Tuesday, 8 May 1984 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: Australian Capital Territory: Local Government 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 in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 15 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 their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 423 citizens) and Chaney (from 279 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned teachers and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 707 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 24 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate censures the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, for deliberately misleading Senate Estimates Committee D on 3 May 1984 by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to the funding of government and non-government schools. Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith the proposed motion of censure of which he gave notice earlier this day. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate)(2.02) — The Government, as is usual, will not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders under these circumstances of a motion of censure against a Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.03) —I move: That the Senate censures the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, for deliberately misleading Senate Estimates Committee D on 3 May 1984 by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to the funding of government and non-government schools. This is a most serious charge to bring against a Minister. The Opposition brings it because it believes that it has established quite clearly that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has deliberately misled the Senate through one of its Estimates committees. That is a charge which is evident from what has been said and what has been written by the Minister. We say that the Minister did this to cover up other involvement and the involvement of her Department in the use of taxpayers' funds to finance research into one of the most contentious political issues of the past year, namely, the funding of non-government schools. We believe that the Minister's deception is compounded by her failure to try to explain what she did, other than to write a letter when it was quite clear that other evidence which appeared in other Estimates committees put the record straight. There is a bald statement of facts by the Minister written within a day of her statements in the Estimates Committee which is in complete contradiction to the answer which she gave to the Committee. We regard this as an act of arrogance and as an act that is quite improper. We bring this motion of censure against her as a result. This Minister has been criticised in her own Party room. She has been criticised within her own Department. I merely wish to say that it is now very evident to the Opposition why Senator Ryan has been subjected to that criticism. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been forced to intervene in her portfolio and she has now sought to escape the reality of the actions that she has undertaken in her Department. We believe that this is a very serious matter which goes to the heart of what Parliament expects from its Ministers and from public servants . As the motion points out, the censure relates to evidence given by the Minister to the Senate Estimates Committee D meeting last week to consider estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It is clearly understood by all honourable senators, including those caterwauling on the other side, that the Estimates committees are an integral part of the Senate process and that the Senate must be able to depend upon the truth and the accuracy of the information which is given. It is quite clear that the Senate has not been able to depend upon the truth and the accuracy of what the Minister put before the Committee in this case. We believe that both the Minister and a senior officer of her Department have fallen short of the standards which are required. This motion does not deal with the officer, but that is an issue which perhaps needs to be considered separately as to whether there has been a possible breach of the privilege of the Senate. I will put before the Senate the facts on which the Opposition bases its charge , the facts on which the Opposition bases this censure. Those facts relate to questions which were addressed to a Dr Taloni, the First Assistant Secretary of the Management Division of the Minister's Department and to the Minister regarding opinion surveys conducted for or on behalf of her Department. The questions, if I may describe the situation before going direct to the evidence, met with defensive if not outright misleading answers on the involvement of her Department and of the Minister herself in the broad study on youth attitudes. We were met, however, with outright deception and with a deliberate misleading of the Committee on the specifics of the education funding issue. The Minister's answers are simply not compatible with the notes which the Government itself issued in the additional estimates which were put out for the Department of the Special Minister of State. I believe that the only reason we have got to the truth of this matter is that the Opposition was, through this document, able to get facts from the Department of the Special Minister of State which were denied us in the Estimates Committee examining the estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It was only when the Minister realised that she was caught out by the subsequent questioning in another Estimates committee that a further explanation emerged. The letter the next day, from which I will be quoting extensively, talks about clarification but is, in fact, a reversal of the evidence which was given earlier. There is no credible explanation possible for the huge divergence between what the Minister said during the Committee hearing and what she wrote within 24 hours to the Committee. I want to look at the line of questioning which was developed in the Estimates Committee. It started when Senator Teague asked whether the Department-the Minister's Department-had commissioned any public opinion surveys since 5 March 1983. Dr Taloni answered: 'No'. He answered with a blank 'no' to that question. Senator Teague went on to ask: Has the Department requested public opinion surveys through a statutory authority or one of the commissions? Dr Taloni answered: There is a survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State which might have some relevance to our departmental function. I stress that Dr Taloni used the words 'might have some relevance to our departmental function'. Senator Teague asked whether that survey was being handled by an interdepartmental committee. Dr Taloni confirmed that it was being handled by the Special Minister of State. Senator Teague asked: Has the Department engaged in any market research since March 1983? A Mr Maher replied: 'No'. It was at this point that Senator Ryan intervened. She said: No, we have not done any. I think some was done under the previous Government, but not by us. The questioning went on. The Chairman asked whether the officers wished to make some further response following the Minister's intervention, and Dr Taloni said: 'No'. Senator Peter Baume then came in and asked further questions. He referred to Dr Taloni and said: There was a survey being conducted by SMOS in relation to youth attitudes. Could you tell us something about that survey? Senator Ryan replied: Before Dr Taloni gives what information he can to Senator Baume, I should point out that the conduct of that survey is within another department and it is not a survey for which this Department is responsible. So Dr Taloni does not have any detailed information about it, but he might like to make some comments. That was a clear attempt by the Minister to misrepresent the position, and it is quite incompatible with what she says in her letter written the next day. Senator Gareth Evans —Is that the case? Senator CHANEY —Of course it is not the case, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will hear if he waits. He will know what the case is. Senator Peter Baume went on to ask whether the Department requested questions to be included in the survey. Dr Taloni's answer was: 'No'. Senator Teague said: The Department was not consulted as to the public opinion survey of youth attitudes? Dr Taloni said: That is right. I am not aware of any details that are being included or incorporated under that survey. Senator Teague then asked: That is, the Department of Education and Youth Affairs was not consulted in another department's survey of youth attitudes? Dr Taloni said: Not on detailed questions to be asked as part of that survey, no. Senator Teague asked: To what extent was there any consultation? Dr Taloni replied: I have had one meeting with the people who are conducting the survey and very general issues were addressed. No specific questions were addressed at all. I shall not quote all of the evidence, but there was this continual back- pedalling on the part of the Minister and her public servant. The key question was asked later by Senator Baume, who had referred to the document issued by the Government, the Additional Estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. Let me quote that document. Senator Baume quoted it. Under Division 575.2.06, on page 14 of the explanatory notes, it states: The Information Co-ordination Branch required an extra $95,000 to assist in funding the Youth Research Project (a survey of the attitudes of young people to Commonwealth Government policies and programs) and to research attitudes of Australians generally on the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools. So that is the Government's own admission. That is the Government's own document -that there was a requirement for an additional $95,000 to research, inter alia, the attitudes of Australians generally on the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools. Senator Baume specifically referred the Minister and specifically referred her Department to that statement in that Estimates document. Dr Taloni replied to Senator Baume. He said to the Committee: I said to the Committee that I have had one meeting on a survey of youth attitudes, which is being tagged on to a survey being done by the Department of the Special Minister of State. I have not seen what the senator refers to. That is, to the Additional Estimates. Senator Baume asked: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? Dr Taloni replied: I am not aware of it. Senator Baume said: I ask the Minister: Did you have any input into that survey? This is the critical response from Senator Ryan, the most critical of a series of responses. She said: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. Senator Ryan there denied knowledge of a survey relating to the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non- government schools. We are not talking about some minor matter here. We are talking about one of the most contentious political issues facing this Government. It is an issue in which the Prime Minister has intervened and an issue in which the Prime Minister has made it clear to this Minister that he will be involved to avoid the difficulties she has created over the past year. Senator Chipp —What evidence do you have for that? Senator CHANEY —We have the evidence of statements by the Prime Minister on this issue, and we have the evidence of what is occurring in the community on the issue. The fact is that it is a high profile political issue, and Senator Ryan knows that it is a high profile political issue. She specifically says in this answer: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. Let me quote in full a long reply a little later from Senator Ryan which sets out her state of knowledge and what she was saying to this Committee. It was again in response to a question by Senator Baume. She said: As I have told the Committee, there is a survey of youth attitudes being carried out, I think-- Senator Tate —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Senate is being asked to come to a conclusion on a censure motion which, I think the whole chamber would agree, is a most serious and important matter. We have to discharge our responsibility in relation to it, yet there is no Hansard available for honourable senators to check the accuracy of the claims and counterclaims that are going to be bandied around this chamber this afternoon. We are in an intolerable situation where, in relation to a motion of censure there is nothing by which ordinary back benchers can follow these proceedings. I would have thought some sort of arrangement should have been made by the Opposition to enable us to follow the course of these important charges. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. It is a point of view or a point in debate, but it does not invalidate the motion of censure that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, the document is before the Minister who will no doubt speak on this matter. I am sure that she will advise Government senators if I misquote her in any way. I go back to what Senator Ryan said to the Committee: As I have told the Committee, there is a survey of youth attitudes being carried out, I think as a part of a more general survey within the Department of the Special Minister of State. I have had general discussions about youth attitudes and the youth attitudes we are most interested in investigating are those to do with secondary participation rates in unemployment. We are very interested to find out why it is that so many young people choose not to complete their secondary education. I have had general discussions along those lines with somebody from ANOP. I have not discussed specific questions relating to youth attitudes or anything else. The survey, I understand, has not yet been completed, so I certainly have not seen any results or been briefed on any results of it. I think that is about all I can tell the Committee at this stage. The key point that I wish to make is that it had been specifically raised with Senator Ryan and with her officers, this Government having the politically sensitive question of the funding of government and non-government schools on its plate, whether any work was being done on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools. Her answer to that was: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. About an hour after that examination or questioning of Senator Ryan, questions were asked in the Estimates Committee considering the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. I would have to say that the officials of that Department were rather more forthcoming than Dr Taloni or the Minister herself. I do not wish to quote at too great a length from the record of that Estimates Committee, but when that matter was raised by Senator Archer it is very instructive to see what Mr Malone of the Department of the Special Minister of State had to say. This is the research project about which Senator Ryan had a few vague thoughts when she was before the Estimates committee considering the estimates for her own Department. Mr Malone said: Actually the whole youth research project partly grew out of an approach from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to the Special Minister of State that the ministerial committee on government advertising should give consideration to carrying out under its auspices a major research project into the attitudes of young people. Senator Archer said a little later: And the Minister made the request? Mr Malone said: The suggestion, I should say, that something should be done. What is clear from the questions and answers in the Estimates Committee at that time is that Senator Ryan's Department was deeply involved in the work of getting this survey on the ground. Mr Malone told us that a steering group was responsible, chaired by the Department of the Special Minister of State, with the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as basic members. The Department of Education and Youth Affairs made available a major literature review of current research that was in existence and that it had commissioned in any case. A little later Mr Malone stated: The Department of Education and Youth Affairs participated at all levels in the steering group discussions. . . . . The results will be provided directly to the ministerial committee which is chaired by the Special Minister of State but which . . . will have involved with it the other responsible Ministers, particularly the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Only after the very open evidence of Mr Malone do we find a new version of the facts being given to the Senate Estimates Committee by Senator Ryan. It is impossible for the account given by Senator Ryan in a letter which she sent to the Estimates Committee within one day of her questioning to be regarded as being in any way compatible with the answers that she gave the Estimates Committee. Let me deal with the central issue first. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you care to stop for a second and give us the page numbers you are referring to? Senator CHANEY —Does the honourable senator mean with respect to Mr Malone? Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Malone and your knockout blow of a few minutes earlier. Sentor CHANEY-Mr Malone is recorded on page 40/4 and following pages. Senator Gareth Evans —And the previous reference? Senator CHANEY —I will show the Attorney-General a little more courtesy than he normally shows anyone in this place, Mr President. If honourable senators want to know where Senator Ryan made the critical statement 'There has been no such survey', they will find her words recorded at page 10/11 of the transcript. We find that within a day of saying those words Senator Ryan wrote a letter, which I will shortly seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, in which she made it quite clear that it was at her request that the survey on youth attitudes was to be conducted on a number of fundamental issues; for example, housing, income support, education, training opportunities and so on. Then we find Senator Ryan being quite forthcoming about the origin of the survey about which she knew nothing. Senator Ryan, in her letter, stated: While the survey- that is the initial survey- was progressing, the suggestion was put to me by my Department that funds be sought for an independent survey on public attitudes to the complex question of schools funding. I initially agreed to this and sought funds for such a survey to be commissioned by my Department at a cost of $50,000 This is the Minister, who denied any knowledge of a survey on these grounds, telling us within 24 hours of that denial that she in fact sought $50,000 from another Department to pay for such a survey. That is the sort of thing a Minister could forget. Ministers are very busy. I am sure Senator Ryan signs a lot of letters. But this is not just a single, one-off issue that floated past Senator Ryan. Senator Ryan was refused $50,000, so she then entered into discussions with other Ministers, including Mr Dawkins. According to her letter, after discussion with Mr Dawkins she concluded that a major independent survey was unnecessary. However, she went on to say: It was also subsequently suggested by officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State that a possible alternative would be to add a number of questions to the major survey on youth attitudes. I- that is the Minister, Senator Ryan- accepted this latter suggestion and on 13 February, 1984- not a long time ago, not some dim, dark recess of the past, but on 13 February, she told us- I asked the Special Minister of State to undertake the extra work at an additional cost of $35,000. This was agreed to; the funds required are identified on Page 14 of the Additional Estimates explanations of the Department of the Special Minister of State . . . That is precisely what Senator Baume referred the Minister to when she ducked the question in the reference which I have already given. How do we match those words-that suggestion that she spoke with Mr Dawkins, that she concluded a major independent survey was unnecessary, that she accepted the suggestion that words be added and that she got $35,000 to have the work done-with her saying: 'There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes'? Senator Grimes —This letter is from the Minister to Senator Baume. Senator CHANEY —It is from the Minister-- Senator Grimes —To all members of the Committee, volunteered by her. Senator CHANEY —I am very grateful for the interjection, Mr President. What the Acting Leader of the Government is saying is that this Minister volunteered the correct answer herself. In any normal circumstance one might have taken some note of that. The fact is that this Minister was referred to that specific part of the Estimates. She had an active working involvement in getting this ready. The fact of the matter is that the whole issue was exposed by Mr Malone in answers to questions at another Estimates committee meeting. The fact is that this Minister was caught out, was found out, and this Minister, without any hint of explanation of how she forgot so much, simply put the record straight in terms of what actually happened. That is the central issue which this Minister has to face. The fact is that she refused to acknowledge the existence of such a survey and within 24 hours she admitted that she herself had not one little step to take with respect to this survey. She put up a proposition; it was knocked back. She had an alternative proposition. She accepted it and had discussions with colleagues about it. It is simply not credible that on such a major political issue this Minister could have been unaware for a second that this vital survey was going on. This is an important matter because this is but one of the areas in which this Government, and this Minister is but one of the Ministers; is using public money to try to determine what its political actions should be. This Government is using public money to survey public attitudes so it can find out what it might do in respect of the private schools of this country. At the same Estimates Committee meeting we find it is surveying public attitudes about compensation to the Tasmanian Government. What is the purpose of spending taxpayers' money for purely political reasons? It is for the political advantage of this Government. Senator Ryan is central to that. A series of things must be remembered about this matter. The only issue which could be raised is whether this Minister deliberately misled this Parliament. Did she deliberately mislead the Parliament or was it some accident? There is no possibility that what she told the Estimates Committee is true. It is patently false; it is patently untrue. The one question is whether this Minister knew it was untrue when she misled that Committee. She cannot plead the element of correction. It had already been corrected for her at another Estimates committee meeting by an official from another department. This was not a small passing matter. It was a matter which goes to a central political issue facing this Government. It was not a matter where the Minister was merely being reactive. This Minister was actively seeking to find out public attitudes so she could get herself out of the political hole into which she has got the Government. This is not an unimportant matter. It is a point of political stress. It is a point which has required the Prime Minister's political intervention. There is no credible explanation in the Minister's letter or claim as to how she came to make this mistake. Indeed, no credible explanation is possible. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons for this Minister to mislead the Senate. She was seeking to use taxpayers' money to get political information, as the Government was doing in respect of Tasmania and indeed, we believe, in respect of the proposed referendums. This is a highly sensitive political issue. The Minister has wilfully misled the Senates Estimates Committee. We believe she is deserving of the strongest possible censure. Senator Colston —Mr President, under Standing Order 364, I ask that the documents quoted from by the honourable senator be tabled. Senator CHANEY —I table the documents. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(2.29) —I rise to respond to the series of bizarre allegations by Senator Chaney. I am quite astounded-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! A very serious motion has been moved against the Minister. The Leader of the Opposition in moving the motion was heard in comparative silence. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to the Minister. Senator RYAN —Thank you, Mr President. This is a serious matter. Normally it is a very serious matter when an Opposition seeks to censure a Minister. For Senator Chaney, obviously aided and abetted by Senator Peter Baume, to try to blow up and exaggerate some confusion which may have occurred in a Senate Estimates committee discussion which, as every honourable senator in this place knows, ranges far and wide-confusion, which was immediately and very frankly clarified by me-and try to turn that into a major issue of criticism against a Minister, in this case me, is really extraordinary. Let me take a little of the time of the Senate to explain what happened, for those of my own colleagues who must have been truly mystified by Senator Chaney' s very selective reading of bits of Hansard that they themselves have not yet had available to them, on the occasion of the Senate Estimates Committee. It was quite clear from the line of questioning of Senator Peter Baume and Senator Teague-I can give some backup references to this in a moment-that they came into the Senate Estimates Committee with one idea firmly fixed in their minds-that I, through my Department, had commissioned a major research into community attitudes to schools funding. When honourable senators have the opportunity to read through the Hansard report of that Estimates Committee they will find repetitious questions from Senator Teague and, to an extent, from Senator Baume which clearly show that they were trying to reveal the existence of a major survey conducted by my Department involving officers of my Department, specifically into the matter of community attitudes to schools funding. I can understand why it was that Senator Baume and Senator Teague had come to this conclusion and had decided that their strategy for this Estimates Committee was to reveal the existence of this survey. Some time ago, some time in February, a letter from my Department was leaked to Margot O'Neill of the Age. I think that letter is referred to in my letter to the Chairman of the Committee which I sent to him shortly after the Committee's discussion of this matter. In that letter I had written to Mr Dawkins, at the suggestion of some officers in my Department, requesting $50,000 so that my Department could conduct a survey into community attitudes to schools funding. Honourable senators will not be surprised that such a suggestion would have arisen because, as Senator Chaney says, schools funding is a controversial issue ; it has always been a controversial issue and it is still a controversial issue . When one has competing demands for slices of a cake which is not growing fast enough to satisfy all of those competing demands, one gets controversy. Some officers in my Department believe that we should have more information available to us as to what community attitudes actually were, in distinction to the wild claims and allegations that were made by the likes of Senator Baume. That letter was leaked to the Age and therefore Senator Baume and Senator Teague knew that I had sought funds for such a survey. Of course, what happened was that having had discussions with my colleague the Minister for Finance, John Dawkins, we decided that $50,000 would not be well spent on that exercise. We were trying to restrain the Budget and we also felt, in discussion, that it was not necessary to have a major survey into that question although obviously more information about matters such as how the community comes to get its information about schools funding and whether that information is right or wrong naturally is of interest to the Government. But we decided not to proceed with that matter . Subsequently, as was explained by me to the Senate Estimates Committee, in written information which I volunteered in order to assist honourable senators to understand what had happened, I requested the possibility of some of the major youth attitude survey being conducted through the Department of the Special Minister of State-though certainly in consultations with the Office of Youth Affairs in my Department-to cover this issue. There was general agreement that that should happen. That agreement explains why there was a reference to schools funding questions in the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State, but it was not possible or proper for officers of my Department to be pushed for information about a survey which was not being conducted within my Department, which was being conducted within the Department of the Special Minister of State. I referred honourable senators to that fact. On a number of occasions I referred the Senate Estimates Committee to the fact that the survey they were clearly interested in-they had the wrong one in mind- and trying to get information about was in fact being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State. Questions should have been properly addressed to that Estimates Committee. I really fail to understand how, out of that explanation of the facts of the matter, Senator Chaney-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —Let me clarify this matter. The Government wishes clarification of these matters. Some members of the Senate Estimates Committee, notably Senator Teague and Senator Baume, were trying to get information about a survey which did not exist; namely, a major survey in my Department investigating community attitudes to schools funding. There is no such survey. What I clearly directed the Estimates Committee about, what was previously a matter of public knowledge anyway, what is being conducted right now or perhaps is in the stage of being analysed right now, is a major attitudinal survey by the Department of the Special Minister of State investigating attitudes of youth to a number of issues . That is the survey in which Senator Baume and Senator Teague were obviously interested. That survey has now been extended; to what extent I cannot precisely say because I have not seen the questions. The whole thrust of the questioning by Senator Teague and Senator Baume was misdirected. They were interested to find out about this attitudinal survey but they kept framing their questions in terms of activities in my Department. I will now read from the Hansard from which Senator Chaney so selectively quoted to demonstrate the context in which these questions were being pursued. I refer to page 9.4 of my version of the Hansard. I asked, because I wished at that stage, as I still do, to clarify this matter: Mr Chairman, is Senator Baume referring to the Special Minister of State estimates? Senator Peter Baume answered: I am asking whether the survey was carried out. I am only speaking of this Department-- I will just repeat that because that is what this censure motion hangs on. Senator Chaney has come into this place and has undertaken a very serious exercise against me and against the Government, suggesting, claiming, alleging, that I had given wrong information to a Senate Estimates committee. Senator Chaney —Why did you write the letter then? Senator RYAN —Because I wished to clarify the situation, of course. I could tell from the line of Senator Baume's questioning that he was asking questions about something that did not exist. He was asking questions about a major survey in my Department. No such survey had been carried out. I was trying to assist members of the Committee by directing them to the Estimates committee where there would be information. Indeed, questions were asked and answered on the Special Minister of State estimates. I do not know what all this fuss is about. I just repeat that, on page 9.4- Senator Chipp —Would you mind repeating that quotation and giving me the reference? Senator RYAN —I repeat: On page 9.4 of the Hansard I asked: Mr Chairman, is Senator Baume referring to the Special Minister of State estimates? Senator Baume answered: I am asking whether the survey was carried out; I am only speaking of this Department-- I then consulted the Chairman, and Senator Colston will be able to uphold this, and said: Mr Chairman, I ask whether you consider it appropriate for estimates of another department to be the subject of questions at this stage. The Chairman said: I think what Senator Baume is doing is quoting from those in order to ask the officer whether this report was under this Department. I replied: I just point out that my officers cannot be expected to answer questions about estimates of another department. Senator Lewis —What did the Chairman say? Senator RYAN —The Chairman said: I do not think that was quite the line of questioning. Quite clearly, Senator Baume said-his words are there in black and white-that his line of questioning- Honourable senators interjecting-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask that the Senate come to order. I have already requested that the Minister be given a reasonable hearing and I ask that those who sit behind the Minister also give her a chance to be heard. Senator RYAN —All I can say in rebuttal to this absurd, overblown charge-- Senator Tate —I take a point of order, Mr President. I want to bring this up again because it is an intolerable situation. Senator Harradine and other senators on the other side have the transcript in front of them. We have nothing in front of us. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Harradine —Mr President, speaking to the point of order, I suggest to Senator Tate that he go to the Chairman of the Committee and get one from him. Senator Colston —The Chairman of the Committee has not got one himself, you fool . Senator Harradine —Or he could go to any of the members on that Committee and obtain a copy. Senator Grimes —Mr President, on the point of order, this is obviously a very serious situation. Senator Harradine claims that he got his copy of the Estimates Hansard from the Chairman of the Committee. Senator Harradine —I did not say that. Senator Grimes —You had better make an explanation because that is what you said . The Chairman of the Committee has quite clearly said that he does not have a copy of the Hansard, nor do other members of the Committee. We know where Senator Harradine got his copy, but if we are to have a sensible debate we should have copies of the material which has obviously been carefully made available to Senator Harradine and others but not to the responsible people on the Committee. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Harradine on a personal explanation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I did not say that I obtained a copy from the Chairman of the Estimates Committee. Senator Gareth Evans —We know where you got your copy. Senator HARRADINE —Are you saying that I did so? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine will address the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —I expect when Senator Grimes reads the Hansard tomorrow I will get an apology. Senator Grimes —You said: 'Get it from the Chairman of the Committee'. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate will come to order. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I rise to speak on the point of order. At the same time I seek your indulgence to continue the remarks of Senator Tate. The Senate is being asked to make a judgment on an extraordinarily serious matter. I respect your ruling that the point Senator Tate raised was not strickly a point of order. But it has become clear since Senator Harradine entered the House that he has a copy of the Hansard. Apparently the debate will be decided on party lines. Therefore, the vote will be decided on the vote of the Democrats. It is an absolutely intolerable situation that the Democrats will be asked to adjudicate on whether a Minister should be censured when we had absolutely no notice of this debate before we came into the chamber and we have no evidence to look at. I am now in the situation of asking Senator Chaney and the Minister to repeat sentences. Senator Harradine —Senator Macklin has a copy. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp —Mr President, will you please deal with Senator Harradine. I did not interrupt him. Senator Macklin has just received a copy by courtesy of Senator Archer who proudly has a copy. I do not know where he got it from. This is an intolerable way in which to conduct a censure debate. That is the point I am putting to you, Mr President, and through you perhaps the Opposition. Maybe the debate could be delayed until we have some evidence upon which we can make up our minds. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on the same point of order. The censure debate has been brought by the Opposition. I suppose Senator Ryan would rather debate points of order than debate the merits of the matter. But let me say that the censure debate is on the question of whether Senator Ryan has wilfully misled the Senate Estimates Committee. Senator Ryan was there. She knows what she said. She has, without difficulty, been referring to what she said. Indeed, the Hansard record was delivered to her office and she has it available to her. If people were prepared to listen to Senator Ryan-as you pointed out a moment ago, Mr President, her own supporters have not given much of an opportunity for her to be heard-that would enable the Senate to judge whether it can come to a judgment on the matter. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, as I understand it a member of their staff was given the material and was taken through it during lunch time. Senator Chipp —We heard of it at five minutes to two. Senator Chaney —Anyway, Senator Ryan was present and ought to be able to explain her position on this matter. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I also point out to the Senate that I knew nothing of the debate that was about to take place, or the motion that was to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition. But nothing has been said during the point of order that invalidates the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. There is nothing to stop anyone moving for the adjournment of the debate during the debate. But at this stage there is no point of order, and I call the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Senator RYAN —Thank you, Mr President. Let me just briefly go over what has been alleged. It has been alleged that I deliberately and wilfully misled a Senate Estimates committee concerning the existence of certain survey exercises. From what I have been able to quote for the benefit of honourable senators it will be quite clear that Senator Baume and Senator Teague were trying to discover the existence within my Department of a survey concerning attitudes to schools funding. In response to this I was trying to clarify for the Committee that there was no such survey. Let me repeat-I am sure this will be very clear to all honourable senators now, even to Senator Baume, Senator Teague and Senator Chaney-my Department has not carried out such a survey and any discussion about a survey that Senator Baume and Senator Teague were engaging in had to do with a survey which, on my admission, by my public acknowledgment, is being carried out by the Department of the Special Minister of State. I can quote from other parts of my evidence when I described the youth attitudes survey in some detail, an attitude in which we are quite-- Senator Chipp —But what about-- Senator RYAN —Mr President, I am trying to clarify for the Senate what happened. It is really an extraordinary state of affairs. What a blowing up of discussions on a Senate Estimates committee. I see Senator Chaney is grinning rather inanely . Everybody knows the extent to which Senate Estimates committees these days travel far and wide. Everybody knows it is a very frequent occurrence that when officers cannot answer questions they are asked because the questions go beyond the matter of the business in hand, which is to examine expenditures of their department, they request the opportunity to come back at a later stage with clarification. Senator Baume had made it clear-I have quoted the passage-that he was interested in a survey in my Department and my officers were attempting to provide information concerning the estimates of my Department; they did not have detailed information about the estimates of another department. Because of that, when Senator Baume persisted with survey questions on the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools, in an attempt to clarify the position, I said: There has been no such survey . . . The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. Then Senator Baume pointed out-- Senator Withers —Hold it for her, Gareth. It will be easier for her to read. Read it for her. Senator RYAN —I am reading from the Hansard transcript. Senator Withers, of course, has no interest in the contents of this document. Senator Baume had made it quite clear that he was interested in a survey being carried out in the Department. Later, when he asked about other matters, he said: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? Dr Taloni answered: I am not aware of it. That was a proper answer. Senator Baume then asked: I ask the Minister: Did you have any input into that survey? Of course this last reference was to the funding of government and non- government schools. I answered: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. At that stage I can see, from reading the Hansard transcript, that there could have been some confusion. Opposition senators interjecting-- Senator RYAN —How amazing that there should be confusion at an Estimates committee meeting! How unheard of! Are honourable senators opposite honestly trying to suggest by their shrieks of derision that it is unknown that there are moments at Senate Estimates committee meetings when there is some confusion between officers and Ministers about what is being referred to, especially when the whole thrust of the questions of Senator Baume and Senator Teague had been about a non-existent survey in my Department? I am prepared to admit that at that point there could have been confusion. My understanding at that point was that Senator Baume was still trying to establish the existence of a survey within my Department. In response to that, I said that there was no such survey but I added, very helpfully, that there was the youth attitudes survey. I could see that Senator Baume and Senator Teague were very keen to find out more about the Special Minister of State survey. The Committee adjourned. It had not completed its business. I considered the matter and decided to provide the Committee with information which would clarify the question Senator Teague and Senator Baume had been pursuing. I have here the letter I wrote from which Senator Chaney has quoted. That letter sets out clearly how there came to be some involvement in the youth attitudes survey in the matter in which Senator Baume and Senator Teague were interested. I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND YOUTH AFFAIRS Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. (062) 73 1343 The Chairman Senate Estimates Committee D Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Chairman, After reflecting on yesterday's hearing by Senate Estimates Committee 'D', it appears to me there needs to be some clarification on responses made by Departmental officers to questions about a survey or surveys commissioned by the Department of the Special Minister of State on youth attitudes. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to outline the way in which the original survey was set up and of developments which occurred subsequent to this. At my request and in accordance with the Government's commitment to youth, I suggested to my colleague, the Special Minister of State, that a survey of youth attitudes be conducted on a number of fundamental issues, e.g. housing, income support, education and training opportunities, employment and education expectations. This was agreed to and it was decided that a survey would be commissioned through the Department of the Special Minister of State. A steering committee, with representation from SMOS, DEYA, DEIR and DIEA was set up to oversight the project. My Department has accordingly been closely involved in the project, including consultation on issues and possible approaches relevant to the survey. It did not, however, frame the questions to be included in the survey. While the survey was progressing, the suggestion was put to me by my Department that funds be sought for an independent survey on public attitudes to the complex question of schools funding. I initially agreed to this and sought funds for such a survey to be commissioned by my Department at a cost of $50,000. There were then subsequent developments. I was advised that my request for funds should only be considered in the Additional Estimates context along with all other bids and in any case Mr Dawkins and I concluded that a major independent survey was unnecessary. It was also subsequently suggested by officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State that a possible alternative would be to add a number of questions to the major survey on youth attitudes. I accepted this latter suggestion and on 13 February, 1984, I asked the Special Minister of State to undertake the extra work at an additional cost of $35,000. This was agreed to; the funds required are identified on Page 14 of the Additional Estimates explanations of the Department of the Special Minister of State which, of course, is the reason why I believed detailed questions should be referred to that Department. I have today been advised that discussions took place between ANOP and officers of my Department on issues which might be addressed in the extended survey but neither Dr Taloni nor I were aware of the details. As indicated yesterday, I also had a general discussion with an ANOP employee, but reiterate that I did not play any part in framing the questions and to this time am unaware of the nature of the ANOP questionnaire. I hope this information will be of assistance to the Committee. Yours sincerely, SUSAN RYAN Senator RYAN —Let me point out the stage that the Senate Committee had reached. We had not completed our consideration of the Estimates. That information was made available. I made it available to the Chairman of the Committee as soon as I had the letter typed up. At the next meeting of that Estimates Committee the Chairman came in and, with my concurrence, tabled the letter and made copies of it available to all members of the Committee so that they could have that information available to them. They could have, of course, pursued that matter during the rest of the Estimate Committee session. They did not choose to do so. What did they do? They got additional information which clarified what they were unable to clarify because they were pursuing the wrong line of questioning. They took the matter no further, as indeed there was nowhere further to take it. They now come sneaking in here with this trumped-up, over-blown charge in the form of a censure motion. How absurd! Mr President, every honourable senator in this place has sat through many hours , weeks and, in some case, probably years of Estimates committee discussions. Every honourable senator is aware that information is often sought to be provided later or in clarification and that officers regularly come back with further information. The information I came back with was a frank and helpful gesture to assist the Committee to understand the matters that had been raised. It went beyond the scope of the Supplementary Estimates committees because it concerned expenditure in another department. I had constantly pointed out to the Chairman and the members of the Committee that the survey they were interested in was being funded by the Department of the Special Minister of State and that questions should be properly addressed to the Estimates committee dealing with that Department. In the face of my frequent guidance of members of the Committee as to where they could find out about the survey in which they were interested, how Senator Chaney has the hide to come in here with these trumped-up charges about misleading I really cannot understand. I will conclude, Mr President, because there is not a great deal more to be said. Let me make it clear that the Government is funding, through the Special Minister of State, a very broad-based attitudinal survey into youth. It is now the case that the survey will cover to some extent, although I have not seen specific questions, matters concerning schools funding. That is information which I voluntarily gave to the Estimates Committee while it was still in session. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the members of the Senate on my left to give the Minister a reasonable hearing. Senator RYAN —The insistence in the line of questioning from Senator Peter Baume and Senator Teague that there was some other survey, some survey in my Department, was clearly shown to have been misdirected. No such survey exists within my Department. There is a survey being conducted by the Special Minister of State's Department and I not only acknowledged it but also directed the Committee to address its attention to that. So if there was a confusion arising from Senator Baume's insistence on a survey in my Department which subsequently turned in some questions about the Special Minister of State's survey, in answer to that confusion I volunteered information during the course of the Senate Committee. I have sat in this place for nearly nine years. It seems to me that that is as helpful as a Minister can be in the circumstances. I have sat in Estimates committees at which Ministers have simply refused to comply at all with questions that were not relevant to their departments. It seems to me that I voluntarily and helpfully provided assistance to Senator Baume, who had a genuine interest in the survey but who did not know where to direct his questions. There has been no misleading. There has been a full and frank answering of questions on the Committee by me. Additional information was volunteered by me to the Committee, which the Committee did not choose to pursue, even though it was still in session. There was a proper and clear direction by me to the appropriate committee which was dealing with the estimates of the Special Minister of State. In conclusion, I say that it is a quite disgraceful action by Senator Chaney to come into this place trying to blow up a series of questions and answers, information volunteered, into some sort of charge of misleading. It is a disgraceful abuse of the procedures of this place. Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I return in part to Senator Tate's point. I draw your attention to standing order 36AB (19). It states: A Hansard report of the Committee proceedings shall be circulated, in manner similar to the daily Senate Hansard, as soon as practicable after each day's proceedings. We do not have that Hansard; so I refer to you, Mr President, to find out where these transcripts have come from. Are they covered by privilege? Have the people who have circulated them breached privilege? As at this stage, they are not a Hansard record. Senator Chaney —On the same point of order, Mr President, in the same manner that Hansard is usually available in proof, the Estimates Hansards are available and can be sought and obtained. They were sought and obtained openly by the Opposition in accordance with the normal arrangements. Mr PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I call Senator Baume. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(2.58) —It is quite clear now that Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, has misled an Estimates committee last week and that she did so deliberately, knowingly and persistently . She was, however, caught out, because the officers in another department told the truth-unlike the Minister and unlike the officers assisting her. She misled those of us on the Estimates Committee, not once but a number of times, and she continued to mislead us on this matter. However trivial the matter is, it is not good enough for any honourable senator, for any Minister before an Estimates committee, to mislead the committee, because that is to mislead the Senate and to mislead the Parliament. Once Senator Ryan realised that she had been caught out, that people realised that her story would not wash, she then composed a letter. That letter was made available to the Committee on the following day, when another Department's estimates were about to be considered, and it was not available to members of the Committee until we were into the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. There was no chance to go back and question the Minister-until now. The letter which the Minister circulated contained not a single word of regret, not a single acknowledgment that she owed an apology to the Committee for her untruth. There was not a single admission that she had misled the Senate, and the Minister compounded her error today by misleading the Senate in what she has just said in her own defence. What we were asking about was a matter of substance and we were correct to be asking about it. Senator Ryan, before an Estimates committee, sought to avoid answering and, when she was forced to an answer, she answered untruthfully. Let us now identify quite clearly how we knew that such a survey had been carried out. If we go to the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State, available to everyone, we will find written there on page 14: The Information Co-ordination Branch required an extra $95,000 to assist in funding the Youth Research Project (a survey of the attitudes of young people to Commonwealth Government policies and programs) and to research attitudes of Australians generally on the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools. It was because that was there that we sought to get some information from Senator Ryan about this survey, which was identified in another Department's estimates and about which we wished to have some information. Senator Ryan attempted to avoid answering. Her officers attempted to avoid answering. They gave incorrect information not once but on a number of occasions and, when pressed, Senator Ryan not only allowed incorrect information to be placed before the Estimates Committee but also herself placed incorrect information before the Estimates Committee. I asked directly: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? All they had to do was to answer yes, instead of which Dr Taloni, the First Assistant Secretary of the Department answering on behalf of the officers, said: I am not aware of it. Senator Sir John Carrick —And the Minister was silent. Senator PETER BAUME —I will come back to that. I then asked the Minister: Did you have any input into that survey? Honourable senators should remember that my question referred to the survey on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools. The Minister said: There has been no such survey . . . That is not true. The Minister was telling an untruth in response to a specific question to the Senate Estimates Committee and, therefore, to the Parliament, and she knew it was untrue. The question was specific and there was no need for her to take that course. It went further. The Minister sat at the table when I asked a question which followed a question from Senator Teague. The question my colleague Senator Teague asked was this. Has the Department requested public opinion surveys through a statutory authority or one of the commissions? Dr Taloni said: There is a survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State which might have some relevance to our departmental function. A follow-up question from me a moment later asked: Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey? Dr Taloni said: 'No'. Senator Sir John Carrick —And the Minister was silent. Senator PETER BAUME —And the Minister was silent while Dr Taloni said no. It is quite clear from the Minister's letter that the survey was initiated by her and that its conduct and establishment were associated with her officers and her Department. It is quite clear that she met the Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd people and it is quite clear that she knew that that answer from Dr Taloni was wrong. The Minister sat silent in front of the Estimates Committee and allowed that answer to stand. I believe she did that deliberately and wilfully. It was part of a day's evidence when the Minister did all that she could to avoid answering questions on this matter. In fact she appealed to the Chair, not once but several times, about whether or not she could take the protection of some point of order to avoid answering the question, and the Hansard will bear that out. That is simply a fact. All we wanted to know was whether a survey was carried out and, if so, what advice they were given. From looking at the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State we knew there had been such a survey and we were obviously interested, knowing that, to find that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and her officers denied any knowledge, refused to admit anything and gave answers which they knew were untrue and which they subsequently, when forced to, came to us and admitted were untrue. It was not a question of some 'confusion' as Senator Ryan said in opening up what must have been the most pathetic defence ever given by a Minister in response to a serious charge. It was not a confusion; it was in fact on the Minister's part a deliberate misleading, a continued misleading and a deliberate misrepresentation of a committee of the Parliament. Senator Ryan's defence, such as it was, was based upon an answer which she asserts that I gave. What she avoided telling honourable senators is that my answer was incomplete. As the Hansard proof will show, I was interrupted by the Minister. The sentence was incomplete. Other senators may care to see it. The whole point on which she made her whole defence was some answer which was incomplete. The questioning of Ministers and the questioning of officers is a central part of the process of the Westminster system of government. Estimates committees are established to allow this Parliament to question officers and to question Ministers on matters relevant to their portfolios. It is central to the honesty and accountability of Ministers and their officers. Central to that process is an understanding that officers will tell the truth and that they will tell the whole truth and that Ministers will tell the truth and that they will tell the whole truth. We have an occasion here when the Minister and her officers have failed in their duty to the Parliament and they have failed in their duty to the Westminster system because they have not told the truth. They have tried to hedge and they have certainly not told the whole truth. We know that this area of expenditure existed. We cannot conceive why the Minister was so foolish as to try to avoid discussing it or to try to hide it. Of course she understood that the matter was politically sensitive. Perhaps she thought that if she tried to brazen through with untruths she could avoid having these matters brought out. She gave wrong answers to Senator Teague and to me, and the questions were not asked once, they were repeated and repeated to give the Minister an opportunity to retrace her steps and correct her position. But she chose not to. Dr Taloni, speaking on behalf of the officers of the Department about surveys which were initiated from the Department in which the Minister's Department had a major input, denied any knowledge and denied anything but the most superficial acquaintance with the facts. The answers did not accord with the explanatory notes given. The answers certainly did not accord with what the Minister provided next day. However, let us look at the letter which Senator Ryan produced on the next day for the Senate Estimates Committee. That letter says, in so many words: 'I misled this Committee yesterday and I misled it on almost every matter which was raised in relation to this question'. The letter makes it quite clear that the surveys were carried out at the Minister's request and this is the Minister who could not give us information. The surveys were started at her request. She suggested to her colleague, the other Minister, that this survey should be carried out to cover a number of things. Her Department was on the steering committee. Her Department helped establish the survey and establish the question , and we have nothing but the most grudging admission of that. While the survey was progressing it was put to Senator Ryan by her Department that further funds should be sought to investigate public attitudes on the question of schools funding. That was not something that came out of the air; it originated within the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. That is the same Department whose First Assistant Secretary, in speaking to a parliamentary committee and representing the Public Service and all its honourable traditions, chose not to impart to us information which he should have known. It is information which the Minister should have known because it was subsequently contained in her letter, information which she chose not to pass on to the Parliament. The letter makes it quite clear that the Minister was caught out. The penultimate paragraph of her letter states: I have today been advised that discussions took place between ANOP and officers of my Department on issues which might be addressed in the extended survey but neither Dr Taloni nor I were aware of the details. I find that impossible to believe. It is not consistent with the rest of what has been told to us. It is not consistent with the history of the matter. In any event, when those questions were put to the Estimates Committee, is the Minister going to tell us that no one who was there-none of the 30 or so officers-knew what the facts were? Did the whole group of public servants sit silent, some knowing that wrong information was being given to the Parliament and the Estimates Committee? If so, it is an indictment of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It is certainly an indictment of Dr Taloni as First Assistant Secretary. The Senate now has to ask itself a question. We know that Senator Susan Ryan misled the Estimates Committee. That is a matter of fact now. It is something which she has acknowledged in her letter. That is not at issue. She misled the Estimates Committee and acknowledged it in a letter the next day. The question we have to ask is: Was it deliberate or was it inadvertent? There is nothing in what the Minister has told us today which might have suggested that it was inadvertent. Senator Walters —She said we got it wrong. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister continues to assert that she did no wrong. I refer anyone to the letter she wrote. I am forced to conclude that this Minister did this before the Committee deliberately, knowingly and with an intention to deceive the Committee, and she hoped she would get away with it. Senator Susan Ryan's explanation is not credible. We do not believe it. Senator Ryan initiated the project. In relation to the extra questions, Senator Ryan's Department initiated the movement. Senator Ryan pursued it. When rejected by her colleagues she pursued the matter through other avenues. She intervened. She talked to ANOP and other people herself about the kinds of questions. Her Department was quite clearly involved. Not one of those facts emerged clearly and unequivocally in the answers which she chose to give the Senate Estimates Committee. I can accept that a Minister could do things by inadvertence. However, on this matter I am forced to conclude that the Minister's wrong answers were deliberate and persistent. We know that her Department was involved as an initiator from the beginning. We know her officers were involved. We now have two alternatives to look at. Either the Minister and her officers are incompetent and were not able to give the Committee correct answers, or else they are competent enough but deliberately misled the Parliament and the Estimates Committee as a planned and deliberate tactic. I do not mind which conclusion people reach. I have some regard for Senator Ryan's intelligence. I believe that she did it deliberately with the intention of misleading the Parliament. Of course, in terms of parliamentary practice, procedure and tradition that is what is called a hanging offence. To mislead the Parliament is grounds for resignation. I shall remind Senator Ryan of what one of the authorities says. If we look at House of Representatives Practice, which I happened to look at just before I came into the chamber, we will find at page 82 , in quoting a former Speaker states: In cases where the Minister has misled parliament . . . resignation or dismissal is the appropriate action. That is the tradition which, over the years, has applied in the Parliament. What kind of accountability do we have when a Minister such as Senator Ryan can come before an Estimates committee determined to conceal, obscure or mislead and, when she is found out, then come into this chamber and not expect to be taken to task? We already know from other leaked documents that some of her own officers have already pinpointed Senator Ryan as one of the problems which the Government has in selling its policies in the area of government and non-government schools . We already know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has had to provide his mantle of protection over the Minister for a problem that is too hard for her to handle. I suggest to this Minister that the least she can do is come clean with the Senate in Question Time, in debates and before Estimates committees. She has not done so on this occasion. She has misled the Senate- Senator Chipp —What do you mean by that? Senator PETER BAUME —I mean that she has got to tell the truth. Senator Chipp —No, about the Prime Minister. Senator PETER BAUME —The Prime Minister made it public that in matters affecting government and non-government schools he would, from the date he spoke, be taking a personal interest in all the negotiations. He promised all the interested groups that he would be dealing with it. I just regard that as a prime ministerial mantle of safety over a Minister who cannot cope. We have demonstrated today that Senator Ryan is in fact guilty of the misleading and misrepresentation of which we have accused her. On that basis, this motion of censure deserves support. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.18) — Whenever a motion of censure of a Minister is moved in this place it must be treated with seriousness and we, of course, took on this motion straight away; we treated it with seriousness. After listening to the two leading speakers on the Opposition side, I must say we now treat it with contempt. I remind honourable senators that Senator Chaney's motion reads: That the Senate censures the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, for deliberately misleading Senate Estimates Committee D on 3 May 1984 by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to funding of government and non-government schools. I must say that Senator Baume has gone a fairly large step further than that. He accuses not only Senator Ryan; he accuses the First Assistant Secretary and one or more of the 30 officers who were present at that Estimates Committee meeting of deliberately misleading the Estimates Committee and, I assume, of deliberately withholding information. That, I suggest, is a very serious charge. That is a charge which deserved much better evidence and much better debate than we have had in this chamber this afternoon. Let me take the Senate through the sequence of events. I am informed Estimates Committee D met on Thursday, 3 May, at 2 p.m. and heard the estimates of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs from 2.30 to 5.30 p.m. The Estimates Committee adjourned at 10.35 p.m. Estimates Committee E heard the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Thursday, 3 May. Those who were present cannot remember any very specific discussions, but I will come to the discussions about this matter which were raised at that Estimates Committee meeting that night. Senator Ryan's Department , or Senator Ryan, delivered a letter to the Chairman of Estimates Committee D at 12.30 p.m. on Friday, 4 May. The Committee met at 2 p.m. The letter was circulated to Committee members at the commencement of the meeting and, as Senator Teague says, they did not even read it. Senator Teague —It was not read while the Committee was present. Senator GRIMES —The letter was circulated to members. The Estimates Committee then sat that afternoon and had every opportunity to clarify what had happened, to seek further information to see just what had happened. Did it do so? Did either Senator Teague or Senator Baume make any attempt to do so? Senator Chaney —What estimates were they on then? Senator GRIMES —No, they did not. They could have come back to it. They made no attempt to come back to it. They could have. The honourable senator and I have done it in the past. What has happened since then? There has been no attempt in this place during Question Time yesterday, or anywhere else, to clarify the questions and answers or what it was all about. There has been no attempt to seek any explanation from the Minister in the usual way. Senator Chaney walked into this chamber today, without any warning to the Government-we cannot complain about that-without more than a few minutes warning to the Australian Democrats, apparently with a bit of warning to Senator Harradine who, fortunately, was able to come into the chamber quite conveniently with a set of the Hansards, and moved this censure motion of the Minister in which the Opposition says that she has deliberately misled this Parliament in an Estimates committee. What we really should be debating is the fact that the Minister tried to assist the inept questioning of Senator Baume and Senator Teague, which is evident if we look at the Estimates Committee Hansard. I suggest that someone should have assisted the inept questioning of Senator Archer on the other Estimates Committee but I will come to that in a moment. Censure motions of this type are serious. Censure motions brought before this Parliament should be about serious matters. Censure motions about serious matters have been brought before this Parliament; I have brought one or two myself. Let us look at some serious matters that were brought before this place. When I was shadow Minister for Social Security, week after week and month after month I asked the then Minister for Social Security whether there had been telephone interceptions during the Greek conspiracy case, whether the Greek people who had been arrested had been taken to the police station and photographed with the word 'Greek' held in front of them. I got denial after denial. When it came out in the court case that listening devices were attached to the phones, when it came out in a rather pathetic admission that the word ' Greek' was not held in front of these prisoners but the word 'Greece' and, therefore, the Minister had been technically correct and when I moved a censure motion in that regard, it was considered by the people who are sitting opposite now bleating about Senator Ryan that that was an outrageous thing to do. Yet the evidence was there-it is still there-of the deliberate misleading of this Parliament week after week. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am not surprised that the Minister should seek to canvass matters other than those which are before us. But I draw your attention to standing order 415 which states: No Senator shall reflect upon any Vote of the Senate, except for the purpose of moving that such Vote be rescinded. The matters which are being raised in debate by the Minister are matters which have been the subject of a previous censure debate. They have been disposed of and rejected by the Senate. The Minister should go back to the subject matter of this censure motion, which is the shameful behaviour of his senatorial colleague . The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I will rule on the point of order. The Minister, Senator Grimes, must confine himself to the subject of the censure motion. He is entitled to draw attention to other censure motions, but not at length. I ask him to return to the subject of this censure motion. Senator GRIMES —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Nothing indicates more the pathetic case on the other side than did Senator Chaney's point of order then. Senator Chaney —Why don't you say something about the charges? Senator GRIMES —I have already said much about the charges and I will say a bit more about them now. If we look at the Estimates Committee Hansards we see that Senator Baume, Senator Teague and, later, Senator Archer, were determined to prove that the Department of Education and Youth Affairs was conducting a series of surveys on youth attitudes and, in particular, youth attitudes to the funding of government and non-government schools. They were determined to do so because they were fixated on this idea after they and the newspapers had received a leak that this was happening. Throughout the questions and answers Senator Ryan, as she has demonstrated today in her reply, kept pointing out, and Dr Taloni pointed out, to Senator Baume that Opposition senators were talking about something which did not exist, a survey in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The Minister is totally ignoring the fact that Senator Baume has quoted the question when he asked whether the Education Department had given any advice to any other department. The Minister is totally misrepresenting the case that is being put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order. That is a debating point which no doubt will be taken up later. Senator GRIMES —That is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the debate. As recorded on page 9.4 Senator Ryan said: Mr Chairman, is Senator Baume referring to the Special Minister of State estimates? Senator Baume said: I am asking whether the survey was carried out; I am only speaking of this Department- That is the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The transcript goes on and on like that. Quite clearly, the Opposition was fixated on this matter. During the hearing on the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State Senator Archer asked questions in the same way. He did not want to know what the Department of the Special Minister of State was doing but what the Department of Education and Youth Affairs was doing. He asked: What input did the Department of Education and Youth Affairs have into the survey? He was answered. He continued: Who actually formulated the questions? Were these done by the consultants or by a committee from the various departments. It was then pointed out to him, as Senator Ryan has pointed out, that the framing of the questions was done by the consultants and a whole series of departments, including the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of the Special Minister of State. When Senator Archer asked to whom the results would be provided, it was pointed out that they would be provided to a ministerial committee chaired by the Special Minister of State. He was obviously greatly confused because he asked why they were not given to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and whether it was paying for the cost of the survey. So it went on and on. There was an absolute obsession by honourable senators opposite. They were determined that the inquiry which they had heard about through a leak was done by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It was not so, and demonstrably not so. When Senator Baume tried to ask questions about the Department of the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan pointed out that that was more appropriately done at the Estimates Committee concerned with that Department. Senator Baume did not like it. He wanted to get back to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Senator Chaney —But he asked whether they had advised any other department. Senator GRIMES —Poor Senator Chaney could not make all his points in his speech. He has to make them by phoney points of order and interjection. I am not surprised. None of us should be surprised. This was obviously to be a big presentation case this afternoon. The shadow Minister for Education and the ex- Minister for Education did not lead the debate this afternoon. Senator Chaney —You never do. Senator GRIMES —Yes we do. The censure motions moved in our time in Opposition were moved by the appropriate shadow Ministers. Senator Chaney should ask Senator Withers. He had a censure motion moved against him. We know what happened to him. This afternoon Senator Chaney and his colleagues, after imbibing the air and all sorts of things at Thredbo at the weekend, have come back here revived and happy. They drag up this pathetic accusation about Senator Ryan and try to blow up an issue. When the Minister saw that there was some possibility of people misrepresenting her answers, she immediately gave the information required to the Estimates Committee. The information was delivered to members of the Estimates Committee, but they did not ask any further questions or make any further inquiries during the Estimates Committee hearing, in Question Time in the Senate, during the adjournment debate or in any of the places where it was appropriate to do so. They thought to themselves: 'Things are going a bit bad; what can we do which will be spectacular? What can we do to get our names in the paper?' So they moved this pathetic censure motion. The censure motion will not wash. The substance of this debate, is simply this: Senator Baume and his colleagues did not know the right questions to ask. Senator Ryan answered the questions correctly and accurately. They were answered correctly and accurately by the officer of her Department. Senator Ryan gave further information to the Estimates Committee in a letter which was tabled and circulated to members of the Committee. What happened? No one tried to clarify the situation. The Opposition has moved a censure motion on the most pathetic evidence. Senator Watson —Why was it necessary to write the letter? Senator GRIMES —Senator Watson makes a very interesting interjection. Why was it necessary? I have sat on more Estimates committees than he has. It is a very frequent occurrence for Estimates committees to receive letters the next day which clarify questions and give further information. What Senator Watson is saying is that Ministers should not do that; that Ministers should not clarify the situation; that Ministers should not give senators the information that they seek. The Minister did the right thing. She gave honourable senators more than they asked for. She overcame the difficulties that they had in asking the correct questions. The Opposition has failed deliberately to sustain anything like a censure motion. Now it seriously suggests that this chamber should censure a Minister who not only gave the answers at the Estimates Committee, but also gave supplementary information which Opposition senators were too lazy to read, and which they did not bother to ask questions about, then or now. They expect us to support a censure motion under those circumstances. We reject the censure motion, as would any reasonable senator. We reject the way it has been brought up. We reject the way that honourable senators opposite proceeded during Estimate Committee hearings. we reject the way they chose to ignore the information given by the Minister. We reject the way they failed to clarify that information, if they were in any doubt about it. But, in particular , we reject a motion of this type against an efficient, competent and successful Minister, and that is what it is all about. The Opposition has failed in this debate and it will fail, as it should, when a vote is taken. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.34) —The censure motion brought against the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) deals with questions raised during Estimates committee hearings last week. But the matter seems to have started on 6 October last year in a speech made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) who was then the Special Minister of State, in which he was responding in a fairly detailed manner to surveys conducted by the then Australian Electoral Office concerning the attitudes of young people and why they had failed to enrol so that they could be part of the political process. In that speech he made reference to the fact that there was under way a process to undertake a youth survey. The following day, on 7 October 1983, Senator Haines asked a question of Senator Ryan on the same subject. The Minister gave a detailed reply to that question. The question was essentially critical of the Government in terms of the structure of that youth survey. I will read Senator Haines's supplementary question and the answer given to it. Senator Haines said: Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not know what the supplementary information that the Minister has contains, but she certainly did not inform me whether officers of her Department in the Office of Youth Affairs have been informed of such a project. Nor did she say whether, if they have not been informed, it is because they will not be taking any part in it and that there was therefore no need to inform them. Senator Ryan's answer was: The honourable senator obviously has been mis- informed. Not only are the officers of my Department aware of the proposed research project, but they have participated in discussions about what form it should take, in finding an appropriate research organisation to carry out the project and so on. That is the detailed information that I have here. But, as it would take some time to read out this information, I suggest that I make it available to Senator Haines. That was undertaken. In other words, the Australian Democrats were concerned about this matter, not during an Estimates Committee hearing last week, but on 7 October last year. The issue is a very old one. On the following day I issued a Press statement attacking the Government over what the Democrats believe is a disastrous attitude in relation to young people's views and attitudes. There was some public discussion about that and then the issue died. We believe that that was unfortunate. We believe there ought to have been a much greater debate about the type of survey that was to be undertaken, what it would achieve and how it might be useful in framing youth policies for this country. At no stage, I might add, was there any contribution by the Opposition parties to what was, we believe, a constructive debate. We would much prefer that the Senate's time be taken up with those types of constructive debates. But that is not to be. I turn to the censure motion to which we have been listening with interest. The first item that would have been given to those honourable senators who requested it would have been the information which appeared in the Additional Estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. I requested a copy and, in going through it and other additional information provided, I came across-as did , obviously, Senator Baume-this piece of information. There is a reason for the variation in relation to the funds provided for the youth research project. The reason given for that was this: The Information Co-ordination Branch required an extra $95,000 to assist in funding the Youth Research Project (a survey of the attitudes of young people to Commonwealth Government policies and programs) and to research attitudes of Australians generally on the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools. I might say by way of parenthesis that it seems very odd that such questions should ever be included in the youth survey at any stage anyhow. I will comment on that at a later stage. In my understanding, youth do not have terribly much to do with the attitude of the government or the community in relation to the funding of government and non-government schools. But that information was public information on the public record. I think that to that point it is very hard to press that there is anywhere any hint of any cover-up by the Government. The information that that was what the Government was doing was made openly available to everybody. One can question the sense of what it was doing, and I do question the sense of what was going on; nevertheless, there was no cover-up at that point. I turn to a transcript I have before me. I assume that it is a transcript of the Estimates Committee D hearing. I was not present at the Estimates Committee hearing. I did not receive this transcript in the normal process by which I receive transcripts of committees or of debates in this House, therefore I do not propose to vouch for this material. In fact, I do not even know where it came from since I had to hot foot it down to the chamber at three minutes to two , when this transcript was thrust into my hands. I have not had a chance actually to work out from where the material came. Having listened to some of the interjections from Senator Colston I am not at all sure what he is going to say about it. He is speaking after me, therefore I am not able to make comments on what he might inform the Senate about the veracity or otherwise of that material, Senator Colston being Chairman of the Committee. But let us say, as nobody seems to have objected to this, that it is indeed the Hansard record. One of the interesting things one notes when one reads the transcripts of an Estimates committee that one has not attended is that it does not exactly read like anything else in which one would ever be involved. In other words, it does not read as a debate. In most cases it does not even read sensibly. Sentences do not approximate terribly much the English language as one sees it in other places. The difficulty with this transcript is that there seems to be large gaps . Honourable senators who are well aware of what goes on at Estimates committees know that there are often long silences and that what comes next in the transcript often does not have very much to do with the question that was previously asked. However, I think there are some disturbing elements in this transcript in relation to the estimates of the Departmant of Education and Youth Affairs. I start with the point in the transcript where Senator Ryan says: Before Dr Taloni gives what information he can to Senator Baume, I should point out that the conduct of that survey is within another department and it is not a survey for which this Department is responsible. That is a fair enough statement. However, I believe-I will go on to substantiate this claim-that what was going on here was probably that the Minister was seeking to be too clever by half. The reason I state that is not necessarily to denigrate the Minister but to point out that if one takes that stance in relation to the transcript it can be read in a completely different way from the way in which it has been read by Senator Baume and Senator Chaney. Indeed, this transcript is not too different from most of the transcripts one receives in which a Minister will not do anything that the Minister knows the questioners will press him or her on. If one looks at Senator Teague's and Senator Baume's line of questioning it is not too difficult to understand what they are on about . It is rather transparent. They even referred to the transcript of the consideration of estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. They were not trying to cover up what they were on about. We ought to give the Minister this: She knew what they were on about and she was not about to co- operate. That is how I read it-- Senator Walters —Why not? Senator MACKLIN —I do not know why not. I am not defending her action, but it is the type of thing, that I find Ministers do. Senator Walters's Ministers also used to do it. It goes on all the time. Senator Chipp —She was less than helpful. Senator MACKLIN —The Minister was less than helpful. It was quite evident that she was not going to co-operate with this line of questioning. Nevertheless, she was answering the questions accurately. Senator Haines —As they were put. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I believe that not only was she being too clever by half, but also Dr Taloni was carrying out much the same type of operation-- Senator Archer —On orders. Senator MACKLIN —It may have been on orders. I do not know. I am not privy to these-- Senator Sibraa —It happens with the Foreign Affairs estimates every year. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I am not disputing what goes on at Estimates committees, either under this Government or under the previous Government. What normally goes on is that the Minister says: 'I know it and you find out'. Senator Haines —And the departmental officials are here to make sure you don't. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Haines's interjection is probably a good description of what goes on at Estimates committees. It is something that we have all deplored and is something which, when governments change, is continued. That great tradition was exercised by the previous Government. But let me suggest that if this particular question is looked at in that light-of being very strict about what everybody knew they were on about but were not about to reveal-it is not misleading. Senator Peter Baume asked: Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey? One thinks about the words 'some questions to be included in the survey' and answers: 'Of course it did not'. Why not? Honourable senators should not take my word for it. Anybody who knows anything about surveys, of course, knows that the people asking for the survey to be done do not frame the questions. Indeed, if we go to the transcript of the consideration of the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State, we discover the very same thing. Senator Archer, hot on the trail of the activities of the Opposition parties, asked: Who actually formulated the questions? Mr Malone replied: It has been a process. The final framing of the questions, I think,- and it appears from this transcript that he does not know what he is on about either- has been a responsibility of the consultants. Senator Baume's question, 'Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey?', was answered by Dr Malone thus: 'No'. That is less than helpful, but it is technically correct. Senator Walters —Oh, come on! Senator MACKLIN —Unfortunately, it is less than correct. I am not defending it, but it is the type of activity that goes on all the time in Estimates committees . Senator Chaney —Senator, can I ask you to look at one other question? Senator MACKLIN —I am going on to the next question. Senator Chaney has spoken. He should let me develop my thesis. The next question is in much the same light. Senator Baume was not to be deterred. He too was obviously awake to the game that was going on on the other side. Senator Haines —He played it for years. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, he has an inside knowledge of these activities, having been a past master in his own right. He then came up with another tack. He said: The Department was not consulted as to the public opinion survey of youth attitudes? Dr Taloni answered: That is right. Senator MACKLIN —It is wrong. The Department was consulted. Senator Sir John Carrick —To pass a view. Senator MACKLIN —I am coming to that. Senator Walters —The Minister did not say anything. Senator MACKLIN —I am getting a great deal of help. I am very grateful for it, but if honourable senators would allow me to develop my thesis- Senator Haines —You can do it all by yourself, can't you? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, I think I can get there. As I said, Dr Taloni answered: That is right. That is not right, but his next words were: I am not aware of any details that are being included or incorporated under that survey. Again, he seems to be technically correct because a little later on he said that in fact he had only ever had one meeting on the survey and that those present talked about general matters and not about details. Senator Chipp —Sir Humphrey Appleby at his best. Senator MACKLIN —Oh yes, it is him at his very best: The non-disclosure of information in such a way as not to transgress on the truth but only to mislead. But the misleading is not done by the answer, unfortunately; it is done by when we receive that information. I believe that this is an exercise that takes place annually. It is probably an exercise in wasting a lot of valuable time and money . Before going on to the point raised by Senator Chaney, which is the crux of the matter, I turn to the transcript of what went on during the exercise with the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State. Here again we have Mr Malone who, along with Dr Taloni, does not seem to know precisely what is going on in the area. It is fairly confusing. From reading the Minister's letter, I imagine that when she got back to her Department, someone further down the line who actually did all this work blew a gasket and said: 'We cannot have that, because that is not exactly what happened'. I think that the people at the top probably had no idea what went on, anyhow. They had been generally briefed and, as is the case in these matters, they thought that they knew what was happening. But what was this answer in response to a question from Senator Archer? Senator Archer said: I refer to the survey mentioned on page 14 of the notes. Did the Department of the Special Minister of State receive a request from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to include a number of questions on that ANOP survey? It would seem, from the Minister's letter, that it wanted to know something, but it did not ask for a number of questions to be included. Mr Malone said: Actually the whole youth research project-- which is where this whole thing started- partly grew out of an approach from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to the Special Minister of State . . . I am not sure what goes on in the higher echelons of the Australian Labor Party and the Ministry, and I am not sure that the people concerned do, either. But from what I can understand from all this material, they were not about to come up with $50,000 for Senator Ryan, and so to remove the pressure by Senator Ryan on the Special Minister of State, instead of her hounding at his door, they decided to give her $35,000. That is enough to ask about three people down the road a couple of questions, namely, 'What is your name?', and, 'Where do you live?'. In terms of the amount of money required for such a survey, one would not get anything with that. So it was a real push off. But it was not given to the Minister. So the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for that. It was maintained under the Special Minister of State. He was not letting it out of his bag. When all of this matter finally comes out, it will be very interesting to ascertain what is found out from the people-but that is another story. Doubtless the reason why we are having the debate today is, I understand, that there is a conference of a number of people in Canberra who have an interest in this whole matter. Senator Haines —Coincidentally. Senator MACKLIN —Coincidentally. I was talking to one of them when I was interrupted to come here, a very nice person and one of the few sensible people that one gets to meet from time to time in this place. He is from the independent schools. If we could have more of his kind in education, the place would be much better. Let us go through this: Actually, the whole youth research project partly grew out of an approach from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to the Special Minister of State that the ministerial committee on government advertising-- another group that we have not included in this debate yet- Senator Haines —There must be one or two. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, we have to get to another couple of committees yet, and we are rapidly running out of time. It continues: should give consideration to carrying out under its auspices a major research project into the attitudes of young people. That was to try to get them to vote for the Labor Party, presumably. It continues: That project got under way after the results were made known of some research that had gone on in relation to the electoral enrolment campaign . . . Senator Archer said: And the Minister made the request? Mr Malone said: The suggestion, I should say, that something should be done. In other words, about as much as Mr Malone knows is that someone said something to someone and he thinks that it was the Minister. I am not too sure that we can use the transcript of the Estimates Committee meeting concerning the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State to shoot down the answers in the Estimates Committee meeting concerning the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, since the people who are answering this one seem to know as little about what was going on as the people answering the other one. At that point the Minister got away from the Committee and someone sensible in the Department who actually knew what was going on finally had his word and said : 'All of the answers that you have given are about as close to what was going on as a newspaper of yesterday has to do with what went on the week before'. So the person who knew what was happening wrote a letter. Now, for the first time on the public record-- Senator Ryan —I wrote it. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Ryan wrote the letter. Presumably she suddenly discovered for herself what was going on. Senator Ryan wrote this very interesting letter on very detailed advice and probably dictation from someone who knew what was actually happening. This piece of information, I presume, is the only bit of information on which we can really rely, because it probably came from someone who knew what he was talking about. It is a detailed explanation. Senator Teague made an interjection recently-I think that it is an important point, the answer to which I would be interested in listening to-as to when the Committee got this piece of information. As Senator Grimes said, the Committee received it the following day; it was given to the Chairman. Senator Grimes —And it was circulated that day. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Teague says that the letter was given to the Chairman and the following happened: The Chairman reported to the Committee that he had received correspondence from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. That piece of correspondence was then sent out for duplication, so that it could be circulated to members of the Committee. When the members of the Committee finally received this communication, the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Education were over. Senator Teague —Completely over. Senator MACKLIN —That is Senator Teague's understanding. I do not know; I was not there. Therefore, I must await further debate to ascertain precisely what occurred. If this information were made available, the Committee ought to have had the opportunity for further questioning of the Minister on the matter in the light of the additional information. If the Chairman of the Committee speaks in this debate, as I believe he should, perhaps he will deal with this important point about which the Australian Democrats would like to hear before we make up our minds as to how to vote on this censure motion. As to our attitudes towards censure motions- Senator Chaney —Perhaps Senator Macklin will address the question on page 10.1 where Senator Baume specifically asked whether the Department had given any advice to another Department on this important question. Senator MACKLIN —I ought to have done that. I meant to return to it. Senator Baume asked the question which is the crux of the matter: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitude of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? Undoubtedly, it seems from the Minister's answer, the Department of Education has been involved with other departments in advising the Department of the Special Minister of State on this matter. The Minister's letter makes that clear . Therefore, when Dr Taloni says, 'I am not aware of it', I presume one of two things: Either he was misleading the Senate or he was unaware of it. I believe it is an extremely serious matter to question in this chamber the integrity of senior members of the bureaucracy because they do not have the right to reply. I cannot on the evidence presented to me, and I think to the Senate, say that Dr Taloni was anything other than honest and that he was unaware of it. Senator Sir John Carrick —But go on. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. The Minister could have intervened in the answer given by a bureaucrat to the previous question and corrected it. That is perfectly acceptable in an Estimates committee. Senator Peter Baume then said: I ask the Minister: Did you have any input into that survey? The Minister said: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. Again, my reading of that is that the Minister, being too clever by half quite frankly, said that indeed there was no survey on the Government's policy on funding for government and non-government schools. But it is really less than informative to the Estimates Committee. It is clear to anybody what Senator Peter Baume was trying to get at, but the Minister was not about to help anybody out on anything at that point. That is a criticism which we in the Australian Democrats would level at every Minister, not only in this Government but also in the previous Government. That is the type of response one tends to get on average in Estimates committees. It is technically correct but less than helpful , less than illuminating, and makes a mockery, quite frankly, of the Estimates committees. Senator Mason —In other words, normal. Senator MACKLIN —In other words, normal. The Democrats' view of a censure is this: We consider a censure of a Minister the most serious move that can be made when that Minister is a member of this chamber. We believe that, were that censure to be carried, the Minister would have no course but to resign. If we supported such a censure we would not tolerate the Minister remaining in this House. We took that attitude to the previous Government and, therefore, we did not support censure motions under the previous Government. So, we will await Senator Colston's response on the other matter and will consider our vote in the light of that further information. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.03) —The Senate is debating a motion for the censure of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan. The motion says that she has deliberately misled a Senate Estimates committee. The circumstances are that Senator Ryan was the Minister at the table at a Senate Estimates committee inquiring into the estimates of her own Department. For those of the community who do not understand the Estimates procedure, let me say that a Senate Estimates committee has all the powers, all the privileges and all the responsibilities of the Senate. The Minister sits there with officers of her Department listening to the answers of those officers , taking responsibility for those answers, correcting them if she thinks they are wrong and adding to them or subtracting from them. She has total responsibility for the advice, the answers and the facts given. Against that background, the answers given not only by the Minister but also by Dr Taloni are the responsibility of the Minister. If the Minister did not correct any of those answers, we must assume that the Minister took full responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of those answers. That must be so. The circumstances were these: A number of Opposition senators directed their attention to an item in another set of estimates. That item was in the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State, an agency portfolio to other portfolios. The item itself related specifically to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. It provided money for certain purposes 'and to research attitudes of Australians generally on the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools'. Quite clearly that item related to the responsibility of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and was known to everbody-the Minister and all the officers of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. A series of questions was asked and answered. Subsequently in another Estimates committee, Estimates Committee E, evidence was given which showed a direct contradiction of those answers. The following day a letter was provided by the Minister which showed direct contradiction of those answers. The Minister says that she wrote it. I put it to her in fairness that the Department wrote it and she signed it. Let us look at that. Today in the atmosphere of a censure motion the Minister has said: 'These question were not related to the special intervention by me into another department's information opinion poll. They were related to general opinion polling by my Department. I took them as such and I answered them in that way'. That is no good. That does not wash, because a number of the questions related specifically to the polling that was to be done through the Department of the Special Minister of State relating to information being sought on independent schools. They were specific. Following the answer from Dr Taloni in which he said that there was a youth affairs survey by the Department of the Special Minister of State but that he had no details of that survey, Senator Baume said: Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey? That means: 'Did the Department request some questions to be included in the Department of the Special Minister of State survey?'-not a survey by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Dr Taloni said no. The Minister, sitting there, knew that that question was directed to questions in the Department of Special Minister of State survey. She heard a senior officer of the Department say no and she knew the answer was wrong. So she must accept that responsibility. I now turn to the next set of questions on this matter. Senator Baume said to Dr Taloni: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? Honourable senators should not forget what this question says. It says: 'Did the Department of Education and Youth Affairs give advice to another department, namely, the Department of the Special Minister of State, on survey questions on independent schools?' The Minister, in her letter, now says: 'Yes, it is so'. The evidence in the other Estimates Committee says that is so. Dr Taloni said: ' I am not aware of that'. But the Minister was listening. The question concerned advice from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to another department on questions on independent schools, and Senator Baume asked a question of the Minister to this effect: 'Did you have an input into that survey of the other department, questions concerning independent schools?' Senator Ryan said: There was no such survey, to my knowledge. She said in her letter that of course she knew it was; it was there at her request. In the Estimates Committee she said: The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. Of course it was, but she knew, and says so in her letter, that to that survey on youth attitudes on her initiative she had added questions on independent schools. A question was asked of Dr Taloni to this effect: 'Did the Department give advice to the Department of the Special Minister of State on survey questions on independent schools to be added?' There is no question at all as to what that meant. Dr Taloni said that he was not aware of it. Senator Baume pressed that question. Senator Ryan said that there was not any such survey by the Department of the Special Minister of State with questions on independent schools in it. There can be no plainer meaning than that. Step by step we see that this is so. Let me now look at what has happened. The Department of the Special Minister of State has revealed that it was by the primary initiative of the Minister under question today, Senator Ryan, that the youth survey went on at all. Let me read what was said. Senator Archer asked a question on this matter and Mr Malone said : Actually the whole youth research project partly grew out of an approach from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to the Special Minister of State that the ministerial committee on government advertising should give consideration to carrying out under its auspices a major research project into the attitudes of young people. That project got under way after the results were made known of some research that had gone on in relation to the electoral enrolment campaign, and the Department of Education and Youth Affairs was intimately involved as part of the steering group that prepared that. Senator Ryan sat in the Estimates Committee and heard it said, by implication, that there was no such steering committee. The question was asked: Was there a steering committee conducting the survey? Senator Baume asked: That is being handled by an interdepartmental committee? Dr Taloni said: That is being handled by SMOS, Special Minister of State. The Minister, hearing that, must have known there was a steering committee and she let it be known it was just the Special Minister of State who was handling this situation. She must have known that there was a ministerial committee on this matter, because evidence from the Department of the Special Minister of State has now revealed that. The Minister sat there in silence. This is quite an incredible situation because it is the duty of a Minister to correct any false evidence that is given in an Estimates committee. Senator Archer asked: And the Minister made the request? Mr Malone replied: The suggestion, I should say, that something should be done. Later, when we got the program under way, ANOP had been selected by competitive submission to do the job. Senator Archer asked: What input did the Department of Education and Youth Affairs have into the survey? Did it actually set it up? The whole context in Estimates Committee D, from what the Minister and Dr Taloni said, was that the Department of Education and Youth Affairs had a peripheral- that is, hardly any-input at all. I will read the transcript. What did Mr Malone say? He said: A steering group was responsible, chaired by the Department of the Special Minister of State, with the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as basic members. He went on to say: Through the auspices of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs we had a meeting with the research agency and a number of the groups they recommended-the Youth Affairs Council et cetera-which it thought could make a contribution from the non-government side. We also had letters written to all other departments getting them to put in any input for particular interests they had. The Department of Education and Youth Affairs participated at all levels in the steering group discussions. Whereas in the Estimates Committee it was made plain by the Minister and the officer at the table that all this was done by the Department of the Special Minister of State and that the Department of Education and Youth Affairs had no initiative, no intervention at all-this is quite clear as I read it-it now appears that they were the prime initiators, that they were involved all the time, and that the very questions were initiated by them. Mr Malone stated: The input then came from the major departments with concerns to flesh out the questionnaire. Senator Archer asked: Which were they? Mr Malone replied: Education and Youth Affairs, Employment and Industrial Relations, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and ourselves. Then the actual final framing of the questionnaire was left to the consultants. What emerges is this. An inquiry into attitudes on independent schools, a subject which was the responsibility of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, could not have been conducted at all by the agency department except by the authority of the Minister sitting here, the Minister under censure. For what other purpose could it have been done? Could it have been done in a vacuum or done by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) without the Minister's authority? Quite clearly, the very appearance of the figure in the Special Minister of State's estimates indicated that the Minister herself had acted to have that survey done . It could not have been done otherwise. When the questions were asked, it was quite clear that the Minister had to say how that survey came about. It is no good the Minister saying here today that what she was taking to be the line of questioning was a question about the general public opinion poll. She knows that that is not true because the question was asked specifically: Did the Department request some questions to be included in the SMOS survey? That is a plain question that was asked in the Minister's presence. She heard the answer 'No', and she knew that that answer was wrong. She knew that the question was directed not to what she is trying to say today about a general survey on youth affairs but to a survey relating to independent schools. She knew when that question was answered that she had initiated the survey, had sought money, could not get the money, and then agreed with the Special Minister of State to include a series of questions, at her initiative, into the public opinion poll to achieve a purpose, and for that purpose a certain amount of money was included in the Special Minister of State estimates. She knew that but she let Dr Taloni say 'No', as she let him say 'No' to the question: 'Was there a steering committee?' Once again, step by step by step, I come to it. The Minister sat in the Committee and heard Senator Baume ask: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? Did the Department of Education and Youth Affairs give any advice to any other department on survey matters relating to the funding of government schools? Senator Ryan in her letter said: 'Yes, it did. We advised the Special Minister of State to include in the survey questions on this matter'. Indeed, money was sought and put aside in the appropriations for exactly that purpose. In her letter she said yes, but in the Estimates Committee Dr Taloni said: I am not aware of it. Senator Ryan said: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. She said 'no such survey', not 'no survey'. No such survey arose from her Department giving to the other department questions to be included in that Department's survey; to her knowledge no such survey was conducted. They are plain words; there is no question of misinterpretation at all. Right throughout the whole train of the questioning the Minister knew that the senators were asking how a public inquiry by way of public opinion poll had been initiated and developed on the attitudes towards independent schools. She knew that and she knew that she had initiated it. She knew all the circumstances of that, and now she is hiding behind one defence and one defence only, that is, that all the time she was imagining that they were asking about the SMOS survey on the broad compass of youth affairs, unemployment and so on. She cannot get away with that because Senator Baume, Senator Teague and others did not leave her with that. They asked regarding that survey: Was there an intervention into that survey in terms of non-government schools? The answer from Dr Taloni was ' no', and the answer from Senator Ryan was 'no'. What do we know now? We know that at the Estimates Committee this was the picture given: 'We really know nothing at all about such a survey. Yes, there is a youth survey being conducted by the Special Minister of State, but it is a general one. Really we are only on the periphery of it. Yes, we had one little conversation at one stage about the shape and size of it. It is the total responsibility of the Special Minister of State. The Department itself has no intervention in this situation at all'. That is what the evidence in the Senate Hansard reveals. Of course, what the Minister 's letter reveals is totally different. What the letter reveals is that the broader survey itself was largely started as a result of the Minister's initiative. Of course such a survey is conducted by the Special Minister of State because it is an agency ministry. Senator Ryan then conceived the idea that there ought to be a study of the attitudes of people regarding independent schools. She sought the money from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and failed. She reached an agreement with the Special Minister of State to include- at her initiative-questions on independent schools in the survey. The Minister also knew that the conduct of this matter belonged to a steering committee of departments of which the Department of Education and Youth Affairs was not only an equal amongst equals but-as is revealed by the evidence given by the SMOS officer-a leader amongst them. She knew also that rather than travelling alone as a department, SMOS was running this under the control of a ministerial committee. So one by one the arguments fall down. When one looks at the matter and imagines the Minister sitting at the table knowing the line of territory it is not good enough for her to traverse half truths. That is not good enough. For example, when Senator Teague opened up the questioning and asked, 'Has the Department commissioned any public opinion surveys since 5 March 1983?', and Dr Taloni replied, 'No', the Minister's mind must have run to the fact that the Department may not have done so directly within the ministry, because that would not be, and that such a question related to whether the Department, as the prime mover, commissioned the agent department , SMOS, to do that. The answer was no. So that in itself was a wrong answer. Senator Teague continued: Were there any commissioned surveys of any kind that in part included anything that could be described as a public opinion survey? Dr Taloni said: On the part of the Department, no. But of course, on the part of the Department, the answer was yes. The fact of the matter is that the Department did not do that itself; but by the agency of the Special Minister of State it did do so. Dr Taloni said, in regard to a survey on youth attitudes: There is a survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State . . . He was asked: Is there a steering committee? He said: That is being handled by SMOS. On and on it goes. We then come to the key situation concerning the attitude of mind of the Minister. Senator Teague had asked: That is being handled by an interdepartmental committee? Dr Taloni replied: That is being handled by SMOS, Special Minister of State. Senator Peter Baume said: Dr Taloni said there was a survey being conducted by SMOS in relation to youth attitudes. Could you tell us something about that survey? Here was a chance for the Minister to say: 'Yes, in fact we are part of a steering committee. We are part of a ministerial committee. I initiated the asking of certain questions'. The Minister knew that. They were the facts; no selective truths or half truths. What did the Minister say? She said: Before Dr Taloni gives what information he can to Senator Baume, I should point out that the conduct of that survey is within another department and it is not a survey for which this Department is responsible. What nonsense is that? Her letter says that SMOS is acting as an agent department to run surveys of her initiatives, both the broader and the narrower ones. Senator Ryan is on a ministerial committee and her Department is on a steering committee. Yet Senator Ryan said to the Committee: . . . it is not a survey for which this Department is responsible. She continued: So Dr Taloni does not have any detailed information about it. But the simple fact of the matter is that the whole Department and all responsible officers must have known the circumstances. Indeed, Senator Baume realised that what the Minister was trying to do was to cover up behind the broad survey. Step by step Senator Baume and Senator Teague directed their questions to the nub of the matter: Did the Department of Education and Youth Affairs intervene any subject matter at all relating to independent schools into the public opinion polls? The answers came back clearly: No. Of course, what have we got now? Instead of that defence we have a letter. I am sorry that the Minister interjected in the cross-fire of debate that she had written this letter. I hope she will acknowledge that this letter is obviously a departmental letter which she has signed, because I would not want that kind of misleading situation to persist. The fact is that the letter was written not as an afterthought by her, after coming out of the Estimates committee, but after she and her Department knew that the evidence of the officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State had exposed her evidence as totally wrong. The Minister wrote a letter stating: After reflecting on yesterday's hearing . . . it appears to me there needs to be some clarification on responses . . . The Minister had said that she was being dragged along by her Department in all this. Her letter states: At my request and in accordance with the Government's commitment to youth, I suggested to my colleague, the Special Minister of State, that a survey of youth attitudes be conducted on a number of fundamental issues- So there we are. She is a front runner in this situation. The Minister then said that there was a steering committee which she acknowledged involved her Department. She then said-a fact which she did not admit in the course of the estimates: While the survey was progressing, the suggestion was put to me by my Department that funds be sought for an independent survey on public attitudes to the complex question of schools funding. I initially agreed to this and sought funds for such a survey to be commissioned by my Department at a cost of $50,000. So Senator Ryan, sitting at the Estimates Committee, knew that it was not a matter of somebody else doing something but that the initiative to get subject matter into the public opinion polls was hers and hers alone. The initiative was not that of some agency of SMOS. Senator Ryan in her letter goes on to say that she was knocked back by the Minister for Finance. She said: It was also subsequently suggested by officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State that a possible alternative would be to add a number of questions to the major survey on youth attitudes. I accepted this latter suggestion and on 13 February 1984, I asked the Special Minister of State to undertake the extra work at an additional cost of $35,000. I acknowledge that what has happened here today is a sad thing. Censure motions are not pleasant for anybody, particularly for the honourable senator concerned. The Minister has brought forward no explanation at all as to why there is such a gross disparity between the evidence of Estimates Committee D and Estimates Committee E and the Minister's subsequent letter. The Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Grimes) has offered no defence at all except bombast. He did not even bother to understand the issues and did not direct himself to a single fact at all. He simply got up and spoke with his usual bombast. It is a pretty sad reflection that any leader could do such a thing to his colleagues who sit behind him. I feel sorry for the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs that that should have been so. At least in the days of the Fraser Government, if we were under fire, we at least fought as colleagues and packed around each other. I apologise to the Minister for the fact that she should find herself in such a miserable situation. The facts of the matter remain. I will recapitulate them now. The examiniation of the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State revealed an activity relating to independent schools which was the initiative of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. That is a fact. At the Estimates Committee hearing, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs knew all about how those steps were taken. The Minister set about pretending-that is the only way to put it-that none of those things happened. In all her answers there was not a word which suggested that there was such a survey. How pathetic that is. She must have known she could not get away with it. She must have known that she as a Minister and nobody else could have initiated that appropriation for the Department of the Special Minister of State. Nevertheless, she and her departmental officer tried to stall and to answer questions in such a way that no evidence would come out; in fact, that the wrong evidence would come out, that evidence that did come out would be that there was no intervention by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, no steering committee, no ministerial committee, no intervention by the Minister to initiate this situation. It has taken a letter, dragged out of the Minister, to tell her real story. The letter was written by the Department because the Department knows that it cannot withstand the defects of facts. That letter has proved that the evidence at Estimates Committee E is correct, that the questioning by Opposition senators is correct, that the answers given by Dr Taloni and the Minister were wrong and that there has been a culpable and deliberate misleading of this Senate. Those are the facts. They cannot be denied. Nobody has put forward any argument, save the Minister herself who said that the questions were not directed to the intervention by the Department on questions on state aid, that she was directing her answers to the total survey. Even if she were, in her letter she says that she was the initiator of the main inquiry. She cannot have it other than on the substance of her own evidence. I have to conclude, on the evidence of the Senate Hansard records, on the evidence of the letter of the Minister, on the evidence of the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State, that the Minister, and indeed the officer, have gravely misled the Senate. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.34) —The motion before the Senate this afternoon is: That the Senate censures the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, for deliberately misleading Senate Estimates Committee 'D' on 3 May 1984 by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to funding of government and non-government schools. I reject the idea that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) deliberately misled Senate Estimates Committee D. I reject the idea that the Minister falsely claimed that she had no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to funding of government and non-government schools. I reject the whole motion, because it does not say anything about 4 May-the day that followed -which is particularly relevant. This is a serious matter. Any time a Minister is censured in this place, or indeed in any other place, it is a serious matter. But I am afraid that the seriousness contrasts with the attitude of the Opposition during the actual hearings of Estimates Committee D on Thursday and Friday. The attitude of some of the members was trivial. The Committee dealt only with trivia. I will refer to the Hansard transcript in a moment and say something about it. If honourable senators want to look at about four or five pages past the pages that have been quoted so far they will find a great many questions were asked, such as: Who flies Ansett? Who flies TAA? Who flies East-West Airlines? What proportion fly Ansett and TAA and East-West Airlines? Why are you not going to get onto East- West Airlines, because it is cheaper? When the questioning was going on I was starting to wonder about the attitude of the people who were trying to subsidise a particular airline. This is the sort of trivia that we heard all throughout the hearing, not only this hearing, but also the other hearings of Estimates Committee D. From conversations that I have had with my fellow chairmen this was reflected in all of the other committees throughout the hearings. Let me get back to this document. No, I will get back to the document in a moment; I would like to say this- Senator Chaney —Get back to it sooner, go on. Senator COLSTON —Senator Chaney, who very much likes to interject in this place in a sotto voce sort of way time after time, would know that I have said this to him and I have said it genuinely: When I am in the chair that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, are in now, or when I am performing the Chairman's role in this place I take an impartial role. I certainly did that during the recent hearings of Estimates Committee D. That is the type of behaviour I adopt. Senator Teague —I can confirm that. Senator COLSTON —I thank Senator Teague. I will accept that. I think that an occasion even arose when Senator Teague and I had to speak about this sort of thing, either last Thursday or last Friday-I think it was last Thursday. Senator Teague —The complaint is not with you, it is with the Minister. Senator COLSTON —I am developing a point. I take a non-partisan role. But because of the motion that has been brought before the Senate today, I am not taking that role at the moment. I have been forced to do otherwise. I am going to defend the Minister and defend her with all the vigour that I can muster. What I would like to say now about this particular document is that it is amazing that, even though I am the Chairman of Estimates Committee D, I received my copy of what is partly relevant for the discussion this afternoon at 3.45 p.m ., less than two hours ago. Senator Withers —It shows you are not very smart. Senator COLSTON —I am a bit smarter than you, Senator Withers. I have not been deposed from my position yet. You were deposed within two years of my coming into this place. Senator Chaney —What position? Senator Colston falls off floor. Senator COLSTON —I might fall on you, and that would flatten you, Chaney. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Colston, I ask that you to direct your remarks through the Chair. I ask honourable senators on my left to cease interjecting so that I can at least hear Senator Colston's contribution. Senator COLSTON —I will be asking the President of the Senate why, if transcripts are made available-I do not see why they should not be made available-they are not made available at the same time to the Chairman of the Committee concerned. We are looking at a document now which really has no standing. I have already picked up a few errors in it. I am sure that as this proof copy is read by other people they will pick up errors in it too. But that is not my particular worry at this stage. My particular concern is not for myself but for any Estimates committee chairman-that he or she should be given a copy of that transcript if the copy is made available elsewhere. Senator Teague —Have you any examples? Senator COLSTON —That can wait until after this motion is disposed of. I think some points should be mentioned. The Minister mentioned some of these points and they are pertinent, but either they have not been taken up on the other side of the House or they have been deliberately let slide because they are facts that interfere with a good story. These are some of the facts: Estimates Committee D first sat to hear these particular estimates on Thursday afternoon. It sat until about 10.35 p.m. There was a break for dinner at some stage. During that time the Department of Education and Youth Affairs had its estimates under scrutiny. It was the first department to be examined. Later the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the Department of Science and Technology had their estimates considered. By the time we concluded that evening we had not considered the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In fact, as those honourable senators on the Committee would know, I, as Chairman, had considered at one stage that we go right through and consider the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It would have meant starting at about 10.30 p.m. and, as it turned out, we probably would not have finished until about 1 o'clock in the morning because on the subsequent afternoon it took us about two hours to 2 1/2 hours to complete them. The Committee finished at 10.30 that night. I do not want to make too much of what is in the Hansard record because I have not had a chance to examine it as closely as I would like. However, I would like to say that when questions were being asked of the Minister it was my opinion-I think it was an impartial opinion-that the Minister was trying to give the answers of which she was aware. Senator Baume was certainly persisting with a particular line of questioning. In fact, the questioning about this alleged survey is in two parts in Hansard: An earlier part where Senator Teague asked some questions and a later part where Senator Baume came back and continued the questioning. During one part of the hearing I said that Senator Baume should be able to continue his line of questioning even though there was a query about whether it was correct. I am stating this to indicate that I was trying to be an impartial chairman. As impartial as I could be that afternoon, it was my genuine opinion that the Minister and the officers were trying to answer the questions. It is easy to read a transcript; it is different to be there. From the transcript it looks as though everything is cut and dried, but when one takes into consideration the flow, the counterflow and the confusion that is probably present at a hearing, one gets a much different impression from what is in a transcript. I would like to quote the final part of what was said in relation to this survey. Senator Ryan said: As I have told the Committee, there is a survey of youth attitudes being carried out, I think as a part of a more general survey within the Department of the Special Minister of State. I have had general discussions about youth attitudes and the youth attitudes we are most interested in investigating are those to do with secondary participation rates in unemployment. We are very interested to find out why it is that so many young people choose not to complete their secondary education. I have had general discussions along those lines with somebody from ANOP. I have not discussed specific questions relating to youth attitudes or anything else. The survey, I understand, has not yet been completed, so I certainly have not seen any results or been briefed on any results of it. I think it is about all I can tell the Committee at this stage. Senator Baume was the next questioner and he went on to talk about another matter. That was the last we heard of that matter that day. All that is probably of no interest to Senator Macklin, so I will not rehash anything that happened there. What happened the following day may be of interest to Senator Macklin. Some time early in the morning of the following day-I cannot quite recall what time it was but I think it was well before the time that the Senate met that morning; I am not exactly sure of the time-Senator Ryan came to me and said that she would be sending me, as Chairman of the Committee, a letter outlining some matters in relation to the question on the survey. That is all she said. It was not much later that I actually received the letter and this is the letter that has been circulated in the chamber today. I think it is important that we look in detail at the first paragraph-we certainly should look at it all but at least the first paragraph in detail-because it states: After reflecting on yesterday's hearing by Senate Estimates Committee 'D', it appears to me there needs to be some clarification on responses made by Departmental officers to questions about a survey or surveys commissioned by the Department of the Special Minister of State on youth attitudes. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to outline the way in which the original survey was set up and of developments which occurred subsequent to this. If one takes those two paragraphs which I have just read and has a look at the censure motion that we have before us today it seems pertinent that we should have spoken about the Estimates Committee hearing of 4 May as well as that of 3 May. On 4 May the Minister, realising that the explanation that was given within the Estimates Committee might not have covered the point satisfactorily, actually wrote to me, as Chairman, outlining in greater detail what she then perceived the situation to be and asking me to pass the matter on to members of the Estimates Committee. This is evident from the opening paragraph of the letter where she said: After reflecting on yesterday's hearing of Senate Estimates Committee D . . . I received the Minister's letter well before the lunch break on the Friday and determined that it would be best to present this information to the Estimates Committee that day as additional information. Estimates Committee D met at five minutes past two. I opened the meeting and mentioned the departments the Estimates Committee was obliged to examine. I noted that we had examined all the estimates except those of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and that we would start on that Department. But before starting on the estimates for that Department-I wish to quote now from a document that I do not think has been quoted from before; I had to ask for this document this afternoon-I said: Before proceeding to the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs I would like to mention to Committee members that this morning I received a letter addressed to the Chairman, Senate Estimates Committee D, Parliament House, Canberra, from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan. The letter is in relation to some questions which were asked yesterday and I intend to accept it as additional information. In that way it will be compiled with the additional information for that particular Department and will be easily found when that additional information is presented to the Senate. However, I shall make a copy of the letter available to honourable senators at this stage, so that they may be able to peruse it. I shall now proceed to the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were duly proceeded with. I point out that it was not my preference to have the letter incorporated in Hansard at that stage-it would have been up to the Committee to decide otherwise -because if it had been incorporated in Hansard it would have been incorporated in a section between the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and therefore, perhaps, difficult for honourable senators to find. I thought it was much better to treat it as additional information and then it would be able to be found quite easily in the additional information in relation to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Shortly after, copies of that letter were made and distributed to all members of the Committee who were there. I cannot quite recall who was there at that stage but there were two members of the Opposition present, Senator Baume and Senator Teague. From memory , Senator Martin was not there that afternoon. Senator Teague —And no other government senators-only yourself. Senator COLSTON —I cannot recall who was there at that stage but there were certainly two Opposition members. Senator Peter Baume —When you tabled the letter? I was certainly there but we did not receive it for about 10 minutes. Senator COLSTON —I would not have thought that it was so long. Senator Baume may be correct but I would probably have put it at about five minutes. Senator Robert Ray —When did you first read it? Senator COLSTON —The point that Senator Ray raises is quite pertinent. I saw one of the Opposition members of the Estimates Committee read the letter at one stage or at least glance at it to see what it was all about. I have an idea-it is only an idea-that both Opposition senators at one stage read the letter or at least looked at it enough to know what the contents were. Senator Lewis —We did not realise she was telling us that she lied. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis will withdraw that remark. Senator Lewis —I was waiting for Senator Colston to respond but I will certainly withdraw. They did not know that she was saying in the letter that she had deliberately misled the Senate. How could they possibly have picked that up by glancing at a letter at the table? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Colston has the call. Senator COLSTON —The point I want to make-I point out that I am not responding to the uncouth interjection we have just heard-is that the letter was probably in the hands of Opposition members at about a quarter past two at the latest. We had started sitting at about five past two. The letter was probably in their hands earlier than that. I definitely saw one Opposition member looking at it. I think I saw both do so but at this stage, from recollection, I can only say I think. The point that should be made is that no mention was made to me as Chairman whether that letter could be debated at that time, when we finished the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or at a private meeting later on. It was never mentioned to me as Chairman nor was I asked whether we could debate it. The Minister will be able to confirm that on occasions-I suppose honourable senators opposite would be able to confirm this also-during my chairmanship I allowed senators to go back to items that had been discussed earlier. In fact, I incurred the wrath of the Minister by doing so. There would have been no reason for any senator who was there not to raise with me whether the matter could be discussed that afternoon. They did not do so. They knew the attitude I had towards senators going back to items. Senator Martin —When it was the same department. Senator COLSTON —It was the same department but I am making the point that no person on that Committee even raised the matter with me-- Senator Peter Baume —So what? Senator COLSTON —I think it is important. No senator said: 'We have received this letter. We do not like the look of it. We want to ask some further questions about it. Can we do so?' At this stage I do not know what my response would have been because the question was not asked. Nobody said to me at that stage: 'Can we have a private meeting after this meeting so that we can discuss it?' The matter was not raised. It was possible for it to have been raised but nobody asked for the matter to be debated. They were too interested in getting away for the weekend to Thredbo to bring back their threadbare arguments such as they have brought up this afternoon. Senator Macklin —You can recall the Estimates Committee tomorrow night, on request. Senator COLSTON —I can recall it if it is requested. Senator Peter Baume —I request you. Senator Teague —I request you. Senator Martin —I request you. Senator COLSTON —Honourable senators should put their request in writing. Mr Deputy President, this is a serious matter and the behaviour of honourable senators should not degenerate to this level. A Minister is facing censure. I am trying to point out that as the Chairman I was given information. I brought it back to the Committee. Until 30 seconds ago no members of the Committee were interested in having another meeting to discuss it on the Friday or at any subsequent stage. Senator Teague —That is not true. You said until 30 seconds ago. I was thinking of it yesterday. Senator COLSTON —No person raised the matter with the Committee Chairman. The matter we have before us today rose out of a great amount of trivia that was brought forward before the Estimates Committee. The Minister, in my opinion, did not deliberately mislead the Estimates Committee. By bringing back that letter to the Committee, through its Chairman, explaining the position the Minister was being more helpful than some of the Ministers I have seen in my time in opposition when I have been on Estimates committees. This matter should be dismissed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.59) —The Senate is debating a motion censuring the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for deliberately misleading Senate Estimates Committee D on 3 May 1984 by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to funding of government and non- government schools. I say at the outset that in connection with this matter I would adopt a statement made on a previous occasion by the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. He said: Ten per cent or even 50 per cent of the truth is as good a way of misleading this Parliament and the Australian people as a downright lie. The half truth, the partial answer and the slipping over of the full facts are a misleading of this Parliament . . . That is what the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser said on a previous occasion. I also adopt the words of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator John Button, when on 9 April 1981 in this place, having quoted the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, he said: I rely on that statement of government standards to support the wording of the censure motion . . . He then moved the motion. Those honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who criticise Malcolm Fraser for saying that are, in effect, criticising their leader, Senator Button, for adopting those words of Mr Fraser. I congratulate Senator Macklin for his analysis of the Hansard transcript of the Estimates Committee hearing. As he explained to the Senate what he could see happening in this case, it seemed to me to be an accurate analysis of the probabilities of what was going on. It is clear that the Minister is cagey-so cagey that in this case she ended up deliberately misleading the Committee. On any analysis of the letter which she wrote to the Committee we can see that she was being cagey. She used the following words: At my request and in accordance with the Government's commitment to youth, I suggested to my colleague, the Special Minister of State, that a survey of youth attitudes be conducted on a number of fundamental issues . . . Finally, she conceded that the survey was conducted at her request. But it would be impossible for any member of an Estimates committee which was dealing with another matter, on a gleaning of that letter, to have appreciated that the ultimate analysis of the letter was that she was conceding that she had deliberately misled the Committee on the previous day. It is clearly an attitude of mind. As Senator Macklin pointed out, her attitude of mind was: 'I will give you smart answers. My officers will give you smart answers. I will give you the minimum of information. I will just answer the question and no more'. We can see that her officers are imbued with that same spirit. Why did the government waste thousands of dollars having all those public servants waiting to help the Minister answer questions, when it was clear that the Minister would not provide the Senate Estimates Committee with the maximum of information? She provided the Committee with a minimum of information, and the result of that attitude of mind was that ultimately she misled the Committee, as she conceded in that letter. Let us look at the evidence. Senator Teague asked this question: Has the Department commissioned any public opinion surveys since 5 March 1983? Dr Taloni said: No. Senator Robert Ray —Is that wrong? Senator LEWIS —Senator Ray asks whether that is wrong. No, the answer was quite correct. It had not commissioned any surveys. What had happened was that it had requested someone else to conduct a survey. Let us look at the background. The Minister, as she concedes in her letter, had already applied for $50,000 for an independent survey on public attitudes to the complex question of schools funding. That is why she wanted $50,000. The Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, quite rightly knocked her back. However, she then went to the Special Minister of State, Mick Young, who perhaps was indebted to her, and somehow or other she persuaded Mick Young to add $35,000 to his estimates so that this survey could be added on to the bottom of another survey which his Department was doing. The Minister had made her application to the Department. She had had a discussion with Mr Dawkins about it. She then had another discussion with Mr Young. Finally , she got Mr Young and his Department to agree to add $35,000 to his estimates so that the survey could be added to another survey. When asked the question: ' Has the Department commissioned any public opinion surveys?', Dr Taloni said 'No ', because that was an accurate answer. That was the minimum of information. He was not going to help by stepping in and saying: 'No, we have not commissioned any, but we have requested another department to do it'. What did the Minister do? She sat there and did not say a word at that stage. As I said before, how does one mislead the Parliament? One can mislead the Parliament by telling a deliberate untruth or by remaining silent when one has an opportunity to speak. The next question asked: Were there any commissioned surveys of any kind that in part included anything that could be described as a public opinion survey? Glory be, the Minister and Dr Taloni knew exactly what they had done. That question could not have been more general. Again, Dr Taloni gave the bare minimum of an answer: On the part of the Department, no. Of course, Senator Baume picked up, as did Senator Teague, that there was something funny about that answer: 'On the part of the Department, no'. So they kept pressing on, seeking further information, until Dr Taloni said: There is a survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State which might have some relevance to our departmental function. It was the Department's survey. It wanted the information and it received a $35, 000 additional grant through the Special Minister of State. Yet Dr Taloni said: 'This might have some relevance to our departmental function'. Was that being truthful? What did the Minister do? Senator Withers —He ought to be sacked. Senator LEWIS —I agree with Senator Withers, but perhaps no. I suppose the man is entitled to make his defence. I do not know what the Minister had said to him beforehand. Clearly, there was a conspiracy of some kind going on between those two people not to reveal this information to the Estimates Committee. I do not know why. Perhaps there is something in the information which they think will be misused. As I said before, the Minister is as cagey as anyone could possibly be. I do not know how she will use this information, but I have my suspicions. Dr Taloni having conceded that there was something going on, Senator Baume then asked him: Could you tell us something about that survey? Here was an opportunity for the Minister to step in and say: 'I will tell you about that survey. I want to know about this, and I have asked the Special Minister of State to do this'. She could have given the Senate Estimates Committee all the information. But what did she do? Listen to the words she used . She interrupted Dr Taloni and said-- Senator Ryan —Read the record. Senator LEWIS —I am reading the record. She said: Before Dr Taloni gives what information he can to Senator Baume, I should point out that the conduct of that survey is within another department and it is not a survey for which this Department is responsible. I put it to the Senate that she was warning Dr Taloni to shut up. She was warning him: 'This is not your business and if you open your mouth, just be careful'. She continued: So Dr Taloni does not have any detailed information about it, but he might like to make some comments. I do not know what Dr Taloni thought at that stage. I guess that what he was saying to himself was: 'What is the Minister on about? We have arranged for this survey. Am I to keep it a secret? How can I get out of this?' This would have been going on in the fellow's mind as he tried to work out what the Minister was on about. He stated: I have no knowledge of the details of what the SMOS surveys. That is not true. He knew that SMOS-the Department of the Special Minister of State-was undertaking the survey at the request of his Department. Senator Baume asked: Did the Department- that is, the Department of Education and Youth Affairs- request some questions to be included in the survey? Dr Taloni answered: No. Of course, again that may very well be a truthful answer. Maybe it did not request any questions. But it requested the whole survey. Yet there was that fellow, sitting before a Senate Estimates committee, telling it that no, the Department did not request any questions. It requested the whole survey. What did the Minister do? Senator Chipp —A science called casuistry. Senator LEWIS —Yes, I agree. Senator Peter Baume —That is generous. Senator LEWIS —That is generous on the part of Senator Chipp. But what did the Minister do or say? Nothing. The Hansard copies that have been given to me-there seems to be some doubt as to whether it is the Hansard; perhaps it needs to be verified as Hansard; perhaps we need to wait for a while-indicate that the Minister remained silent. Senator Chipp —Perhaps we could get the tapes. Senator LEWIS —Senator Chipp is quite right. Perhaps we could get the tapes and listen to what happened. It would appear that the Minister remained totally silent when Dr Taloni clearly misled the Senate Estimates Committee by answering no to the question: Did the Department request some questions . . .? Senator Teague went on to ask: The Department was not consulted as to the public opinion survey of youth attitudes? Dr Taloni answered: That is right. Again the Minister remained silent. Dr Taloni was able to add the words-which no doubt he thought might save him: I am not aware of any details that are being included or incorporated under that survey. In other words, he was saying: 'I am not aware of the details of it'. But he did not admit that he knew all about the survey and that the survey was being done at his request. The Minister remained silent. Senator Baume later said: May I return to the question of surveys that might have been done. Did Dr Taloni tell Senator Teague that there were no surveys done which related to Department of Education and Youth Affairs policy? Dr Taloni answered: I did say that, yes. In other words, he was conceding that he had admitted to Senator Teague that there were no surveys done which related to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Senator Peter Baume —That is not true, is it? Senator LEWIS —As Senator Baume says, of course it is not true. Of course a conspiracy to deceive the Senate was going on at that time. Senator Baume asked: Can I ask you then about the explanatory notes for the Department of Special Minister of State . . . He knew that there was something wrong because it was showing up in other explanatory notes. Senator Ryan chipped in at that stage, because she did not want that revealed, and asked: Mr Chairman, is Senator Baume referring to the Special Minister of State's Estimates? I say to the Senate that a deliberate attempt was made by the Minister to cover that up. Senator Baume said: I am asking whether the survey was carried out; I am only speaking of this Department . . . At that stage he was interrupted. I hope that the Chairman, Senator Colston, finds this Hansard because Senator Ryan then said: Mr Chairman, I ask whether you consider it appropriate for the estimates of another department to be the subject of questions at this stage. She was trying to chop him off. Senator Peter Baume —She was trying to block the questioning. Senator LEWIS —She was trying to block the questions. But the Chairman recognised that. Senator Colston is to be admired and congratulated for showing the impartiality which should always be shown by Senate chairmen and Presidents, because he said to the Minister: I think what Senator Baume is doing is quoting from those in order to ask the officer whether this report was under this Department. The Minister was not to be blocked by a chairman. Senator Ryan said: I just point out that my officers cannot be expected to answer questions about estimates of another department. The Chairman said: I do not think that was quite the line of questioning. Senator Teague —That is right. Senator LEWIS —That is right. The Chairman knew what was going on at that stage. Later on, of course, we come to the absolute deliberate untruth issued by the Minister, when Senator Baume said: I ask the Minister- he asked a simple question- Did you have any input into that survey? Senator Ryan answered: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. Senator Ryan —No survey within my Department. Senator LEWIS —The Minister is prepared to mislead the Senate again today. Dear, oh dear! Mr Deputy President, what is going on in this place? In my view, the Minister really is behaving abominably. She deliberately misled that Estimates Committee. She is confirming that today, notwithstanding that she has written a letter to the Estimates Committee in which she admits that she misled the Estimates Committee. If one wades through all the garbage in her letter-her undated letter, as far as I can see-one will see that she concedes that she was well aware of the $35,000 being spent on the survey. Senator Colston —It did have a date but it was lost in the duplicating. Senator LEWIS —Senator Colston interrupts to say that there was a date on the letter; however, it did not come out on my photocopy. Senator Baume even went on to say: I point out that I am very concerned because if the Minister is correct the explanatory notes from another department are incorrect. Of course that is why we ultimately got the letter. The Minister knew that she would have to face up to Mick Young in due course and that he would say to her: 'Listen, I am not carrying that $35,000. That survey was done for you. It is not part of my Department. It has just been tacked on'. Senator Peter Baume —She was caught out. Senator LEWIS —That is right. She has been caught out. There was no doubt that she would have to face up to Mick Young in due course and explain to him what the 35 grand was all about and what she had been going on about. So she wrote the letter. Let me come to the last point. It is quite clear that the honourable senators who were present at that Committee were misled by the Minister. Ultimately, Senator Ryan said: As I have told the Committee, there is a survey of youth attitudes being carried out, I think as a part of a more general survey . . . Does she really think that? She got $35,000 as part of that general survey but she 'thinks' it might be carried out as part of a more general survey. Is that not misleading the Committee? She went on to say: I have had general discussions about youth attitudes . . . She then gives us a line of rhetoric about her concern about secondary participation rates and all the rest of it. She then admits: I have had general discussions along those lines with somebody from ANOP. I have not discussed specific questions relating to youth attitudes or anything else. The survey, I understand, has not yet been completed . . . That, of course, was one of the smart answers we were getting. We were told that the survey had not been completed so she was not able to say anything definite. She was able to give smart answers. She went on to say: . . . so I certainly have not seen any results or been briefed on any results of it. I think that is about all I can tell the Committee at this stage. It is clear that what happened then was that when the Minister got outside with Dr Taloni and the other officers of her Department, they said: 'Minister, you can't go on with that. They know about the appropriation through the Special Minister of State. Sooner or later Mick Young is going to be asked about it. We are going to have to get out of this in some way'. With her arrogant, cagey attitude, this Minister, who has put supporters of independent schools right across the nation off-side, who is showing all the signs of becoming another one of Mr Hawke's disasters and whose own departmental officers realise that she is a liability, then wrote this letter. On any analysis, this letter would really worry one. It says: I was advised that my request for funds should only be considered in the Additional Estimates context along with all other bids and in any case Mr Dawkins and I concluded that a major independent survey was unnecessary. So Mr Dawkins and this Minister got together. He said to her: 'You don't need that survey'. She agreed that the survey was unnecessary. What did she then do? She went around the back door and got Mick Young to do it for $35,000 by tacking it on to his survey. It is obvious what this Minister is on about. She did not want to disclose it. It may be that it has something to do with her Caucus. I do not know what she is doing in the Caucus, but it may be that that is why she did not want to disclose that she was spending 35 grand on the survey. It may be that it was in breach of the guidelines of the Department of Finance that this money was tacked on to the other Minister's appropriation. I do not really understand what it is all about, but it is clear that the Minister decided that the easiest way out of this matter was to mislead the Senate Estimates Committee . That was the easy way-'Don't bother to tell the Committee anything about this, Dr Taloni; let's keep this down to the bare minimum, and we'll just skate around the truth'. I conclude by reminding the Senate of the words adopted by Senator Button when he quoted Mr Malcolm Fraser on this matter: Ten per cent or even 50 per cent of the truth is as good a way of misleading this Parliament and the Australian people as a downright lie. The half-truth, the partial answer and the slipping over of the full facts are a misleading of this Parliament. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.20) —Today the Opposition has done nothing more than to devalue resort to motions of censure in this place. It has been a pathetic performance by the Opposition. One continually asks oneself what the Opposition is on about. What is the Opposition continually complaining about? It is very difficult to find anything that Opposition members have said that one can get one's teeth into in response. Mainly, they have said-it has been repeated by speaker after speaker-that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, was being cagey, or smart, or words to that effect. I do not accept that she was adopting such behaviour; but apparently that is what members of the Opposition have objected to. However, that is hardly a matter for a censure motion. It is ludicrous that this debate is dragging on for as long as it is. One must ask why speaker after speaker on the Opposition benches is dragging on the debate in this fashion. Perhaps it is to enable the very heavy lobbying of the Australian Democrats that has been taking place-by Senator Martin earlier, I noticed, and by Senator Chaney not long ago, talking hard at the Democrats, presumably to try to get their votes on this motion. But I assume that Senator Chipp and the Democrats will be able to sort the truth from the rubbish being sold to them by the Opposition. This whole censure motion is a waste of the Senate's time. I shall certainly not contribute to that more than a little. I presume that because of this motion there will be no Question Time today. That is a great shame. I had a very good question lined up, and I presume that the Opposition, too, had questions, which they will have to forgo. Opposition senators have spent most of the time rereading into Hansard a Hansard report of the proceedings of Estimates Committee D on Thursday and Friday and the other Estimates Committee that was handling the Department of the Special Minister of State, so we shall be having a very incestuous Hansard containing mainly Hansard quotations. I shall not follow that course, mainly because I do not have a copy of the relevant Hansard transcripts. I was given three or four pages of the Hansard for the Estimates Committee dealing with the Department of the Special Minister of State, but even though I am a member of Estimates Committee D I still do not have the Hansard which the Opposition was able to obtain much earlier than anyone else-copies of the proof sheets, apparently, which one does not normally get from Estimates Committees. Having been a member of that Committee and having been present during most of the exchange that has been discussed in this debate, I should like, briefly, to give some of the background to our meeting on Thursday. As has been acknowledged during this debate, a very broad line of questioning was allowed in this Estimates Committee hearing. The Chairman gave the Opposition very reasonable treatment. Opposition senators cannot complain about that. Senator Robertson —They abused it. Senator COATES —I think that it can be said that they abused the privileges that they were given. They certainly went far beyond normal Estimates committee procedure of concentrating on actual Estimates, administration of the Department and so forth. The Opposition attempted to cross-examine the Minister as if the hearing were an extended Question Time in the chamber instead of an Estimates Committee hearing. But Opposition senators were, as I say, given this very reasonable line. Senator Teague —It was just the same as every year for years before. Senator COATES —That is not so. That is one of the problems about Opposition senators not accepting that they are being given an extraordinarily reasonable go. When I objected at one stage during the hearing on Thursday to the freedom that they were taking in the debate, Senator Peter Baume said: 'Senator McLaren did this all the time'. But Senator McLaren always asked questions on specific matters of Estimates and did not try to abuse Estimates committees by being very broad in the questioning of Ministers. I have had to sit through Estimates committee hearings when in opposition when Senator Messner was the Minister and when he would refuse to answer the most elementary question asked of him, the answer to which he ought to have known, saying: 'Oh, that is a matter of policy; I am not going to answer that at all'. Yet Opposition senators have the effrontery to complain about the Government's reaction to their questioning in the Estimates Committee. If Senator Ryan, as the Minister, was a little testy and brief in some of her answers, I do not blame her. Who would not be so in response, in some cases, to distasteful questioning by Senator Baume and Senator Teague? In their own way, they were both pains in the neck in the way in which they approached the Estimates Committee. They would drive any normal person up the wall. I think that Senator Ryan was being amazingly tolerant of the Opposition's questions. The Opposition was not exactly being polite in its tone of questioning on Thursday. Its aggression could not be said to be conducive to the friendly volunteering of information, which is what Opposition senators are complaining did not happen on Thursday but did happen in the letter on Friday. What is the reason for this censure motion? Basically, the Opposition, whether before Estimates committees or in the chamber as a whole, cannot cope with getting open, honest answers. Opposition senators get continual frankness from Ministers of this Government. They could not cope last year with the frankness of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who was being quite open and quite different in comparison with Ministers of the previous Government, who continually clammed up and denied everything until it was finally dragged out of them. Opposition senators get openness and frankness from this Government-and this motion is what we get in response. Opposition senators also cannot cope with such a competent Minister as Senator Ryan. They know that she is competent. They especially cannot cope with a competent woman Minister. She is one of our best Ministers. Her performance has been top class and outstanding. In any other government, she would be described as the very best; but this Government is overflowing with good Ministers. She is well and truly on top of her portfolio, continually visiting educational institutions, delivering multitudinous speeches with her usual flair, and achieving more in 15 months than Senator Baume and other former Ministers opposite could achieve in 15 years. She has been patiently and thoroughly explaining government policy and the reasons for it. She is a most assiduous Minister. At the same time as conducting the primary part of her portfolio, education, she has ensured the passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill and is developing policies for Australian youth. Senate committees normally report to the Senate. The Committee with which we are concerned will do so. What has happened is that part of this Committee has taken this action about the Committee's operations without any consultation and without attempting to see what it could do with the Committee as a whole. This has thereby upset the Estimates committee traditions in a most improper way. As I said, I shall not delay the Senate any longer than necessary by prolonging debate on this ludicrous censure motion. I urge rejection of the motion and I express my full support and admiration for Senator Susan Ryan as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. She does not deserve censure by the Senate, and I hope that she does not receive it and that we can get on with the business of the Senate. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.30) —I support the censuring of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for deliberately and persistently misleading the Senate. I was a member of Estimates Committee D and I was misled. I was asking questions at the Senate Estimates Committee meeting and the Minister and her departmental officers misled me. When she was caught out she came forward with a letter which was directly contradictory to answers given to me as one member of that Committee. What had Senator Ryan to gain from this misleading of the Senate, from this deception of the Committee and from the evasion of the Opposition's questions? I suggest that there are six such reasons : First of all, so the public would not know that the Government was asking political questions at the taxpayers' expense. If $50,000 or $35,000 was being used by this Government to home in on public opinions related to hot political issues, surely the taxpayers should not be told because the taxpayers would be alarmed that their money was being misused for party political purposes to see how the Government ought to trim its sail to the public wind! Secondly, she did not want other Ministers to know that she had been able to get $35,000 out of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) when she had earlier put up for $50,000 to do the same thing and been denied. Thirdly, she did not want her Caucus colleagues to know-there were three of them on this Committee- that she had been able to get this $35,000 survey. Fourthly, she did not want the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to know. He had come to the assessment that this Minister was a liability in this Government, that she had been discredited publicly through the policies of 1983 and that she had been discredited week after week by questions and speeches in the Senate and by public uproar. He had given her the soft word: 'Your are to keep quiet. You are to put the lid on all your ideology. You are a liability to this Government. We are in an election year and you are not allowed to let any rabbits out of the bag'. She did not want the Prime Minister to know that she had got this ideologically motivated survey out of the Special Minister of State. Also I do not think she really wanted members of the Opposition to know. She was not going to concede any ammunition that they could then use against her unwise advice to her colleagues or to the Government. She had already been taken to task-was it 100 times or 1,000 times?-by Senator Baume, by me and by other Opposition senators in this chamber. Finally, the Australian Democrats offered an answer to this question. That is a general answer, to which Senator Coates directed all his argument today. He said: 'I am not convinced by this reasoning of the Democrats'. Senator Macklin and Senator Haines put these words together. Their proposition was that at an Estimates committee meeting the Government's attitude is: 'I know and you do not know and the departmental officials are here to make sure that you do not find out'. Senator Coates said: 'That is exactly what was going on, but this is what we expect and Senator Ryan was a marvel as a Minister; she was doing everything possible'. He does not take this matter on board. I believe that Senator Ryan was seeking, for these reasons, to be directly deceptive and directly evasive of Opposition questioning. I was there. I was asking questions. I was deceived. I was misled. I come to the questions themselves. I think we need to bear in mind that less than a week before this in the upper House in South Australia a Labor Minister was censured. Dr Cornwall was directly censured by a majority of legislative councillors in South Australia. What was the issue? It was the misleading of the Legislative Council over public opinion surveys that he had commissioned secretly without the knowledge of Caucus, without the knowledge of his colleagues and certainly without the knowledge of the public. He had deceived all his colleagues and the Parliament about adding on a set of politically motivated questions to a survey again conducted by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd. The record is there in the Legislative Council. This Minister, Dr Cornwall, was censured by his Council for misleading the Parliament. We have had the same performance here. Senator Ryan did not wish to admit to anything, just as Dr Cornwall did not wish in the first days of questioning to admit that he knew anything of such a survey. He did not admit to anything of this kind. But just as he was caught out and censured by his Council and by the Parliament, so Senator Ryan was caught out. Whether she was moved by an officer of her Department pointing out the truth to her so that she could not evade it any longer and would have to admit it the next day, or whether she was caught out by the questioning of the Department of the Special Minister of State at the other Estimates Committee meeting, I do not know; but one way or another she could see that the fate that befell Dr Cornwall was ahead of her and she jumped in to try to recover as much as she could. Let me say something about the officials who were present and the circumstances of that meeting on Thursday. The Department of Education and Youth Affairs was the first department whose estimates were considered by Senate Estimates Committee D. The question often quoted in the debate this afternoon was about the fourth in a series of some eight questions. I was in mid-stream. It was the first series of questions put that day. The atmosphere in the room was tense, transmitted by the Minister. As the questions were asked-- Senator Robert Ray —Ha, ha! Senator TEAGUE —I am being frank, Senator Ray. You may laugh, but I am saying that there are times at Estimates committee meetings when the questions asked lead to a Minister being evasive and tense, and the departmental officials are hanging on every word; they are sitting tight; they are very quiet. This was the case on Thursday of last week. Senator Robert Ray —You picked this up? Senator TEAGUE —I picked this up and I am telling honourable senators that Dr Taloni was warned by this process, as were other officers, to be careful not to transgress the will of the Minister, to be evasive and not to give frank answers to these questions. Dr Taloni was the most senior officer of the Department present that day, and I understand that he has been in the position in the Department for only a matter of weeks or months. However, on that day he was the most senior officer present and he was the one who, from the very beginning of the meeting, was answering the questions. As has been pointed out by four or five Opposition speakers today, the answers given were pedantic, restrained, short and crisp. They were certainly intelligently given. They were given with great circumspection and with a great awareness of the Minister being present at the head of the table. Dr Taloni gave 12 answers in that sequence of questions and answers. The first 10 of them, I believe, were wrong or were certainly evasive and incomplete. They were certainly not frank and open. Whether they were wrong because he had been misled by others in the Department or whether they were wrong because of pressures laid on him by the Minister, I do not know; but, as Senator Lewis and others have said, the Minister intervened on two occasions during that series of 12 answers by Dr Taloni. On both those occasions she took, as it were, points of order, as if to say: 'Be careful. Officers of the Department shall not give frank and open answers'. She tried to use methods of procedure to deny answers being openly given. That is clearly set out in Hansard. We had all that pressuring of members of the Department. I do not to that extent see Dr Taloni as directly culpable as he would have been had he been there without the Minister. Other departmental officials were present who no doubt gave factual information to the Minister later that evening that Dr Taloni 's answers were not complete, were not accurate and that she had better write a letter to clear the record. But whether Dr Taloni gave evasive and wrong answers as a result of that pressuring, it was certaintly evident that the pressure was so intense in that meeting that no other departmental officer in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs came forward to volunteer to the Minister that an incorrect answer, or that an evasive or deceptive answer had been given. After Dr Taloni had given 12 answers and after the Minister had intervened twice to try to restrict the discussion, we then had the final set of answers given directly to the Minister. Why were these final questions put to the Minister direct? I can say to government senators that I was literally dumbfounded. The Minister said that a youth values survey was being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State but nobody in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs knew anything about it. Is it credible to think that we have a Department of Education and Youth Affairs in this Government and that it was not consulted, that it was a matter for only the Department of the Special Minister of State? Just on the face of it there was no credibility. However we also knew that in the explanatory notes of the Department of the Special Minister of State there was a direct reference to a survey related to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. So in the light of those two pieces of information that did not fit in with the departmental answers surely that leads to one of us directly asking the Minister a question. Dr Taloni, the senior public servant present, had given 12 answers and we were still cut off from getting an answer; so Senator Baume asked the Minister: 'Did you have any input into that survey?' Senator Ryan directly misled the Committee with her words 'there has been no such survey to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes'. After some further evasion from the Minister, Senator Baume stated: It is perfectly simple. We have reason to believe that a survey was carried out . The officers have said they have had nothing to do with it and I simply asked the Minister whether she had any discussions with ANOP about the survey or the questions. Senator Ryan answered: I have had general discussions along those lines with somebody from ANOP. I have not discussed specific questions relating to youth attitudes or anything else. However, it turned out the next day that the Minister wrote a letter to the Committee in which she stated that she had initiated the survey. Not only is her statement that she had not discussed specific questions relating to youth attitudes, and she used the words 'or anything else', completely false but also it turns out that she had initiated the whole thing. So I believe that we are entirely justified in moving this censure motion in the Senate. I hope it will be supported as was the case in South Australia a couple of weeks ago when a censure motion was moved against Dr Cornwall. If we get this kind of evasive response, this deception and this misleading from the Government before Senate Estimate committees that are responsible to the Senate, the public and the electorates which we represent to ask questions, to put on the public record what this Government is doing, there must be a response in the Senate and that is what is happening today. Some Government senators have asked: 'Why did you not immediately raise this debate at 2.30 on Friday afternoon, a few minutes after receiving the tabled letter from the Minister?' and 'When members of the Senator Estimates committee received a letter from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs directly contradicting the answers given the day before, why did you not immediately move for the suspension of that investigation of the Estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to make the kinds of points you are making this afternoon in the Senate?' The answers are very straightforward and were largely given by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Colston. We were in the midst of examining the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. All the officers of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs had left 24 hours earlier. For the time being that Department's estimates had been completed. When we got to the end of that item on the agenda-the Department of Aboriginal Affairs estimates-it was 4.15 p.m.; or it may have been 4.20 p.m. Were we then to ring the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to get all of the officers to come over when the Senate Estimates Committee was scheduled to rise only 10 minutes later? We always had the opportunity to reconvene the Estimates Committee sometime this week, the following week. Senator Geitzelt-You failed to do so. Senator TEAGUE —A letter has now been delivered to the Chairman of the Committee by its three Opposition members directly asking for that to be done tomorrow evening. We expect the Minister and all of her departmental officers to come to the reconvening of Senate Estimates Committee D tomorrow evening. Senator Ryan was so much on edge in that Estimates Committee because she had been put on notice by her Caucus and ministerial colleagues and by the Prime Minister that she had become a liability to them and that she was not to let any information out to that Estimates Committee, to the public or the Opposition, that would in any way further harm the reputation of her responsibility as Minister of that Department or the Government at large. This is an election year and Senator Ryan was under instructions to be evasive, deceptive and not as open as possible to make sure that no further alarm or difficulty arose for the Government. That is what Senator Ryan was displaying to us and because she has directly misled the Senate she ought to be censured. I urge honourable senators to support the motion before us. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.48) —I am tempted in following Senator Teague merely to say that the defence rests. He has a very fertile imagination. In the 20 minutes available to him this afternoon he has been able to impute all sorts of motives for Senator Ryan's actions without adducing any proof or logical explanation. He asserted that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, acted out of motives that related to a relationship with the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, with the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke and to the way she wanted to treat Caucus, that she wanted to keep Caucus in the dark about issues. No evidence has been produced here today by Senator Teague to back up those assertions. All he has done today is prove that he has a very fertile imagination in building up motives that would not stand up anywhere else . I think this issue would have been more appropriately dealt with first of all by the Estimates Committee. The Estimates Committee could have considered the letter and the transcript-if it were lucky enough to have one-and then, if the issue warranted it, brought this motion before the chamber if the Opposition still felt, given the Minister's explanation and discussion there that the Minister had misled Parliament. But instead we have had almost four hours of debate on what nearly every speaker on the other side has said is a very important issue. They then proceeded to trivialise the issue. I have not experienced many censure motions in this place but I would say that today's must rank as one of the all-time worst, unless they have all been at a similarly low level. I think the critical aspect of the motion surely is that the Opposition says that Senator Ryan deliberately misled the Parliament, via the Estimates Committee. I do not accept that. I accept the fact that her letter the next day corrected any impression that may have been gained from the answers to the Estimates Committee. I would have thought that it was normal practice for officials and Ministers who appear before Estimates committees, if they have a defect in memory or judgment or inadvertently in any way mislead the Committee, to write to the Committee immediately and correct the record. It would be interesting, if we are to judge people and their motives, to judge the motives of the Opposition. The Minister's letter is very critical to that judgment. The Opposition referred to events that occurred on 3 May. The Committee got the Minister's letter on 4 May. We have had various explanations as to why the Opposition did not bring up the matter on 4 May. Clearly, the most convincing argument is that it was through the Opposition's lack of diligence or laziness, either in not reading the letter or in not understanding it. So the matter was not brought up at the Estimates Committee. I would not have expected a Liberal Opposition member, having read the letter, immediately to jump to his feet and demand a discussion of it. However, I would have expected such an honourable senator, if he was diligent enough to have read the letter, to have indicated at some time during those Estimates Committee hearings that he would at least like to go into private session to discuss the matter. However, nothing happened on the Friday. On Saturday and Sunday we heard nothing. I do not know why. Surely honourable senators had the weekend to think about it. Probably honourable senators opposite had nothing else to do. If the issue is so important why was it not raised on Monday? If this is a life and death matter, a matter of integrity, why was it not raised on Monday? Senator Peter Baume himself said that he read the letter on Friday afternoon. If it is the letter and evidence that is so important, why was the matter not raised yesterday? Why was it not raised at Question Time or on the adjournment? Why was the matter raised today by ambush? I agree that Senator Chaney made the matter the subject of a notice of motion. As such, on the face of it, honourable senators could argue that no notice of motion is an ambush. However, honourable senators know that any censure motion moved as a notice of motion is debated straight away. I think that the Opposition in its eagerness to ambush a Minister has lost a lot of credibility. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber have had no chance whatsoever to evaluate the evidence before them. The point has been made before about the lack of availability of the Hansard. I think honourable senators would agree that hearing Opposition senators selectively quote has made it very difficult for us to make any sort of assessment. They selectively repeat the same quotes time and again. None of us on this side has the evidence available to judge. However, I noticed, when Senator Ryan proceeded to quote from the material in full, the embarrassed looks opposite. The point that needs to be made in this instance is that Senator Ryan was answering questions in relation to her own Department. I will quote from Standing Orders the purpose of Estimates committees. Standing Order 36AB (15.) states: The Committees may ask for explanations from Ministers of State in the Senate, or officers, relating to items of proposed expenditure. The clear implication is that Ministers and officials must answer questions about proposed expenditure relating to their own departments. If the expenditure relates to another department we cannot expect them to have that sort of expertise. It was clear to me, the first time I attended an Estimates committee, that some latitude was given in terms of questions. Estimates committees eventually become another extended Question Time with unlimited supplementary questions. It is only when the going gets tough, when Ministers have some problem in answering questions, that chairmen of committees-because they are government appointees, whether they be Liberal or Labor-enforce the Standing Orders to protect their Minister. That is what happens. That happened when I was on Estimates committees. The moment we started to get somewhere-the post-Budget survey was an example where pressure was put on a Minister-suddenly the relevant chairman would come in and close the debate. If Senator Ryan has been guilty of anything it may be of showing some contempt for the Opposition. After today's performance I wonder how she could really hide such contempt. Traditionally, Ministers do not treat Estimates committees with as much openness as perhaps they should. That is true of either Liberal or Labor . To some extent Ministers regard Estimates committees as an adversary situation . They should not, but that has happened. It has happened under Liberal Governments, and Senator Ryan would have had her training under several Liberal Ministers in Estimates committees. Ministers and public servants tend to give about as much information as they have to. Recently in my own Estimates Committee hearings I have thought that some public servants have not given as full information as they should have. That is a question that the Senate Standing Orders Committee and the leaders of the Senate should consider at some stage. The presence of so many public servants at Estimates committees and the immense cost of that has been raised as a matter of concern. I agree with those criticisms. I agree that it is immensely costly. I return to the more snide accusation allied to this debate that Senator Ryan has not been performing well in her portfolio. I have no axe to grind for Senator Ryan but I think she has done brilliantly in her portfolio, which is one of the toughest portfolios. It is clear from Question Time that she is on top of the portfolio. Every time we get sectarian-based questions on any issue coming from honourable senators opposite she has handled those with absolute ease. This nonsense being peddled around, which has come from newspapers, that the Prime Minister has had to step in and support the Minister has not been substantiated. Opposition senators have not adduced any evidence for that, except apparently one memo from a public servant expressing that public servant's opinion. There is nothing from the Government to suggest that it is in any way unhappy with Senator Ryan's performance. In conclusion, I will be brief because I know we have the right to reply and Question Time yet to come. I say firstly that several honourable senators have started by saying that this is a serious issue. They have then selectively quoted from Hansard. They have not accepted that if there was any inadvertent misleading it was corrected in a letter the following day. There is absolutely no charity from those honourable senators opposite even though in the past their own Ministers have been caught in similarly embarrassing positions, when not the fullest information has been made available. That information has now been made available. There is no case to justify a censure motion. As I said before, the reason why we now have a censure motion by ambush is that over the weekend the Opposition decided: 'We have to lift our game, we have to look determined, we have to look positive'. Opposition senators are not fighting about whether they are going to win the next election; it is a points spread. It is how many seats the Opposition will lose at the next election. They have to look tough and act tough, but I am sorry to say that they just have not done that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.57) —The censure motion is very serious because it deals with a matter of grave concern to many people in Australia-the Government's policy on the funding of schools, both government and non- government. The matter before us which exercised the minds of the Estimates Committee was first brought to attention in the Age of 13 March 1984. An article written by Margot O'Neill, headed 'Ryan drops plan to survey guidelines', stated : The Government has decided against spending $50,000 to help head off criticism of this year's financial guidelines for non-Government schools, due in July. The Education Minister, Senator Ryan, asked for the extra money in a letter to the finance Minister, Mr Dawkins, in January. In the letter, Senator Ryan said that the Government had experienced serious problems in putting its policy across and that this was of vital concern. The letter says: 'Because of the controversy surrounding this area of policy, we need to try to ascertain why our message is not getting through.' Senator Ryan proposed that outside experts be commissioned to research public attitudes 'so that we can develop a better public relations strategy in time for the crucial 1984 guidelines decisions'. She told 'The Age' that the money would have been used to finance a survey which in part would have tried to identify how far some principles at non- Government schools and some Catholic parish priests had co-operated with those lobby groups which had spread misinformation about the Government's policies. Of course, that is a matter of grave public concern. It is not big brother who is watching us; in this case it is big sister watching us. It is a matter of concern to the Senate and to the Estimates committees to see how the taxpayers' money will be spent in this exercise. This is not an exercise in democracy; it is not an exercise really designed to obtain practical information upon which policies can be based. We have a censure motion now because of the concern of members of Estimates Committee D that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) was not directing her answers to the area which was clearly in the minds of the questioners. On an examination of the material and of the draft Hansard-admittedly it is a draft Hansard it is not the final Hansard-it is clear that were a judge to examine the material he would not hang the Minister as charged; the judge would probably give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. To any layman reading the document and on the evidence that has been presented by those who were present at the Estimates Committee who knew what area they were talking about, it is clear that the Minister has not acted in accordance with her duty, as she should have done, before the Estimates Committee. The censure motion is as follows: That the Senate censures the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, for deliberatly misleading Senate Estimates Committee 'D' on 3 May 1984 by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to funding of government and non-government schools. Despite what the Government may think, I was not consulted about the draft which was put down by the Opposition, nor am I entitled to be consulted on it. It is entirely up to the Opposition what it wishes to do in respect of notices of motion in this place. However, I did receive a copy of a letter which went to the Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee D, Senator Colston, attached to which is the draft Hansard of Estimates Committee D and Estimates Committee E, the Committee dealing with the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. I assumed that the letter to the Chairman of Estimated Committee D by Senator Ryan included these documents. In the absence of anybody denying that these documents are not accurate-I have studied the document-I would say to the Opposition that I would certainly support a proposition which would be in slightly different terms to the one that is currently before us. I do not know whether one could say that the Minister actually falsely claimed in a positive way no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to funding of government and non-government schools. It is argued by the Minister that she was addressing herself to whether or not a survey had in fact been undertaken by her Department. Of course, the answer that she had given to the question-not the question that was posed, but the question that she chose to answer in the way that it was translated in her own mind-was that no survey was undertaken by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs in respect of such a question. But, of course, that was begging the question and begging the issue entirely. The Minister knew perfectly well that the Department to run this particular survey was the Department of the Special Minister of State. It was clear to any thinking person the information that the questioners-Senator Baume and Senator Teague in respect of Estimates Committee D-were seeking. I suggest that Senator Ryan deserves the strongest condemnation by the Senate for failing to perform her duty as Minister before Senate Estimates Committee D. She failed to do this in two ways: First of all, she failed to understand-that is clothing it in the most charitable way-the area that was being addressed by the questioners. Secondly, she deliberately failed to address those particular questions and translated them in her own mind and spat out answers which were not relevant. In either event, she failed to perform her duty as Minister before the Senate Estimates Committee. There is no gain saying that at all. She also failed to perform her duty by not alerting Dr Taloni to the area of questioning which was obviously meant by Senator Baume and Senator Teague, and which, as I say, was perfectly clear to anybody reading the transcript. She failed in her duty as Minister before this Senate because, in my view, an Estimates committee has the standing of a Senate because the members of Estimates committees represent us here in the Senate. It is not possible for all of us to question all of the departmental estimates; it would be an impossible situation, and that is why Estimates committees are established. So the Senate expects Ministers to be open and frank before Estimates committees. They should give reasonable responses to reasonable questions, particularly questions that are of such importance to so many people within Australia, as this one is. We have reached a situation where, if the Senate allows a Minister to treat Senate Estimates committees with such disregard as Senator Ryan has treated this Estimates Committee, we are failing in our duty to uphold our proper role and proper function in the system of democratic government in this country. Part of our role is an audit and control function. We have an audit and control function which is exercised in many ways. It is exercised specifically through the committee system. When it comes to Additional Estimates, as in this case, or the Estimates we will be discussing after the Budget, Senate committees, on behalf of the Senate, do exercise audit and control functions. If we allow Senator Ryan or any other Minister to get away with failing to perform her proper duty as a Minister before such committees, we are failing in our duty. However, as I said earlier, it is difficult actually to hang a censure motion on the Minister by accusing her of a positive, deliberate misleading by falsely claiming no knowledge of a survey on public attitudes to the funding of government and non- government schools. Senator Peter Baume —But she did claim it. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, we can say that. That is a judgment that honourable senators can make. Were we judging this situation we would have to give her the benefit of the doubt that, somewhere in the recesses of her mind, she could not understand the plain questions that Senator Baume and Senator Teague were directing to her. If she did not, of course, she failed in her duty as a Minister. She either falsely claimed certain things or she is incompetent. To give her the benefit of the doubt one would have to say that a judge would not hang her but a Prime Minister would sack her for failing to perform her duty as a Minister. A Senate would surely express its strongest condemnation for her failure to perform her duty as a Minister. I certainly would go along with a proposal to replace the words from and including the word 'censures' in the motion with the words 'expresses its strongest condemnation of the manner in which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs failed to perform her duty as a Minister before the Estimates Committee'. That is how we should go about it. I will not move that as an amendment. I imagine that that also would be the concern of other honourable senators on this side of the chamber who are not members of the official Opposition. I take this opportunity also to state that the Minister still has failed to let the Senate Estimates Committee, or the Senate, know precisely for what she wants the extra $35,000, which is now to be tacked on to the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. Is she still going on with this witch hunt against principals and Catholic parish priests which she proposed before? If so, that is a far more serious matter for the Government to consider. Surely it is a matter on which honourable senators are entitled to expect an answer from the Minister and from the Government? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.14) —in reply-I thank the various honourable senators who have contributed to the debate and have supported the motion. I welcome some of Senator Harradine's remarks. I agree with him that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) deserves the strongest condemnation for failing to perform her duty as a Minister. However, we go beyond that. We believe that on any sensible reading of the transcript and of the letter which was subsequently sent it is quite clear that the Minister knew the facts. We are not prepared to admit what I think is the benefit of the tiniest smidgin of doubt that Senator Harradine has offered. I certainly agree with him that Ministers should be open and frank before Estimates committees. I say to the Australian Democrats, who are represented by Senator Macklin in this matter, who made an excellent speech analysing the material: I believe that the cynicism of his approach was perhaps the one negative. I do not believe that the Senate can approach the Estimates Committee on the basis that it is quite as much a game as he has outlined. I think there is a duty on Ministers to behave in a way other than that which was described by Senator Macklin. I wish to clear one minor irrelevancy that has been raised across the table; that is, the availability of Hansard copy to the Opposition. That came into our hands because we requested it. There has been a delay- Senator Grimes —What time? Senator CHANEY —The Minister should let me finish. There has been a delay with respect to the production of Hansard. There was concern in the Opposition at the answers which had been given by Senator Ryan compared with the written material she provided. The Hansard copy was requested. It was provided with the request that it be made available also to Senator Ryan before it was used. That request was met. It was delivered to Senator Ryan's office some time before this debate commenced. In any event, it was open to Senator Ryan- Senator Grimes —What time? What time before the debate? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to cease interjecting. Senator Chaney has the call. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, it is good to see at last the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate taking an interest in the debate. His defence of Senator Ryan was one of the most lacklustre performances that I have heard for some time. The Government has one handy, knockabout speaker on its side, good old Robert Ray. He gets up on every subject, even when he does not know the facts. Let us just stop and think. The first person who got up and defended Senator Ryan with any enthusiasm was Senator Ray from Victoria. Senator Ray really diminished the impact of what he had to say when he told us that he has not actually read the transcript and then accused us of selective quotation. I cannot imagine a more self-damning contribution to debate than that. He managed to keep his enthusiasm going for maybe eight minutes. In the best speech made to defend the Minister, he got up in this chamber and said: 'I have not read the transcript but I think the way in which you have been so selective in your quotation is absolutely disgraceful'. I just say to the honourable senator: If he wants to make accusations which he cannot possibly base on any facts, because he tells us that he does not know the facts, the high respect with which he is held on this side of the chamber will soon evaporate. We will continue to admire his knockout style but we will not have much to think about the content of his speeches. Senator Ray is new to this place; he is very good but he is new. One of the things that really shocked him was that we ambushed the Minister. Is it not terrible that we did not ring up the Government last Friday and say: 'We think maybe on Tuesday, Tuesday week or Tuesday in three weeks we might run a censure on Senator Ryan'! Is that not a shocking, terrible thing? I can only say to you, Senator Ray, that I very much hope that, when you are in opposition, which I know will be very soon, you will follow some very gentlemanly tactics and give us plenty of warning when you bring in your censure motions, because I would hate to see a nice, amiable, right wing chap like you ambushing people. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to speak through the Chair. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, Mr President. There has been a good deal of this sort of thing and I did get a little enthusiastic. Senator Ray raised one serious question. He asked: Why was this matter not dealt with before today? That is a serious question and I wish to address it. The fact of the matter is, as I said a little while ago, the Hansard record of the meeting was not available. Members of the Committee, of course, had a recollection of what had been said by the Minister. They wished to check the material against the written submission that she had made. The matter was raised today because this was the first opportunity we had to do so. I, and I am sure the Senate, would like to see this matter brought to a vote. Let me very quickly deal with the fundamental defence which has been mounted for Senator Ryan. Senator Ryan's defence was that, in some formal way, in some legalistic way, what she said was accurate. I will deal very quickly with that. In no legalistic way could it be said that what Senator Ryan said was accurate. We had a lot of obfuscation by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. We had a suggestion that really Senator Ryan was talking about some other department. Was it not silly, the members of the Opposition were asking about another department. They did not realise that that meant that Senator Ryan did not have to tell them all she knew about her Department's involvement in this political survey aimed to provide political benefit to the Hawke Government to enable it to trim its policies to public opinion instead of to principle. She did not have to tell us any of that because technically she was off the hook because we were asking about a different department. Rubbish! That is not true. Any reading of the transcript shows that it is not true. Senator Peter Baume specifically referred the Minister to the other Department's estimates. I will not go over the quote again; it has been read out here several times today. He then said: Has this Department- he was referring to the Department of Education- given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? Dr Taloni leapt in with a quick answer. He said: I am not aware of it. Senator Peter Baume said: I ask the Minister: Did you have any input into that survey? Senator Ryan said: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. Senator Ryan knew because she had arranged for that survey on youth attitudes to include a set of survey questions on the attitudes of people to public and private funding. This is the greatest false defence I have ever heard. It is no defence. No decent lawyer would tolerate such a defence. The Minister is condemned by the words she used. She admitted today her close working knowledge of all that had occurred. This is not something that was passed by her desk and her eyes by her Department, not something she initialled and said 'Okay'. This is a matter she talked to her colleagues about. She had a suggestion knocked back. She came back and got a different suggestion. This issue is central to her political survival. She was covering up. She wilfully misled the Senate through that Committee. I am sure that we all wish this matter to come to a vote. I think that the most damning thing about what has come out is that this Government has no principle at all in this area. All it is trying to do is find out public opinion so that it can tailor its policies to the next election. We have had a lot of debate in the Senate and there will be a lot more about the ability of this Government to shelve issues it thinks will be uncomfortable until it thinks it can get the numbers in this place. This is one example of how this Government operates. It is not a Government of principle. It is a government which simply tries to go down the road it thinks the public will tolerate. We in the Senate will continue to watch the antics of these Ministers. If they continue to behave in the way Senator Ryan has behaved at the Estimates Committee meeting we will bring it to public opinion. We will seek to censure the Minister for her behaviour and to censure other Ministers who behave in the same way. Senator Gietzelt —Is that a threat or a promise? Senator CHANEY —That is a promise. I hope that we will not need to bring forward these measures because I hope we will see some better standards from the Minister in the future. But let us make it quite clear that the Opposition regards Senator Ryan as having failed to do her duty as a Minister. We think that not only has she been wrong and wilfully misled the Senate but also she has been incompetent in the process and we believe she is deserving of complete censure. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, 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 Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Townley, M. Childs, B. K. Jessop, D. S. Foreman, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Watson, J. O. W. Georges, G. Hill, R. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges- Evidence given on 3 May 1984 to Estimates Committee D by Dr A. Taloni, First Assistant Secretary, Management Division, Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the order of the day for the second reading of the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 be restored to the Notice Paper and be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the order of the day for the second reading of the National Crime ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be restored to the Notice Paper and be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 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 the control of tax avoidance schemes. Notice of Motion Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That contingent upon the President proceeding to put the question on any amendment moved by Senator Martin to the motion for the second reading of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the question being put separately on each paragraph of the amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Museum of Australia-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980. 2. The Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety-Government response to the Committee Report made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Transport on 7 May 1984. 3. Funding Policies for Australian Schools-Report by Commonwealth Schools Commission. 4. Commonwealth Standards for Australian Schools-Report by Commonwealth Schools Commission-together with a Statement relating to both reports by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. Has an excess number of clerical staff been employed by the Department of Social Security in Victoria, presumably engaged as a result of the assets testing policy? Has a management decision been taken to reduce staffing levels by not replacing any permanent or temporary welfare staff who leave before 30 June? Is it further proposed not to renew contracts of those engaged on a contractual basis beyond 29 June? As this would result in a serious decline in professional services to clients in the community, will the Minister advise the Senate of his views on this matter and also on whether any other State is in a similar position in regard to staff numbers? Senator GRIMES —I was approached before the end of the last two-week sitting period, before I went overseas, about complaints from Victoria that welfare staff in some offices were not being reappointed and that there was therefore a staff shortage of these professional people in some offices. It is my recollection that I consulted with senior officers of the Department and that an investigation was started. I understand, although I will have to check my memory on this, that just before I left the matter seemed to have been settled and that those offices which were short of welfare staff were to have that situation corrected. However, I do not recall the exact details and I do not have a brief with me. I will get the answer as soon as I can for the honourable senator and give her the information that she seeks. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to today's reports about a settlement of $180m in a legal action on behalf of veterans and their dependants against seven manufacturers of agent orange. I ask the Minister whether it is the opinion of the Government that this settlement result will lead to the chemical companies taking a different attitude to the current Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Senator GIETZELT —The out of court settlement made in the United States of America as a result of a class action initiated by the Vietnam veterans in that country and joined by a group of Australian veterans has been a very significant breakthrough for those who served in Vietnam and those who believe that, as a result of that service, they suffered from exposure to agent orange. I stress in response to Senator Bolkus's question that the decision in the United States is based solely upon the use of dioxin in agent orange, whereas the Royal Commission which the Australian Government has set in train deals with the effects of chemical agents generally, and therefore goes beyond the American decision. I have heard that the American veterans are critical of the out of court settlement, even though they recognise that it is an important breakthrough in their attempts to win recognition of the state of health from which they suffer as a result of their service in Vietnam. It is the intention of the American veterans to take advantage of legislative and judicial processes in that country to have their families make out a case against the American Government. Whether, of course, the Australian Government would take a similar course against chemical companies is a matter that is much too premature to contemplate at this stage. Therefore, I suggest to Senator Bolkus that we should allow the Royal Commission to carry out its work and, depending upon the terms of settlement that arise out of the American class action case, make a judgment about what action the Australian Government or, for that matter, the Vietnam veterans may take in respect of a decision arrived at in the United States yesterday. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the fact that the Meynink committee had advised, having completed its report and forwarded it to Mr Kerin on 1 May- Senator Walsh —What Committee? Senator ARCHER —I am referring to the Interim Inspection Policy Council. When is it expected that the report will be released to honourable senators and when is it expected that decisions will be made and implemented? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that I do not have any information with me to answer that question. I will refer it to the Minister and obtain an answer for Senator Archer as soon as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the 1981 report of the Committee of Inquiry on Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South East Australia, known as the Zeidler report. What is the current position regarding implementation of the Committee's recommendation No. 2, which proposed an extension of the New South Wales-Victoria interconnected power system to South Australia through the Mt Gambier and Portland areas? Have there been any significant changes in the economics of an electricity link between Victoria and South Australia since 1981 when the report was brought down? Senator WALSH —I am advised that there is some evidence that the situation regarding a south-eastern grid or, more specifically I suppose, a link between South Australia and Victoria, has improved since the Zeidler report was brought down in 1981. The Stewart committee in South Australia has also examined the interconnection since then, as part of its study of future electricity supply options for South Australia. I understand that its findings are at present under consideration by the State Government. I have had discussions with members of the South Australian Government and the South Australian Electricity Commission on this question last year and also with Senator Maguire from time to time. From those discussions I have been told that because of the different peak loading requirements of the South Australian and Victorian grids there would be substantial economies in an interchange of power and that that option, as I understand it, is being very seriously pursued by the South Australian Government. But it is really a question principally for the South Australian Government and, to a lesser extent, probably for the Victorian Government to decide whether the proposals should proceed further, rather than one in which the Commonwealth would be involved in the decision making, although, of course, we appreciate being briefed by the respective governments on the position as they see it and their plans. Senator MISSEN —My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Minister that, on the night that the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, won government, he undertook to reform the committee system of the Parliament and to create a House of Representatives committee system that would enable Opposition members to play an active role in government decisions. I ask the Minister, firstly: Is it a fact that during 1983 the present Government considered creating a new committee system but then deferred the matter until 1984? Secondly, has the Government since publicly indicated any intention or any proposal for proceeding with this matter in 1984? Thirdly, in respect of the Senate committee system, is the Minister also aware that the number of reports tabled in the Senate by the legislative and general purpose committees-the major inquiry committees of the Senate-has declined from 20 in 1978; to 16 in 1979; to eight in 1983, with only three so far in 1984? Fourthly, does he accept that the failure of Labor senators to attend Senate committee meetings or to meet during recess weeks has been a major cause of this decline in performance? Fifthly, what action will the Government take to carry out the Prime Minister's undertakings and to persuade Labor senators to moderate their factional interests in the interests of Senate committee productivity? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that proposals have been made to reform the committee system of the Parliament, in particular the committee system of the House of Representatives, and that this matter was deferred until 1984. It is my understanding that this matter is still under the consideration of the relevant Government committee. I will seek details on how far down the track that has gone and give them to Senator Missen. I accept Senator Missen's statement regarding the number of committee reports that have been brought down in recent years. I notice that they also declined in the time of the previous Government. I am unable to give the exact reason for that. It may be that the inquiries now being conducted are longer and more complicated than they were in the past. I do not accept that this has occurred because honourable senators on this side of the House will not sit at times which might be more convenient to Senator Missen. I well remember that when I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare and other committees the boot was on the other foot. In fact, it was Liberal and National Party senators who would not turn up. I understand from interjections that that is still the case. Senator Missen's final question was more in the realms of a political question. He asked what I or the Prime Minister or anyone else intended to do about the situation. I will investigate the facts as Senator Missen has put them and see whether there is any basis for the concern he has expressed. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen reports describing the establishment of cut price health insurance schemes? Is it the case that these schemes are aimed at the young and the healthy and that, as a consequence, they could force up contribution rates for pensioners covered by private health funds? What action will the Government take to prevent the growth of these schemes and the escalation of contribution rates to the reputable private health funds? Senator GRIMES —I have noted, and the Government has been concerned about, the impact of cut-rate health insurance being offered by commercial insurers on community-rated health insurance. As cut price insurance is aimed at the young, the fit and the healthy, any widespread creaming off of good risks in that way will lead inevitably to contribution rates of registered insurers being forced to a level where they could become too expensive for many who seek the coverage offered. We believe, as I remember members of the Opposition used to believe at one stage, in the community rating principle in this area. If that is disturbed and distorted in the way that it could be by providing specific health insurance for only the very fit, we will be in some difficulty. The Government will not allow this discriminatory cut-price insurance to force up contribution rates, particularly for the aged, the sick and the frail. My colleague, Dr Blewett, is at present monitoring the activities of these commercial insurers. We will legislate to control the practice of cut price insurance if it upsets the community rating principle, as it obviously could. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to the often lengthy delays in the processing of applications for permanent residency. I ask: How many applications for permanent residency from Britain and Canada have been received but either not approved or refused for a period in excess of six months? What are the reasons for the failure to process these Commonwealth applications? Can the Minister give the Senate an assurance that the delays in the processing of applications from Britain, Canada and Europe are not a part of this Government's apparently pro- Asian, anti-British and anti-European immigration policy? Senator Cook —Racist. Senator Gareth Evans —Contemptible. Senator Chipp —That is a disgusting thing to say. Senator Gareth Evans —That is contemptible, absolutely contemptible. Senator Chipp —Disgusting. A so-called Christian. How many of you Liberals support that sort of rubbish? Senator Ryan —All of them. Senator Cook —That is a disgusting question. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you going to make it a racist election? 'If you want an Asian living next door, vote Labor'. Is that to be your next slogan? You are contemptible, the lot of you! The PRESIDENT —Order! The House will come to order. I called the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I do not think I need add much to the reaction of honourable senators on both sides of this House to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's final remarks. This Government does not have a racially based immigration policy . It does not have a policy which is pro-Asian or pro anyone else. I am very surprised to hear someone who proclaims herself to be a Christian bring up that sort of attitude in this place. I can also assure Senator Bjelke-Petersen that any delays, such as they are, are not part of a Government policy of discrimination against British or Canadian migrants. I think they were the ones she mentioned. However I do not have the fine details for which the honourable senator asked. I will seek those details from the Minister and get them to Senator Bjelke-Petersen in the hope that she will not misuse and abuse them in the racist way that she has abused Question Time here today. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. My question has been prompted by the disclosure that the General Manager of the Queensland State Government Insurance Office Building Society, Mr Ashley Goldsworthy, received a loan of $121,303 at a concessional interest rate of 8 per cent. At that time the commercial lending rate was about double that figure. Is it normal for low interest loans to be part of a remuneration package for executives of banks and building societies, as Mr Goldsworthy suggests? Is the concessional part of any such loan regarded as income and taxed accordingly? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of the specific case to which Senator Colston referred. Because of that, I do not think I can really do much, other than to say that I will refer his question to the Treasurer to see what comment he has to make on it. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. As additional financial assistance to foster parents who choose to care for severely handicapped children is an entitlement that does not incur the application of the means test, why is it that departmental officers call on these wonderful people to inquire into their private financial position? Senator GRIMES —I have no idea of the circumstances about which Senator Walters is questioning me. I will certainly seek information to see whether this is happening and, if so, whether there is an explanation of why it is happening. I imagine that the only reason people would visit those who were going to foster children, be they handicapped or otherwise, would be first of all to ensure that they were capable, economically and otherwise, of doing so, and secondly, to see whether they needed any assistance. However, I will seek information for the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the Minister require the name and address of one of these couples? They opted for a severely handicapped child and then were questioned about their financial situation. Senator GRIMES —That would certainly assist me in providing the answer. I would be happy to get the answer for the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator GILES —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is there any truth in the claim that the Government is to abandon the assets test without even waiting for the Assets Test Review Panel's report? What progress has been made by the Review Panel and when will it report to the Government? Senator GIETZELT —The question of the assets test is a matter that affects not just the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It has a very strong influence in the Department of Social Security. The Prime Minister has indicated very clearly that there is no intention on the part of the Government to resile from its responsibilities to establish a pension system based upon need. The service pension section of my Department, which deals with welfare payments related specifically to the social security age and invalid pension, is part of the objectives that the Government set itself in respect of its last Budget. In appointing the Assets Test Review Panel it was and is still the Government's intention to persist with such a needs-based pension system. I have met with the Panel within the last week. I understand that a number of honourable senators and Ministers will be interviewed by the Panel. As a result of those interviews, the Panel will be formulating a report to the Government in a very short period. I am led to believe that towards the end of next week the Panel will be in a position to start making its recommendations to the Government. I am sure that it will be establishing a process under which the welfare dollar, in the sense that the service pension comes within that category , will be going to the most needy sections of the Australian people. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to a report of 3 May in which it was stated that the Federal Government is to establish a consultative body to deal with the problems of mining development on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Is the report correct? If so, what will be the responsibilities of this consultative body? Will it deal only with the problems of mining development and protection of Aboriginal interests, or will it deal also with other problem areas, such as, for example, the difficulties being experienced by the pastoral industry with Aboriginal interests now claiming stock route reserves? How many people will be appointed to this body, and what authorities or organisations will they represent? When will the Government respond to the report titled 'Seven Years On', which was prepared by the previous Northern Territory Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey? Senator RYAN —I have no knowledge of any working party proposed to investigate the question of Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. I shall refer that part of the question to the appropriate Ministers for reply. Nor do I have any knowledge about a response to Mr Justice Toohey's report. I simply reiterate what I have said here before: This Government is firmly committed to land rights for Aboriginal people, not only in the Northern Territory but throughout Australia. We hope that those land rights in other parts of Australia will be achieved in co-operation with State governments, as they are in Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia. When matters of this sort are considered, the Government takes into account the views of all interested parties. In the Northern Territory, of course, that involves the mining industry and the pastoralists, but primarily the Aboriginal owners. Senator KILGARIFF —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I remind the Minister that this was a statement made by the Prime Minister last week when, as I understand it, he was addressing the Australian Mining Industry Council, and by Senator Walsh who was indicating his concern regarding the problems of the mining industry on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The PRESIDENT —Whether the Minister regards that as a supplementary question or a statement is up to the Minister. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that general purpose goods used as aids for the handicapped are not exempt from sales tax? For example, a recent case that comes to attention involves the purchase of a micro-computer for use by a severely handicapped child at a cost of $4,800, of which $1,100 was sales tax. Can the Minister report on any review of this situation so that disabled people requiring general purpose goods may receive some consideration for exemption where there is a recognised need? Senator WALSH —I can remember variants of this question being asked a number of times before in Parliament. It is a problem that the previous Government recognised, and this Government recognises it. However, there are difficulties in resolving it. As far as I am aware there is no specific review under way on this issue, but I will seek advice from the Treasurer on that. In a sense, all tax policies and taxation rates are under review when Budgets are put together. In that very general sense, therefore, I suppose that the question will be under review within the next couple of months. But I will see whether the Treasurer has anything to add to what I have said and, if so, I will pass it on to Senator Reynolds accordingly. Senator LAJOVIC —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister noted the Dateline News Digest of Monday, 7 May, afternoon edition, today's morning edition and tonight's edition, reporting the following strikes or bans which are plaguing Australian industry: First, Port Pirie, closure of lead smelter because of the continued closure of mines at Broken Hill for more than a month. Secondly, the 20-day old waterside dispute which has brought Australian ports to a grinding halt. Thirdly, the power engineers' refusal to accept a recommendation to lift their bans on returning generators to service. Fourthly, the Builders Labourers Federation pickets who have delayed work on six new light towers at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Lastly, complete closure of the New Parliament House site if the site workers decide to stay out. What action does the Minister intend to take to settle all the aforementioned disputes? Senator Cook —Why do you not ask about the 24 per cent reduction in strikes under Labor? Senator WALSH —It is worth noting for the record-I am not sure that I heard correctly, but I think so-that Senator Cook's comment was that there has been an 82 per cent reduction in the number of industrial disputes since this Government was elected. Senator Cook —It is 24 per cent. Senator WALSH —Yes. We have failed to eliminate industrial disputes completely. I suppose that one should apologise, on behalf of the Government, to Senator Lajovic for that. I was aware of all but one of the disputes, I think, to which he referred. I will pass on the question to the Minister to see whether he has anything to add to my reply. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs whether she has seen a letter on school funding which is circulating widely and which contains the following short sentence: The Schools Commission has ignored the primary obligation of the Commonwealth to provide and maintain government schools of the highest standard. Senator Ryan —Who is the letter from? Senator PETER BAUME —It is from teachers in government schools to members of parliament. Whether or not the Minister has seen the letter, has the Commonwealth Schools Commission ignored any of its obligations, as alleged in the letter? Will the Minister reject completely this accusation made against the Commonwealth Schools Commission and its commissioners? Senator RYAN —I think it is a bit tough not only that Senator Baume and his cohorts over there have wasted the time of the Senate for about six hours on a non-event but that he also now asks whether I have seen a letter. Senator Baume, having at one time been a Minister for Education, will appreciate that Ministers for Education receive quite a lot of letters-several hundred a day, in fact. My Department advises me that the volume of correspondence has increased about four times since I have been the Minister. If Senator Baume really wants to track down my response to an individual letter, he could send me a copy of it in the normal way and I could make a response in the normal way. I cannot respond to his particular request. Then he raised the issue, which is apparently raised in this unnamed and unidentified letter, about the Schools Commission's treatment of the primary obligation of government schools. Let me make it quite clear that it is the Government which acknowledges a primary obligation to government school systems. Of course, that acknowledgement is embedded in legislation, indeed in the Schools Commission Act which Senator Baume himself had the responsibility to administer for a period and which he never sought to change, as far as I am aware, in respect of the primary obligation it sets out. So, certainly from the Government's point of view, the primary obligation of governments to government schools is a matter of legislation and will remain so. As to the report of the Schools Commission and the manner in which it responded to my invitation to address that issue, among many others, the Government is currently considering its response to the Schools Commission report. Our response to that report will be made public when I issue, on behalf of the Government, the guidelines for the funding of schools and higher education. Senator Baume is perfectly well aware of these procedures and I am not quite sure why he has raised the question at this time. We acknowledge the primary obligation of governments to government schools. That obligation is in legislation and will continue to be met by our Government. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister is quite correct to take me to task. The letter is a form letter of which many copies have been received. That is why I brought it to her attention. I ask the Minister again: Has the Commonwealth Schools Commission ignored any of its obligations in the report that it has brought down? Senator RYAN —I have no intention of anticipating the Government's formal response to the Schools Commission report by way of reply to Senator Baume, but I should say that I have a constructive and proper relationship with the Schools Commission. Senator Grimes —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —I now call on the consideration of Government papers. Senator Teague —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I was on my feet when Senator Grimes stood. We have had only half an hour of questions. It has been usual to have an hour of questions every day in the Senate while I have been here. May I ask my question? He has only requested this. I would like to ask a question. The PRESIDENT —Are there any more points of order? There is no point of order. When the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate rises he gets priority of call. There is no point of order. Senator Durack —I take a point of order in relation to this sorry episode that has just been perpetrated by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, who simply could not take it when one of his colleagues had to face a censure motion. His object obviously is to punish the Opposition for exercising its rights in this place. Mr President, I put it to you that the rights of the Opposition to ask questions cannot be terminated on the arbitrary decision of the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate in a fit of pique and that the Opposition is perfectly entitled to continue asking questions. Even though there will be no answers, which is not an altogether surprising or unusual episode, the Opposition can still continue to ask questions. Senator Grimes —Mr President, if I can just put this into perspective, I remind honourable senators that this afternoon we spent almost 4 1/2 hours debating a censure motion introduced by the Opposition. We wasted, therefore, 4 1/2 hours of Government time, or 2 1/2 hours had a matter of public importance been considered. I make a second point: Of course this has happened in the past, and Senator Durack knows that it has happened in the past. In fact, had it happened in another place there would have been no Question Time at all. Thirdly, I point out to Senator Durack that his Leader in fact asked me, 'Are you going to have a Question Time at all?', and would not have been surprised if in fact we had had no Question Time at all. I said to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) : 'Yes, we are going to have a Question Time and it will last half an hour'. Mr President, as you have ruled, for me to ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper is the practice in this place. I do not think it unreasonable, and neither does anyone else think it unreasonable, after spending 4 1/2 hours in this place on a censure motion, that Question Time should be attenuated in this way. Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. Mr PRESIDENT —On the same point of order? Senator Walters —Yes, Mr President. Senator Grimes said that this had occurred before. I ask him on what occasion it occurred before without negotiation between the two parties. My question is to you, Mr President. I ask you to tell this chamber on what occasion this has occurred before on the arbitrary decision of the Leader of the Government or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I remind the honourable senator that I am not here to answer questions. There is no point of order. It has been the practice since I have been a member of the Senate-a period of nearly 22 years-and I understand that it has been the practice of the Senate since Federation, that when the Government asks that questions be put on notice, Question Time ceases. I now call on the consideration of Government papers. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report, which appeared within the last fortnight, is a very important document laying down the advice given by the Commonwealth Schools Commission to the Federal Government in relation to the funding of government schools. This report was attacked violently by certain interests-by Mr Van Davey, by Mrs Joan Brown and by interests from the Australian Council of State School Organisations -who claimed that the commissioners of the Commonwealth Schools Commission had failed to discharge their duty. Five minutes ago in this place the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), when invited so to do, refused to endorse the action of her own commissioners or to endorse the position they had taken. I am sure that they will read the Hansard and note the lack of support they got from their Minister. This report, on which the Government has to take a position, has done a number of things. It has recommended a grant from the Commonwealth Government for every Australian school child. That is something with which the Government will have to wrestle because there are within the Government elements which do not endorse that view. Yet it is the view of the Commonwealth Schools Commission that for every school child in Australia some support from government is a right. The Commonwealth Schools Commission, which is made up of many commissioners who were appointed by the present Government, has recommended that that should be the case. Of course, there will be some argument about what the exact level of that funding may be or how it may be disbursed between different groups of schools. The report has endorsed the linking of funding to some kind of cost structure. The Commission has talked about a community standard although the exact nature of that community standard is not set out. Until we see that and until the Government responds and identifies that, we cannot say what the exact quanta recommended by the Schools Commission really mean. However, it has recommended the linking of grants to some kind of cost structure. It has recommended, of course, an increase in the number of funding groups. I will comment on that for one moment. When I was Minister for Education I was very concerned about the problems that existed at the two existing boundaries-the boundary between group 3 and group 2 schools and between group 2 and group one schools. As I recall, the previous Government was examining with the Schools Commission different kinds of grouping structures that might have allowed those boundary problems to be addressed more equitably. The present recommendations of the Schools Commission are ones which we will have to examine but until we know exactly what they are related to-what community standards they are related to, and what that is worth and what it will mean in terms of the effects of inflation or what it will mean in terms of guarantees for the future-we will not be able to comment. However, if it results in some resolution of the boundary problems between group 3 and group 2 schools and between group 2 and group one schools where there are sudden losses in real terms for small increases in real resources it may have contributed something. This report has recommended a modest real growth in the Commonwealth Government' s contribution to grants for government schools. It has recommended several options each of which would mean that government schools would receive an increase in money. The sad thing is that the present Commonwealth Government went to the people with specific promises for improving the lot of government schools but those promises have not yet been honoured. While we might argue on particular points, the total public funding mix which may result from this kind of program will remain equitable in the sense that all children will receive some grants. It is therefore of some concern to the Opposition that a campaign of enormous violence has been mounted against this report, against the commissioners and against the Commonwealth Schools Commission by certain groups which are still implacably opposed to any kind of aid for anyone in a non-government school. I refer first to the two commissioners who put in minority reports. I acknowledge their right to put in those minority reports. It is the correct thing to do if they feel that they are unable to sign the majority report. But I find their arguments to be the arguments of 20 years ago. They are resurrecting a debate which was resolved by the Australian people in the 1970s and in the resolution of which a former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, played a very honourable role. They are trying to resurrect those arguments to divide the community. Moving away from the minority reports, I think the Press statements which these people have made, the Press campaign which they have been conducting and the distortions which are going on in that campaign threaten to break down what has been a useful coalition of interests by many Australian parents in the interests of their children. I say to the Government: This report is important. I hope it is considered carefully and that a resolution is arrived at to the benefit of Australian school children. (Quorum formed) Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.46) —The Commonwealth Schools Commission's report on funding policies for Australian schools is of utmost importance to education policy decisions in the coming few months. Much of the report from this responsible body is to be welcomed by members of the Parliament and the public. I urge members of the Government to note that the principles that the Opposition has been urging on this Parliament over the last 12 months have been fully endorsed by the expert body-the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Schools Commission has endorsed the principle of there being a basic grant to every Australian school student whether in a government school or a non- government school. This report also directly endorses the principle of there being a percentage link between the per capita grants to non-government schools and the grants made available to government schools. Thirdly, this report endorses the principle of there being realistic mechanisms for the availability of Commonwealth financial support for the establishment of new non-government schools. As we have seen in the last 10 years or more, there has been a persistent trend by the public towards the kind of schooling offered in non- government schools and there needs to be a recognition of that trend and the ability of Australian families to choose the type of schooling which they wish to provide for their children. This funding policy for Australian schools recognises that realistically and provides that there be, under certain appropriate procedures, capital grants for the creation of new non-government schools. We have been urging all three major principles on the Government for months and months. I think we have done so every week since this Parliament has been sitting since 5 March. Of course, the Government was most reluctant until the public uproar occurred even to recognise what it now fully recognises as the legitimacy of the Opposition's arguments in the Parliament. So the Opposition welcomes the thorough endorsement of these three principles in this report on the funding policies for Australian schools. Whatever options are put for consideration by government, they are assuming full endorsement of those three principles. As the Opposition has said in recent weeks and will continue to say, the education policy decisions of this Government in relation to schools are one of the litmus tests for the coming election. The Australian public, the Australian electors, will be watching most intently what the Government decides to do in response to this important Schools Commission report. If there is departure from these principles along the lines of the very unwise decisions of the Government last year, as announced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), there will be public uproar again and there will certainly be constructive, serious arguments from the Opposition opposing such decisions of the Government. I urge the Government to take very seriously the decisions of the experts. Maybe my words will fall upon fertile soil in regard to the Ministers who are in the chamber because, as I understand it, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has already put those Ministers on notice that there is to be no disturbing of these delicate matters in the coming months because it is an election year. The Prime Minister has put on notice his Ministers not to rock the boat and not to go out on ideological paths that would upset the already achieved basic principles and concepts in this area of funding for schools. I welcome the basic principles of this report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. (Quorum formed) Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.53) —Madam Acting Deputy President- Senator Crowley —Let's hear it, Senator. You have got us all here; sparkle now. We are waiting for the sparkling wit and the gems. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is encouraging. Senator Crowley must in the past have had that experience and is eagerly looking forward to a repeat. I thank Senator Crowley for the implied compliment. The Senate has before it one of a number of documents presented by the Commonwealth Schools Commission in recent years. The 'Funding policies for Australian schools' document is an important one. It requires the most detailed reading, study and analysis of its various assertions and recommendations. The Commission itself has been asked to do a number of things including setting Commonwealth standards for Australian schools which is the subject of the next paper listed. Over the years the Commission has brought forward very valuable information. That information has revealed a situation in Australian schools that ought to be brought to the attention of the public by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Government. The situation is that in the past seven or eight years the Karmel targets were passed rapidly and effectively by Government schools throughout Australia, but that independent schools, particularly the 90 per cent of needy independent schools, were trailing badly. Also there is still a significant gap in resources and obviously that gap should be closed. The Schools Commission has said that repeatedly. In the face of that, members of the Teachers Federation-prompted and led by a member of the Schools Commission-have put forward misleading and false statements to the effect that the very reverse had occurred. Throughout Australia the Teachers Federation is always representing to the public that indeed the independent school system is the wealthy system and that the Government system is the poor system. I make it perfectly clear that I believe the Government system should be the very best in quality that the Government and the community can maintain. However, I relate my remarks purely to the falsity of the argument today. The fact of the matter is that day after day people are pretending to the public by paid advertisement, pamphlet and statement a situation the very reverse of what the Schools Commission is saying. I have not heard a single statement from the Minister or from any member of the Government attempting to put the truth. The fact is that it suits the Government to accept the propaganda of the Van Daveys of this world. The Government wants to gain from that propaganda, but it knows nevertheless that it is utterly false. The situation is simply, as has been known since the formation of the Schools Commission, that some 90 per cent of all independent schools have very poor resource levels. During the time of the Fraser Government those levels were lifted and, indeed I think, got to within 70 per cent of government schools. However, they have never moved to equity. It is the duty of governments in Australia to provide an adequate and comprehensive education to every student in Australia whether rich or poor, irrespective of location or choice of schools. If the Government is going to face that every time a thoroughly misleading campaign is presented to the public, the Minister has a responsibility to stand up and tell the truth. I rose simply to say that what we look forward to is hearing the Minister put to rest the type of nonsense that Mr Van Davey and the Teachers Federation are constantly putting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.58) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Commonwealth Standards for Australians Schools report is one of a series of important and well written reports which come from the Commonwealth Schools Commission with great regularity, the quality of which is a credit to the Commission, to the commissioners and the staff. I put on record my admiration for the work done by the commissioners. I say again that I am sorry that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) would not give it unequivocal support tonight in answer to my question to her. As Senator Sir John Carrick said a moment ago this report deals with the resources available to Government and non-government schools in Australia. It makes quite clear the falsity of the claims of the many people who engage in the public argument regarding school funding in Australia. The report demonstrates beyond doubt that income rich schools in Australia are Government schools. It shows beyond doubt that all Government schools in income terms are group one schools. The report demonstrates that the income poor schools are the Catholic, non-government schools. The report shows that the other independent schools, although they vary very widely, fall in between. That is the very opposite of what is put in public debate. I will just restate the facts: In terms of schools systems in Australia the income rich schools are those of the Government school system. All of these schools-as Senator Sir John Carrick says they should be-are well resourced. There are figures in a table, I think at page 9 of the report, demonstrating State by State the movement that has been made in resource availability. The report is written in terms of the Karmel targets. These were targets, determined in the early 1970s, which it was hoped all schools would reach. If a school was at the target level it was regarded as having a Karmel figure of 100. Government schools across the country, State by State, have moved from a little over or a little under 100 now to somewhere between 120 and 130, with an average of about 125. Government schools across Australia have improved their resource standards markedly and stand now at about 125. Catholic non-government schools across Australia have also improved their resources. In the period under review they have improved from about 65 to 85. The fact is that they still lag beyond government schools. They possibly lag even further than they did, but they have improved their resources during the time under study. Other non-government schools have also increased their resources, but they do not match the government schools and the resources they have. This surely is a very reassuring table. It is a table which indicates that the funding policies across Australia for schools are at about the right level. It indicates that government schools across Australia are, as they should be, receiving the bulk of public funding. It bears out the fact we all know that the 75 per cent of Australian children who are in government schools attract something like 86 per cent of all the public funds committed to schools across Australia. This is something we applaud, something which was part of our policies, but it is not something which the opponents of State aid ever let appear and which they try to confuse. This report should put away forever the false claims that are made about rich and poor schools and the false claims made that the public system is being short changed. To the extent that in this report the Commonwealth Schools Commission raises and examines options for change or options for the future, it is pointing the way and offering us choices about which governments must decide. It is now incumbent upon the Government to determine which of the choices it will take up, which of the choices it will follow, and what it will do about continuing to improve the resources of all Australian schools, particularly in the non- government sector where the need is greatest, where the lag is greatest, and where resource improvement needs to occur. The Government's response to this report will be an important part of a merging policy and an important indication of whether this Government is fair dinkum about all Australian school children and the funding of their education. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.04) —I also welcome the Commonwealth Schools Commission report on Commonwealth standards for Australian schools. I add this fresh argument only in relation to the evidence that is displayed in the report: By and large, because of the poorer standards in non-government schools, if all the parents of children in those schools were so concerned about the low resource levels that they, as is their right, decided to enrol those children in government schools, one-third would be added to the cost of government schools. There would be a net increase in government spending of about one-quarter of the present moneys committed to school education in Australia. Some parents will decide that their children should go to non-government schools, despite the lower standards that are described in this report and despite the evidence that there are fewer resources in recurrent terms and in most cases in capital terms as well in non-government schools. If that became a matter of concern to the parents and they then enrolled their children in government schools, neither the government schools nor the taxpayers could cope with the additional costs that would be required to be found for the changed enrolments. I believe the Government seeks to hide, seeks not to exhibit to the electors of Australia, the fact that to the extent that there is a move to non-government schools, there is a tax saving because of the proportion of taxpayers' funds which go on government enrolments. I would rather see a response to this differential in standards that is outlined in the report. The Government should respond to need, as the former Government responded to need, and ensure that sufficient recurrent resources are available to all Australian students alike in terms of their schooling and education needs. Why should it be that some Australians are less equal than other Australians? Where there is a differential in the standards that are clearly set out in this report before us today, the Government should respond to that need and ensure that the same opportunities are available to Australian school children whether they enrol in the government or non-government sector. Question resolved in the affirmative. (Quorum formed) Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea in 1983. I seek leave to make a statement on the report. Leave granted. Senator COATES —Half way through last year, the Parliament sent a delegation to three South Pacific countries. It was to include Tuvalu and Kiribati as well as Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, but unfortunately the travel arrangements that would have been necessary just could not be organised to enable us to include those two smaller independent countries as well. It was a great shame to discover that this was the first official parliamentary delegation to Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea since those three countries gained independence over the past 10 years or so. I think Australia should be a little guilty that it took this time before there was a visit. I suggest that there should be visits from both directions, that is, that we should receive visits from the parliaments of these Pacific nations as well as them receiving visits from us, so that there is a real two-way relationship between the parliaments involved. Unfortunately, the countries concerned cannot afford that visit. It may be that Australia should provide assistance for occasional visits from representatives of those parliaments to this country so that there is indeed a two-way relationship. When this report was tabled in the House of Representatives on Friday by the leader of the delegation, Barry Cunningham, another member of the delegation, Michael Maher, referred to the deprivation and exhaustion involved in the trip. I can assure the Senate that it was not quite as bad as that. There certainly was a very constant amount of travelling and official engagements but it was not quite the sort of deprivation that Mr Maher painted it. It was of value to all of us, expanding our knowledge of the region, proving the goodwill between Australia and those countries which see themselves very much related to Australia. They refer to themselves as being in Australia's backyard and hope that they are not forgotten because of that relationship. I assured those to whom I spoke who used that expression that Australians generally tend to favour their backyard to their frontyard and that they should be honoured because of that. But I think it still needs to be emphasised that Australia should acknowledge its relationship with its Pacific neighbours much more than is usually done. Of course, one of the big issues that continually arose was the question of aid . At about the same time the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program was visiting those countries discussing the question of our aid. I think all of us who were involved in the delegation will be very much looking forward to the Jackson report and the issues that it raises about our aid to those countries and other questions such as trade imbalance and so forth. I express my thanks to our high commissions in the three countries for the part that they played in making the trip a smooth one. I wish to thank expecially our hosts in each of the three countries where we were looked after very well indeed . I would particularly like to thank Rob Alison, deputy Usher of the Black Rod in this chamber who was Secretary to the delegation, for the efficient way in which he assisted us and for the tolerant way in which he put up with members of the Committee. I want to make two more points. When this report was tabled in the House of Representatives on Friday I notice that the Hansard running headline was ' Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea'. I suspect that Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands would not appreciate that. If that headline has to be abbreviated I suggest that it should be: 'Parliamentary Delegation to the South Pacific', because they are all separate and independent nations. My final thought in this rather hurried statement, because of the lateness of the hour, is to point out that the delegation was led by Barry Cunningham, as Deputy Government Whip. It was an unusual situation because as I understand it, it is more usual for a Minister to travel with a parliamentary delegation to act as its leader. In my opinion it was a better arrangement not to have a Minister, with all due respect to our Ministers, because it made it clearer that it was a parliamentary delegation and there was no chance of confusing it with a ministerial or government delegation. (Quorum formed) I was on the verge of completing my statement by suggesting that in future the practice of delegations being led by such people as Government whips or non-ministerial members of the Government would be preferable. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I was also a participant in this delegation to southern Pacific nations. I wish to join Senator Coates, my other colleagues in the Senate-I see that Senator Harradine is in the chamber-and my colleagues in the lower House in thanking our hosts, the governments of these three nations, for the very busy and fine trip that they organised for us. If honourable senators look at the report they will see a schedule in the back of the report setting out the itinerary. As the honourable member for Lowe, Mr Maher, has apparently said in the House of Representatives, every day we were really on our toes. I can assure honourable senators that, when one has a function late in the evening and then one gets up at 5 o'clock in the morning in order to have breakfast and get one's bags on to a plane to leave at 6.15 in order to attend in another country, or another island, a meeting at 8.30 with the premier and the officials, one is really living a hectic life. Senator Harradine —There were some casualties. Senator Grimes —You pulled up well. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Harradine has said, there were some casualties. I can assure the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, that I pulled up well. Our hosts certainly did us proud. I would like also to pay a tribute to my colleagues, the people with whom I travelled. It was an excellent team. We all got on well, notwithstanding the fact that we were probably in many different factions. Senator Coates —You can say that again. Senator LEWIS —Senator Coates has just said: 'You can say that again'. There is no doubt that we were in many factions. But I think Senator Coates will agree that we got on very well. I think it was a pity that we did not visit the two small countries that we were supposed to visit-Tuvalu and Kiribati. They were originally included in our itinerary but we were unable to organise scheduled airlines. I think it was a pity because of the south Pacific island countries, the three countries that we visited are quite wealthy. They do not see themselves as being wealthy but, in comparison with Tuvalu and Kiribati, they are wealthy. Although there is nothing like having 80 islands making up the nation of Vanuatu, nevertheless, they are islands of some area. But as I understand it, these other two countries are small coral islands with very deep waters surrounding them so they do not have bays or inlets, and have very small land areas and great distances between them. In comparison, those countries are apparently quite poor. Their future needs must be enormous. Unfortunately, the delegation did not get the opportunity to visit those countries. Each of the three countries that we visited has received independence in very recent years. Honourable senators will recall that Papua New Guinea, being the oldest country granted independence, was officially granted independence in, I think, 1974 under Prime Minister Whitlam. Those three countries still see themselves as being poor and they press for aid. On page 14 of our report there is a sentence, with which I thoroughly agree, which states: Few, one would guess, given a proper understanding, would swap what they possess for the 'benefits' of western-style development. I think that is so very true. There is no doubt that we cannot get through to them that the so-called benefits of Western style development are nothing in comparison with the lives that people in those countries are leading. Nevertheless, developments will take place. Their life style is very much rural, so called subsistence farming. That means that one works when one feels like working. If it is three half days a week, it is three half days a week and that is it. I think we could all put up with that sort of subsistence farming. They have very extended family lives. They talk about their one-talk brothers but, unfortunately, their village lifestyles are breaking down as the young people tend to want to congregate in the larger cities, mainly because there is so little available for them in the outlying villages. That is one area in which there must surely be some form of development which we can provide them with, in particular electricity generating plants of some sort that do not use oil. Those people do not want to import oil, but if we could provide them with some sort of wood-burning electricity generating plants or the expertise to build these things in their own country that would help enormously. Where they are going has to be their decision. They have moved very strongly along the lines of preserving their traditional lifestyles. They are custom owners of land, preserving the rights of people who have been living on the land for generations in those areas. Nevertheless, they recognise that if they are to achieve what many of them see are benefits from our western lifestyle there must be some exploitation. The problem is to achieve some balance between the exploitation of their land and their people in working that land, and the traditional lifestyle. I must say that at this stage they see less use for exploitation and more need to preserve their lifestyles. If that is their choice it has to be accepted by us, but I point out that they cannot on the one hand say that they want aid and on the other hand refuse to utilise their own resources to the maximum benefit for themselves. There is, as Senator Coates has mentioned, a continuing demand for aid. They are somewhat critical of the aid which we provide by way of technical services in comparison with that provided by New Zealand. I think there is room for the Government to consider this problem. We tend to send our technicians for a period of two years and then perhaps renew those appointments at the end of that time for another period of two years. This means that the people who are supposed to be trained never stand on their own two feet. So they never really learn what are the major difficulties. There is always need for an Australian technician to continue to provide aid. The New Zealanders send out a technician for six months. After six months he leaves for a period of, say, three months and the trainee then does the job by himself. He finds out all the things he really does not know. Then the New Zealand educator or experienced person goes back and is able to answer the questions the fellow found out he needed to know when he was standing on his own two feet. I presume that the reason we do not do that is that it is inconvenient to ask a technician to go to an area, work for six months, go away for six months and go back for three months. It is much easier to recruit people for a period of two years straight in one of these areas. Our assistance at present suits Australians but it does not necessarily suit the people of these areas. It is a matter we have to look at. At this stage the people in Vanuatu pay no tax to their Government. Sixty per cent of that country's revenue is provided by way of aid. The balance is provided by way of import and export duties plus an airport tax of $7 per head which raises $1.3m. I might say, there is no desire to pay taxes. There is a head tax of $25 which is collected for local government services and there is much reluctance to pay that $25. Senator Harradine —People keep their heads down. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Harradine says, people keep their heads down. There is a great deal of reluctance to pay that head tax and the local government councillors and officials who have to collect it are not very popular. Clearly, that is why the central Government has no desire to impose a tax or collect it to distribute to local government as we do, foolishly, in Australia. Another matter I feel might interest people is that Radio Vanuatu, which was built by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as it then was, and of which it is very proud, and rightly so, has a system of providing for two hours each day of personal messages. For example, if a person wants to tell his family that he will be coming home on the next Thursday he sends a personal message over Radio Vanuatu. That means that everyone in Vanuatu knows what everyone else is doing, who is going where, when the baby was born and when granny died. It really is a very interesting way of sending messages around the island. Notwithstanding the loss of privacy, it is also very uniting. The people all listen to this two hours per day. They do not have work to do and they can sit down and listen to the service. It certainly is of enormous benefit. Senator Harradine —More popular than the broadcast of this Parliament. Senator LEWIS —It is much more popular than the broadcast of this Parliament. I have just dealt with Vanuatu briefly to give the Senate an outline of the sorts of things we went through. We went into the Solomon Islands. That is a more advanced country than Vanuatu. It has been independent longer, but it has similar problems and difficulties. One of the major difficulties is the water supply. It has a very substantial ferro-cement boat building works. It is building very good fishing vessels out of cement and steel. It seems to me that, knowing Australia's expertise in building concrete tanks for the provision of water supply, ultimately some sort of ferro-cement water tank building facilities may be provided there. This is a perfect example of some of the problems which arise out of custom ownership. Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, had a magnificent water supply system established by the British some years ago on a beautiful clear stream providing fresh water to the capital city. After that water supply was developed Honiara became quite a prosperous area and the custom owners of the land adjoining the river came back to live by it. They had not lived there for 40 or 50 years but it became a desirable place for them to live so they moved back to the area. They have destroyed the water supply to Honiara so people now have to boil all drinking water and be very careful about what they drink. That is an example of the difficulty of trying to balance the rights of the customs owners in an area and the rights of the very large population which has moved into and is now living in the area. The Solomon Islands is certainly a marvellous area. Like Vanuatu, its people are not madly keen on having tourists. They like to confine them to small areas. But it is very keen on developing its own resources. Papua New Guinea is a country which is really booming by the use of its resources but one wonders what will happen as, for example, the price of copper keeps falling. It has a magnificent copper mine on Bougainville and one wonders what will happen to the enormous population now living on that island as the worldwide price of copper continues to fall and fibre optics are being used to replace copper wire. In Mount Hagen we saw some of the people who were shown greeting the Pope on television this evening. I assure honourable senators that it was most exciting to meet those people. Many of them were living in their original habitat. We met there a leader, the premier of the province, who is a person who really knows where he is going. He wanted to tell us where he is going, and did so in a very strong speech. It was an excellent tour. I thoroughly commend this report to honourable senators. It is the sort of report that they might take home and read while they are relaxing in their homes, rather than considering it in detail as a matter for argument. But all of the information and material is contained in the report, including some of the more difficult matters that we found in connection with the tour. They appear in the report, even though they may not be emphasised. (Quorum formed) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr Acting Deputy President, I will be very brief because of the time of the evening and because you have covered the situation. No doubt Senator Coates also covered the situation. I am sorry that I was not present during his contribution to the debate. This, of course, was the first delegation from the Australian Parliament to visit Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea since their independence. There had been regular visits by Ministers and Prime Ministers to these countries. There had been visits by Mr President and Mr Speaker. But this was the first official delegation from the Australian Parliament to these countries since they gained independence. They did appreciate the fact that the Parliament had decided to send a delegation. I agree with the comment made by Senator Coates that the fact a Minister did not head the delegation in no way diminished the appreciation that the countries felt. Senator Robert Ray —Did the leader of the delegation behave himself? Senator HARRADINE —The leader of the delegation did an admirable job, in my view , in his representations with the heads of government and with the various officials that we met in the countries concerned. He also performed very well in the social events in which one must participate in these delegations, including the bush dances and so on. I believe our leader performed extremely well and received the plaudits of the country people in some of those outlying places. The general opinion that I received was that Australia was viewed favourably; mainly, I think, because of the efforts of a large number of people, not least of whom were the missionaries and other people who had over many years laboured in the fields to provide education and expertise for the people of these countries to enable them to develop the skills necessary for their economy and the education and other self-help facilities that are necessary for a young democracy. In respect of particularly the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea we were also aware of the fact that over the years our Department of Foreign Affairs officials had contributed substantially to a mutual respect and understanding between Australia and those countries. I feel that in the past-I am talking about five or 10 years ago-we have lost opportunities in regard to Vanuatu. The time frame might not be exact and I do not reflect on Foreign Affairs officials who were in Vanuatu at the time; rather, the fact that I think we could have made friends amongst people who were at that time coming through the ranks in Vanuatu. Papua New Guinea was, of course, the largest country, with the greatest population, that we visited. I will not canvass the matters that were raised with us concerning aid and the provision of budgetary support to Papua New Guinea. Those matters were raised, and have been raised, with the Jackson Committee to review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. No doubt the Jackson Committee's report will be debated in this Parliament very shortly. I understand that that debate is imminent. At that time we will have to address ourselves to that very important issue. As you said, Mr Acting Deputy President, the people of the Highlands, the area which the Pope is visiting at the moment, were a most impressive people. It was interesting to note that Christianity has been accepted by the people. They do not see Christianity as being in any way in conflict with the Melanesian culture ; nor do persons, for example, in Micronesia regard Christianity as being in any way in conflict with the Micronesian culture. It is most interesting to see the studies that are currently being undertaken in an ecumenical way by a number of Christain churches into the Melanesian culture. We have a lot to learn, I believe, from the Melanesian and Micronesian cultures. You adverted to this in your remarks, Mr Acting Deputy President. One feature of the culture, of course, is its emphasis on the importance of family life and family ties. We appreciate that the one-talk system does have its burdens. But overall the people to whom we spoke regarded that as foundational to the continued prosperity, or development at least, of all of those three countries. I would like to mention that we were well catered for and looked after by the various High Commissions in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Reference has been made to the heads of missions in those countries. I would particularly like to state that the people in command in those countries, Miss Jane Craig in Vanuatu, Mr Denis Fitzgerald in the Solomon Islands and Mr Barry Welsby in Papua New Guinea were most helpful. In the opinion of all of us they were experts in their fields. If they are typical of that level of Foreign Affairs officers throughout the world, I certainly have a great deal of confidence in our Foreign Affairs Department to do the job that we in this Parliament and our nation expect it to do. Finally, I would like to share with my colleagues the vote of appreciation for our secretary who was tireless in getting us to places and making arrangements, Robert Alison did his job soberly and with great efficiency. (Quorum formed) Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to the Middle East. I ask leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The history of the Middle East contains a running commentary of conflict. The paradox of the centuries has been that while this region was one of the cradles of civilisation it has been host much longer to bitter and protracted battles among its own tribes and nations; victim of conquest and occupation by outside powers; a timeless backdrop of conflict between them and revolts against them. Few generations have known peace and too many of today's generation sow and reap in this grim familiar fashion. Lebanon is being dismembered; Israel is deeply troubled; the Palestinian people remain dispossessed, permanent casualties of the regions most intractable dispute; Syria contrives regional successes but achieves uncertain influence; Iraq reportedly poisons the battlefield with chemical weapons and Iran reportedly litters it with the violently wrecked bodies of unarmed children pressed into service as human land mine decoys. These are deeply cultivated fields of human misery. The two superpowers have profound and varied interests there but as often as not the course of events has been determined, not by the superpowers but by their clients states for whom narrow national interests are at all times uppermost. In such conditions peace is an elusive quality. Yet the late President Sadat had the courage and vision to capture it and Prime Minister Begin the inspiration and the commitment to help him keep it. In the midst of such deadly regional conflict and distrust the peace concluded between Egypt and Israel in 1979 as a result of President Sadat's bold initiative sixteen months earlier is the sort of event which sustains faith in the cause of peace against the most hostile odds. Peace conquered 30 years of hostility and suspicion and the aftermath of four wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973). Under the terms of the Peace Treaty, Israel's complete withdrawal from the Sinai, which it had occupied since 1967, and the return of that territory to Egypt, was conditional on the deployment of United Nations forces to monitor the implementation of security arrangements agreed on in the Peace Treaty. But the United Nations was unable to provide a peacekeeping force for the Sinai . Israel, Egypt and the United States then agreed to the creation of a multinational force and observer group (MFO) outside the UN framework. In November 1981 the previous Government agreed to the commitment to this force of a contingent of 99 military personnel and 8 helicopters for the Rotary Wing Aviation Unit based at El Gorah for a period of two years. That period has now expired. The Australian Labor Party expressed major reservations about Australian participation in the MFO at the time it was initially mooted. The ALP's general preference is that the commitment of Australian troops overseas in any multinational military force should be under UN sponsorship. The ALP was concerned that a multinational force sponsored by a major power-in this case the United States-might come to be perceived as an extension of the foreign policy of that power and the participants as no more than clients states of the major power. There was also some anxiousness at possible links between the MFO and the US Rapid Deployment Force, particularly as some forces in the US contingent to the MFO were drawn from an integral division of the RDF. We were worried about the physical vulnerability of the MFO and feared that it might be sucked into the vortex of some sort of regional military conflict with grave implications for international stability. The ALP also had serious reservations about the fact that while there had been progress on the Egypt/Israel settlement tracks of the Camp David process, the Palestinian issue-central to any settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute-which the Camp David Agreement also addressed, was stuck in a dead end and Israel provocatively continued its settlement program on the West Bank. Many Arab countries resentfully concluded that the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty represented a ''separate peace''. There was genuine apprehension that the security Israel gained on her southern border with Egypt according to the provisions of the peace settlement would enable her to redeploy her forces and take military action elsewhere with greater confidence. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 is sometimes invoked as justification of this view. In all of the circumstances it was proper for a new government to assess rigorously the genuinely held anxieties I have mentioned against practical experience of the peace settlement in the Sinai. It was accordingly that the Prime Minister directed that I should visit the Middle East earlier this year. In particular I was directed that I should assess the role and effectiveness of the Sinai MFO and Australia's participation in it. As well as visiting the Australian contingent at El Gorah and talking with the then Force Commander, General Bull-Hansen, I visited Egypt, Israel, Syria and Jordan where I held wide-ranging discussions. Regrettably circumstances did not permit me to visit Lebanon as I had earlier intended. I now set out my general conclusions about the MFO's operation and our participation in it. First, I found that the MFO is performing its task effectively and has contributed to stability in an otherwise turbulent region. The peace between Egypt and Israel has by no means been flawless, and there are several outstanding border issues and currently a distinct lack of warmth in bilateral relations. Incontestably however both Egypt and Israel are committed to peace and have observed the Peace Treaty. The earlier fear of conflict which might draw in the MFO, has not materialised. There has not been a single breach of the ceasefire since the MFO began operations. Monitoring by the MFO of the Treaty arrangement in the various zones in the Sinai, I am assured, guarantees that neither party can launch a surprise attack on the other. Experience has shown that the MFO as a whole, and the Australian contingent in particular, have not been the subject of any direct threat. Egypt has clearly gained advantage as a result of the peace treaty. It has regained its territory and has gained significant economic benefit. It has been able to reallocate some of its military expenditure to civilian development. Significant elements of the armed forces are being used in development programs e.g. land reclamation, road and bridge building, and housing construction. Efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in food production for the army will eventually help to ease the demand for imports in Egypt and lessen the strain on Egypt's balance of payments. There is no doubt that the security established on Israel's southern border had given it greater confidence and enabled it to redeploy its forces in other areas . I am convinced however that it was not the-or even a-pre-condition for Israel's invasion of Lebanon. It is a dubious argument-one contrary to historical experience-that Israel would not have gone into Lebanon had there been no peace with Egypt. Israel has always had to maintain a state of readiness on all fronts and is still acknowledged as having this capability. In 1967, Israel fought a war on three fronts, and likewise, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 1978 took place in the absence of the MFO. Israeli military authorities made clear to me their belief that, if it was necessary to fight a war on all fronts concurrently to defend Israel, then Israel had the capability to do so and do so successfully. I believe that to be true. It is clear that the opportunity for direct and early linkage between movement on the Egypt/Israel aspects of Camp David and on the Palestinian issue, if ever it did exist, has regrettably come and gone. It is, nevertheless, important to acknowledge that with the Egyptian/Israel accord there has been a settlement of at least one aspect of a complex problem. For its part, Egypt has restored its relations with most of the Arabs in all but the formal sense and has been exploring possibilities for an initiative on the Palestinian issue with France, Jordan and PLO Chairman Arafat. Egyptian leaders made the point to me that their peaceful relationship with Israel strengthened their position in this respect as it could open the way for negotiations on the Palestinian issue that would not otherwise be available to them. Although the United States makes a large contribution to the MFO both in manpower and financial terms, the MFO Commander-General Bull-Hansen of Norway- said emphatically that United States participation in the Force was not geared to training for an eventual RDF. He said that sort of role would require the functioning, and in particular the training, of an integrated assault unit. The United States military forces in the Sinai MFO did not meet-were not designed to meet-such criteria he assured me. The Government remains firm in its support for the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security including its peacekeeping function. It is a melancholy fact however, that in some circumstances it may not be possible for a peacekeeping force to be formed under UN auspices. In these circumstances should the cause of peace be surrendered, as an article of faith, because an alternative, no matter how demonstrably acceptable to the principal parties and provenly workable, is doctrinally unacceptable? Egyptian leaders and the MFO Force Commander stressed the importance of maintaining the multinational character of the MFO emphasising that Australia is regarded as an objective participant acceptable to both Egypt and Israel, and highly respected in the region. The Governments of both Egypt and Israel expressed great satisfaction with Australia's participation in the MFO and commended the performance of the Australian contingent. They and the MFO Secretary-General have formally asked us to renew our commitment. As for the attitude of other Arab states, I should note that, since the establishment of the MFO, there have been no repercussions on our commercial or other relations arising from our participation. Nor were any adverse comments about our participation expressed to me in my discussions in Amman and Damascus. I might add that in both capitals I initiated quite specific discussion on this matter and it was directly addressed by both sides party to each discussion. The Australian Government does not see its participation in any peacekeeping operation as being open-ended. Reviews are clearly necessary from time to time to ensure that our participation is in fact necessary. In the case of the MFO, the Government would hope that the development of a relationship of mutual trust and confidence would, in due course, enable Egypt and Israel to sustain the peace between them without its presence. During the course of my discussions with the MFO, both with General Bull-Hansen in El Gorah and with the late Director-General Leamon R. Hunt in Rome last year, I investigated the possibility of the recruitment of other national forces to replace the Australian contingent. The advice I received was that it would take a minimum of 18 months to find, and conclude negotiations and related arrangements with, a suitable replacement. In these circumstances, the Government has agreed to a limited extension of the participation of the Australian contingent in the MFO for a maximum period of two years. The purpose of this extension is to maintain stability in the MFO's area of responsibility while a replacement is found. The precise timing of Australia's withdrawal within the two year period will be the subject of further negotiation with the MFO. The Government has informed the MFO and the Governments of Israel, Egypt and the United States of its decision. I turn now to discuss briefly my impressions of the situation in the Middle East generally, focussing on three main areas of conflict-the Arab/Israel dispute, Lebanon and the Iran/Iraq war. Arab/Israel Dispute There was a hope that the example of the Camp David process in the Sinai of peaceful withdrawal from occupied territory through negotiation could be followed elsewhere, leading eventually to a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East dispute. As I mentioned earlier, there was also a hope that the other strand of the Camp David Agreement-negotiations on Palestinian autonomy-would lead towards a comprehensive settlement of Israel's legitimate security concerns and her territorial rights as well as a settlement of the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people. Sadly, this has not happened and the chances of a settlement of the long standing Arab/Israel dispute remain as elusive as ever. None of the peace proposals currently on the table are accepted by all sides as a basis for negotiation. President Reagan's initiative of September 1982, which raised hopes of starting a negotiating process, foundered because of the breakdown of efforts by King Hussein and PLO leader Yasser Arafat to reach a joint negotiating position on it and the Israeli Government's rejection of it. For most of last year the issue of the future of the West Bank and Gaza and the rights of the Palestinian people was submerged beneath the welter of preoccupation with the blood-drenched quagmire in Lebanon. Earlier this year, optimism was aroused by Jordanian and Egyptian efforts, supported by previously hard-line Iraq, to form an alliance of moderate Arabs and to include PLO Chief Yasser Arafat, which would work out a plan for movement towards a negotiated settlement with Israel. This was dampened by the apparent reluctance of Arafat to take any early initiatives and more recently by King Hussein's expressed loss of confidence in the ability of the United States to act as a mediator to the Arab/Israel dispute because of what he declared to be its one-sided support for Israel. Thus prospects for any significant movement towards a settlement remain dim. The continued refusal of the PLO and Arab states (except Egypt) to recognise explicitly Israel's right to exist is one major obstacle which continues to raise doubts in the minds of Israelis about the security of their country. Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its refusal to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people is another obstacle, reinforcing Arab suspicions about Israel's intentions on the West Bank. In particular, the ideological conviction of some influential members of the Israeli government that the West Bank is an integral part of ''Eretz Israel''- the biblical land of Israel-and the declared goal of increasing the Jewish population there from its present number of 25-30,000 to 100,000 in the next two to four years through its settlement program has been discouraging for many influential Arab moderates. West Bank Palestinian leaders of a more pragmatic mould-for whom the settlement policy is an immediate and visual issue-have urged recognition of Israel and the opening of direct negotiations with her before the incorporation of the West Bank with Israel becomes so complete as to leave nothing to negotiate about. This view-which I heard put most convincingly from several West Bank leaders during my visit-was expressed persuasively by Mayor Freij of Bethlehem on his recent visit to Australia. As a country distant from the Middle East it would be inappropriate for Australia to issue prescriptions for a solution to the Middle East dispute. Nevertheless, there are principles which guide our policy towards this dispute. Fundamental is our recognition of the need to achieve a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement; our commitment to the security of Israel and its right to live within secure and recognised boundaries, and our recognition of the central importance of the Palestinian issue for any settlement. The Government believes that there are a number of elements involved in achieving a settlement. The Arabs should follow Egypt's example and negotiate with Israel directly. They should extend formal recognition to the State of Israel. Israel, for its part, should withdraw from the occupied territories in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which she herself accepts. We must also recognise that the future of Israel cannot be considered without also considering the fate of the Palestinian people. The Australian Government acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right, if they so choose, to independence and the possibility of their own independent state. While the Government maintains its refusal to recognise the PLO so long as it maintains its denial of Israel's right to exist, the Government also believes that, as the PLO represents a significant portion of the Palestinian people, it should be included in the process of seeking a comprehensive settlement. But its opportunity to engage productively in that process will be severely limited while it persists in denying Israel's right to exist. The Government calls on Israel to freeze its settlement program on the West Bank as it considers these settlements illegal and a significant obstacle to peace efforts. There is a tendency among Westerners, distant from the problem, to demand instant solutions. I am under no illusion that a solution to the Arab-Israel dispute can be attained quickly-there is no ''quick fix'' in the Middle East. There are generations of fears and suspicions to be overcome. The only way progress has come in the past and will come in the future, is through a process of direct negotiations between the principal parties to the dispute and a willingness to compromise on all sides. My final observation on the Arab-Israel dispute is the need to involve all relevant parties in the peace process. Syria has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it can act as a ''spoiler '' of arrangements that exclude it. Syria wants a clear role in any comprehensive settlement-after all, part of its territory is in question-and will seek to ensure that no moves on the Palestinian issue which do not have its concurrence are successful. So far, Syria has argued that an Arab strategic balance with Israel is a necessary precondition for negotiations that may lead to a settlement. Syria is sometimes characterised as simply an agent of the Soviet Union. This is an inaccurate perception, despite the unprecedented degree of Soviet involvement in Syria's defence program. Syria is a strong-willed state, led by a Syrian nationalist who uses, much more than he allows himself to be used by, his state's superpower patron. President Assad manages this relationship on this basis in spite of the critical importance of Soviet support with military equipment, training and specialist skills. Lebanon Over the last year, the Lebanon crisis has overshadowed events in the Middle East and has been a major focus of American foreign policy. For all parties involved, except Syria, Lebanon has proved to be a tragedy. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was to be a quick and successful operation , designed to provide long term security for Northern Israel, cauterize the PLO contagion in Lebanon and bolster a friendly Government there. Few would believe that these aims have been achieved. The invasion has proved to be an engagement which has yielded no lasting dividend for Israel. Lebanon collapsed into continuing civil war, the Gemayel Government eventually deferred to Syria, not Israel, and Yasser Arafat remains the leader of the PLO. For Israel with its army mired in Southern Lebanon, the cost in human lives lost in conflict has been high. In comparative terms, Israel has lost lives at the front at five times the rate per annum at which United States troops were killed in action in Vietnam. The harrowing and troubling impact that experience makes on a society like that of Israel which deeply cares about its people takes little imagining. The United States unsuccessfully sought an honourable peace. Tragically, Lebanon has had no peace to offer. Confessional differences were inflamed as the country Balkanised itself along age old lines of religious hostilities. The best that one can forecast at this stage is that the prospects for a lasting settlement are uncertain. What one can say with certainty is that just as it would be a tragedy to witness Lebanon permanently partitioned according to confessional lines, the cause of national reconciliation will not be well served by demands for power sharing according to demographic claims based on outmoded and irrelevant facts. Syria emerged as a clear winner-at least in the short term-witnessing the abrogation of the Israel-Lebanon Agreement, the withdrawal of the MNF, and a dominant role in Lebanon. However, Syria has yet to show it can produce a long-term solution for the problem of Lebanon. The Australian Government deplores the continuation of conflict and division within Lebanon. We continue to urge the withdrawal of foreign forces and the return of sanity and order. We call on the various militias to lay down their arms and enter into negotiations so that the independence, sovereignty and unity of Lebanon may be re-established. Iran/Iraq War Australia has important commercial relationships with both Iran and Iraq. Iran displays remarkable resilience in spite of the strains of revolution and now of war. Iraq had undertaken conscientious efforts to modernise its society. Both are ground down and denied the opportunity of achieving many of their domestic goals, because of the burden of prolonged and bitter conflict between them. The Iran-Iraq war drags on into its fourth year with little prospect of resolution or of a decisive victory by either party. Despite the efforts of international mediators, Iran has continued to insist on preconditions to negotiations which include not only the return of all territory it has lost, but also the trial of Saddam Hussein as a war criminal and payment of massive repatriations. Iraq has agreed to resolve its differences with Iran peacefully, but rejects Iran's preconditions. The debilitating economic effects of the war and a desire to generate increased international pressure on Iran to find a settlement has led Iraq to threaten to destroy Iranian export facilities and shipping carrying Iranian oil in the Gulf. In response, Iranian spokesmen have threatened to stop all oil exports from the Gulf if their infrastructure is substantially destroyed. Iraq has the capacity to disrupt seriously, if not cut off altogether Iran's oil exports, almost all of which are shipped from Kharg Island. In the absence of signs of imminent military and economic collapse in Iraq it seems unlikely at present that it will run the considerable risk of military escalation that a concerted attack on Kharg Island would bring. Iran, for its part, seems unlikely to try to close the Straits of Hormuz unless Iraq stops all Iran's oil exports first. Even then, the technical difficulty of closing the Straits and the certainty of a vigorous US military response, make it unlikely that Iran would sustain this action for any length of time. The Government has examined the implications of a temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz for Australia's oil supply and concluded that our energy supplies would not be seriously affected if the Strait was closed for a short time. The Australian Government is appalled by the great loss of life and human suffering which have resulted from this prolonged conflict. We reiterate our calls to both parties to agree upon a ceasefire and to start negotiations to resolve their differences. The Superpowers Intruding into this complex of regional problems and tensions which I have described is rivalry between the superpowers. For both the United States and the Soviet Union, the Middle East has long been a focus of attention. The United States is compelled by strategic interests including the Western reliance on Gulf oil as well as localised but influential domestic pressures to maintain a close interest in developments in the Middle East. Because of the geographical proximity of the region, the Soviet Union regards the Middle East as an area of security importance. It sees the region as fertile ground for fostering anti-Western regimes and movements. As a superpower, the Soviet Union also considers that it has a role to play in the resolution of major problems in the region. Many regional states consider that the superpowers look at the region primarily in terms of East-West competition and have criticised this attitude. Both superpowers have clients in the region but as I mentioned earlier, in many situations they have proved unable to control those clients or to control events in the region generally. Hitherto the United States has been the major external power able to influence the course of events in the Middle East. Soviet attempts to gain influence in the region have met with particularly limited success. The Arab-Israel dispute provides the Soviet Union with its main point of leverage, though it also exposes the limits of Soviet power and influence. Syria has indicated that it does not see any negotiations towards a peace process taking place without the USSR, and most Arab states now express support for Soviet participation. At present this does not appear to be a realistic proposition. Both Israel and the United States, major parties to any settlement, are opposed to Soviet involvement in negotiations, or to the convening of an international conference. If these circumstances were to change and the Soviet Union showed itself to be prepared to play a positive and constructive role in a settlement Australia could then see grounds for its involvement. The picture I have painted of the Middle East is a grim one. But there is another side. The Middle East is also a region of tremendous vigour. Traditional Arab monarchies have launched themselves into the 20th century; Middle Eastern societies have met the challenge of modernity and have prospered; States have joined together in pursuit of common goals-the Gulf Cooperation Council is perhaps the most outstanding example, seemingly intractable differences have been breached as evidenced in the Egypt-Israel peace settlement . A resolution of the conflicts I have described at present seems elusive. Solutions will not be found either easily or quickly. If they are to be produced, they will require moral courage, generosity of spirit and greatness of vision on all sides. Most of all they will require a willingness to talk and compromise. That represents a daunting list of qualities and conditions difficult to mobilise in less hostile circumstances prevailing elsewhere. An extraordinarily difficult task in the circumstances that prevail in the Middle East. Over the years, Australia's interests in the region have developed. We have large and well-established communities of Middle East origin or connections. We have built strong commercial relationships with many Middle Eastern countries. Our involvement in various peacekeeping exercises in the region has raised our political profile. On my recent visit I found that Australia is generally respected and regarded as an impartial and sympathetic observer of events. As a middle ranking power, fairly remote from the region, we do not over- estimate the role we can play in bringing about solutions to these conflicts. Within these limits, however, we will do what we can to encourage progress. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. (Quorum formed) Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.47) —The statement we are considering is concerned with the Middle East, particularly the continued participation of the Australian contingent to the Sinai force. The Australian Democrats have not materially changed our view that participation of our 99 men and eight helicopters in the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers is not in the best interest of Australia. I say that not in any spirit of washing our hands of the very serious implications to the world of the Middle East situation; far from it . We understand that. Rather, our view relates to the nature of the Force itself , especially the fact that it is not a United Nations force but one which represents, one might say, only one side of the zonal influences. I also freely acknowledge that our forces in the Sinai have done a good job of work in trying and difficult circumstances and I do not want to have any equivocation of our view on that. The fact is that this operation has never been one about which the Australian people felt happy. Is it important? Is it really important that the view of the people of this country should count in a decision of this kind? I think it is because in the event of war, and war is the ultimate risk when we engage in any kind of foreign adventure of this kind, the people as a whole are involved. I think it is very much to the point to consider what they think. If we look back to 1981, when this whole matter first surfaced and the Fraser Government got us involved in the peacekeeping force, we see that the Australian people very definitely did not want it. In fact, a poll conducted by the Melbourne Age on 21 September 1981 showed that 72 per cent of Australians were opposed to sending troops to the Sinai. I suggest that that was a very sensible and protective attitude on the part of the Australian people who I think since the days of Vietnam have tended to look with great care at the degree of involvement in which we place ourselves in these foreign countries. As in Vietnam, the conduct of events is not in our own hands. We have with this Force, as with all such forces, surely given out hostages to fortune. It has been our good luck so far to have got away with that. But that does not necessarily mean that we will continue to get away with it, nor does it mean that in future we will get away with similar adventures with the same impunity. That vote by nearly three-quarters of the Australian people I believe has been maintained. I think that the Australian people intelligently do not want this kind of involvement and that whatever reasons we have for being in the Force were not good reasons. This Sinai decision has always had possibly tragic consequences for the future. It is certainly always ominous because of the precedent it may make for the future. That is one of the points to which I want to address myself. Every time we do something like that it is easier to do something like that again. That is not good. What is the basic objection we have to the continuance of the Sinai Force? It is something that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) dealt with in his statement. It is something about which we expressed some concern some years ago. It is that the Soviet Union could use the Sinai Force as a precedent for sending its own multinational so-called peacekeeping forces to distant and troubled spots. Presumably, that is something that the United States of America, Australia and every other part of the free world would certainly deplore. Yet of course the point is that we are creating the precedent in this matter. It is possible to foresee a situation in which the zonal or so-called peacekeeping forces on both sides roam the trouble spots of the world. What better combination for trouble and war could we get than that? That then is the hidden trap of this matter, that merely by contributing to an American sponsored force with the best will in the world, and I am not canvassing the American position at all, we are creating a precedent for the Soviet Union to say: 'If it is good enough for the Americans to do it, it is good enough for us'. The Soviet Union will then feel that it is free to go ahead and send forces to trouble spots such as Angola and Nicaragua and have them involved in much the same way as our forces are involved in Sinai-in other words , on one side of the coin. Is it a fair comment to say that we are pushing the American point of view? I need go back only to the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, who made this point quite closely at the time he made the original statement that we would be sending the Force. On page 9 of that statement he said: The failure of Australia and other Western countries to participate would require the United States to bear the burden itself and would be seen as a failure by the West to support United States policies in the Middle East. If that is not a clear enough statement of intent, I do not know where we would find one. It is not at this time our place to debate, although we might do so extensively , whether the United States policies are justifiable or wise. That is a matter for the United States and its Congress and for the President of the United States to decide. But we, after all, are Australians, and it is up to us to decide how we should be involved. How far would we go to support United States policies? I say these words now not to the Fraser Government but to the Labor Government. We have a Labor Government now which has taken a serious step in continuing with this policy. I do not believe that in his long and rambling statement, which covers many areas, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has given any compelling or rational reason for us to go on with this. I ask the Government: Would we go on to a limited nuclear war, the one that President Reagan has canvassed from time to time? Would we go on to a Korean-type war, as happened before? Would we go on to a Vietnam-type war, with a task force in some part of the Middle East to fight for the oil pipelines? The Australian Democrats wish to bring to the Government's attention the fact that this is the sort of implication the Government has wished on itself, whether it likes it or not, by going ahead with this decision and by sanctioning for up to another two years the participation of Australians again in the Sinai Force. In the light of these overtones, the Government has something to answer for now and every reason to stick to its undertaking to get this Force out of the Middle East as soon as it can. This is said to be within the next two years, which the Democrats suggest is not good enough. The reasons for us being in that Force no longer exist. The fact that it has been there for two years and that there have not been any incidents and the fact that those concerned could get along perfectly well without us are good reasons for us being out of something which is not within our area of concern, basically. It is not in our geographical region and we have no historic or philosophical reason to be there at all. If the Government cannot do its thinking better than it has it is time that it rethought it a little more extensively. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.52) —I should like to deal with only one element of the report-the retention of the Sinai Force. I have a great sympathy for the Government in the position that it is in. I support its decision to retain the Sinai Force. I dissociate myself and the Liberal Party of Australia from the insular position of the Australian Democrats on this matter. The Multinational Force and Observers, which has a small component of under 100 Australians in it, is one of the great successes of Australia in foreign relations in recent years. They are essential there as umpires. They are not a peacekeeping force in any sense of the term, because they are very lightly armed , with only sidearms, and they would be flat out looking after themselves if any trouble occurred. There is no point at this stage in going through a dissertation on Middle East politics or Israel's strategy. In a simple sense, one of the problems, and one of the reasons for continuing instability in the Middle East, is the very small physical size of the state of Israel. It is surrounded by hostile Arab nations- Syria in the north and Iraq beyond that; Jordan to the east; and Egypt to the south. Beyond that there are the second line Arab relationships, with Libya and the Saudi Arabian countries, going right out to Morocco and Tunisia. The Camp David Accord neutralised one-third of the sources of friction and instability in that area with respect to the Israeli borders. It was a landmark in international affairs. There has been peace since the Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel. One of the very minor contributions that some nations have been able to make to peace in that area is the Multinational Force to go in as umpires while the Israelis withdrew from the Sinai, and to be seen to be impartial. The Australian force, and indeed the whole of the Multinational Force there, is seen and respected by both the Israelis and the Egyptians in the role that they perform there as umpires. The Australian force has earned itself an enviable record, as our armed servicemen have always done in overseas postings. Their operations there have been exemplary. I said at the outset that I sympathise with the Government in this matter because it has to suffer the slings and arrows of ill-informed comment, as we heard in this chamber about five minutes ago. There is also another serious defence problem here. We have eight or 11 of our utility helicopters as the vehicles for that Force. That is nearly a third or a quarter of the utility helicopters we have in this country. That is a very high price for the Department of Defence to pay because, particularly with Army training, we do not have the resources for our own training in Australia. So, in a sense, the defence of Australia has been diminished by the contribution we have made to that Force. I appreciate very much the difficulty in which the Government finds itself on this matter. I welcome the fact that it has had the courage to stand up to its critics and do the right thing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.58) —by leave-I move: That leave be granted to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to meet during sittings of the Senate in May 1984. This motion is necessary because the reference from the-(Quorum formed). I wish that Senator Walters had better things to do with her time than call quorums continually. The reason for the motion is the reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. It was referred by the Opposition, with the deadline for us to report back being 31 May. The only way in which we shall be able to do that is to sit while the Senate is sitting this week and in the sitting week after the recess. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.59) —As I have done on every occasion on which this type of motion has come before the chamber, I oppose any committee sitting while the Senate is meeting. Senator Coates —What do you propose we do when we have an impossible deadline? Senator HARRADINE —That is for the proposers of the motion. I did not propose that motion. I understood that the Government supported the motion. Senator Coates —No, the Government opposed the motion. There was no division, but we opposed it. Senator Robert Ray —We voted 'No'. The time of the day was the only reason we did not divide. Senator HARRADINE —Be that as it may; I do not know. I did not propose the motion. I had another view, which I expressed previously, as to what ought to be done with it. But I will not debate the merits of that. I just make the point that, in the time it is suggested that the Committee meet, there will be before the Senate contentious matters which must surely be of vital importance to the nation. Let me give some examples: The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. It is most likely that the debate on those regulations and that ordinance will proceed at a time when the Committee wants to consider its business. Very grave matters of conscience are raised in those regulations. They deal with the move by the Government to remove from Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation of hard core pornography and of publications which incite the use of hard drugs, and a whole lot of other issues. Information will be brought before the Sentate on this question. As I say, it is not really a party question but a question which crosses party lines and about which honourable senators will make up their minds according to their own information on the subject. Although I do not have it, a document has been prepared with the legislation that is to come forward-- Senator Coates —Let us get on with it then. Senator HARRADINE —I hope the honourable senator understands the point I am trying to make. I thought that there was general concern about committees meeting when the Senate meets. I understand Senator Coates's problem, but I did not make the problem for him; somebody else made the problem for him. I just register the point. I think the last occasion on which we discussed this point was when the Joint Committee of Public Accounts sought to meet during sitting hours. My memory is bad and I cannot recall what we did on that occasion. We did not give the Committee permission to meet, but I think it met in any event. I make the point that it is a bad precedent. I oppose the motion. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.03) —Just for the record, this reference was given by the Senate with one of the tightest deadlines ever inasmuch as the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has to report back by 31 May. The reference was moved on Thursday or Friday of last week. What are we effectively seeking to do to meet that deadline? First of all, I suppose we have to advertise that we are looking at the matter. I doubt whether that is even under way. We have a meeting tomorrow morning when we will probably authorise that. If we are to meet that deadline we really have to ask to meet on three days-29, 30 and 31 May-or probably the first two of those days. I guess the only reason for meeting on the 31st will be to ask for an extension of time. Senator Jack Evans —No extensions will be granted. Senator ROBERT RAY —No extensions will be granted, I am informed by Senator Jack Evans. That means that we simply have to meet in that period. I do not mind meeting tomorrow. We will have the hearing tomorrow, but we will not have any witnesses or any reasonable hearing. That is the first point. The second point to be made is this. Senator Harradine said that some contentious issues are coming up in the next few weeks. What is contentious is in the eye of the beholder; nevertheless, he can rest assured that we will keep an eye on those issues. We are not suggesting that we will sit hour after hour and not take any notice of what is happening in here. As Senator Harradine knows, we in the Labor Party get informed by our colleagues about how a debate is going at a particular point of time. Finally, today a disgraceful question was asked here by a certain Liberal senator who accused some of us by generalisation of not pulling our weight in the Senate committee system because the little fancy reports are not coming out. Yet here an Australian Democrat, three Labor senators and two Liberal senators are proposing not only to carry out our normal senatorial duties but also to have this inquiry to enable us to bring in a report to this place. The only way we can do that is by meeting on sitting days. We would rather not do that. It is wrong in principle to meet on sitting days. But it is wrong of the Opposition to keep on referring material to committees, especially to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which seems to be the victim in this place; it cops everything. Yet we are supposed to report back to the Senate when we cannot meet. I acknowledge that part of Senator Harradine's criticisms is quite valid. We really have two bad choices. What we are saying is that we think that is the lesser of the two bad choices. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. (Quorum formed) Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I present the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1984-85. This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling $1,711.8m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 November 1984. The amount sought is $713m, or about 71.4 per cent, greater than provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1983-84. The main factors in this large increase are: $ 308m in payments to the States and the Northern Territory under agreements entered into under Medicare whereby from 1 February 1984 the Commonwealth will compensate the States and the Northern Territory for revenue losses and additional costs associated with the removal of in-patient and out-patient fees in public hospitals; $70m in payments to the States and the Northern Territory reflecting the 1983-84 Budget decision to increase funds available for housing; and $278m for the Commonwealth employment program, expenditure for which in 1983 -84 was provided for under a one-time special appropriation under the Community Employment Act. Excluding these very large amounts the increase is only $57m or 5.7 per cent. Certain new provisions in respect of which Government decisions have been taken have been separately itemised in the Bill in accordance with convention. These include, in line with the Government's announced intentions, assistance to the steel regions, totalling $9.3m, and $6.5m for bicentennial commemorative projects. As indicated with respect to the Supply Bill (No. 1), the provisions in this Bill do not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1984-85 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I present the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85. This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditure by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1984 to 30 November 1984. The appropriations sought total some $17.2m, which is $3.2m or about 22.9 per cent greater than the amount provided for the same functions in the supply period 1983-84. This reflects, in large part, increased staffing approvals and salary and other cost increases. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is twofold: First, and as a consequence of the Government's decision to provide departments with more flexibility in financial management, to enable the Minister for Finance to exercise a degree of discretion over expenditures to ensure that the greater flexibility so afforded to departmental heads is translated, as far as possible, into more effective and efficient management; and, secondly, to effect minor amendments to the Act in relation to the provisions related to the appointment of the Auditor-General, act of grace payments, audit fees and some machinery matters. In connection with the primary purpose of the Bill, in December 1983, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) advised the Joint Committee of Public Accounts , the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and each Senate Estimates committee of the Government's proposals to consolidate certain administrative appropriations from 1984-85 to permit improved and more flexible financial administration by departments. Those proposals were amplified in the paper the Minister for Finance issued on 16 April 1984 entitled 'Budget Reform' and I draw honourable senators' attention to chapter 5-'Financial Management of Government Programs'-of that paper. In keeping with the intentions the Minister for Finance has foreshadowed, it is proposed that Schedule 2 of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 will show, for each department, consolidated appropriations for each of 'Salaries and payments in the nature of Salary' and 'Administrative Expenses'-that is, as a general rule, at the appropriation sub-division level-rather than the sometimes quite fine detail of proposed expenditures by item that has previously appeared. To enable the continued effective parliamentary scrutiny of departmental estimates, information provided to the Estimates committees on these consolidated votes will, for the time being, continue in essentially the same form and at the same level of itemised detail as in explanatory notes previously provided. However, as indicated in paragraph 3.18 of 'Budget Reform', the Government proposes consultations to improve the basis for parliamentary scrutiny of the Estimates, particularly through the provision of more program- oriented information. The springboard for consolidating appropriations is the Labor Party's policy document on 'Labor and Quality of Government'; the impetus for reforms of this kind, however, has come from such authorities as the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on 'Parliament and Public Expenditure' and the Reid report on the Review of Commonwealth Administration. The move towards greater consolidation of certain appropriations, bringing with it the capacity for departments to respond more effectively to an environment which is constantly affecting spending priorities, particularly in the area of administration, is an important step towards the goal of departments assuming greater responsibility in their financial management. The Government recognises, however, that this enhanced flexibility will have an impact, if only initially, on the way in which departments have traditionally managed their administrative resources and it is important to ensure that this is translated into more effective and more efficient management. It would, therefore, be sensible to retain, particularly during the transitional stages, the ordinary scope for monitoring the extent to which departments may reallocate expenditure within the consolidated amounts appropriated by Parliament. Thus, it is envisaged that such expenditure reallocations should be subject to the agreement of the Minister for Finance or his delegates. To this end, minor amendments to the Audit Act are necessary. These amendments, which are set out in clause 8 of the Bill, will empower the Minister for Finance to direct that the consolidated amounts approved by Parliament be divided into items of expenditure-termed notional items-that accord with the previously agreed estimates; and to approve the reallocation of expenditure between notional items within a sub-division of the Appropriation Act. This process will not, of course, permit the amounts appropriated by Parliament to be varied. Moreover, the power to direct notional items will be exercised only to the extent and for the period necessary for departments to adjust effectively and efficiently to the new appropriations. I turn now to the other amendments before the Senate. The first, being those at clauses 3 to 6 and clause 15, relate to the appointment of the Auditor-General and associated matters. They bring the legislation into line with current appointment practices and drafting policy. The second noteworthy inclusion in these other amendments is that at clause 9, which will permit the attachment of conditions to payments made under section 34A of the Act. Section 34A of the Act deals with act of grace payments, being discretionary payments which may be made by the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the absence of any legal obligation to do so. For example, under the terms of a social welfare enactment, a person's particular circumstances may not qualify him or her for the receipt of benefits, despite the underlying intentions of the statute. In such circumstances, an act of grace payment, or payments, may be considered justified, pending amendment of the enactment. The Commonwealth has been advised, however, that in such a case if a person had received dual benefits-that is, as an act of grace payment and subsequently in accordance with a new statutory entitlement that, say, had retrospective effect-no power exists to recover the amount of the act of grace payment. Thus, it is proposed that section 34A of the Act be amended to permit the attaching of conditions to such payments, including a condition of repayment where appropriate. In the event of default by the recipient, the Commonwealth will be empowered to recover the payment by court action, if necessary. The remaining clauses of the Bill encompass amendments of a minor nature that would otherwise have been included in a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. These clauses are intended to clarify the provisions relating to the transfer of certain moneys from the credit of the Trust Fund, the levying of fees for certain audits conducted by the Auditor-General and definition of ' approved bank' in relation to statutory authorities' operations; to give recognition to the power to recover by instalments amounts owing to the Commonwealth; and to increase to present day values certain amounts struck in 1979 and specified in the Act in relation to act of grace payments and waiver of debts. The financial impact of the proposals reflected in this Bill is indirect and not easily quantified. The initial control procedures which are being proposed to apply in the context of consolidated appropriations are not intended to be an end in themselves. Rather, they are to assist and encourage departments to quickly establish the necessary degree of financial management capability to operate within that changed appropriation format. The Government believes that the consolidation of appropriations, especially for departmental administrative expenditures, will promote efficiency and effectiveness in the management and delivery of programs by overcoming the somewhat cumbersome procedures hitherto required to redirect expenditure from one item to another. The new arrangements will also allow departments to respond more rapidly to changing circumstances and priorities during the course of the year. The achievement of these benefits will be accelerated by establishing, from the outset, soundly based control mechanisms that can, progressively, be developed on departments to administer themselves. The provisions relating to the appointment of the Auditor-General have no financial implications. The financial impact of the remaining provisions of the Bill should, in practice, prove relatively insignificant. They are primarily supplementary controls included in a piece of legislation-the Audit Act-that is, itself, a controlling statute. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Sentor Kilgariff) adjourned. Senate adjourned at 10.12 p.m. The following paper was presented: Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determinations authorised under section 106AA. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 677) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: (1) How many cases of leprosy were notified in Australia in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. (2) How many of these cases involved Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander sufferers. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) New cases of leprosy reported Australia-wide 1980-1983 State or Territory 1980 1981 1982 1983 New South Wales 10 12 12 14 Victoria 8 4 3 9 Queensland 5 7 12 15 South Australia 1 2 1 4 Western Australia 9 9 23 16 Tasmania . . . . . . 1 Northern Territory 7 17 12 2 Australian Capital Territory . . . . . . 2 Australia 40 51 63 63 (2) New cases of leprosy reported in Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals 1980-83 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Non-Aboriginals State or Territory 1980 1981 1982 1983 1980 1981 1982 1983 New South Wales . . . . 1 . . 10 12 11 14 Victoria . . . . . . . . 8 4 3 9 Queensland 2 5 3 9 3 2 9 6 South Australia . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 4 Western Australia 6 7 9 14 3 2 14 2 Tasmania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Northern Territory 6 9 4 2 1 8 8 . . Australian Capital Territory . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 1 Australia 14 21 17 26 26 30 46 37 The statistics above have been collated and confirmed by the Aboriginal Health Branch of the Department of Health. The numbers of cases exceed those published in the statistics of notifiable diseases. Medical practitioners are required to notify to State Health authorities all new cases of leprosy which come to their attention. The cases notified to the Aboriginal Health Branch include cases reported by health professionals other than medical practitioners. (Question No. 724) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Does the Government believe it has an accurate assessment of the current situation in East Timor resulting from the Indonesian offensive which began in the wake of the visit of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation in July-August 1983, in the light of the Minister for Defence's acknowledgement of receiving regular briefings from the Department of Defence on developments of interest in Australia's neighbourhood. (2) Is the Government aware of the report broadcast on Radio Australia on 7 December 1983 that Governor Carrascalao had called for the restoration of order in the province and asserted that as a result of recent upheavals more than one quarter of the population were in serious need of attention from government agencies. (3) Is the report in accordance with the Government's assessment of the situation in East Timor. (4) Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the restrictions imposed on International Red Cross operations in East Timor by the Indonesian Government, and detailed by the Australian Government in recent months, are still in force, in light of the statement by Governor Carrascalao; if so, has the Government made approaches to the Indonesian Government seeking the immediate lifting of all such restrictions; if not, when will it do so. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable senator to the reply given to him on 2 March in response to his question No. 635. (Hansard page 345). (4) The Foreign Minister has advised that, as a major contributor to the International Committee of the Red Cross operations in East Timor, the Government was concerned by the restrictions placed on relief activities on the main island in 1983 and made its concern known to the Indonesian authorities. Following discussions concluded in February between the ICRC and the Indonesian authorities the following undertstanding has now been reached on ICRC operations on the main island: ICRC representatives are permitted to visit detention centres in Dili. Visits to detention centres outside Dili are being extended in agreed stages up to October 1984. ICRC relief and aid activities on the main island will be carried out by the Indonesian Red Cross and the Provincial Government of East Timor. the ICRC will continue to be responsible for tracing but implementation will be channelled through the Indonesian Red Cross. the Indonesian Red Cross will be responsible for mailing procedures but the ICRC will assist and have access to all aspects of the programme. The ICRC's food and medical programme on Atauro Island has continued uninterrupted. (Question No. 754) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: Is soil erosion and soil deterioration exceeding the creation of new soil and soil regeneration in the Australian wheat lands; if so, is the problem serious, and what steps are being taken to overcome the loss at a Federal level. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Formation of most Australian soils has taken many thousand years. Rates of degradation and soil loss presently exceed acceptable levels over much of Australia's wheatlands. The Government considers land degradation to be one of the most important long-term problems facing agricultural production in this country. In recognition of the magnitude of the problem and the importance of our soil resources, the Government has initiated a national soil conservation program. The program has been established in co-operation with the States and has as its aim the development and implementation of national policies for the restoration and maintenance of the nation's soil resources. (Question No. 792) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: Why was the 'Australia: Current Report' issued by the Australian Information Service in June 1983 published containing the following false statements: (a) that there was a population estimate of 19 million Red, Eastern Grey and Western Grey Kangaroos in 1981 when Professor Ovington has estimated the population in fact as 10 to 12 million; (b) that during good years kangaroos increase rapidly in numbers; (c) that the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 was soon to be proclaimed; and (d) that the partly skinned live kangaroo shown in the film Goodbye Joey was ' probably the victim of a dog attack' when there is no evidence to support such an allegation. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The 'Australia: Current Report' issued by the Australian Information Service in June 1983 does not contain false statements. (a) The estimated population of 19 million Red, Eastern Grey and Western Grey Kangaroos in 1981 is taken from a paper written by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and University of Sydney scientists and published in 1983. Professor Ovington has not estimated the population as 10 to 12m in 1981. (b) The statement apparently being referred to is: Red kangaroos are common throughout their range. Good seasons may initiate dramatic increases in the size of kangaroo populations, and they converge on better quality pastures, compete with sheep, and necessitate local reductions in their numbers. This is a statement by W. E. Poole, a principal research scientist with the CSIRO division of wildlife and rangelands research, and a leading kangaroo expert. (c) The Act has been proclaimed and will come into effect on 1 May 1984. (d) The photograph referred to was taken at an Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals animal shelter in an inner Sydney suburb. As stated in the publication, RSPCA staff members, including the Executive Director in NSW, have stated publicly and categorically that, whatever the cause of the animal's injury, it was not done, and could not have been done, by a professional kangaroo shooter. The statement that the animal was 'probably the victim of a dog attack' was based on advice from an RSPCA official. (Question No. 793) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) Has the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, passed by the Australian Parliament and assented to on 31 December 1982, not yet been proclaimed or come into operation; if not, why not. (2) Did the Australian Government in its submission to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services seeking the continued commercial importation into the United States of America of the Red, Eastern Grey and Western Grey Kangaroos and their parts and products rely on the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 as 'legislation to consolidate, and strengthen arrangements for the protection of Australian wildlife' while failing to disclose that the said Act is not in operation. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Act has been proclaimed and will come into effect on 1 May 1984. (2) As part of the Australian Government submission of November 1982 it was indicated that the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Bill had been introduced into Parliament. (Question No. 794) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) Is Film Australia, which is financed by the Australian Government, currently producing a film allegedly presenting a comprehensive analysis of the current kangaroo management situation in Australia. (2) Is the production concentrating on personalities involved in the kangaroo controversy and designed as propaganda to serve the interests of the industry engaged in the commercial slaughter of kangaroos. (3) Why is taxpayers' money being spent on biased propaganda activities. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has commissioned Film Australia to make a film dealing with kangaroos. Film Australia has researched and scripted the film but it is not yet in production. (2) No. The film is intended to provide viewers with an understanding of the status of kangaroos in Australia and to show all facets of kangaroo management with the objective of providing factual, unbiased information enabling informed discussion on this difficult issue. The film will attempt to present all points of view, including those of persons opposed to the harvesting of kangaroos. (3) See (2) above. (Question No. 799) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: Has the present policy of the Australian Government with its excessive quotas for the killing of kangaroos led to widespread complaints and hostility in many parts of the world, in particular in the United States of America. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The quotas are not excessive and were finalised after detailed discussions with State wildlife authorities. Kangaroo management in Australia has been misrepresented overseas by some groups, leading to a number of protests and representations to our overseas posts. However there has been no official overseas comment on 1984 quotas. (Question No. 649) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) What were the Principal recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry; and what steps have been taken in relation to each of the recommendations. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In all there were 55 recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. All recommendations were considered of importance and action has been taken on each with implementation completed or underway. A summary of the steps taken in relation to each of the recommendations follows: FEBRUARY 1984 Recommendation Present position Re-organisation of Inspection service '9.1 The Department of Primary Industry should proceed to re-organize the Commonwealth meat inspection service along the lines indicated in its final submission to the Commission. In particular, the removal of the service from the Bureau of Animal Health and placing of it in a newly-formed Export Inspection service is commended. Unless otherwise stated, the Department's proposals for its new inspection system-so far as they fall within the Commission's terms of reference-are endorsed. This applies to both legislative changes and administrative arrangements.' 9.1 The Export Inspection Service (EIS) was established on 16 March 1982. The service is operating under a new decentralised management system whereby Regional Directors located in the States now report to the Director, EIS. The Meat Controller concept has been implemented and supervisory veterinary officers duties extended to line responsibility as well as review. Regional Director positions have been upgraded and in filling them, emphasis given to management ability. New legislation (Export Control Act and Meat Inspection Act 1983 and associated delegated and sub-delegated legislation) brought into operation. The EIS organisation includes a Compliance and Legislation Branch to examine allegations of malpractice and ensure compliance with requirements. Inspection procedures and standards-domestic and export are under revision with new approaches being field trialled and discussed with international authorities . Consultants have completed the following tasks: a study on the scope for greater use of computers; a number of systems have been introduced, eg. manpower planning, registration and compliance systems. Design and software development of administrative, security and technical systems is ongoing and where necessary pilot trials have commenced training and development needs of EIS staff. A National Training Strategy based on the training consultant's recommendations has been developed and major training programs have been in progress since November 83 A Corporate Plan has been published with the assistance of a firm of Management Consultants. The Corporate Plan which covers a five year period commencing July 1983 identifies the major objectives to be achieved by EIS over the planning period. The Plan also serves to communicate to industry, Governments and other interested parties the nature and scope of the changes underway in the Inspection Service. Work has commenced on updating the Plan for the period 1984- 89 options for charging for inspection services. Study by consultants was completed in November 1983. The report has been circulated to industry, unions and governments and arrangements for consultation are well advanced. The report has been made available to the Interim Inspection Policy Council. examination of human/industrial relations issues; report was received in February 1984. A number of the recommendations made by the Consultants have been implemented while others are now being incorporated into a detailed implementation plan for discussions with EIS staff and staff associations. It should be noted that the nature of some of the recommendations relating to awards and conditions may have implications for other public servants and need therefore to be considered in the wider context. These and other DPI proposals have been commented upon separately where they have been subject to specific Royal Commission recommendations. The Dual Inspection Service '9.2 The relationship between the reformed Commonwealth service and the various State services will depend upon negotiations between respective governments. So far as Victoria is concerned, it is recommended that a joint authority be established along the lines already negotiated and reported to the Australian Agricultural Council.' 9.2-9.3 New South Wales Domestic Meat Inspection Service was transferred to the Commonwealth on 1 July 1983. Victoria has entered negotiations without commitment for transfer of its service to the Commonwealth. After evaluation of the options, the Commonwealth does not support the Joint Authority concept having concluded that it would lead to further inefficiencies, increased staff and cost. '9.3 In the case of the Northern Territory it is recommended that a similar result be aimed for, although the very small size of the Territory Service would suggest a comparatively larger role for the DPI.' Discussions have taken place and are continuing with the other States (and the Northern Territory) aimed at improving meat inspection arrangements a 'discussion paper' was prepared in April 83 by the Department of Primary Industry for the States' consideration the Northern Territory indicated in March 84 that it wishes to progress negotiations on a single inspection arrangement and a steering committee of senior officials has been established and met in Darwin on 13 and 14 April 84 discussions with Tasmania and Queensland officials have taken place and are continuing on ways of improving meat inspection arrangements between those States and the Commonwealth preliminary discussions have been held with Western Australia officials. Staffing Economies '9.4 Wherever overseas requirements and local circumstances permit, numbers of veterinary officers posted to meatworks should be reduced, more reliance being placed on senior meat inspectors, supported by visiting veterinary officers. All possible steps should be taken, to add to the interest of veterinary officers' work. Combined services should provide additional opportunities for this.' 9.4 Numbers of Veterinary staff have been reviewed and are at the minimum level commensurate with overseas requirements. The Training and Human Relations Consultants have examined issues related to job specification, staff development and motivation of staff professional development programs for veterinary staff are being implemented as part of the EIS National Training Strategy the review of the former New South Wales domestic service has been completed and together with the findings of the Human Relations consultants has been used to redefine responsibility to ensure each management group is clearly aware of their responsibilities and to, as far as is practicable, place decision making at the workface. A program of veterinary science orientated projects is being implemented to add to job interest. '9.5 So far as is practicable, in the light of overseas requirements and sound meat inspection practices, managements should be encouraged to take over responsibilities for work on the chain now performed by meat inspectors. The numbers of meat inspectors should be correspondingly reduced but, on average, their work should become more responsible and call for greater experience and higher personal qualities. The introduction of approved quality controls and compliance checking methods may enable numbers of inspectors to be reduced in other areas also. Such possibilities should be regularly reviewed.' 9.5 A number of exercises, in areas concerned with quality control and compliance monitoring, are being field trialled. It is expected that one of the outcomes of these examinations will be greater economies in the use of inspection staff, by a reduction in full time inspection effort and devolvement to industry The devolvement of on-chain disease detection and diagnosis, to industry is not a viable option at this time because of stringent overseas and State/Territory Government requirements. However, task forces within the EIS are working to review all aspects of inspection of meat and other products, and it is expected that these reviews will lead to changes in inspection practices and procedures that will increase productivity of inspectors. Timetable for introduction is contained in the Corporate Plan. Recruitment and Training of Meat Inspectors '9.6 Increases in average responsibilities, together with greater emphasis on the checking and keeping of records, make it essential that there should be high quality in-service training available for inspectors. Appropriate management training should also be given to those inspectors in supervisory positions, or likely soon to be appointed to such positions, who can benefit from it-having regard to their age and the nature of their duties.' 9.6 A major review of EIS training requirements was carried out by the firm David Shave and Associates in 1982-83. A National Training Strategy has been developed based upon the consultant's recommendations and an intensive training program is underway utilizing departmental and other Government resources, consultants and tertiary institutions. Major training initiatives scheduled to be completed in the current financial year 40 hours of refresher training for all inspection staff supervisory management training for all veterinary officers, scientific and senior inspectors residential management programs for selected staff induction training programs for all new veterinary officers and meat inspectors methods of instruction courses to provide in excess of 150 inspectors and veterinary staff with basic training skills provision of appropriate training equipment at in excess of 100 establishments development of multiskilling courses through Moorabbin TAFE. Planning for Phase 2 of the strategy covering 1984-85 and 1985-86 is already underway and includes 30 hours reinforcement training for all inspection staff during 1984-85 courses to improve the communications skills of all supervisory staff and enhance the level of communication between Central Office, Regional Office and field staff on works team 'building' continuing residential management programs supervisory training for inspection staff promoted to senior inspector positions on-going management training for veterinary, science and senior administrative staff. In 1982-83 the Government committed funds for a three-year training and development program for the Inspection Service. '9.7 The Department should accept responsibility for co-ordinating the basic training courses available to meat inspectors in the various States. Recruitment policies should ensure that persons taking up those courses have the necessary personal qualities and abilities to cope with the higher demands which will be placed on them as meat inspectors of the future, particularly by way of inspecting and keeping records and writing reports.' 9.7 The Department is currently in the process of finalising its requirements for a pre-entry training course for meat inspectors. Discussions have already been held with a number of TAFE colleges. Work is nearly complete on an officer integrity program in consultation with staff associations. This includes the provision of training packages and development of training films. The program has been partly implemented and will be fully implemented on 1 July 1984 with the completion of the integrity training film. The EIS National Training Strategy provides for greater emphasis on clerical training for inspection staff. This training is being provided through the various supervisory and induction courses together with specialised training programs. Delegation of Authority '9.8 Decisions on particular questions of meat inspection, or concerning the security of export meat, should be made at plant or regