there is any need for us to go into that. The Australian Democrats policy has always been that where a new school, whether it be a State or private school, is developed, it ought not be developed in such a way as to affect adversely either private or state schools. One should not read this clause as referring only to private schools. One should also read it as referring to state schools. I believe it extremely important that, in regard to where a state school is to go, there ought to be some discussion about whether there is likely to be any adverse affect on private schools. So it cuts both ways. We prefer that the clause remain. We would have preferred it to have been tougher, but the Government has made a decision not to have it so. Senator Peter Baume —The clause refers only to non-government schools. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, but I am saying that it should be the case for both. Sub- clause (3) (g) states: the school has reasonable prospects of long term viability, I cannot see anything unreasonable about that. The point that Senator Baume raised, I think, is possibly a fairly long shot. If one is to take a long shot on that, presumably one would take a long shot on sub-clause (3) (d), to which he did not refer. It states: the school is not conducted for the profit, direct or indirect, of an individual or individuals; I presume that any school would be conducted for the profit of individuals, that is, the children. If it is not it should not be funded at all, in which case one would object more to sub-clause (3) (d) than to sub-clause (3) (g). Surely sub- clause (3) (g) is self-explanatory. The situation is that one wishes to be sure that any school will have a prospect of continuing, and continuing for some length of time because, indeed, we are not here talking about recurrent funds only; we are talking about capital funds, and school buildings are not of much use to terribly many other organisations if a school vacates them. I think it is extremely important that any responsible Minister has regard to long term prospects on a capital funding basis. I believe that money ought to be put into buildings only where there is a prospect that the school will continue over a reasonable time so the taxpayer can recoup a reasonable return on his investment. Presumably, sub-clause (3) (g) can be read in that sense only. The prospect of long term viability must be read in the total context because, from clause 3 (11) (a) (ii) one sees that the Minister is looking at it, in the totality of the situation, as an approved school. That totality would necessarily include the component of Federal moneys which may come to the school by way of recurrent grant. On that basis, the Democrats could not support the deletion of those provisions although we have that query about sub-clause (3) (e ). We do not accept the Opposition's amendments. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.14) —The meaning of the word 'adequate' in the clause as drafted refers to the normal procedures of consultation between Federal and State authorities which, in respect of these matters, are pursued mainly through the work of the State planning and finance committees. Such consultation has proved adequate for certain decisions to be taken. We do not see any reason why it will not prove adequate in the future. However, it is important that the legislation make clear that there ought to be consultation. I am sure that the non- government schools involved will have their views about whether the consultation has been adequate from their point of view. I do not believe that the consultation procedures that the State planning and financing committees engage in when discussing the possibility of recommending funding for new schools has been the subject of criticism on the ground that it has been inadequate. I do not believe that there is any possibility of spelling out in legislation what would be adequate in the case of every possible school that is ever considered by any State planning and finance committee. I think Senator Peter Baume is quite familiar with the work of those committees. He would recognise that most clients or people discussing possible schools with the committees have found those procedures adequate. With regard to the question of long term viability, it is part of the responsibility of government to ensure that schools that are established and receive Commonwealth capital and recurrent grants are viable. It has not always been the case that schools receiving grants have been viable. I have heard of several instances of schools that have received capital grants from the Government not being viable because there was not enough community support or the programs turned out not to be satisfactory from the point of view of the parents of the children involved. Those schools have closed down after a few months, or a couple of years, of operation. Such a result is unsatisfactory for the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth loses money that it cannot easily regain. The State has usually, by that stage, also lost money. Of course, it is most unsatisfactory from the point of view of the children, who have the very destabilising experience of being put into a new school, finding that the school has collapsed and then having to find some other school to attend. I think a minimal requirement for a responsible government would be to ensure that a school is viable. Of course we are looking at the totality of the school's circumstance including its capacity to attract recurrent grants from the Schools Commission. I do not accept the amendment moved by the Opposition, which tries to pre-empt the consideration that the Commission would give and tries to write in, as inevitable, a certain amount of funding, extrapolating from that that once category 3 funding was available the school would be viable. Even if category 3 funding were available for some prospective projects it may still be the case that the State planning and finance committee would consider them not to be viable. Senator Baume ought to be aware that communities put resources over and above what is available through category 3 funding into schools. If those resources were not available even the capacity to attract level 3 funding would not, of itself, mean viability. The Opposition's amendments are not acceptable. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.17) —I thank the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). We do not agree. It is a difference of view, a different view of the world, perhaps. I do not believe the Minister gave us any idea of what is meant by 'significant adverse effect'. Those words are contained in sub-clause (3) (f). They form part of the words which the Minister has included in the Bill. We believe those words, likewise, are vague and subject to very wide interpretation. I raised this question in my previous remarks. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.18) —Again I think Senator Baume is anxious to try to have every possible case covered for all time in one piece of legislation. That paragraph announces the principle that there ought not be a significant adverse effect on existing schools. What would constitute significant adverse effect would vary from situation to situation. Obviously, if an existing non-government school was forced into closure because a new school started up next door to it, that would be a significant adverse effect. Obviously, if a government school was forced into closure because a new school was being provided alongside it, that would be a significant adverse effect. But clearly other matters are involved-things like the range of subjects available in a school, the extent of community support if it is a non-government school, and whether that community support is going to be withdrawn, have to be considered. A whole range of educational matters needs to be taken into account when the concept of adverse effect is being explored. It is not possible, and I do not think desirable, to try to cover all cases in one piece of legislation. I have confidence that the State planning and finance committees will be able to investigate these matters in an intelligent, rational and fair way. They are the bodies properly constituted to decide what constitutes significant adverse effects. Certainly the transfer of a few students would not constitute that, but in between that situation and forcing a government or a non-government school into closure there could be many circumstances which could be considered to be significantly adverse. Those circumstances are to be discovered and reported upon by the State planning and finance committees. They are not to be the subject of rigid pronouncements in a piece of Commonwealth legislation. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.20) —I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that our concern remains. I agree with the Australian Democrats that it is very hard to know what is meant by paragraph (e), in spite of the attempts of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to explain it to us. We are still concerned about (f) and we do believe the extra words we propose for (g) are ones which should be added and we will therefore press our amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, Peter Walsh, P. A. Lajovic, M. E. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.28) —Mr Chairman, there are more amendments to clause 24. Senator Chipp —You had six senators missing from that division. Senator PETER BAUME —I am trying to address you, Mr Chairman. I do not know what is concerning Senator Chipp. Senator Chipp —That you are calling divisions and you have six people not here; that is what is concerning me. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr Chairman, the Opposition will call divisions when it wants to, and I trust Senator Chipp will come in answer to the bells when they ring. The Opposition has some more amendments to clause 24 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill but they properly relate to some amendments that were moved to clause 23. I therefore suggest, as a matter of procedure, that it may be appropriate at this stage to postpone further consideration of clause 24. I therefore move: That consideration of clause 24 be postponed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.29) —I move: (6) Page 13, sub-clause 3 (20), lines 15 to 17, leave out the sub-clause. The argument on this amendment was debated last Friday in Committee. It relates to the question of what is a developing area. The arguments are on the record. We believe this sub-clause should be deleted and I have so moved. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.30) — The Australian Democrats' comments on this subject will probably best be made during the discussion of the Opposition's amendment No. 18 which refers to appeals. I propose to discuss why we do not support this amendment at that time because it will be a more all-encompassing discussion. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 19-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.31) —I ask the Minister to direct her attention to clause 5 and to the provision in clause 5 for moneys for new arrivals receiving an education in English as a second language. I direct the Minister's attention to the amount of $862 which is made available as financial assistance for each eligible new arrival. I now draw the Minister's attention to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1982 where, at the same point in clause 5, the amount of money made available was, I believe, an amount not exceeding $880. That amount of $880 was provided in a Bill passed at the end of 1982 and the Minister is proposing to make available only $860 in a Bill being put forward at the end of 1983. I understand that it may not be possible to apply a simple deflator for reasons which have to do with the kind of dollar estimates that were used. But nevertheless, there has been a significant reduction in the provision per capita for new arrivals receiving an education in English as second language. I ask the Minister to explain why this has been done and how she justifies it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.32) —The officers are seeking the precise figures. But the figures that Senator Baume quoted for the 1982 Bill included a part for wage indexation for wage rises that did not occur. So it is being reduced in this Bill to $841. I draw Senator Baume's attention to page 67, line 36 of the Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.32) —I ask the Minister why the amount was reduced to $841. Does that mean she has provided less than the amount that last year's Bill made available? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.33) —Yes. The Bill made available a prospective allowance for wage increases which did not in fact occur because of the wage pause. The amount of money has now been corrected to the amount of money that was actually allocated. Clauses agreed to. Clause 20 (Approval of building projects and equipment projects in connection with non-government schools). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.33) —by leave-There are two amendments to clause 20, Nos (7) and (8), which have been circulated in my name. I move: (7) Page 24, sub-clause 20 (5), definition of ''prescribed purpose'', paragraph (a), lines 41 and 42, leave out all words after ''non-government school''. (8) Page 25, sub-clause 20 (5), definition of ''prescribed purpose'', paragraph (c), lines 4 and 5, leave out all words after ''non-government school''. Very simply, the two provisions which we seek to amend are both part of the apparatus being put in place which the Opposition believes will limit the expansion of non-government schools. They impose requirements which will make it more difficult for non-government schools to expand. Two paragraphs of clause 20 (5) contain these words: 'not being a project the effect of which is, or is likely to be, to create additional places at that school'. We believe that this is part of the apparatus to restrict grants. We can see no reason why, if it is the recommendation of a planning and finance committee, and if the Minister wanted to accept that recommendation, there is any necessity for this to be written into the legislation. For reasons which we have set out on several occasions, we resist as a matter of principle the idea of limitation of the expansion of non-government schools by legislation such as this. We see it as part of an on-going attack upon non-government schools. The attempt to put restrictions upon the grants is, we believe, one of the ways in which non- government schools are being, as it were, constrained on a number of fronts. Because of that, I have moved both of the amendments and seek the support of the Committee. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.35) —The amendments are not acceptable. They seek to confuse the purpose of this part of the Bill, which provides for grants for the upgrading or improvement of existing facilities. Where there are to be new facilities, extensions or new places, those proposals must be the subject of the provision to which Senator Baume has taken exception. But I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to separate the provision of capital for the improvement or upgrading of existing facilities from the question of providing new places or extensions for which there is now laid down a proper procedure for gaining approval. So the amendments are not acceptable. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.36) —Money may be granted to build new classrooms to replace old classrooms and the old classrooms may then become vacant. A school might previously have had old classrooms containing, say, 50 children and might want to put 20 children into the old classrooms, in what now might be perfectly satisfactory accommodation. It is precisely for that reason that we are opposing those words to which I have referred. We can see that the Minister, in providing for the upgrading of facilities in some schools where the facilities are poor, may be concerned to ensure that she is not going in by the back door and providing for major expansion. But it is possible in some circumstances for buildings or rooms to be made surplus and for those rooms then to be used to take small numbers of extra students. We think that while that may not occur often, it is a possibility. As I said in introducing the amendments, we are sensible to the role of the planning and finance committees in each State . We are sensible to the fact that advice would be given. But we think that those words contained in the Bill preclude what might be perfectly sensible arrangements in some circumstances where the money which is provided under this part of the Bill is used properly. It is possible that a school may be able to take a small number of extra students simply because space may become free which was previously used for the accommodation of, say, a large number of students. For that reason we press the amendments. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Baume's amendments) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Lajovic, M. E. Cook, P. F. S. MacGibbon, D. J. Grimes, D. J. Rae, Peter. McClelland, DouglasTeague, B. C. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 21 and 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 23 and 24-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.45) —by leave-I move: (9) Page 28, sub-clause 23 (4), line 35, after ''have regard'', insert ''to the right of every child who attends a non-government school to a basic grant from the Commonwealth in respect of the education of the child at the school that the parents or guardians of the child have chosen and''. (15) Page 32, sub-clause 24 (4), line 27, after ''have regard'', insert ''to the right of every child who attends a non-government school to a basic grant from the Commonwealth in respect of the education of the child at the school that the parents or guardians of the child have chosen and''. These two amendments are identical in wording. They are important amendments because they state, among the matters to which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) shall have regard in making the grants, that the principle that every child has a right to basic support shall be recognised. Mr Chairman, if one goes back through a whole series of annual reports from the Commonwealth Schools Commission one finds that the basic grant to children has been endorsed. The report which appeared early this year titled 'Recommendations for 1984' was merely the last in a long series of reports. I believe that every Commonwealth school report to government, up to that one had always recommended a continuation of basic support for every child in non-government schools. We have argued during the second reading debate, and at various other times, that we believe that every child should have some support for his or her schooling in whatever school the parents have chosen. This is a matter of principle. Including the words here merely indicates that the Minister, in determining the level of financial assistance, should have regard to the fact that every child is entitled to some support. This would not have the effect by itself of increasing or altering an appropriation, but it would be a recognition by the Parliament and by the Minister of this right which attracts to every child in every non-government school. It has been drafted in such a way that the Government can have it there without an embarrassment, without any problems with funding proposals. That principle could be inserted and recognised, as it has been recognised year after year by the Commonwealth Schools Commission in its reports to government. Some quite disturbing things have happened lately. For example, Mr Van Davy recommended to the Commonwealth Schools Commission, when it was looking at options, that the zero funding option should be considered. He was one of the part time commissioners and he asked the Schools Commission to consider that proposal. Because that is known and because people are concerned that that kind of option is on the agenda, they want the words put in merely to get the principle identified. The Opposition will regard the vote on this matter as a vote about how people feel about the principle. The people who are listening to this debate will look at the vote to see how people regard that principle-the principle that every child who attends a non-government school is entitled to some basic grant from the Commonwealth. I invite the committee to support this amendment, being declaratory in nature and enshrining, as it would, a very desirable practice in school funding in Australia. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.48) — This portion of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983, to which the Opposition has moved amendments, has appeared in similar Bills on a number of occasions. I take honourable senators back to the debate last year on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1982 when Senator Peter Baume, who has just spoken, was Minister for Education. Clause 4 of that Bill was almost identical with the terms of this Bill. In other words, Senator Baume, when Minister for Education, found no need to include that principle in the Bill. The Liberal-National parties saw no need to include that principle. I quote the clause from last year. It states: The Minister shall, in determining for the purposes of sub-section (3) the level at which financial assistance is to be provided under this section to a school for the purposes of meeting recurrent expenditure of the school in respect of the year 1983, have regard to the need of the school for such assistance. Senator Baume said that he would regard the vote on his amendment as a vote on whether or not one accepts the principle. I would like to quote from a letter that I wrote to the Catholic bishops in relation to a Press statement they issued on 1 September 1983. In that statement the bishops referred to two principles-one, the basic recurrent grant principle enunciated in the Opposition 's amendment; and the other the role of the Government in respect of those in need, a role which they reaffirmed. I wrote to the bishops in these terms: I refer to the public statement issued in Canberra on 1st September, in which you vigorously re-affirmed your policy on the provision of funds for non- government schooling. In the statement you refer to two principles; first the right of all children to share in educational funding and the second the right of those in need to receive more. The Democrats accept these principles also. The Australian Democrats have argued constantly for increased education expenditure but to little avail. In the current situation, we are confronted with the fact that the House of Representatives has allocated a sum to non- government schools. The Senate does not have the power to increase the burden on the taxpayer and so . . . we must choose how to vote on the bill before us, however much we would like a different bill. As a consequence the principles you raise in your statement are in conflict in the instance. If the basic recurrent grant is not reduced to some students those in need will not receive the full increase provided in the legislation. If such circumstances arise-and I believe that they will-I would welcome advice . . . That letter was sent to all Catholic bishops. I received a number of replies which alluded to the basic problem that we had raised-that confronted with only a Yes or No choice we could not have everything that we would want. Under the current arrangement 2 per cent of schools come within category 1A, 13 per cent within category 1B, 7 per cent within category 2 and 78 per cent within category 3. Based on 1982 figures, 5 per cent of students are enrolled in category 1A schools, 12 per cent in category 1B schools, 3 per cent in category 2 schools and 80 per cent in category 3 schools. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the amount of money the previous Government gave per student to each of these categories and the estimated amount that the present Government proposes to give. After all, this is what we are being asked to vote upon. I remind honourable senators that the figures are comparable because they are based on 1984 prices. Under the previous Government, category 1A schools received $508 per student; under the current Government they will receive $381 per student. Under the previous Government category 1B schools received $500 per student; under the current Government they will receive $500 per student. Under the previous Government category 2 schools received $733 per student; under the current Government they will receive $741 per student. Under the previous Government category 3 schools received $885 per student; under the current Government they will receive $900 per student. In other words, in real terms the present Government is increasing the amount per student to both category 2 and category 3 schools and will provide the same amount to category 1B schools. This means that 95 per cent of students will have their basic grant either retained or increased. The Democrats had little option when confronted with whether we should support the reduced funding to category 1A schools or support the proposal to reallocate the money to the 80 per cent of students in categories 2 and 3. We must support the reallocation of that money to those most in need. I have said elsewhere, I have put it in writing and I have now read it into the Hansard that we support the right of each child to receive support from the Government. We support the principle that each child in need should receive more than others from the Government. However, we cannot subscribe to writing into the legislation a principle which, first of all, the previous Government saw no need to write in and which, secondly, as Senator Baume said, is only declaratory and therefore will not have any legislative effect. The Bill would be held up if we were to do that. We do not believe it is fair or reasonable to ask that such a statement be put in at this stage and, therefore, we will not support the amendment. Senator Baume has made clear what he thinks he is voting on. I think I have now made it clear what we believe we are voting on. We accept the declaratory statement. However, we believe that if we were to vote to add the statement to the clause- and I remind the Committee that the previous Government felt no need to do this- we would hold up legislation which seeks to provide funds for all government and non-government schools in this country. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.56) —The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by Senator Baume, partly for the reasons that Senator Macklin has given for his Party's view of this matter but also because Senator Baume is seeking by attempting, most inappropriately, I think, to incorporate this declaratory statement to pre- empt the work now being carried out by the Schools Commission, that work being consultation with non-government school authorities to arrive at the best way in which our commitment to ensuring that all children have an adequate standard of resources for their education is able to be achieved. The extent of Commonwealth support for schools operating without ostensible needs is currently under consideration. We certainly could not countenance the pre-empting of the Schools Commission's report and of the proper budgetary decisions to be taken by the Government next year by accepting the inclusion in the legislation of this declaratory statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.57) —It is necessary to respond to the significant point made by Senator Macklin, namely, why last year's legislation did not contain a declaratory statement. It will come as no news to anyone listening to this broadcast that the situation is different this year from what it was last year. Further, there was no suggestion last year that we should need to include those words. What we have this year is considerable uncertainty among non-government schools. I will just set out some reasons why this year it is necessary to have a statement on the principle. I say to Senator Macklin that, to people outside this place, a vote against the Opposition's amendment means no credibility. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) declared a week or two ago that the education policy of the Government is the education policy it took to the election. Senator Ryan —Right. Senator PETER BAUME —'Right', says the Minister. The policy the Government took to the election is quite clear. That policy talks about phasing out support for some children. It is quite clear that support is to be reduced from 20 per cent, to 15 per cent, to 10 per cent, to 5 per cent and then to nothing. That is the policy on which the Australian Labor Party went to the people. If the Prime Minister was telling the truth and if that is the Government's education policy, that policy is moving towards a position of no support for some children. That is why it is necessary to include this statement in the legislation. We need to find out who supports and who does not support a basic grant for all children. The Prime Minister told us that the Government's education policy is the one that it took to the people. He gave us a clear signal that it is a policy which will result in the total phasing out of support for some children, if not next year, the year after or the year after that. However, that is the program. The policy is clear. It is a policy of progressive reduction and the future for non- government schools is, therefore, uncertain. I say to Senator Macklin that the circumstances of that policy, taken to the people by this Government at the election in March, has made it necessary for a statement to be produced. I go further and say: The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has been offered, in many places and in many ways, every opportunity to give assurances that a basic grant for each person will be maintained. A couple of moments ago, in responding, the Minister actually said that it would be inappropriate to give that assurance ahead of the work that is being done within the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The only interpretation of that answer is that the 'no funding' option for some children is a real possibility. If the 'no funding' option is not a possibility, this statement could be agreed to irrespective of what the Schools Commission is doing. Everything this Government is doing-the Minister's answer two or three minutes ago and the statement of the Prime Minister-makes it quite clear that no child can be certain of a basic grant. The Minister has made it clear that the Commonwealth Schools Commission considerations, which she asked us not to pre- empt, do not necessarily promise a basic grant for every child. It is very necessary then that these amendments be considered. I raise one final matter. The Senate is meeting this week to consider several pieces of legislation. I cannot accept the assertion that was put to this Committee that it is not possible to agree to any words in amendments such as these because the House of Representatives is not sitting. The House of Representatives can be brought back. The legislation can-- Senator Macklin —I never said anything about the House of Representatives. Senator PETER BAUME —The honourable senator said that he did not want to delay the legislation. It would only be delayed for as long as it would take the House of Representatives to meet again. If this Senate is meeting this week and considering legislation it is possible in one piece of legislation or in several pieces of legislation that amendments or requests will be necessary. The fact that the House of Representatives is not sitting should have no place in our considerations. What we should look at are the principles and whether they are right. Some honourable senators in this Committee do not believe in a basic grant. That is fine; they will vote that way. Some do believe in it and they will vote that way. But one thing we cannot do is say that we believe in it and refuse to support it when we are put to the test. These are very important amendments. They are necessary this year. They have been made more necessary by the recent statements of the Prime Minister. The Opposition seeks support in the Committee for these two amendments which seek to add certain words, which will make it clear that the commitment to a basic grant for support for every Australian child is a support based on justice and is something with which this Senate wishes to be associated. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.05) —I understand that we are debating an amendment to clause 23 (4) of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. I apologise to the Committee for not being present to participate in this debate until this moment. However, I wish to express my support for the Opposition's amendment to this clause. It is designed to enshrine in the legislation the ability of parents to uphold a most important principle; that is, the principle that the parents have a prior right to decide the education most suited to their child or children without penalty. This is an opportunity for people to stand up and be counted where it is most important for them to stand up and be counted; that is, in this Parliament. It is also a necessary measure to test just how far the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) or the Government, whichever it may be, is prepared to go with statements that have been made. In the second reading stage I gave the Minister the opportunity to withdraw a statement which the Canberra Times of 26 September 1983 reports she made. It is as follows: The view that parents who chose non-government schooling for their children had a right or entitlement to government funding of that choice because they were taxpayers was a specious argument. The Minister addressed herself to that question inadequately, I believe, in that she asked: 'What about the people who are not taxpayers?' If her excuse, as it were, for that statement is that she agrees that that argument is specious because it does not deal with non-taxpayers and the right of non-taxpaying parents to choose the type of education best suited to their children, let us hear that from the Minister. I would agree with her under those circumstances. My view is that, whether or not parents are taxpayers, somewhere, sometime the tax man will get them, their families, their extended families or, indeed, their children, who are being educated. The principle simply is the prior right of parents to decide the type of education best suited to the child without penalty and without an undue burden which would restrict that right. It appears that there is an acceptance in this chamber by the Opposition, the Australian Democrats and me, that the basic grant principle should be upheld. On my way to Parliament I heard on the radio in the car Senator Macklin making comments about the basic grant. He has read into the Hansard his letter which upholds the basic grant. The problem he has with the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill-I suppose it is a problem that we all have with this Bill-is section 57 of the Constitution. We cannot increase the amounts of money that are made available in this Bill, or indeed in the cognate Bill, for education in Australia. I acknowledge that. However, as Senator Baume mentioned, this is declaratory in nature. As Senator Macklin accepted, it will have no effect in practice at this point in time for the disbursement of moneys. But it is important, as Senator Baume has said, to incorporate in the legislation this year a principle of a basic grant for every child, whereas, as he said, it was not necessary last year. The only argument then against the proposal is that it may delay the Bill. I take up the point that was just made by Senator Baume. It will delay the Bill until next Friday. It will not delay the Bill any further. Senator Macklin —It will if we insist on it. Presumably we would insist because we think it is important. Senator HARRADINE —That would depend entirely on what the House of Representatives did with it. We have all been in the business of politics for a fair time. We all know that we do not play all our cards at once. It would give members of the Government in the House of Representatives the opportunity of saying whether or not they agree with the concept of a basic grant for each child. I am sure quite a number of them agree with the concept of a basic grant for each child. As this measure is so important and so vital for the future of the children of this country, surely members of the House of Representatives will, in the meantime, give consideration to their position on this matter, having regard to all the statements that have been made broadly by education authorities. There will be no real delay. I take the point that was again made a moment ago that the Committee should not be confronted by the Government with a situation in the last week of sitting in which the Government is saying that the Bill will be delayed because the House of Representatives has got up for Christmas. That should not exercise our minds in any way and should not influence our votes on most important measures. This Committee has its responsibilities. If it chooses, in the exercise of those responsibilities to amend the Government legislation, it is necessary for the House of Representatives also to observe its responsibilities and consider what we have done. After all, this is the House of review. We have a right to review legislation such as this. If the amendments are rejected simply because of a decision by the House of Representatives to draw stumps and go home for Christmas, that is a pitiful way of looking at these matters. I urge the Committee to exercise its responsibilities fully in the knowledge that in so doing on this matter it is adopting a policy and incorporating in legislation a principle which the majority of honourable senators in this chamber agrees with. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.13) — The point I was making when I spoke in regard to the Bill being delayed was not so much as to whether the House of Representatives was sitting or not. I accept totally the point made by Senator Harradine that that is its problem, not ours. If the House of Representatives rejects the amendments, as it undoubtedly will because the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has been able to give that type of assurance already, the Committee will be faced with whether or not it wishes to insist on them. Surely if that is the point and if we believe it is worthwhile putting in these amendments we would have to insist on their being put in. Under those circumstances I think that the present Government would probably use the same tactics the previous Government used in relation to the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1982; that is, to say that if there is any hold-up on this matter, as Senator Baume said last year on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1982, the universities and the colleges of advanced education will not get their funds. It is a tack that Ministers use. I suppose one can see how much is in the poker game. Quite frankly, I am not willing to play it either in relation to universities, CAEs or to schools. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(5.14) —I simply repeat that the declaratory statement that Senator Baume is seeking to add to the Bill is not acceptable to the Government. It is the case that all students throughout Australia are receiving in the Budget a recurrent grant from the Commonwealth Government; they are also receiving a recurrent grant from the State Government. We have put forward the redistribution and the funding arrangements which this Government has decided to make and we cannot accept any diversion from this by a declaratory statement moved by Senator Baume. I remind the Committee that the question of future funding arrangements is being addressed with great seriousness and great care by the Commonwealth Schools Commission in consultation with non-government school authorities. It is entirely unacceptable to the Government to have any attempt to pre-empt that consultation process and the decisions that the Government will subsequently make by the amending of the Bill in terms of this declaratory statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.16) —I simply reiterate that the only reason why such a statement could cause difficulties for future programming is if there were on the agenda the possibility of some people getting no funds. If it is intended that everyone should get funds, nothing in these amendments will make it more difficult for the Commonwealth Schools Commission. If that is the case, if there is a hidden agenda and if we are going down the road the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would like to travel, to put into effect the education policy he took to the election, which did include some people getting no funds, that would be a very good reason why the Government would not want to see these words accepted. It would mean that somewhere down the line a couple of years hence someone would get no funds. We think that this principle is worth stating and worth testing. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.17) —I did not intend re-entering the debate. I wish to make the point that we pass this Bill every year. This year it has an amount of money allocated under it for private schools. Next year we will have another Bill. If that Bill does not provide the types of increases in funds that this Bill has provided, we need look not only at that matter but also at the other matters, such as making requests. I can say that quite openly. We are talking about the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill to which Senator Baume is trying to insert amendments. This Bill runs for only 12 months. We can see the amounts of money that have been provided. There is no hidden agenda; all the amounts of money are set out in the Bill. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Peter Baume's amendments) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, Peter Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.22) —I do not intend to move amendments Nos (10) and (16) as circulated. Instead, I move: Page 32, clause 24 (6), add the following paragraph: (a) The Minister may, on the application in writing of the approved authority of a school, vary the list of non-systemic schools by omitting the school from that list. The purpose of the amendment should be self-evident. It is merely to provide the Minister with the opportunity to respond to an application by a school, in writing, to be placed in a different category. It seems to me that there should be nothing exceptionable about the proposition, but I emphasise to the Committee that I move the amendment on its own and not in association with previously circulated amendments Nos (10) and (16) which sought to leave out words. Senator Macklin —You are not moving Nos (11), (12) and (13)? Senator PETER BAUME —They have been disposed of. Amendments Nos (10) and (16) related to the same matter, but we do not intend to move Nos (10) and (16) except that I am proposing the insertion of new paragraph (a) in clause 24 (6) in the words appearing in circulated amendment No. (16). I ask the Committee to support that. It merely gives the Minister the chance to respond if a school says that it wants to move from group 3 to group 2. It does not impose a duty on her to respond, but gives her that capacity. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 25 to 76-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 77 (Determinations to be in writing, &c.). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.24) —by leave-I move: (17) Page 67, clause 77, at end of clause, add the following sub-clause: '(2) Sections 48 (other than paragraph (1) (a)), 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act shall apply to any instrument referred to in sub-section (1) as if in that sub-section references to regulations were references to instruments, references to a regulation were references to an instrument and references to a repeal were references to a revocation.'. (18) Page 67, after clause 77, insert the following new clauses: Appeals '77A. An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision made by the Minister in the exercise of a power conferred by sub-section 3 (11), 23 (3) or 24 (3).'. Both these amendments seek to give some power of review of decisions. Amendment No. (17) seeks to add at the end of clause 77 a new sub-clause (2) which would bring within the purview of the Acts Interpretation Act certain decisions made by the Minister. The purpose is to make some of those decisions capable of disallowance by the Parliament. This merely seeks to bring to the Parliament the power to review some of the exercise of discretion or powers given to the Minister by the provisions of this Bill, which provisions we have not been able to have removed. It is not unusual for the Committee of the Whole to consider amendments which seek to have certain matters brought within the purview of parliamentary disallowance. The words used here to make such decisions subject to sections 48, 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act are merely the device to make them subject to disallowance by the Parliament. Those who have been following the debate will be aware of the kinds of discretions and decisions which this legislation, when proclaimed, will contain. To have some of them subject to parliamentary disallowance seems to us appropriate. Amendment No. (18) seeks to insert new sub-clause 77A. This amendment deals not with parliamentary review and disallowance but with the rights of applicants to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions made by the Minister in the exercise of powers conferred. The amendment was drafted on the assumption that we might be successful in having certain sub-clauses omitted . The Australian Democrats' amendment was drafted, I take it, Senator Macklin understanding how the votes would go, on the assumption that we would be unsuccessful. Should Senator Macklin move his amendment seeking to add a number of other sub-clauses with regard to power conferred on the Minister, the Opposition would support them. We believe certain people may well be aggrieved by certain decisions made as a result of this Bill becoming an Act. It seems to us that an appeal is merely a right of citizens affected by administrative actions. If the actions are properly taken, it is in no way a threat to a Minister or a government. Governments generally do not like having their actions subject to review or appeal, but it is good for citizens. It is good, first, because it gives them greater opportunities and, secondly, because it increases their confidence in the whole system. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), in her response to the second reading debate, indicated that she was not averse to an appeal mechanism. The Minister sketched out the bare bones of what she might have in mind. She said-and I do not disagree-that an appeal body should have some expertise. She said that she thought that it should be situated within her portfolio. A number of questions remain unanswered, at least to me, in terms of what the Minister put up at the end of the second reading debate. They relate to the matter now before the Committee. First of all, if she allows appeals on decisions of the Commonwealth Schools Commission by an independent body, will that body be situated within or in relation to the Commonwealth Schools Commission? If so, it will be seen in some ways as an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. Will that body make decisions and determinations which the Minister will accept, or will it make recommendations? There is a difference in the way in which the appeal procedure would be perceived and the way in which it would be accepted. If the body could make decisions on appeal and if these decisions would be binding upon government, I think the Opposition would have some regard to that. But if the body is to make recommendations only, that is not good enough. We believe that there needs to be some appeal body which can set aside ministerial decisions or determinations if these are seen to be oppressive or in any other way inappropriate. We propose two things. Firstly, we propose that certain actions by the Minister with reference to instruments or regulations shall be subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament. That is a perfectly normal procedure which we exercise occasionally and which applies to a large number of pieces of legislation and subordinate legislation. Secondly, we propose that an appeal procedure should be established and in the absence of a carefully spelled out alternative by the Minister. We are quite attracted to the Minister's proposition that there should be an independent expert appeal body, but until we have seen in detail what that body is to be or unless the Minister can set out for us in detail what that body will be, where it will sit and what its powers will be, we think an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal may be the best of a difficult group of alternatives. If the Minister wishes the non-government community to accept in good faith what she is proposing, I think she has to have in place an appeal mechanism which is seen to be fair and in which people can have some trust. In moving those amendments I ask the Minister in her response to give us what assurances she can and particularly to say what relationship her proposed appeal procedure might have to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Perhaps one member of that body might have some relationship to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. What we are seeking is some appropriate and accessible appeal mechanism for those who are concerned about decisions which may be made under the provisions of this Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(5.37) —The Government has given very careful consideration to the whole question of appeals in this area, as in all areas of government. I point out, as Senator Macklin has at a previous point in the debate, that it is surprising that the Opposition now finds itself so committed to the proposal that administrative decisions of the Schools Commissioner or by the Minister in this area should be appellable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when it had a number of years in which it could have made such a provision itself which, I think, would not have met with any opposition from the Australian Labor Party. I also point out for the benefit of people who may be listening to this debate that there is already in place an appeals mechanism within the Schools Commission which involves a very lengthy reconsideration by State planning and finance committees, an independent auditor and so forth. As far as I am aware there has been no complaint about the existing appeals procedure. There also exists for decisions made in these areas the possibility of an appeal to the Ombudsman or to the Federal Court of Australia. It would be very misleading if Senator Baume's comments were taken to suggest that currently no appeal is possible or that a great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed with the existing appeals mechanism. Neither of those is the case. However, following further discussions with Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats I have thought further about improving the appeals mechanisms available to people who are dissatisfied with decisions by the Schools Commission or by the Minister. I have had discussions with my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) as to the appropriateness of making these decisions appellable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Attorney- General has taken the view that it would be appropriate to have the decisions made so appellable, but he agrees with me and I think with Senator Macklin and now, it appears, with Senator Baume that a specialist tribunal would be needed to give proper attention and consideration to the very specialised and complex matters that arise in putting schools into special funding categories and the acceptance of decisions of the Schools Commission with regard to planning procedures and so on. I undertake and commit the Government to a constructive discussion with the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General's Department and the Schools Commission, with which I have not had adequate time to discuss this matter at length, and with Senator Macklin-if Senator Baume has further views on this I would be interested to hear them-so that we can establish a new appeals procedure which will have the characteristics of independence from the body which originally made the decision, which I agree is a desirable thing, expertise, so that the decisions will not be overturned by a body with no expert knowledge in this matter and the appropriateness of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I am foreshadowing that we will establish a specialist appeals tribunal and that it will come within the umbrella of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator Peter Baume —You say it will? Senator RYAN —That is the proposal. The proposal is that it will be an independent specialist tribunal under the umbrella of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I should make it clear that the proposal will be discussed with the Schools Commission-I have not had an opportunity to do that-and, of course, by the Government. That is currently the proposal which the Attorney-General and I will pursue in a positive fashion. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.38) —The Opposition has moved two amendments. I wish to respond positively to what the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has just said. The Minister has given the Committee some undertakings. I understand that she has undertaken to open up discussions with a view to establishing a tribunal which has independence and expertise and which is within the umbrella of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is what the Opposition was seeking. It seems, if we pick up the point made by Senator Macklin not long ago, that we have not infrequent opportunities to look at the operations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I am willing now to seek leave to withdraw amendment No. (18) on the understanding that we will be guided by experience. If we set up the kind of appeals procedures envisaged and if it is as it seems it might be, I believe it would meet our needs and the needs of non-government schools. They want a reasonable appeal process. As a first step I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. (18) circulated in my name on the understanding that on a subsequent occasion we may want to come back down that road if the need remains. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Senator PETER BAUME —That leaves amendment No. (17) and the question of disallowance of appropriate instruments and Acts. I am not trying to be combative now but there is a perception that things are different. There is a new policy, a new government and groups of people are concerned about some of the new powers which are vested in the Minister in the Bill. This Bill extends the powers of the Minister in significant areas and to seek to have a power of disallowance is not considered inappropriate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.40) —I do not propose now to go ahead with moving the proposed amendment I have circulated which is similar in wording to amendment No. (18) moved by the Opposition. I think that the assurance given by the Minister is precisely what the Australian Democrats were also seeking. I must admit that we were not too successful in getting that type of assurance from the previous Government, and I hope that the current Government will give us such assurances more often. I believe there is a settled view, and I presume it is shared by all parties, that where an evaluative decision is to be made by the Minister, it is the right of a citizen to be able to make an appeal on that decision, which is not as onerous as taking it to the Federal Court of Australia , which could be an expensive business particularly for a poor school. A less onerous and more effective way to deal with most matters has been to establish a specialist committee under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I think that the specialist committee is needed for one other reason and that is that most of the evaluative decisions which may have to be made on appeal would be of such a nature that if they were not made in a very short space of time after the appeal , there would not be much point in pursuing them, because the effect would be such that the school involved would probably not be around. We believe the other amendment moved by the Opposition is reasonable. We cannot support it here, but I certainly appeal to the Minister to look at the notion contained within that amendment, which is certainly worthy of support. We hope that at a later stage, and certainly the next time this Bill comes before the Senate, an amendment will be included to allow such instruments as were included in the Opposition's amendment which provided for the possibility of making some disallowance in relation to the definition of what might be a developing area under sub-clause (20). That was probably the idea that Senator Baume had in mind so that that determination or some other determination or instrument issued by the Minister might also be able to be the subject of scrutiny by this chamber. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(5.43) —I thank Senator Baume and Senator Macklin for their co-operative response to amendment No. (18). The Government does not accept amendment No. (17 ). The undertaking I have now given with regard to the proposed provisions for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal might answer some of the anxieties which prompted the moving of amendment No. (17). Basically the problem is this: The number of administrative decisions concerning the declaration of areas is such that it would be a serious impediment to the work of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and to the operation of schools if decisions regarding their funding were to be made subject to disallowance in this place. Delays which schools cannot afford to tolerate would inevitably follow. Non-government schools, particularly, constantly say that what they most need is security and the ability to know where they stand and plan their year's program accordingly. If a number of decisions regarding their capital or other entitlements were to be made and then not secured because of the possibility of their being disallowed in this chamber, I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of the proper operation of those schools. I believe it would place intolerable burdens on the operation of the School's Commission, which would not know what money it had available until the time allowed for disallowance in this chamber had elapsed. I do not think the amendment is necessary. I am not aware of decisions of the Schools Commission having been such that any recipient of funds has felt the need to have decisions of the Schools Commission subject to disallowance in this chamber. There will be an improved appeals provision. If we were to go too far along the track of making every administrative decision of the Commission or the Minister in this regard, subject to disallowance in this place we would have planning and administrative chaos. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 November 1983, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.46) —The second reading debate on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill was held cognately with two other Bills. It is necessary now for me to move the amendment to the second reading motion which was foreshadowed. I therefore move: At end of motion, add '', but the Senate condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian tertiary students''. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McLelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Lajovic, M. E. Elstob, R. C. MacGibbon, D. J. Evans, GarethRae, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Teague, B. C. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.53) —The Opposition has no amendments to this Bill. I would simply like the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) to tell me why colleges of advanced education or the universities at Newcastle and Armidale get less in real terms as separate institutions than they did as amalgamated institutions. That is the first question. Secondly, what is the likely situation on the Goulburn campus? I have a great concern for the people of Goulburn. I understand their worries. I have seen the Press reports by the Premier of New South Wales in relation to his intentions at Goulburn. I want the Minister to tell us what funding consequences will follow. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(5.54) —I think Senator Peter Baume will be aware that the money for those colleges was fixed by the previous Government. We made it quite clear that while we were prepared not to proceed with the proposed amalgamations there would be no additional money available. Senator Peter Baume —There is less. Senator RYAN —It is the money that was fixed by the previous Government. I think we might be looking at some need to adjust for the 1984 year because I am assured by the officers that the same amount of money was available. The most recent advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission with regard to the Goulburn campus is that if a proposal is received from the State Government it will be considered in the context of planning for the 1985-87 triennium. I understand that a specific proposal has not yet been received by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission from the New South Wales Government. We will have to monitor that situation and I will inform Senator Baume as matters develop. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.55) —I do not want to delay the Bill. However, any amounts contained for any institutions in the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill relate to decisions by this Government. This Government has put this Bill forward. I repeat that if we add the amounts that are available for the unamalgamated colleges, the sum is slightly less than it would have been had they been treated as amalgamated colleges. In relation to Goulburn, the concern is that the Premier of New South Wales has made a statement which many people in Goulburn have received well because they are concerned about the campus. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) may see some unilateral action by New South Wales. I hope she has some funding proposals. The Premier said that he will unamalgamate it. He went to the people of Goulburn and said that publicly. If the Minister does not have specific proposals she had better get some. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.57) —I respond on behalf of the Opposition to the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. In fact, many of the changes might be described as part of the ordinary ongoing process of government. They make for improvements in administration and are therefore supported. In other areas the Opposition is concerned not with the proposed provisions when taken at face value but with what might be the Government's motivation and how in practice it will implement such provisions. In other words in the area of health reform so far in this Government's first year we have witnessed a growth in government bureaucracy, a corresponding lessening of the role of the private sector and a reduction of the freedom of choice for both health providers and patients. What we are having implemented appears to us to be a less efficient health service at what will be a greater cost. We have that situation, because of the ideological bent of this Government, the mentality that government knows best and provides best, that people should not be encouraged to look after their own affairs, and that they should accept being herded to comply with the restrictions of socialised medicine because it is in their best interests. When we look at the Bill, which in its most important parts is a health reform Bill, this time in relation to support for patients requiring nursing home accommodation-in other words, largely concerning care for the aged-we do so with some trepidation. We examine it in accordance with the goals that we think are important and which those who support us think are important; for example, that all Australians should be encouraged within their financial situations to plan for advanced years and the possibility of the need of such nursing care. Nursing home care should nevertheless be available to those who are in need. It should be of a high standard. It should be provided in a pleasant, compassionate environment. That means as far as possible keeping patients within their own communities. The care should be provided in the most economically efficient manner, and Australians should not be forced into nursing homes by the lack of facilities more suitable to their personal situations, which is obviously not in their individual best interests or the nation's best interests. These are the types of considerations we take into account. On perusal, the Bill appears to be not inconsistent with our objectives. Nevertheless, because of the Government's ideological blinkers, which we have seen operate this year in other areas of health care, and because of certain statements made by the Minister in his speech and by other Government members in debate in the other place, we remain concerned. The Minister stated: . . . Australia overall has very adequate provision of nursing home accommodation . . . The implication is that we can rest on our laurels. Many areas, particularly in some country communities, are inadequately serviced by nursing homes. Applying our test-that such care should be available to those in need and desirably within their own communities-we are concerned lest the Minister is hinting at downgrading this program. That appears to be what he is doing because he continues, in his second reading speech: The priorities of the Government as expressed in its election policy for the care of the aged are to moderate growth in the nursing home sector. I remind the Senate that since this Government came to power there have been no approvals-which is more than merely moderating growth. I also remind the Senate that it is not only private developers-and one suspects that much of the Government's concern in relation to this matter flows from its ideological views -who are having to bear the cost of this standstill, but also communities that have raised funds for building projects and are now seeing their efforts eaten away by cost rises, as well as prospective patients. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in replying to the second reading debate in the other place, said that the delay was only temporary; that in the New Year he would put on extra staff in order to catch up. That is inconsistent with what he said in his second reading speech. I simply say at the moment that we remain sceptical and will keep the matter under constant attention, as is our responsibility. The Minister also stated that his Government: . . . will encourage the further development of hostel, community and domiciliary care services. We applaud this development but perhaps for different reasons. The implication in the Minister's speech is that the provision of such alternatives is cheaper. Some studies are now suggesting that that may not be so. We applaud what is proposed because such facilities may be a better alternative for the person or persons concerned. Consistent with our views on freedom of choice, we would rather that a person who wants to stay in his or her home have the opportunity to do so. We certainly do not see such encouragement as justifying the non- provision of nursing home accommodation for those who prefer that alternative. We note the administrative changes in the approval of new and additional nursing home accommodation. The change that the Minister, rather than the director, will now approve applications-which means that the decision is capable of being reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-is welcome. Also, the principles upon which assessment will be based will be brought before the Parliament. This means that we will be given an opportunity to debate the matter . That too is appreciated. However, we are somewhat unsure of what this means in relation to the Minister promising to put on extra staff in the New Year to overcome the backlog of applications. There appears to be an inconsistency which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) may care to clarify. We hope that community groups and private enterprise concerns will also have the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of these guidelines. Again, the interests of country areas come to mind. In those areas the economies of scale which the city enjoys may not be available but there is still a need on the part of the communities concerned, and people should be given the opportunity to put their views to the Government. In the past they have shown their interest and concern by their willingness to raise funds for such nursing home projects. The Opposition notes the new provisions allowing the Minister to invite interested persons to make application for a nursing home in a specified region. We reacted somewhat suspiciously to this. It appeared that community initiatives , which we have encouraged, would be further subordinated by bureaucratic assessment. However, in his reply in the other place the Minister elaborated on the shortcomings of the first come first served system. They are shortcomings which we recognise. We also recognise that the Government, as the custodian of the people's money, must support the best project. Therefore, if the system is to operate as we now understand-that when applications are made for approval the Government will advertise, to give others an opportunity to submit proposals-it seems to be reasonable. However, we will be interested to see how it works in practice. It is interesting to note, from the examples the Minister gives, that in all cases private enterprise is seen as the villian-opportunistically leaping in in front of community groups. It may well be that certain altruistic community groups, though well meaning, will not be able to see such a project to completion. The assessment must be made in the best interests of the patient. The Government, as guardian of the public purse, must keep in mind the cost to the taxpayer. We applaud that and we will watch with interest the development of this new assessment method. In touching upon the Government's responsibility to the taxpayer, I have been interested to see figures, submitted by the Commonwealth Department of Health to the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, which appear to indicate that the operational costs of privately run homes are considerably lower. No doubt the Committee will compare the quality of the service given but it tends to confirm what we on this side suspect, that privately run nursing homes are the most cost effective method of providing a service in this area. I do not say that the Government sees all private nursing home proprietors as unscrupulous, although that does seem to be the view that improperly pervades the Australian Labor Party's attitudes to these matters. The Minister, in his second reading speech, stated: There is a need to protect patients from the unscrupulous practices of a few nursing home proprietors. Let us be clear. The Opposition accepts the responsibility of government to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. However, we also recognise the major contribution that private nursing home proprietors have made to the betterment of society and that many, if not most, go well beyond their obligations to ensure that a nursing home is a real home away from home. This brings me to the fee control system. We have accepted that this Bill offers a small improvement in this area. The Minister has foreshadowed a change to the system-to one of program grants-and we will be watching closely the change in operation. I remind the Senate that private nursing home proprietors boast that they set the pace in high quality care as well as in offering a service that costs hundreds of dollars per patient per year less that it would in a Government institution. By and large the private and voluntary sectors have a proud record in relation to the provision of aged care in this country. We look forward to their continuing to be the main providers in the future. We recognise their entitlement to be adequately rewarded and we will look to protect that interest. Apart from an assessment of suitable nursing home projects, the Bill also deals with the assessment of suitable patients. In practice, in the past this assessment has been made by the patient's general practitioner. Although technically it is formally made by the Commonwealth medical officer, it is made upon the recommendation of the patient's personal GP. The Government has a view, in the words of the Minister, that a conservative 20 per cent of people are inappropriately located in nursing homes. The Government is to change this for the future by the use of these assessment units. We query what is happening in relation to those already in homes but certainly for the future the role of the new assessment units will be to change that percentage. We are yet to see how these assessment units will operate in practice. We accept, as the Minister said, that aged persons are happiest and best cared for when they receive that level of care appropriate to their needs. We accept also that a GP might not be the best judge, that other professional skills can play an important part in the assessment. But we fear coercion. The judgment seems to have been that at least one in five people now going to a nursing home should be going somewhere else. The assessment units are to be the mechanism to achieve that gaol. We are therefore concerned, and this is another area where we intend to watch application carefully. There are a number of other matters I should mention. The first relates to friendly society pharmacies. Clause 53 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 91 of the National Health Act. I remind the Senate that section 90 deals with the approval of a pharmaceutical chemist to supply pharmaceutical benefits. Section 91 limits the number of friendly society dispensaries which can supply pharmaceutical benefits to all members of the public. They are limited on a State basis to the number in existence from the commencement of that section of the Act. Those so limited are limited, in fact, to supply principally to members of the friendly society, their spouses and their children. I understand that there are eight such limited approvals in Australia-five in Queensland and three in South Australia. The deletion of section 9 will therefore have the effect of removing the restriction with regard to those eight pharmacies. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, as honourable senators will know, has expressed concern. Senator Georges —What are they worrying about? Senator HILL —What they are saying is that to lift the restriction will enable friendly societies, which are presently so restricted, to compete with them on an unfair basis. They are saying that friendly society pharmacies have an unfair advantage. They usually say that from a taxation point of view eight pharmacies within the whole of Australia are presently limited and that, therefore, if that restriction were lifted a further eight pharmacies would be able to compete with them in the sales of prescriptions to the public. I should have thought it was clear that to lift this restriction on only eight pharmacies would represent only minimal, insignificant additional competition to the pharmacy profession. The Guild, however, goes further and expresses the fear that to lift the restriction will lead to an avalanche of new friendly society pharmacies. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short table which indicates the shortfalls in approvals that presently exist in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Full Full Limited approvals approvals approvals available operative operative New South Wales 16 4 - Victoria 65 32 - Queensland 19 19 3 South Australia 27 27 5 Western Australia 10 1 - Tasmania 3 3 - Total 140 86 8 Senator HILL —A glance at the table will indicate that in Victoria, for example, the number of full approvals available is 65, only 32 of which have presently been taken up. In Western Australia the number of full approvals available is ten, only one of which has been taken up. In New South Wales, the number of full approvals available is 16, only four of which have been taken up. This table clearly indicates that even with the current restriction there is room for what might be called an avalanche within the profession, but it simply has not occurred. Given the considerable shortfall already in existence, we have been unable to see how the pharmacy profession would be any worse off by a lifting of the restriction. We therefore believe that the fears of the Pharmacy Guild are not well founded. On the other hand, we accept that the pharmacy profession is undergoing the difficulties that all small businesses are experiencing in this country. Senator Georges —Too many of them. Senator HILL —Senator Georges says that there are too many of them. I should mention that there are State legislative restrictions, certainly in Queensland and South Australia, so that any fear about the proliferation of friendly society pharmacies in those States, even with the lifting of the restriction, is clearly not well founded. However, that does not answer the question as to whether friendly society pharmacies are in a more favourable taxation position. That is clearly a debate for another day. We on this side of the chamber accept the general principles of taxation-simplicity, equity, and efficiency. Efficiency in that context means that the method by which a business is operated should not make any difference to the taxation consequences of that business. In other words, one should look for neutrality. It is not as easy as that to judge the position in relation to friendly societies because they in turn will come back and speak of the particular investment restrictions they face under State law. The subject is therefore complicated. It is an important subject and one that I understand will be considered another day, perhaps when the relevant, proposed legislation of this Government is considered. Nevertheless, in the meantime we believe that the lifting of the restriction will not detrimentally affect Guild pharmacies to any significant extent. On the other hand, it will offer some small advantage to the public because the eight pharmacies that are presently caught within the limitation will be able to offer their prescription service to the total community and not just to members and their families. Again, however, we accept the responsibility to monitor closely the application of the section. The amendments to the isolated patients' travel and accommodation allowance scheme will allow greater flexibility in the operation and administration of the scheme. For example, as the Minister stated, they will allow the extension of benefits to patients referred by an optometrist to an ophthalmologist and by a dentist to a specialist or consulting physician for a treatment arising from a dental service. We support this scheme. We wish to encourage further decentralisation. We recognise the additional costs to those who live in more distant areas and therefore the responsibility of the total community to help contribute to that additional financial burden. We therefore support these amendments. We believe that it is reasonable to argue that there are still anomalies within this scheme that should be kept under review and should be able to be overcome in the future. This is a large Bill. It comprises 76 clauses and covers many other matters. As I indicated, most are administrative changes, all of which we are prepared to support. I do not intend to take up the time of the Senate in the current circumstances in running through each of them. Therefore, in summary, we do not oppose the legislation. On its face, it introduces potentially beneficial changes. However, some changes have the potential to be applied in a way that may be detrimental to the interests of the Australian people. In regard to the application of the provisions in practice, we shoulder our responsibility to accept a role of continuing monitoring, and that is what we shall be doing in relation to the application of these provisions. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.21) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill ( No. 2) will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974, and the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. It addresses a number of changes covering a wide spectrum of bits and pieces. It could almost be called a housekeeping Bill. It is addressing changes concerning nursing homes, health card arrangements, the isolated patients travel and accommodation scheme, changes related to social security benefits and overservicing provisions, and it contains specific clauses concerning patients with cleft lip and palate conditions. It also addresses casual vacancies in the membership of the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee, access to information under the secrecy provisions of the National Health Act, changes in the Medical Research Endowment Fund, and the removal of restrictions on the number of friendly society dispensaries. The Government has introduced this Bill to amend a number of pieces of legislation, in some cases by bringing them into the 1980s. In particular, the changes to the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937 essentially acknowledge that a fund of $37.9m for 1983-84, which is an increase of 28 per cent over that for last year, indicates, first, the Government's commitment to medical research, and, secondly, an appreciation that a fund of such size should conform to modern requirements of auditing and financial management. This Bill will bring it within the public account and the concomitant audit and accounting provisions. There will be changes in the provisions for investment of surplus funds, but the authority for approval of grants will remain with the Minister for Health. The Government will maintain its commitment to foster and encourage excellence in medical research in this country. The isolated patients travel and accommodation allowance scheme has been extended to patients referred, as Senator Hill said, by an optometrist to an ophthalmologist, or by a dentist to a specialist or consultant physician. It also makes changes in terms of hardship cases, where interim payments can be made rather than payment at the end of the travel arrangements. Many people cannot raise the money for fares and/or accommodation costs, and the financial burden is something that people do not want at a time of sickness and continuing need for treatment. So the provision of interim payments for those who can justify a case for that to happen because of their need are to be commended. The other important amendment in this area is some flexibility in approval for further specialist treatment. I know myself of the problem of a woman with a child who has the need for a splint leg, an artificial leg, who lives at Port Lincoln. To travel to the city is a very expensive business, but as the child grows, so the splint needs to be changed or modified, or there is need for a different and larger replacement. At present the isolated patients travel allowance allows money only for referral to specialists. In this case the child is attending a splint maker, not a medical specialist, and has always been excluded from the provisions of this allowance. I understand that the flexibility allowed to the Minister means that such cases as that may be given consideration. The other important extension in this amendment is to assist families where a patient, attendant or escort dies away from home. In part, it will cover the cost of returning a body to the home and friends for burial. It is a particular problem that is likely to occur, as we are dealing with ill people who have been referred to places far from home for medical treatment and continuing treatment. It is quite likely that such people may die. The cost for returning a body to the home is very large. It is very important and very good that this Bill makes provisions for that circumstance. The cost of the isolated patients travel allowance has increased by 45 per cent from 1981-82 to 1982-83. This year's allowance allows for an increase of 37 per cent. However, the increase in flexibility and changes in accommodation estimates and payments provides for more flexible distribution of that money and, hopefully, will cover the requirements on that grant this year. There will be a removal of the restrictions on the number of friendly society dispensaries in each State to allow them to supply a full range of pharmaceutical benefits to all members of the public, and not just to members of the friendly society. It does away with discriminate legislation under section 91 of the Act. As Senator Hill said, it relates to only eight pharmacies, three in Queensland and five in South Australia. The options for this in other States already exist but there has not been a mindless expansion in the other States. Other pharmacists have not been ruined. It is important to consider these matters broadly and thoroughly. But there is little reason to anticipate the problems that the Opposition or the Pharmacy Guild of Australia has raised. I should like to quote from the Hansard report of the House of Represenatives debate, at page 2916. The shadow Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, said: However, normal businesses compete successfully with co-operatives in a number of areas of the economy, and it is therefore difficult to justify imposing trade restrictions on co-operatives in this particular area. Further, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) also addressed this very point in the House of Representatives. He pointed out, first, that South Australia and Queensland have special legislation that prevents any exploitation or further development in those States, and that where the examples exist, in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, there has been room for many years for expansion but it has not been taken up. So the pharmacies have not been affected by the legislation disadvantageously. There is little reason to fear that these changes, which allow for only eight extra pharmacies fully to dispense pharmaceuticals, will make a considerable difference. The changes in relation to nursing homes are in line with the Government's policy of redirecting the nursing home dollar towards domiciliary care and facilities to help people to continue to live in their homes or in hostel accommodation where assistance can be provided in a form related to specific needs, rather than unnecessary full nursing home care. Up until now, most of the provisions for the elderly under nursing home provisions required or led to the expectation that people would become fully bedridden, or at least that they would be provided with a full range of provisions for themselves as a patient in a hospital. It has been an exercise in overkill. There are a number of people who need full nursing home facilities and full nursing care, but the estimate of 20 per cent of people who are inappropriately placed in nursing homes is reasonable. The question of cost here is also very important. Nursing home costs to the community and the health bill are very large. In the same debate in the House of Representatives, the honourable member for Grayndler, Mr McLeay, cited statistics that show that in 1976-77 the Commonwealth appropriated $285m for institutional care, but in 1982-83, the year of the last health budget presided over by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the Commonwelath appropriated $848m for institutional care. That is approaching a four times factor over that period. In the same period the Commonwealth payments for home care rose from $32m in 1976-77 to $77m in 1982-83. In other words, the growth in cost for institutional care far exceeded the growth in cost for domiciliary care or home care provisions. This Government is very concerned to assist people to stay in their homes if that is their choice. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 9 December 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Senator Durack had moved by way of amendment: ', but the Senate, whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against the people on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, is of the opinion that: (a) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (b) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; (c) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recongised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid workforce or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (d) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (e) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill; and (f) the clauses of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly'. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(8.01) —The Senate was debating the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) last Friday and I was speaking when the Senate adjourned at 4.15 p.m. I was in the process of making some statements about traditional forms of discrimination against women and the grounds on which they were based. I was making the point that it had been thought, in the light of statistics, that forms of discrimination on the grounds of facts about the high rate of job turnover and absenteeism amongst female employees were thought to be soundly based. The advent of the assembly line since World War II changed a lot of thinking in relation to women as employees. It was revealed that the undesirable employee characteristics of a high rate of job turnover and absenteeism were not something that were sex specific as they had been thought to be previously. As industrial sociology grew as a discipline it was discovered that these characteristics were also characteristics exhibited by men under certain circumstances-circumstances which increased in their incidence with the assembly line. It was found that they were in fact job-related characteristics. A very large body of evidence shows that when people are employed to perform menial work with low challenges to their initiative, intelligence and skills, particularly if they are people with some intelligence, they can be expected to change jobs frequently because of the nature of the jobs and their dissatisfaction with them. They can be expected to have a higher than average rate of absenteeism because of the boredom of the job. I do not excuse absenteeism, job turnover or anything else; it is a fact of life. Post World War II, when the assembly line became a major factor certainly in the manufacturing industry and a major factor in relation to growing numbers of people, these characteristics as percentages of men and women evened out. The simple situation was that until very recently girls in Australia were very under-educated. I like to think that I am not exactly a greybeard but it was the norm when I was at school for girls to leave school at the age of 13 and not to continue their education. At that age, of course, they were really only basically literate and numerate. They had low job skills. Some of them might have done some short course in business methods. But girls were not educated and were not encouraged to learn skills of a highly sophisticated nature, the sorts of skills that were necessary to get interesting and rewarding jobs. As a consequence, we have had a tradition in employment of women in Australia that women have been crowded into very low skilled unsatisfying jobs-jobs of a very routine nature in the office, jobs of a sometimes very distasteful nature in the factory and jobs of a low satisfaction nature, often in shops. Positions of responsibility were not available to them. Whilst they laboured under a lack of education they also laboured under the handicap of a perception that women were likely to leave their jobs more frequently than men and, therefore, employers did not feel encouraged to train them or to give them advancement. The assembly line meant that a higher and higher proportion of our total work population and very large numbers of men found themselves in repetitive, uninteresting, dull and unimaginative work. Studies of the assembly line have shown that people in those sorts of jobs do tend to change their jobs frequently and have a higher rate of absenteeism. As I have already stated, industrial sociology under different circumstances has turned up the fact that these characteristics of employees are not in the main confined to women. They are equally exhibited by men. It depends on the nature of the job. That sort of information has been useful as an illustration of the fact that women are not necessarily inferior employees. Many employers have faced that fact. As I said at one stage in my speech last Friday, we have come a long way in Australia in the last 10 years in community attitudes towards women and women's participation . At least to some degree I give credit for that to Australian men. The ethos in Australia of a fair go is one that many men have exhibited towards women. I can certainly speak from my own experience. In 1973 when I was a Senate candidate, a rather young one and the only female Federal parliamentary candidate in Queensland at that stage, I received a lot of encouragement from men who were not associated with any political party, who did not know me for any reason, but who, as I travelled around the State, made the statement: 'We hope you are successful because we think women should be given a go'. They are the actual words that men used to me. It was almost as though I were a female version of the little Aussie battler. Senator Elstob —That is an Australian tradition to give a person a fair go. Senator MARTIN —That is the point I am making. I think that tradition and that part of the Australian ethos has made a major contribution to the advancements and achievements women have made over the last ten years where there has been more awareness of the need. I am making the point that a lot of credit should be given to Australian men for women's advancement as well as to the women who have been working actively in the area. All too often people in the area get so close to it and so excited about it that they tend to give credit where credit is due- because they overlook those sorts of factors, not because they mean to misrepresent the case. Nevertheless, prejudice still exists. Some old attitudes die hard. There are still people who think that women are necessarily inferior employees because they were raised believing that and they have never had presented to them alternative facts. They still have prejudices about employing married women. I do not care if people have a prejudice about employing married women. I care only if the law of this land allows them to inflict that prejudice on other people. I do not care if the former Mayor of Rockhampton, Rex Pilbeam, thought that he should sack a woman because she got married and that he should employ a single person. He would not employ married women, although, I say in juxtaposition, he would be the first to condemn de facto marriages as opposed to official marriages. I do not care that that was his attitude. I care only that he had the right to deprive women of jobs that they held and performed satisfactorily, because he had the power, as well as the right. There was no legal obstacle to his exercising that power. That was his opinion. I really did not care very much that Sir Reginald Ansett did not put quality first in the training and employment of his pilots. I cared as a consumer. For as long as that was Ansett's policy, I travelled Trans Australia Airlines. By that policy, Ansett used criteria other than that the best available person should be in its cockpits as pilots. This is not to say that there were not many excellent pilots in those cockpits, but I was dissatisfied with those criteria. I did not care that Reg Ansett had the view that women should not be in the cockpit. I cared only that he could stop Debbie Wardley from receiving training that she had earned on merit. Not to put too fine a point on it, it must be admitted that not only employers took this attitude in the past. In recent times there was a very celebrated case in Broken Hill. The Barrier Industrial Council took the view that if a girl married she should be dismissed and a single woman employed in her stead; that was the official view. It went to court and was overturned. It was a case very similar to the Rockhampton case in which a girl had been performing her duties perfectly adequately but she married and was sacked, although later reinstated after legal challenge. The simple fact is that there is still an amount of prejudice in our society. It is sad but it is a hard core. Some of it is probably based on a misconception , and I am fairly hopeful that a conciliatory approach, which is allowed for under this Bill, will enable those sorts of cases to be reasonably, quietly, easily and amicably settled and that we will not have a position of fear and so on. Some people will be genuinely surprised when somebody makes a complaint against them and it is pointed out-I hope fairly gently, if it appears warranted that it be gentle-by a commissioner that that is really not an acceptable standard of behaviour, that we live in a country which is very much for a fair go, for tolerance, for equality and for allowing everybody to have the right to determine his or her destiny according to the rights that other people in the community have. I am not in the position of a reply speaker, but there are some things to which I wish to reply. There are many things to which I would like to reply but there are some things that I have decided need to be replied to. Some of the things that have been said in the debate are a little sad in that they do not always show an understanding of the subject. We do not have a perfect understanding of any subject that comes before us but some of us have a better understanding than others of some subjects. It is fair to believe that, if people put a point of view that might influence the Senate's opinion and public opinion, they ought to know what they are talking about. That is the reason that I will select what I think are a couple of really outstanding areas that need some sort of reply. Much reference has been made in debate, not only here but also a great deal in the community and in correspondence that I have received, about women who do not want to work and who are very happy to be a wife and possibly also a mother. I accept that people ought to have that right and I do not believe that this Bill infringes on that right. If it appeared that it did, I for one would be very quick to move because that is of the essence. If a woman decides that her vocation is that of full time mother, she should be as entitled to pursue that vocation as the woman who decides that the vocation she would like to follow is that of a brickie's labourer. We ought to bear in mind that we have that entitlement and the choices are clear. But there are some people who wish to work, who are being prevented from working and who need to work. A group I just never hear any account taken of by people who get very excited about this other point is the lone parent family. A widow or woman divorcee who was educated at the same time as I was, very undereducated, and who does not have job skills has all sorts of barriers in her way. This is a subject in itself. But I pick out one statistic that passed before me and all other senators very recently because it sums up something that we should be gravely concerned about in Australian society. One of the sacred cows of politics in Australia is the issue of home ownership; it has been for a very long time. The fact that we have a very high rate of home ownership contributes to the security and stability of individuals and to the standard of living that we all enjoy. There is about a 70 per cent rate of home ownership, which is a statistic of which we have been proud. Yet a table from a report from, I think, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, in relation to welfare that is available in Australia, shows that of women on the supporting parent's benefit only 12.2 per cent either own their home or are in the process of purchasing a home. That is 12.2 per cent against the national average of 70 per cent. When we hold up home ownership as something so important and fundamental to our society, something is terribly wrong when in that group there is such a low rate of home ownership, something we regard as essential. It is even worse when one considers that of the men on exactly the same benefit 31.6 per cent are in the position of owning a home or buying a home. It is still tragically low for someone rearing a family to not have the security of home ownership and what that contributes to a family. Nevertheless, the rate is 2 1/2 per cent higher for men than it is for women. That shows a glaring anomaly between the same category of disadvantaged people between the sexes. It also shows a really tragic anomaly in comparison with the rest of society, that nearly 90 per cent of children being reared by mothers on the supporting parent' s benefit are living in accommodation which is rented when we hold up a different standard. When we look at the class A widow's pension-that is, the widow who is rearing children-we find that the figure for non-home owners is still 64.7 per cent. It is not as bad as the supporting parent figure but it is still tragically the reverse position to the general community position in relation to home ownership . I was surprised by that statistic. I guess I had thought that men insured themselves when they had families, and they certainly insured themselves to pay off mortgages and things like that if they had young families. Very clearly that is not the case when only 35.3 per cent of widows rearing children in Australia are in a position of being home owners or potential home owners. Many of those sorts of figures can be introduced into the debate. A number of figures have been introduced by others. I picked that one because I think it is so outstandingly at odds with what we consider ourselves to be. I think it is an undeniable indication that something that we like to think is important in our society has tragically gone wrong for one section of it and that there is an enormous discrepancy between men and women in that same catgory. I would like people who are concerned about women who have husbands having the right to stay at home, a right that I support, to turn their eyes and their attention accasionally to that group of people and to consider that. This Bill has, of course, had broad support from many women's organisations, including women's organisations which are anything but radical. It has had outstanding support from the National Council of Women, from business and professional women and many others. I mention that again to say that there are those who do not cheer at the fact that these women, who by definition are achievers in some way or another, turn their attention to less fortunate women who have been prevented from achieving, but choose instead to sneer and ask: ' Why did these women who have achieved concern themselves?'. It is hypocritical and it is a posturing that has been said about women in this Parliament. I think it is an incredible line of argument to say that if one is successful in some way, whether it is financially or against what might be perceived as a handicap of sex, one is therefore disqualified from commenting on the obstacles that are met in the process of succeeding and one is disqualified from turning one's attention to those who for one reason or another have not been able to overcome those obstacles. I, for one, will not be blackmailed, bullied or stood over in any way as to my right to comment on women who have not been able to achieve because of discrimination simply because I have achieved. The fact that some women achieve does not mean that there is no discrimination; not at all. The small percentage of women who have achieved, I think, is evidence of the fact that something very different is in hand. I for one cheer groups like business and some professional women who are making the case so clearly and so strongly. It is also a matter of some bemusement to me that there are those who believe that private individuals ought to have the right to determine another person's destiny and who would be the first to scream blue murder if a government tried to tell people what jobs there were to work in or said: 'This category of job is not open to you because of your sex or your height or the colour of your eyes'. It would be attacked as one of the worst features of socialism. Yet there is, apparently, no logical discrepancy seen there. I introduce one note because I think it ought to be noted in the conclusion of my speech. In debate a Government senator made a statement about the Liberal Party's spokesman on women, Mr Ian Macphee, which was a very strange statement indeed in relation to this debate. Senator Rosemary Crowley, in reference to the Opposition, said: They have even left it to a man to be the shadow Minister in charge of women's affairs. She said that as though it was some sort of negative point against the Liberal Party. I am very proud of Ian Macphee and I think he does an excellent job. I am sure nobody on our side of politics begrudges him his position. It sits very strangely in debate on an anti-discrimination Bill that criticism is attracted because a man is performing that job. I make it very clear that we do not have Ian Macphee for sexist reasons; we have him on the ground on which anybody should be employed in a job; that is, merit. In conclusion, the Opposition has moved an amendment to the second reading motion. The details of our reasons for this amendment, outlined by Senator Durack when he led for the Opposition on 21 October, are contained in Hansard. I have not reiterated them; I simply wish at the conclusion of the debate to say that the Opposition supports the amendment for the reasons given and will be voting in support of that amendment to the second reading motion. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.21) -In closing the second reading stage of the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill I thank all honourable senators who made a constructive contribution to the debate. In particular, I thank the last speaker, Senator Kathy Martin, who is the Opposition spokesperson on these matters in the Senate although I acknowledge that her colleague, Ian Macphee, has also adopted a most supportive and constructive attitude towards this important piece of legislation. I congratulate Senator Martin for her remarks which were, I think, very important and very pertinent, and in particular I congratulate her for making so lucidly the argument for the support of this legislation by women who themselves have been able to achieve success in this society. It is a point that cannot be made too strongly but certainly Senator Martin made it more lucidly than I have ever heard it made before. Of course it is the case that some women have been able to overcome discrimination in this society and are in the very happy position of not needing, personally, the provisions of this Bill. However, it is more importantly the case, as Senator Martin pointed out, that the majority of women, particularly women on low incomes, are in need of the various protections afforded by this Bill. It has been a very interesting experience for the Government to engage in the process we chose to engage in with regard to this legislation. We recognised, as Senator Martin pointed out, that there is enormous support throughout the community for this legislation, that acknowledgement of the detrimental effects of discrimination is much more widespread than it used to be, that the effects of such discrimination are very long-lasting and that they do require remedies. It has also been very widely recognised, not only by supporters of the Australian Labor Party Government but by people who hold other political philosophies, that governments ought to take whatever steps they can to combat discriminaion. We do not suggest that all discrimination can be dealt with by legislation but we do believe that governments have a responsibility to protect citizens against discimination to the extent that they are able, and this legislation represents our attempt to protect women in particular, although it will also protect men in some circumstances, against blatant discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. Preparation for the Committee stage of this Bill has been very long and I simply place on record again that the Government has entered into extremely thorough and extensive discussions with all people-honourable senators and persons outside the Senate including employers, trade unionists and women's organisations, with all people who sought to take a constructive interest in the Bill and even, I might say, with people whose interest in the Bill was not constructive. We made ourselves open to suggestion and, with our officers, spent an enormous amount of time giving serious consideration to suggestions that came forward for improving the Bill or clarifying its intentions and its operation. As a result, I believe that the Bill is a better and clearer Bill than it would otherwise have been. On the other hand, of course, the Government has attracted some criticism, ironically, because it has entered into this process of negotiation and discussion. Some opponents of the Bill-and there are still some, unfortunately-try to use the fact that we have been open and accessible in terms of our discussion of this Bill as some sort of criticism of the Government. They have pointed to the fact that there are many amendments to this Bill, as if that were a weakness of the Bill, whereas of course it represents in my view the strength that comes about through co-operation and consensus. Because we anticipate a long Committee stage debate on this Bill and because there has been an enourmous amount of discussion about individual aspects of the Bill, I do not propose to continue the second reading debate. I simply say in conclusion that the Government appreciates all the constructive comments, suggestions and efforts that were made in regard to this legislation. When it is enacted, we will remind the community that it is not only an initiative of government but also an initiative that has attracted the support of the Australian Democrats and of the Liberal Party in this Parliament. We hope that they will share with us our satisfaction that this Government has been able to take this very important step towards eliminating all those kinds of destructive discriminations which have been described so clearly and movingly by my colleagues and by some members of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats throughout the second reading debate. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Lajovic, M. E. Foreman, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J. Jones, G. N. Rae, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Teague, B. C. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title ). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.31) —Mr Chairman, there are some general questions I would like to ask now because I do not know where else to put them. I think this is probably the best place. Would you like to advise me on that? The CHAIRMAN —It depends on what you propose to say. Senator WALTERS —The first question I would like to ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is: How many signatures have been sent to the House of Representatives petitioning either against the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2)-asking for amendments to it-or against the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I cannot accept that as a fair question against the short title of the Bill. Senator WALTERS —This is why I was asking for guidance. I have some questions such as that which apply to the Bill in general. The CHAIRMAN —Well, questions that apply to the Bill in general should have been raised at the second reading stage or possibly should be raised at the third reading stage. Senator WALTERS —I did ask those questions at the second reading stage but, of course, I did not get an answer. Now where can I ask those questions so that I will get an answer? The CHAIRMAN —I do not think it is my job to advise you as to which clause is appropriate. What I can advise you is that clause 1 is not appropriate. Senator WALTERS —Then do I rise to speak on every single clause until I reach the appropriate one? The CHAIRMAN —I will do my best for you throughout the debate. Clause agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.36) — How long after the enactment would the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) expect the Bill to be proclaimed? The clause states: The Act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. Can the Minister enlighten us as to how long after the enactment the Bill will be proclaimed? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.36) -A number of things will have to happen before the Bill can be proclaimed. Regulations will have to be made and a sex discrimination commissioner appointed . I am advised that that will take some months. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.37) — One of the reasons I asked this question was that I understand discussions are going on now in discrimination in employment and occupation committees. I also raised the question because responsibility for supervision of the International Labour Organisation convention is now with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) instead of with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.37) -The work of the discrimination committees will continue. Senator Harradine is right-there have been discussions by those committees and the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation with the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and me. We have reached agreement that those committees will continue monitoring and reporting on discrimination in employment. We expect that ultimately their work will be merged with that of the Human Rights Commission in the implementation of this legislation. Not only will they continue their work in respect of discrimination on the basis of sex in employment but also, of course, they deal with other kinds of discriminations which are not covered by this legislation. So they will continue to have a role in monitoring and reporting on matters concerning discrimination in employment. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (Objects). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.38) — My question relates to clause 3 (d) which details, as one of the objects of the Act, 'to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women'. What, in this context, is the 'principle of the equality of men and women', recognising that there are in fact differences between men and women? What exactly, in this context, does the principle of equality mean and imply? Does, in fact, paragraph (d) add anything to the Bill? If not, should it not be deleted as I am suggesting? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.39) -A technical reason for its inclusion is that it gives effect to Article 2A of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. However, I think there is a very important reason for keeping the paragraph in the clause because it demonstrates that we are concerned with establishing equality between men and women in those areas which are covered by the legislation-not in all possible areas but in areas such as employment, education , access to finance, goods and services and clubs; those areas in respect of which we say in the Bill people shall not be treated differently on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy. We are saying there is an equality. So the equality is in respect of those areas which are covered by the Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.40) —It may not be necessary for me to move that amendment. Is the Minister saying that the means to be used are those provided for under the Bill? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.41) —I wish to ask a series of general questions. Can the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) tell me how many signatures have been received from the House of Representatives against the Sex Discrimination Bill, asking for amendments, or against the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.41) -I cannot tell Senator Walters how many signatures have been received from the House of Representatives supporting or opposing the Bill or supporting or opposing the Convention. That information is not available. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.42) —Is it possible for the Minster to get that information? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.42) -If Senator Walters is interested in pursuing this matter I presume that she, as a senator, can ask the Table Office to provide her with it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.43) —I have already done that. The Table Office tells me that the signatures go directly from the House of Representatives to the Minister's office. The House of Representatives does not count the signatures. The Minister gets the signatures in her office and she obviously can count them. I would have imagined that the Minister would have shown some interest in the number of signatures that have come through the House of Representatives. The Senate, of course, does count the signatures. I do not know whether the Minister-- Senator Tate —They do not go to the Minister's office. Senator WALTERS —According to the House of Representatives Table Office, where I made my inquiries, the signatures of the petitioners went to the appropriate Ministers to handle them. A lot of the Government members are saying that this is not-- Senator Gareth Evans —You are wasting your time, as usual. Senator WALTERS —That is not a fair comment for Senator Evans to make. I have sought the information from the House of Representatives Table Office and from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. I was given information that the signatures of the petitioners go from the House of Representatives to the appropriate Ministers' department. This procedure is different from that in the Senate. This does not happen in the Senate but, according to the information I have received, this does happen in the House of Representatives. I have been told that the signatures go to the Minister's office. I have asked the Minister whether she considers it her duty to know how many people in Australia have petitioned her to make amendments in opposing the Sex Discrimination Bill or the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That is the question I am still asking the Minister. She has said that I can pursue it further. I have attempted to; I have pursued it as far as I can. I now ask the Minister: Will she please have the signatures counted and let us know? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.44) -Senator Walters obviously has a great interest in this matter. I am advised that officers of my Department have sought to get that information for Senator Walters. The Table Office told officers of my Department that it did not have that information. It did not tell these officers that the signatures came to my office. I can assure Senator Walters that those signatures have not come to my office. However, as Senator Walters has such a burning interest in this question I will seek the information for her. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.44) —I thank the Minister. I would have imagined that she would have had an equal burning interest to know how many people in Australia were objecting to the Sex Discrimination Bill. Senator Sibraa —Petitions prove nothing. Senator WALTERS —We are told by a Government back bencher that petitions mean nothing. I hope that the Australian people do not really take him seriously because, according to our Australian Constitution and the Standing Orders in this place, petitions do mean something. The honourable senator arrogantly tells the Australian people that the petitions they have been signing mean nothing to the Government. I can assure him that the petitions meant something to my Party when it was in government. I can assure the honourable senator that there will be a totally different philosophy if the Australian Labor Party tells us that petitions mean nothing. Can the Minister tell me the number of up to date signatures that have come into the Senate that are either against the Bill, asking for amendments, or are against the International Convention? Can the Minister also tell me how many signatures have come into the Senate that are in agreement with either the Bill or the Convention? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.45) -I do not have that information available tonight. I do not have the numbers of petitions either for or against the Bill or for or against the Convention. I will seek it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.46) —I am somewhat concerned about having, as it were, within the one group both a supervisory role, which provides for the outlawing of discrimination, and a promotional role. I will not pursue my foreshadowed amendment No. (1). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.46) —I have one further question. Could the Minister have this information available before debate on the Bill concludes; also information as to how many amendments have been made to the Bill since it was first tabled? Senator Harradine —Don't worry about that; I am glad they have made them. Senator WALTERS —I am asking for the number of amendments which have been made. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(8.47) -I will seek the information for Senator Walters. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Interpretation) Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.47) — by leave-Mr Chairman, I move: (2) Page 3, sub-clause 4 (1), definition of ''de facto spouse'', lines 31 to 34 , leave out the definition. (3) Page 4, sub-clause 4 (1), definition of ''marital status'', paragraph (f), line 25, leave out the paragraph. The first amendment seeks to delete the definition of 'de facto spouse'. The second seeks to omit 'marital status', as defined, the de facto spouse of another person. These two amendments are on the same subject matter, and it was for that reason that I sought leave to move them together. The Committee is debating a most important matter because, for the first time in Commonwealth legislation, an attempt is being made to place a de facto relationship on the same level as, or give it the same status as, that of a bone fide married relationship. I say that advisedly because I asked the Parliamentary Library to do a SCALE computer search of Commonwealth legislation and the response of that search of all 20 volumes of Commonwealth law indicates that no similar legislation seeks to place a de facto relationship on the same status level as that of a married relationship-with one exception; that is, the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. The definition of a de facto given therein is quite distinct from what is contained in the legislation before us. One of my amendments seeks to delete the definition of 'de facto spouse'. Clause 4 (1) of the Sex Discrimination Bill states: 'de facto spouse', in relation to a person, means a person of the opposite sex to the first-mentioned person who lives with the first-mentioned person as the husband or wife of that person on a bone-fide domestic basis although not legally married to that person; Whilst 'de facto spouse' is not mentioned in the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act, the term 'de facto wife' is. If honourable senators compare the definition in the Sex Discrimination Bill with the definition in that Act they will see what I mean. In the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act the definition of 'de facto wife' states: 'de facto wife', in relation to an Australian mariner, means a woman who, though not legally married to him, has been wholly or substantially maintained by and has lived with the Australian mariner as his wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis continuously from a date not less than six months prior to the relevant date and who, at the relevant date- (a) had in her charge a child of the Australian mariner; (b) was over forty years of age; or (c) was incapable of supporting herself by reason of her mental or physical incapacity of long standing; That is the only equivalent provision in legislation. It confers a cash benefit on such a person. Other administrative regulations and the like-for example, the tertiary education assistance scheme regulations, social security administrative decisions and taxation laws-recognise de facto spouses. The difference between those regulations and what is being attempted here is that their purpose is to ensure that de factos do not receive an advantage over a bona fide married couple. I hope members of the Opposition hear this because it is vital to an understanding of it, and I hope I will receive their support. Quite obviously, if such a provision was not taken into account in social security administration decisions de factos could receive two unemployment benefit cheques, for example. The TEAS regulations confer a monetary benefit on a student. This Bill places in Commonwealth legislation for the first time a provision which puts a de facto relationship on the same level as a bona fide married relationship. That might not be too bad, but this provision then forces everyone to accept that fact under pain of being a discriminator. That is the essential difference. I would like the Committee to understand that difference. It is not a question of having and expressing one's views. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and the like, but I am not expressing that belief to justify my opposition to what is contained in this provision. I put to the Committee that the Bill attempts to impose a viewpoint on people and to make them observe that viewpoint under pain of penalty. I will give the example of accommodation. A hotel keeper might wish not to let a room to a de facto couple, one of whom may be his daughter. Clause 23 of the Bill, which deals with accommodation, states: It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's sex, marital status or pregnancy- (a) by refusing the other person's application for accommodation; (b) in the terms or conditions on which accommodation is offered to the other person . . . Marital status is defined as including the de facto spouse of another person. I put that to the Committee for full consideration. The other reason why I believe that the Government and the Opposition should carefully consider this matter is that it is a misinterpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. After all, the object of the Bill is to give effect to certain provisions in the Convention. Nothing in the Schedule to the Bill, which is the United Nations Convention, refers to de facto spouses as being on the same basis as married persons. The reason for the absence of such a reference is simple-it was never meant to be there. Senator Gareth Evans —What about marital status? Is not de facto a kind of marital status? Senator HARRADINE —I wish to explain this to the Attorney-General. I happened to be in the United Nations as the political adviser from this Parliament in 1977 when the Third Committee was dealing with the drafts of this Convention. I have refreshed my memory and have with me all of the relevant documentation concerning the debate on this matter. I hope the Opposition is listening to this because I have the documentation from the United Nations Third Committee considerations and from the working party. The fact is that the original wording of the clause of this Bill which deals with marital status was 'discrimination against women whether married or unmarried'. Those were the words in the draft that was before the United Nations when I was in New York. Discussions took place-I suppose I am the only one here who knew about this-and subsequent to our leaving, the following, as recorded in the report of the working group of the Committee of the Whole on 6 December 1977, was said: During the discussion which followed, most representatives objected to the use of the words 'married or unmarried', noting that this terminology did not cover all categories of women such as widows, and divorced or separated women. I would like the Committee to understand that there was no mention whatsoever of de facto relationships in relation to marital status in any of the United Nations Committee's considerations. I hope the Attorney-General will consider this question. If he or his Government is relying on the external affairs power as the constitutional means of requiring adherence to this provision he has another think coming. Senator Giles —Was there no recognition of common law marriage? Senator HARRADINE —No. This is all the documentation which was found after a search. The argument amongst all of those groups, and I must say a disparate lot of people were there from all sorts of nations, some of whom would not have a bar of 'de facto' had it been included- Senator Gareth Evans —But everywhere in the world what we call common law marriage is given the same status. You have to acknowledge that. Senator HARRADINE —The Attorney-General may not have heard me, but I have mentioned and proven that this is the first time that this status is being recognised at law and being forced down people's throats. It is one thing to recognise it at law-I understand that-but it is another thing entirely to force it down people's throats under pain of penalty. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.01) -I would like to clarify what the Sex Discrimination Bill actually does in this respect. Senator Harradine has just suggested that this Bill is saying that de facto marital status is the same as regular marital status. I think that that is a misunderstanding of what the Bill is seeking to do. The Bill is not seeking to say that de facto status is the same as marital status for all purposes; nor is it seeking to say that being divorced is the same as being married, or that being separated is the same as being married or that being single is the same as being married. We are not saying that all these states are the same for all purposes. The Bill says that in the areas covered by it, discrimination on the ground of a person's marital status will be illegal. So discrimination on the ground of a women being single will be illegal. Discrimination on the ground of a woman being married will be illegal. Discrimination on the ground of a woman being in a de facto relationship, for the purposes of this Bill, bearing in mind that there are many exemptions, will be illegal. So I think it is quite wrong and inaccurate of Senator Harradine to claim that the Bill is saying that being in a de facto relationship is the same as being married. Clause 4 of the Bill sets out a number of states which are conventionally understood to be states which can be described as a marital status. The Bill says that people shall not be treated differently according to which marital status they occupy, where it is irrelevant and where it is prohibited by the legislation. Of course, this is not the first time in Commonwealth legislation that there has been a reference to this fact. I have before me the Social Security Act 1947 which defines ' dependent female' in the following terms: . . . 'dependent female' means a woman who is living with a man (in this Part referred to as her husband) as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him; Those are the words of the Social Security Act 1947. Senator Harradine —That is right, but on a different matter. Senator RYAN —Senator Harradine acknowledged that in regard to the tertiary education assistance scheme. I ask him to consider that a number of statuses in our society are described as marital status. Being divorced is described as a marital status. When one is asked to fill in forms for all sorts of purposes one finds under the heading 'marital status' such sub-headings as 'married', ' divorced', ' never married' and so on. These all come under the heading of marital status. This Bill, in the areas covered by it, provides that a person shall not be treated differently on the ground of being in one status rather than another. Senator Harradine is not suggesting that the Bill says that marriage is the same as divorce or that married person is the same as a widowed person. These are all categories of marital status and the Bill provides that to treat a person less favourably simply on the gounds that they are in one rather than another marital status shall be illegal. Senator Harradine drew attention to the fact that the debate on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women did not mention de facto status but simply married or unmarried women. It is true that the United Nations Convention is one of the constitutional instruments on which this legislation is based. It is not the only one. There are other constitutional powers on which the legislation is based. Of course the marriage power is a constitutional power which the Commonwealth has regardless of the Convention. It would not be an argument against the inclusion of de facto status for the purposes of the legislation, even if Senator Harradine's interpretation about the debate on the Convention were as he argues it. I should also point out that if Senator Harradine says the United Nations Convention debate referred to married or unmarried women he really has to make up his mind whether a woman in a de facto status is, according to him, married or unmarried. She must be one or the other. Some people would regard her as being common law married; others would not. Senator Harradine, because of his private beliefs, does not recognise anything other than religious marriage or a state marriage-a legal marriage-but a woman has to be one or the other. By implication the Convention indeed covered women in de facto relationships, but going beyond that, of course, there are constitutional powers, by which the Government can legislate in these areas, which are separate from the powers it derives under the United Nations Convention. I also point out that the legislation in both New South Wales and South Australia covers de facto status in the definition of marital status. It is not the intention of this Bill-indeed it does not in its definitions state this-that being in a de facto relationship is the same as being in a legally married one. It states that a de facto relationship ought not to be a ground for differential and inferior treatment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.07) — The Minister did not address her remarks to the major problem that I pointed out. The major problem is that for the first time in Commonwealth legislation a de facto relationship is being placed on the same level as a married relationship. This legislation forces every citizen of Australia to accept that fact under pain of penalty. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Bill does not say that a de facto relationship is the same as a married relationship. I refer honourable senators to another example- page 16, clause 24, relating to land. If one of us who were fortunate enough to own an additional home placed a 'to let' notice in the paper and received an application from a de facto couple, would the decision to deny that couple the right to live in that home be discrimination? Of course it would be discrimination. Senator Jack Evans —You would accept a single person living with another person. Senator HARRADINE —No, I would not. Senator Jack Evans —Would you deny that under this Bill? You would be discriminating. Senator HARRADINE —That is another matter I want to turn to when we refer to land, bearing in mind certain legal advice that I have received on that aspect. I ask honourable senators to wait until we turn to the matter of land. Would a hotel keeper be liable to action under this Bill for discriminating against a couple in the circumstances that I previously described? The answer, quite obviously, is yes. I see the Minister nodding her head. Is that right? Senator Ryan —That is right. Senator HARRADINE —I ask the Committee to consider that question. What we are doing in passing this legislation is placing a de facto relationship on the same status and level as a bona fide married relationship. That is one matter but we are also forcing people to observe that. This gives me some ammunition for an argument for conscientious objection under this legislation. I return to the point that I made before. I admitted that, for social security, taxation, the tertiary education assistance scheme and the like, of course a de facto relationship is recognised because a benefit is being conferred. We do not have to cop the views of other people about de facto relationships having the same status as married relationships in such circumstances. That is no concern of ours. However, it is under this legislation. The Opposition and the Australian Democrats should think seriously when this matter is voted upon. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.13) -I repeat that the inclusion of de factor status as a marital status along with single, separated and divorced, does not change that status legally. The Sex Discrimination Bill does not legalise a defacto relationship. What it does is require that people in a de facto relationship shall not be treated differently from people in a different marital relationship for the purposes described under this legislation. Senator Harradine is quite right when he says that if a person has a house to let he or she should not use the marital status of an applicant for that accommodation as a ground for treating that applicant less favourably than he or she would an applicant of another marital status. That is what the Bill is about. If a person sets up a business, the marital status of a client is not relevant in most cases. Similarly in the example that Senator Harradine used of a hotel owner in the business of letting accommodation. The access of a person to that service should not be determined by that person's marital status. It is quite a different matter to take a lodger into the home, it is quite a different matter for people in a group house who would be living with the tenant. There are exemptions to that to which Senator Harradine might like to address his attention. But in relation to a commercial enterprise-a house to let or rooms to let in an hotel-the legislation says that it is not right to refuse a person commercial service on the grounds of the marital status of the person applying. That is the intention of the Bill. It is not the business of someone letting property or someone renting rooms in a hotel to concern himself or herself with the marital status of the person involved. Under those circumstances it is discriminatory to treat less favourably a person simply on the grounds of his or her marital status. This Bill does not alter a person's right to hold a view about marriage or about people who live in de facto relationships. Such views can be held. I think that Senator Martin put very clearly tonight the distinction between people being able to hold a view about marriage and people being able to deny unfairly a good or a service to that person. Perhaps it will help Senator Harradine if I remind him of the provisions of the Racial Discriminaion Act. That Act does not require people to say that a person of one race is the same as a person of another race. A person of the Aboriginal race is not the same as a person of the European race. The legislation says that a person of the Aboriginal race shall not be treated differently from or less favourably than a person of the European race. It is a question of establishing the rights of people to certain publicly provided goods and services. It is the view of our Government that in the areas covered by the legislation those rights should not be eroded because of a person's marital status. So if somebody is running a hotel business marital status ought not to be grounds for treating a customer less favourably than he would otherwise be treated. I simply repeat-and I hope that Senator Harradine can accept this-that the Bill does not change de facto status. It does not legalise it. It does not say that it is the same as marital status. It does not affect anybody's right-Senator Harradine's or anyone else's-to hold his private, personal views about marriage and the status of people who are not married. It simply says that in regard to certain publicly provided goods and services marital status-be it de facto, separated, divorced or married-should not be used as a reason for treating a person less favourably than he would otherwise be treated. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.17) —I ask Senator Harradine whether his- Senator Ryan —Senator Harradine is not the Minister. Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, may I ask Senator Harradine whether in his opinion the amendment he is to move later on the basis of his conscientious objections covers this matter? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.17) — As Senator Ryan said, Mr Chairman, I am not the Minister-- Senator Ryan —At least not the same as the Minister, in any respect. The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with sex discrimination and not with sex. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Ryan is a bit sharper than I am, I think. Mr Chairman , I have tried to explain the situation. I do not want to canvass what I have already said. I think we are dealing with two different aspects. I think that we understand what is happening. I am of the view that people who hold a view about marriage should not be forced under penalty-as is the case under this legislation-to, in effect, hold another view. I think that one of the most devastating statements made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) tonight was: 'If I am right as far as the external affairs power is concerned, the question of having a de facto spouse as part of the definition of marital status can rely on the marriage power'. I think that is a most devastating statement. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.19) —I have a question for the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in regard to line 30 on page 5 of the Sex Discrimination Bill (No. 2) 1983. I preface this question with a reference to the symposium on statutory interpretation. I refer to comments made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his paper entitled 'Extrinsic Aids to Statutory Interpretation'. I would like the Minister to answer a couple of questions, bearing in mind that, as the Attorney-General said in his statement, the Government is preparing legislation on extrinsic aids to the interpretation and administration of the law. As to voluntary bodies, the definition in clause 4 states: 'voluntary body' means an association or other body (whether incorporated or unincorporated) the activities of which are not engaged in for the purpose of making a profit, but does not include- (a) a club; (b) a registered organization; (c) - this is where my question lies- a body established by a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory. Is a political party such as the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia a voluntary body and thus exempt under clause 34 from the operation of Divisions 1 and 2 in certain respects? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.20) -The officers are considering this matter, but I would consider that a political party would be a voluntary body. I am not aware of any legislative process that one needs to undertake and, therefore, it would not be covered for the purposes of this legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.21) — Will the Minister give an assurance that churches in Canberra that are incorporated under ordinance for certain purposes remain, nonetheless, voluntary bodies for the purposes of the Bill? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.22) -Yes, I give that assurance, because there is a special exemption for religious bodies that would make it particularly clear that they would be exempted. Clause agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6-by leave-taken together. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.23) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 6, sub-clause 5 (1), line 13, at end of sub-clause, add 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. (2) Page 6, sub-clause 6 (1), line 36 at end of sub-clause, add 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. The Opposition has grouped these amendments together, as it will be grouping together other Opposition amendments, in the interests of brevity, where wordiness is not necessary. The first amendment is an amendment to sub-clause 5 (1). Clause 5 outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex. Clause 6 outlaws discrimination on the ground of marital status. The amendments are identically worded. They contain words that are contained in clause 7, which relates to discrimination on the ground of pregnancy. Clause 5 states: For the purposes of this Act, a person . . . discriminates against another person . . .on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of- (a) the sex of the aggrieved person; (b) a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person; or (c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person, the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourable than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person of the opposite sex. To that clause we seek to add the words: and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances. I point out that the wording of clauses 5, 6 and 7 is identical to all intents and purposes except that they deal with sex, marital status and pregnancy respectively. However, in clause 7, the Government has the words 'the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances' in the same position as the Opposition seeks to place them in clauses 5 and 6. The Government apparently accepts that discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who are pregnant can be justified on the grounds of reasonableness in certain circumstances. The Opposition suggests that the same could apply in the case of sex and marital status. I emphasise that it is not the Opposition's intention by introducing these amendments to negate the purpose of the Bill. That is not the Opposition's intention at all. However, I turned to the explanatory notes for some guidance why the words were contained in clause 7 at all. I found no explanation. I found repeated the words 'the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. But we have not had an explanation of reasonableness. I can see some circumstances-very few, I must admit-where it would be 'reasonable in the circumstances'. I think I can also see some cases where 'less favourable treatment' would be reasonable in very particular circumstances in relation to sex and marital status. Senator Missen —What sorts of examples do you have in mind? Senator MARTIN —I can give some examples and I intend to do so, but I will develop my own case. One real concern of people in the community in relation to the sex discrimination legislation-I find amazing the passions it stirs-is that fears are genuinely held that either people will be hauled off to the Human Rights Commission because they do not realise they are doing the wrong thing as they really mean well-and this applies particularly in the harassment area-or that there are cases where sex or marital status is a real factor. I admit that the Bill allows for specific cases. There is a fear on the part of a number of people that we will get into a situation of ridiculousness, of unfairness- something might be considered unfair by community standards-while accepting the notion of equality. The areas covered by discrimination are difficult areas with which to deal. It is probably a little easier to deal with marital status. I would accept that there are characteristics that appertain generally to a person of a particular marital status. There are characteristics that appertain to a person of a particular sex just as there are some that appertain to pregnancy. There are specific characteristics which can be a factor, for example, in the area of employment. An employer might have a very good reason, for example, when interviewing applicants for a job to have some particular concerns about somebody who is married. Provided that the employer asks the same questions of a married male applicant as he or she asks of a married female applicant-in other words, there is no sexual discrimination or weighting of someone's marital status, the details of which might affect considerations of the employer-and they are treated equally, I think that that would be fair. It could be a major consideration- Senator Tate —I just do not see how the marital status of somebody is relevant to that person's state of mind. Senator MARTIN —It can matter very much. There can be jobs that involve a training program for something that is specific to those jobs. That training might continue over a period. If I were a married woman applying for a job which required such training and by virtue of the fact that I was married certain other things follow, it would not be unreasonable, where that is a factor in the job, to be asked some questions by a potential employer-the employer would be expending resources on me by way of training and employment-about my husband's employment. He could ask, for example, whether my husband worked for the foreign service and if so whether he was likely to be transferred in six months time. The training period could extend over two years. It could be that the fact that somebody is married is a factor. The fact that somebody is married is not enough ; further questions would have to be asked. For example, the question would have to be asked: 'If your husband is transferred would you resign from this job in order to accompany him?' There are certain assumptions that cannot be made, but there would be circumstances in which my characteristics as an employee would be affected by the fact, first, that I am married and secondly that I have certain attitudes towards my marital relationship which would mean that if my husband was transferred in the course of his employment I would choose to move with him rather than stay where I was and continue employment in that job. Senator Haines —But you would expect that to be asked of a married man too, presumably? Senator MARTIN —I said that. I said provided the same conditions are put on male and female applicants. The conditions should obtain generally to marital status. If a man applied for a job and, as can happen, his wife were a member of the foreign service-we have women in the foreign service who are married and subject to transfer-that could be a similar consideration for a potential employer. I do not want to labour the point too much. What I am saying is that provided the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances' are inserted in the clause the test of reasonableness is applied and the test of particular circumstances is applied. We are not then giving people an entitlement to discriminate on the grounds of prejudice, watonness, personal preference or even hunches. The discrimination must be for a specific reason. It would have to be meted out equally to men and women and it is a reasonable type of qualification to put on employment just as is pregnancy. I am sure that the Government does not mean, in putting that qualification on pregnancy, to give anyone a wholesale let-out. It would mean it to be just what it says, 'not reasonable in the circumstances'. They are two tests that would have to be put in relation to pregnancy which I think are as reasonable in other circumstances, namely, the circumstances of sex and marital status. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.34) —I just put to Senator Martin a possible situation, because it seems to me that what she said did not entirely link up with the insertion in clause 5 of the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. I put it to Senator Martin that the circumstances could be such that the job that is being offered requires some training but the best training would be that which is done overseas or interstate. It might be proposed that a person in a marital state does the training in Australia or in the State in which that person lives. That might be the alternative, but it would be 'reasonable in the circumstances'. The training might be less comprehensive but because that person has marital status and would otherwise be separated from her husband and she was given training in Australia rather than being sent overseas, it might be said then that this is 'reasonable in the circumstances', although it would certainly be less favourable treatment not to send her away. Is that something which the honourable senator has in mind ? It seems to me that that is the situation which would be covered by the insertion of the words proposed to be inserted in relation to marital status. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.35) —I do not want to prolong the debate but I think Senator Missen misunderstood what I was talking about. I think he has taken two elements of the position that I described and merged them into one. I do not really think the question he was asking was relevant to my particular example. I was talking about someone, say, who is married to a diplomat and who applies for a job in Canberra with a private employer in which an important amount of training is involved. The employer might think it quite reasonable to expect some return from the trained person. I am not suggesting that training is available as it may not be; it may be quite specific to that enterprise. If the spouse of that person, whether that person is a man or a woman, is subject to transfer that would not make that person a desirable employee. Senator Missen —I understand your example but I am putting to you a different example which I suggest more practically fits your clause, that is all. Senator MARTIN —Senator Ryan is about to reply. Perhaps Senator Missen can come and explain his example in a little more length. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.36) -The Government will not accept the two amendments just moved by Senator Martin- not because we do not consider that she is addressing a serious issue but because we do not believe that it is necessary to accept those amendments. Let me explain. The Government is not prepared to accept the 'reasonable in the circumstances' addition because it would imply that treating people differently on the basis of their sex is prima facie reasonable and that it is up to the person who objects to prove that it is not reasonable in the circumstances. The Government has included, as Senator Martin has acknowledged, a number of exemptions throughout the Bill, particularly in the employment area where discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status would be reasonable. Those exemptions are there and we believe it is a fair and reasonable list of exemptions. Of course, with regard to pregnancy, we considered that it was important to include the 'which is not reasonable' addition because, in addition to areas where exemptions are provided, there are other situations where it would not be possible to spell out the facts with precision because of the different stages of pregnancy and the situation in which it may or may not be reasonable to take it into account. For example, if a woman were seven months pregnant, applied for a job and the employer wanted a person to work on a six months project, it would be reasonable for the employer to refuse employment to that person because she would not be available for the length of time required. But a similar refusal may not be reasonable if the woman were two months pregnant and would be available for six months. Because there are so many different circumstances and conditions, we judged it appropriate to include circumstances where it may be reasonable. I would like to address myself to Senator Martin's example of an employer seeking information regarding the marital status of an applicant because training over a long period is involved. It is not the intention of the Bill that an employer should be forced to employ a person who will not be available over a period or who will not be available to work to return the investment made in training that person. But the criterion should not be the marital status of a person but the availability of a person. Therefore, it would be perfectly proper and, indeed, sensible for an employer to say: 'Well, this job involves a one- year training period and then we expect that you will be available for five years'. If, in response to that, the applicant says: 'Well, I cannot give you that assurance because I am married to a diplomat and I expect that he or she will be posted overseas', it would not be discriminatory in terms of this Bill for the employer to say that that applicant cannot have the job. The point I am making is that it is not the marital status of the person that is at issue, although that turns out to be the reason for the lack of availability; it is the lack of availability that makes that person unsuitable. The example that Senator Martin gave is just one example but people in other sorts of relationships- indeed, Senator Harradine, de facto relationships-may similarly be unavailable because they do not wish to travel. Senator Harradine —Me? Senator RYAN —Senator Harradine may disagree or disapprove, but it happens to be a fact of life-- Senator Harradine —I thought you might mean that I was in a de facto relationship. Senator RYAN —I would never dream of suggesting such a thing to Senator Harradine, but it is a fact of life that some persons in our society are in de facto relationships and for those reasons, because of their desire to travel with or accompany a partner, may not be available. What is at issue is not whether they are married or in a de facto relationship. Indeed, they could have some other family responsibility which would prevent their travelling or require them to travel in a way that would make them unsuitable applicants. What is at issue is the availability to fulfil the terms of employment. If the employment requires training, if it requires a certain number of years work in a certain place and the person applying for the job cannot give those assurances, the employer is under no obligation to employ that person even if the lack of availability is explained in terms of the person's marital relationship. It is the lack of availability, not the marital status, which is at issue. There is no intention in this Bill for an employer to employ a person who, for whatever reason, would not be available for the term and conditions of the employment. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.41) —I raise with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women ( Senator Ryan) the problems for employees' marriages as a result of what I call compulsory close cohabitation. For example, a driver working for a long distance trucking organisation who is required to drive, perhaps, from Melbourne to Perth and back with great regularity and who necessarily sleeps in the vehicle while it is moving or spending-- Senator Haines —Not while he is driving, I hope. Senator LEWIS —I wish Senator Haines would not make these stupid, infantile interjections, Mr Chairman. From time to time one driver sleeps in the truck while another one continues to drive or alternatively the vehicle is stopped while the drivers have their compulsory break. It concerns me that if, as a result of their employment provisions, one of those drivers is male and the other one is female and they are required by the employer to share that job, that may perhaps create complication for them, but the thing that worries me-- Senator Ryan —What sort of complications? Senator LEWIS —I suggest to the Minister that she is totally naive if she does not believe that two people sharing such a job and staying at various places overnight might not develop a very close relationship. Senator Giles —What is the problem? Senator LEWIS —Senator Giles said: 'What is the difficulty? What is the problem? ' The problem is that the wife or the husband left behind might very well be unhappy about that. Senator Tate —What has that to do with the Bill? Senator Crichton-Browne —Because the employer wants to stop that problem before it starts. Senator LEWIS —Exactly, as my colleague Senator Crichton-Browne quite rightly points out to Senator Tate across the chamber, Senator Tate does not seem to be able to see any difficulty either. The employer might very well want to stop such a complication happening before it commences. Senator Crowley —Ha! Senator LEWIS —Senator Crowley thinks it is humorous. I assure Senator Crowley that if she were a truck driver instead of a senator she might find it is a very difficult complication to have to put up with. If she were a spouse left at home while her husband went off driving around the nation with a woman co-driver there would be no doubt that she would be concerned about the future of her marriage. I think that the outbursts by the women sitting on the Government benches-- Senator Haines —And Senator Tate. Senator LEWIS —And Senator Tate, are such that the people of Australia ought to understand that they really have no idea of what happens in real life. Senator Harradine —That is right. Senator LEWIS —They have no idea at all, do they, Senator Harradine? Senator Walters —Perhaps they do not understand what might happen in a stable marriage. Senator LEWIS —Or, as Senator Walters says, perhaps they do not understand what might happen in a stable marriage. Of course, the truth of the situation is that any marriage, throughout its course, runs into problems and it is up to the partners to avoid difficulties and complications. That is one way marriages survive. I ask the Minister, seriously-I expect to receive a proper answer and will pursue it until I do-what she would say to an employer who is forced into the situation of having a topnotch driver, male or female, and of having to employ a person of the other sex as a co-driver. His topnotch driver may come to him and say: 'Look, if you force me to be a driver with the other person my marriage will be at risk and you will force me to leave your employment'. What is an employer to do in those circumstances? Senator Giles is giggling away; Senator Crowley is hiding her mouth behind her hand as if this is some terrible suggestion. The Minister thinks it is very humorous. I hope the people of Australia realise that these people, who are pushing this Bill through the Parliament, have no idea of, and have not thought through, this problem. It would be a massive problem and I expect the Minister to tell the Committee why it would be reasonable to foist upon an employer such an employee in those circumstances. That is why the Opposition has put forward this amendment, which provides . . . 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. The Minister and the Government seem to understand that it is reasonable when the discrimination is on the ground of pregnancy. I suggest to the Minister that it is a reasonable addition on the other two grounds also. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.47) -I will address myself seriously to Senator Lewis's point. First of all, it is a fact of Australian working life that men and women work closely together in a whole number of areas. I do not know of any men and women who co-drive trucks but certainly men and women do work closely together in a whole range of areas. They have learned to do so maturely and responsibly. There are men and women in the Senate and we spend a great deal of time in each other's company-too much time, as far as some of us are concerned. Indeed on occasion we have been in this chamber until the early hours of the morning and some people have even gone off to sleep. I hope that that has not caused marital trauma for the spouses of those honourable senators who are married. It is quite offensive to suggest that adult people cannot work together in a close environment, if that is required by the work, without inevitably getting into a situation that might result in marital problems for those who are married. However, I do point out that the Sex Discrimination Bill does provide exemptions as far as accommodation is concerned, and I draw Senator Lewis's attention to clause 30 (2) and in particular paragraph (f), which states that if it is not reasonable for the employer to provide separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities for persons of either sex they are to be exempted. So if it were the case that two drivers had to sleep in a truck-that that was the accommodation provided-the employer would be exempted. If it were not possible to provide other, separate accommodation that circumstance would be exempted from the operation of the Bill. So Senator Lewis can rest assured that the marriages of truck drivers, male or female, will not be threatened by the enactment of this legislation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.49) —I assure the Minister that I was aware of clause 30. I presume that now I can say to my shearing mates down in the Western District that they can relax because this exemption in regard to accommodation will mean that shearing contractors will not be forced to employ women. I was aware of that also in regard to people working for the Country Roads Board of Victoria who live in caravans on a site for weeks at a time. I appreciated that those workers would not have women foisted upon them. Some of them will not thank me for that. Nevertheless, that fails to face up to the reality that there are circumstances in life when two people may be pushed together and may have to work in very close proximity to each other. It is not a question of whether they develop a sexual relationship. I did not suggest that that was the case. I chose my words very carefully. I said that they will probably develop a very close relationship. For example, employees of Telecom Australia frequently work underground, repairing or altering telephone cables. Two people working underground or around a Telecom pole, trying to fix terminals, are working in very close proximity. I suggest to the Committee that that also could create difficulties in the home of one or other of them if the spouse of one of them thinks that there is a risk to his or her marriage because of those people working so closely together. I understand that if a person's marriage breaks up and that person does not worry about such things, of course it may be a laughing matter, but if one is concerned about trying to keep a marriage stable, one must look at these things. Senator Ryan mentioned the fact that we work together in this chamber. One would not think that there would be anything going on in this chamber. However, one observes that some things do go on from time to time. Nevertheless, in this building the Minister would be aware that great difficulties have been created by close proximity working relationship between men and women. Frequently, marriages of members of parliament and of staff have broken up as a result purely and simply of the close proximity of the couples working together. A sexual relationship may not necessarily develop. I have tried to explain to the Minister, but she apparently does not seem to be able to grasp it, that a wife who is at home caring for three or four children, trying to get them off to school and trying to keep them clean, is aware that her husband is at work surrounded by glamorous women who may very well be endeavouring to use their guile to woo him in some way. It is a matter of grave concern to many women in this country that their husbands may in some way be subjected to improper influences. It is a fact of life that that happens, and it is one of the causes for the break up of such marriages. All I am suggesting to the Minister is that if an employer can see that a difficult situation might arise as a result of such circumstances, and if he can establish that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to discriminate, he ought to be entitled to make that discrimination. It may very well be a discrimination in favour of women. There are many circumstances where one could imagine that that might arise. I am not suggesting that it must be a discrimination in some way supportive of the male. It may very well be a discrimination against the male. Nevertheless, if an astute employer is able to see that a stupid situation could or would arise and is able to nip it in the bud-the Australian Labor Party ought to take account of nipping things in the bud-he ought to be given that power, even if he has to appear before the Human Rights Commission and establish why he is exercising that discrimination. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.55) — Mr Chairman, I support the Opposition's amendment to these clauses. This amendment is to provide protection against sex discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of marital status, a requirement which is in the form of 'the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. The same requirement is contained in clause 7 (1) (b), which is headed 'Discrimination on the ground of pregnancy'. It just so happens that that is the case. I believe that amendment is an eminently reasonable proposition. The test should in fact be whether the less favourable treatment was reasonable in the circumstances. Let me give honourable senators an example. Say a superintendent of the traffic police refuses to place a policewoman on the night shift patrol on a 1000cc BMW. The reason for that is that on the day shift the traffic police patrol the roads in twos or threes and know where each other is, but at a particular hour of the night or early morning the policeman or the policewoman may be required to attend an accident at which the 1000cc BMW falls over. It would be virtually impossible for the policewoman to pick the BMW up. Senator Giles —Oh, rubbish. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Giles says: 'Oh, rubbish'. We are talking about the average policewoman. Some of them I know are quite petite and it is almost a pleasure to be booked by them. But we are talking in a serious vein whereby a superintendent says that he cannot have a policewoman on the night shift. Under this legislation that is clearly discrimination on the grounds of her sex, but everyone in this Committee would agree that what the superintendent is doing is really protecting that policewoman. He is discriminating against her or for her, whichever way one likes. But if she feels that it is less favourable treatment, he can, as the discriminator, place before the Sex Discrimination Commissioner or the Human Rights Commission a defence for his action that the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances. The example I have just given of the police superintendent could apply in this city of Canberra. I believe, because of further matters that we will be discussing later in this Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2), which refer to the rather wide ranging powers of the Human Rights Commission and of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner , it is important for a sense of reasonableness to be brought into these two clauses. That is why I support the Opposition's proposal. The spokesperson for the Opposition, Senator Martin, indicated that this amendment was not designed to upset the general thrust of anti-discrimination legislation. Of course it is not. It is simply placing in these clauses a definition similar to that contained in clause 7 (1) (b)-'the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'-which has been included by the Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.01) —I would like to ask the Minister a question about another example that would apply to the Opposition's amendment. Consider the situation in which an employer is forced to retrench two women. The same argument would apply if he were employing two women. Should not that employer take into account the social situation of those women? Say that one of the women is married and her husband has a very good job with the same employer. Consequently that woman does not really need the job from a financial point of view. Say that the other woman is a single mother or a supporting mother with two or three children and in great need. She could be desperately in need of the job. Would the employer be discriminating if he were to say: 'Well, I am sorry. Because you are married and you have financial security I intend to keep on the supporting mother who is in desperate need of this job'. He could be making his decision solely on the ground of marital status. He could be discriminating in favour of a single woman who is greatly in need of financial assistance or who is not as secure financially as a married woman or a woman who is in a de facto relationship. Can the Minister comment on that situation? Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.03) —I rise very briefly. I do not seek to extend the debate. I stated the Opposition's view when I spoke to the amendment. I say to the Minister in relation to her reply and the debate which has followed that we are certainly aware of the provisions of clause 30 (2) which spells out a number of exemptions. I think it is reasonable to say that one cannot believe that any Bill covers all positions. There may be cases that are not covered. I reiterate that we believe that our test is reasonable. It is not meant as any support for sexual discrimination. Obviously, from the debate that has ensued, people have very wide, broad and differing ideas on what is justifiable discrimination. Under those circumstances I think the Minister should recognise at least some of the apprehensions that are abroad in the community and that the test of reasonableness and the test of circumstances are more likely to lead to a happier acceptance of the legislation in the community. I do not seek to continue to promote the Opposition's view. I have stated it and I recognise what the Minister has said in her reply. I just point out that we believe it is not a total reply in relation to this Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.05) —I want to take up for a moment the proposition put by Senator Lewis which attracted a considerable amount of mirth from honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. I think the amendment seeks to introduce a sense of reasonableness into this legislation. I cannot see that in any way it distorts or dilutes the general thrust of the good intentions of the provision. It provides a practical mechanism for overcoming the anomalies that can arise from time to time. The Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and Technology is one division that takes a great deal of care in screening and interviewing applicants before they go to the Antarctic. It takes into consideration all the matters that have been raised by Senator Lewis. Half the people who go to the Antarctic are not male and the other half female. There are very good reasons for the determinations that that Division makes. The men have to work in harmony with the women. It has to be recognised by the Department that there has to be harmony on behalf of the total family and that the married men who go to the Antarctic work in harmony with the single women. With respect to industrial relations generally any employer should be entitled to consider, when he or she makes his judgment, whether it is likely to disrupt his business or whether it is likely to disrupt the harmony and the smooth functioning of his industry. I do not know what the present circumstances are. But there was a time when there were only men on drilling rigs, not because of discrimination against women in the general sense but because it was found in those days that, because of the long periods the men spent at sea by themselves it was disruptive to them, to the company and to their productivity in some cases. I think that is a position that is taken in some cases by some of the-- Senator Giles —It would solve a lot of problems if there were only women on oil rigs, wouldn't it? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —There is no problem with that at all providing the women can do all the jobs required of them and if it were proved that to have men on board would disrupt the smooth functioning and harmony of the rig. I do not see that as a problem at all. I conclude by asking the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) a simple question. She has said that this is not really related to sex. It is one's capacity to fulfil the functions in the time required that gives the employer the reward. I ask: Is it discriminating to ask a person-very obviously a female-whether she is married? When the answer is yes, is it discriminatory to ask her whether she is planning to have a family in the near future? The Minister has put this on the basis that she might volunteer that information. I ask the Minister whether it is discriminatory to ask her whether she is married with the intention of asking her whether she is likely to have a family in the near future. To do so would enable the employer to make a decision whether to spend time giving her adequate training and also whether the employer would receive adequate reward for his outlay, his expenditure and his training of the employee. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.08) —A number of points have been raised which I will address. First of all, Senator Harradine raised the question of policewomen doing night duty. He suggested that it would be unsuitable for policewomen to do that because particular policewomen might not be strong enough to pick up a BMW 1000 motor- bike. I point out to Senator Harradine that, where strength is a criterion for the performance of a job, an employer is not required to employ somebody who does not have that strength. So if the duties of a particular area of the police force require a level of strength which no policewoman has, she would not be required to be employed in that occupation. If it is a strength test some policewomen may pass it and some policewomen may not. I certainly would not be able to pick up a BMW 1000cc. But I suppose there might be men in-- Senator Crichton-Browne —You are being modest. Senator RYAN —I know my strengths and I know my weaknesses. I ask honourable senators to consider that we are not requiring employers to employ people who do not have the inherent capacity to do the job, be it physical strength, qualifications or experience. What we are saying is that irrelevant criteria, such as a person's marital status or sex, should not be used. Clearly it is relevant for police officers doing night duty to have certain characteristics including, I would think, physical strength. So it is perfectly in order for applicants for those jobs to be tested to see whether they have those characteristics. If they do not have the characteristics, they are not entitled to the job; if they do have the characteristics they are entitled to the job. I ask Senator Harradine to consider that. Senator Walters raised the question of an employer who may have to choose between two women prospective employees, one who is able to be supported by her spouse and another who is supporting dependants alone. There is nothing in this legislation to prevent an employer from giving the job to the woman with dependants. Having dependants is not a ground specified in the legislation as being irrelevant to employment. So if an employer wants to take into account the fact that a certain prospective employee has dependants, he or she is perfectly free to do so and perfectly free to offer the job to that person. Senator Martin agreed that there were exemptions in the legislation and pointed out, rightly, that the list of exemptions is not inclusive. We have acknowledged that. I ask Senator Martin to note that under clause 30 (2) (h) regulations can be made to prescribe more positions. We expect that that will happen on a fairly continual basis during the early months of the operation of the legislation. We certainly could not think of all possible exemptions. It has been the experience in those States where the legislation is in place that further areas can be prescribed as necessary. I persist with the Government's view that, while not arguing with what Senator Martin is trying to achieve by her amendments, the amendments are not necessary and could be deleterious in some cases because they would force the applicant to show that the discrimination was not reasonable and they imply a prima facie acceptance that the discrimination is reasonable in circumstances other than the kinds of circumstances which we have exempted. Senator Crichton-Browne asked again whether an employer should be able to ask about the marital status of the applicant and her intentions with regard to having children. I simply reiterate that it is not a question of what family plans a person has. What an employer must and should ask concerns the availability of the person for the job over a long period. If a female prospective employee intends to start a family within the next two years, I believe that she should say that. Senator Crichton-Browne —What if she doesn't? Senator RYAN —If she does not, she is being dishonest, but she is being dishonest in the same way as a male who applies for a job knowing that he has every intention of going overseas in six months time but says to the employer: ' Oh, yes, I will be available for two years'. If applicants are going to be dishonest-it is a highly undesirable thing-we cannot control that through this legislation. But I think it is entirely reasonable for an employer to question a prospective employee about his or her availability. If in answer to that a prospective employee says 'Well, I can give you assurances about my availability only for six months because after that I intend to start a family', the employer would not be prevented under this legislation from saying: 'Well, you are not going to be available for the period I want you to be available; therefore, you don't get the job'. Again, I repeat it is availability for the job and the inherent capability to perform the job and not the prospective employee's intentions with regard to her family that ought to be taken into account. I contend that by requiring employers to look at the availability or the capacity of the person to perform the job we will not be intruding in any way on the legitimate rights of employers. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —I think the Minister just probably did not understand the question I asked her. I said: If the employer decided to employ a single woman and not a married woman because she had financial security, would that be discriminating against the married woman because of her marital status? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.14) —Senator Walters first asked the question in terms of a woman with dependent children-- Senator Walters —If you read Hansard, you will see that I then said 'or perhaps not even with any dependants but a single woman'. Senator RYAN —There is nothing to stop the employer taking into account either the dependants that a woman has to support or her capacity to be dependent on another person. Senator Walters —Answer the question. Senator RYAN —It is important to recognise that Senator Walters is asking about dependants and not about marital status, although she describes it in terms of marital status. At issue here is how an employer decides between two people. There is nothing to prevent the employer favouring a prospective employee with dependants, be they children, dependent aged parents or an invalid spouse. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.15) — The Minister still is not answering the question I asked. It is terribly important. It is crucial to the Bill, and to our understanding of the Bill. Can an employer say to a woman: 'Are you married and is your husband in employment because the woman I have seen previously needs the job financially and I will employ her if you are financially secure'? In my opinion, according to this Bill, that discriminates against a woman who is financially secure because of her marital status. Again I ask the Minister: Is an employer entitled to discriminate against a woman in regard to her marital status because her husband is employed and she is financially secure in favour of a single woman who is not financially secure and who perhaps desperately needs the job because of that financial situation? The same applies to retrenchment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.16) —It will be illegal for the employer to discriminate simply on the grounds of marital status. It would not be illegal for the employer to take into account the prospective employees' capacity to support themselves or be supported. The employer could take into account the circumstances of the applicant, but it would be illegal to discriminate simply on the ground of marital status. That is what it is about. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.17) —The Minister referred to clause 30 (2) (h) in relation to the regulations. Does the Minister agree with me that that clause would not allow the Minister to make a regulation which would solve the problem that I raised? For example, it would not be reasonable for the Minister by regulation to declare the occupation of truck driving a genuine qualification for the employment of a person of a particular sex, because clearly women can be truck drivers. They might operate as a pair in driving a truck from Melbourne to Perth. Similarly, it would not be reasonable to declare by regulation that the position of a telephone fixer-upper, or whatever the position is-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Technician. Senator LEWIS —The suggested word is 'technician'. I am sure that it is a much more significant position that technician, but that would perhaps cover it. It would not be reasonable for the Minister to declare that an occupational qualification for one sex or the other. So, the regulation-making provisions would not be a solution to the problem I raised. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.19) —Being male would not be a declared occupational qualification under paragraph (h). It is not the intention to overcome the whole purpose of the legislation by regulating every case that somebody thinks of as one that fulfils the occupational qualifications requirement. That is a genuine requirement. There may be jobs in which it is a genuine occupational requirement to be of one sex; for example, acting. There would be other examples. The example which the honourable senator gave would not be exempted under regulation. I draw the attention of Senator Lewis again to paragraph (f) where it is clearly stated that if the employer cannot provide separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities for persons of either sex or it would not be reasonable to expect the employer to provide them, those occupations are exempted. But where it is reasonable or where there are separate accommodation and sanitary facilities for either sex, there is no ground for an exemption. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.20) —Is the Minister aware that she just let slip the words 'where it is reasonable', which are the words which the Opposition wants to include in the provision? I am not suggesting a situation in which an employer has to provide accommodation. Is the Minister saying that this Government believes that where an employer can clearly see that there could very easily be matters of major concern, because of the close proximity of people who work together, to the marriage of either or any one of those people- notwithstanding that the problem is one which the employer is able to foresee-he will not be able to discriminate under this legislation? Is the Government saying that that is something he just has to live with? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.21) — I just want to comment on one of the matters which have been raised. I feel that prying into people's private lives to see whether they will get pregnant is not something which employers should be entitled to do. I just raise that matter; I do not think it was suggested by one of the honourable senators who entered the debate. I acknowledge what the Minister said in response to my question about the police motor cyclist on the BMW 1000. In effect, she said that the decision by the superintendent was made because picking up the motor-bike was a relevant requirement in the circumstances of that job. I accept that. That is why I believe that the amendment put forward by the Opposition could probably be improved if it included the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonably relevant in the circumstances'. That would virtually place into the legislation what the Minister has said in answer to my question. I go one step further. That would deal with clause 5, which deals with sex discrimination, but as I understand it we are also dealing with clause 6, which deals with discrimination on the ground of marital status. Having regard to the definition of marital status, clause 6 clearly prevents an employer from preferring a married couple to a de facto couple in all matters covered by the legislation, including matters of employment, accommodation and education except , of course, where there are subsequent exemptions. It does so because, in the words of this clause, a characteristic that appertains generally to persons having the marital status of a de facto is, by definition of clause 4, that the persons are living as husband and wife outside of marriage and, on the view of a substantial number of people within Australia, are therefore regularly engaged in fornication and adultery. Accordingly, we should not prefer a married couple to a de facto couple on the grounds that the de facto couple was regularly committing fornication and adultery and would be a source of scandal in a work situation. I refer honourable senators to the example of a country hotel. It may well be that a hotel proprietor wishes to employ a married couple to run the hotel. Under this legislation, he is prevented from doing this and also is branded as a discriminator if he does not employ a de facto couple to run the hotel. Senator Jack Evans —Even if they are not as good as the married couple? He has to employ the less capable people because they are de facto. That is what you said. Senator HARRADINE —No, I did not. Senator Jack Evans —I am sorry. That is precisely what you said. That is what I am trying to clarify. Senator HARRADINE —No, I did not say that. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask for less direct interchange and more talking through the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that he wants to employ a married couple. First, he cannot advertise for a married couple to run the hotel and, secondly, if he advertises for a couple to run the hotel and gets an application from a de facto couple whose qualifications are excellent, and he refuses to give them the job, under this legislation he will be a discriminator. That is what I am saying. Senator Crowley —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I have practised, like most people, a fair effort in trying to listen tonight but I draw your attention to Standing Order 421 and ask whether you regard this contribution as tediously repetitious. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Harradine is dealing with fundamental issues concerned with the legislation. He is in order. Senator HARRADINE —I am trying to give examples of what happens in many country towns throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Senator Zakharov —No one has denied that. This is the twentieth century. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking of a number of country hotels the proprietors of which might wish to employ married couples. It might be detrimental to the business of the proprietor to employ a de facto couple to run the hotel; yet this Bill enforces the Government's view on that proprietor and forces him to employ the de facto couple. Frankly, the law should not deny a prospective employer the right to employ persons and to discriminate in favour of certain persons on the ground of what is relevant in the circumstances. I think the Minister mentioned those words 'relevant in the circumstances'. Whilst I believe that the Opposition's amendment is probably adequate, I would have picked up what the Minister said and used the words 'reasonably relevant in the circumstances' rather than 'reasonable in the circumstances'. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.29) —Senator Ryan, the Minister, very adequately has expressed a set of words which shows a way around the proposition I put. So that I thoroughly understand will she answer yes or no whether it is an offence for a prospective employer to ask a woman whether she is married or then whether it is her intention to have a family in the immediate future with the knowledge that, if the answer is yes, the employer will not put her on because she will not be able to fulfil the term of contract which is necessary under the circumstances. I understand what the Minister said. She talked about-- Senator Harradine —We are not on that clause. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, we are. Senator Ryan knows we are speaking to the right clause. Consideration interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 276 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Resources and Energy's attention been drawn to a report in the Times of India of 7 May 1983 which stated that 300 nuclear workers have been contaminated in the Tarapur nuclear power plant near Bombay. (2) Did the Times of India also report that because of a shortage of trained personnel, Indians with little or no knowledge of radiation are being shuttled in and out of nuclear 'hot spots' for brief periods. (3) Do Tarapur workers continually receive radiation doses far above allowable standards. (4) Why has the United States refused to supply India with more uranium to refuel the Tarapur reactors. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I understand that an article in the Times of India of 9 May 1983 reported that in the operation of the Tarapur atomic power reactors (TAPS) more than 300 people had been exposed to annual radiation doses in excess of 5,000 millirems. The article also reported that TAPS management had for some years brought in skilled and unskilled workers from outside to help TAPS employees because too many TAPS employees had received exposures in excess of annual limits. The article stated that a large number of local villagers, most of them semi-literate, had been used for high risk maintenance jobs. (3) The Times of India article stated that the average exposure of all TAPS employees in 1982 was 2,222 millirems. Radiation doses of this magnitude fall between the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended annual limits of 5,000 millirems for employees designated as radiation workers and 500 millirems for other than designated employees and for members of the public. A further Times of India article on 12 May 1983 reported the then Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission as revealing that since 1969, 329 person had received radiation exposures in excess of the 5,000 millirem annual limit. In a debate in the Indian Parliament on 25 July 1983 the Minister for Science and Technology stated that ICRP recommendations provide for the basic limit of 5,000 millirems for designated radiation workers to be exceeded under special approval to meet specific work requirements. However, the ICRP recommendations note that such exposures should occur only infrequently during normal operations. (4) The decision by the United States to refuse to continue to supply India with enriched uranium to refuel the Tarapur reactors was based on provisions of the United States Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (NNPA) of 1978. The Act prohibits in principle the export of nuclear materials such as enriched uranium to countries which do not accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear facilities (fullscope safeguards). India does not accept fullscope safeguards. The NNPA required India to accept obligations additional to those included in the Nuclear Co-operation Agreement with the United States signed in 1963 before further enriched uranium would be supplied by the United States, namely IAEA safeguards over all of its nuclear facilities. There have been no United States approvals for fuel shipments since 1980. Question No. 470 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) What research projects have been conducted over the last two years by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and/or CSIRO's consulting companies which relate to the nuclear fuel cycle, such as uranium mining and enrichment. (2) What are the titles of the projects and which divisions, units and/or companies have, are or will be carrying them out. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The following are details of relevant research projects conducted by CSIRO in the two years ending November 1983: (a) 'Development of on-stream analysers for uranium ores' Division on Mineral Physics. (b) 'Provision of baseline data on elemental composition and air loading of dust around the Ranger deposit' Carried out 1981-82. Division of Mineral Physics (with one Office of Supervising Scientist). (c) 'General studies of isotope ratios in and electrochemical behaviour of uraniferous samples and investigation of analytical methods related to processing operations' Intermittent work on uranium as part of overall research program on economic minerals. Division of Mineral Physics. (d) 'Selective dissolution of uranium' (as part of exploratory research on dissolution processes for various minerals). Carried out over two years. Division of Mineral Chemistry. (e) 'Chemical and physical stability of Nabarlek leach residues' Three month project, completed. Division of Mineral Chemistry. (f) 'Absorption of uranium in a carbonate media' Six month project, completed. Division of Mineral Chemistry. No research projects which relate to the nuclear fuel cycle have been conducted for CSIRO by consulting companies over the last two years. Question No. 473 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) What is the primary objective of the joint Commonwealth-State fisheries research program in Torres Strait announced in the August Budget. How will Torres Strait Islanders benefit directly from this research program. (3) Is the program under way and what is its expected duration. (4) Will a report (or progressive reports) be published on the results of the research program. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Under the Torres Strait Treaty both Australia and Papua New Guinea have a number of obligations regarding fisheries management. These obligations arise from a desire to: (a) protect the traditional way of life and livelihood of the traditional inhabitants, including traditional fishing-the principal purpose of the Protected Zone (Article 10); (b) co-operate and consult in the conservation, management and optimum utilisation of Protected Zone commercial fisheries, provided there is due protection given to traditional fisheries (Articles 20, 21); (c) manage particular fisheries jointly if either party considers this necessary (Article 22); (d) implement a catch-sharing arrangement for Protected Zone commercial fisheries jointly managed by the two countries (Article 23); (e) take into account the desirability of promoting economic development in the Torres Strait area and employment opportunities for traditional inhabitants when issuing commercial fishing licences, and ensure traditional inhabitants are consulted from time to time on licensing arrangements for Protected Zone commercial fisheries (Article 26); (f) protect and preserve the marine environment and the indigenous flora and fauna in and around the Protected Zone (Articles 13, 14). The primary objective of the fisheries research program in Torres Strait is to collect the biological and other information needed to support management programs that will fulfil the above aims of the Treaty. Current research projects are designed to: (1) (a) establish the extent and nature of traditional fishing by traditional inhabitants; (b) study the biology of commercially exploited species such as tropical rock lobsters, prawns, mackerel and trochus for management and optimum utilisation of those species; (c) study the effects of prawn trawling on other species, including those fished traditionally. In addition, a monitoring program is to be set up to gather information to ensure continued productivity of the resources and the protection of traditional fishing activities. (2) Torres Strait Islanders will benefit directly from this research program in a number of ways. The documentation of traditional fishing will allow for its protection, if necessary, and will provide information necessary for the conservation and sustained use of traditional resources such as dugongs and turtles, which may be under threat. The results of research into commercial fisheries will be used for the management of Protected Zone commercial fisheries with the objective of attaining optimum utilisation and, where appropriate, the promotion of economic development of the Torres Strait area and employment opportunities for traditional inhabitants. (3) The program is already under way. A tropical rock lobster study was initiated in 1980 and other projects commenced in 1983. The more recent projects include studies of traditional fishing, the effects of prawn trawling on non- target species, an aerial survey of tiger prawn nursery grounds and determination of the extent of the mackerel stock. The duration of the program will depend to a large extent on the results. At present, most projects are scheduled to run to 1984 or 1985, however, funds will be sought to extend some projects if results indicate this is necessary. (4) The results of all research projects will be published in due course, both in scientific journals and as progress reports in industry magazines such as Australian Fisheries. Scientists are currently considering holding a research seminar in late 1984 to examine the progress of research. The proceedings of this seminar would also be published. Question No. 514 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: (1) Has the Department of Trade collated in publishable form the material referred to by the Minister for Trade on 14 September 1983, when he stated that 'My own Department has also identified some 2,000 instances of non-tariff mechanisms being used by other countries'. (See answer to Questions without Notice, House of Representatives Hansard, 14 September 1983, p. 755). (2) Will this information be made available to honourable members and senators; if so, when. (3) When will the Department publish this material for public consumption. Senator Walsh —The Acting Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Trade has prepared a preliminary inventory of more than 2 ,000 non-tariff measures (NTM's) used by countries which could affect trade. The concept of NTM's embraces all types of governmental non-tariff trade actions, including procedures and regulations, without pre-judging and motivations for their application, their conformity or otherwise with domestic or international laws or their actual effect on trade. The inventory is a consolidation of all relevant measures listed in: (i) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 'Inventory of Non-Tariff Measures' put out in a series of documents prefixed by the code NTM/INV (ii) the GATT 'Inventory of Agricultural Non-Tariff Measures' (put out in a series of documents pre- fixed by the code AG/DOC) (iii) the USTR 'Foreign Trade Action Monitoring System' (TAMS) printout (iv) public documents and from other sources available to the Department. It should be noted that this inventory is broadly based and does not indicate the possible impact on trade of particular NTM's. It should also be borne in mind that since this list was prepared six months ago, it will in some respects be out of date. The Department is currently updating its information base on NTM's and quantifying where possible, their trade effects. (2) and (3) It is not appropriate to turn this document into a publication at this stage but I have authorised my Department to make it available on request. Senator Walsh —On 15 September 1983 (Hansard, page 739), Senator Watson asked me a question, without notice, concerning research in Australia into utilising hydrogen as a source of energy, and government incentives for such research. The 'Compendium of Australian Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Projects', published by my Department, identifies four hydrogen projects currently in progress in Australia. These are in the areas of hydrogen production using solar energy, hydrogen storage and processing, and the use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel. Most of the funding for these projects has been provided by the Commonwealth through the national energy research, development and demonstration (NERDD) program. Between 1978 and 1982 $462,115 was committed under the program. Senator Gareth Evans —On 21 September 1983 (Hansard, page 859), Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology a question, without notice, concerning government support for high technology and referring specifically to the proposed reduction of 80 personnel within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The external review of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation ( DSTO) which was completed in October 1980 made a number of recommendations to redress the effects of decreasing resources. The thrust of some of these recommendations-and the Government endorses this thrust-was that there was a need to: (a) Provide adequate operating resources for DSTO scientists and engineers; and (b) Replace obsolete DSTO plant over a period of time. (2) resources available to DSTO have had to be constrained in the light of overall defence priorities in a period of tightly controlled defence expenditure overall. This constraint has led to a situation where the support funds available to the DSTO scientists and engineers were falling below levels judged necessary for effective research and development activity. (3) It was therefore decided that some reductions would be made in the manpower resources for the DSTO in exchange for increased allocations for operating costs and minor capital funds. Manning reductions of about 80 positions out of a total of about 4,500 are being made in 1983-84 by selective non-replacement of natural staff wastage. There will be no retrenchments. (4) This will increase the effectiveness of DSTO in most areas, but as a result of the staff reductions work in some lower priority areas will be curtailed. Senator Gietzelt —On 14 September 1983 (Hansard, page 659), Senator Childs asked me a question, without notice, concerning repatriation pensions and in particular the growth in the number of people seeking a war widow's pension. The supplementary answer to Senator Childs's question is as follows: The numbers of new grants of pensions to war widows for the last two years were : 1981-82 - 5481982-83 - 2,601 Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 September 1983 (Hansard, page 590), Senator Missen asked a question concerning a report by the London-based Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights concerning alleged human rights abuses of the Melanesian population of Irian Jaya. In my reply I outlined the nature of the Indonesian Government's transmigration program in Irian Jaya and international efforts to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. I also noted that Australia has played an active role in focusing international attention on this issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following additional information: The Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights plans to publish reports on its findings in Irian Jaya within the next 12 months. Until that report is published, the Society's statement to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva is the most definitive account of the Society's views. A copy of the Society's statement is available from Mr Hayden's office. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures on the number of transmigrants who have gone to Irian Jaya as target figures are often not realised. However, according to the Indonesian Department of Transmigration, 58,000 people had been transferred to the province as at the end of August 1983. In addition to transmigrants, there are also another 100,000-160,000 unsponsored migrants in Irian Jaya. According to a study by Professor Arndt of the Australian National University, transmigration to Irian Jaya during the Indonesian Government's current third five year development plan (1979-1984) represents around 4.3 per cent of total official transmigrants. This compares with 60.6 per cent settled in Sumatra, 20. 2 per cent in Kalimantan and 12.3 per cent in Sulawesi. Senator Walsh —On 29 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2903), Senator Hearn asked me a question without notice concerning discussions between my Department and the Hydro-Electric Commission on the potential for wind-generated electricity in northern Tasmania and my own plans regarding the commercial production of wind- generated electricity in Denmark. I provide the following answer: Yes, discussions are proceeding. Yes, I have just returned from an overseas visit where I had the opportunity to examine developments related to wind-generated electricity in Denmark. Considerable progress has been made over the past few years on the development and commercial application of medium scale wind turbine technologies in the range 50-150 kW. Additionally, there is work underway on the development and testing of larger machines of about 350 kW. I should add however that the economics of wind power are complex and must be studies on a case-by-case basis as we are proposing for Tasmania. Senator Gareth Evans —On 7 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3396) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the following question without notice: I refer the Minister to the environmental impact study conducted to evaluate the proposal to establish a Royal Australian Air Force Base at Tindal in the Northern Territory. I ask the Minister: (1) Have any conclusions been drawn by the Government as a result of the study. (2) When will a decision be made on the development or otherwise of a RAAF base at Tindal. (3) When does the Government anticipate construction can begin on the base. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Under procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, the study is open for public comment until 19 December, after which comments received will be assessed and taken into account in the preparation of a final environmental impact statement. This will then be considered by the Government before action is taken. (2) and (3) A decision on the development of RAAF Tindal is expected to be made in the context of the 1984-85 Budget, after referral of the project to the Public Works Committee and its report to Parliament. Subject to the outcome of that process, work could begin in early 1984-85.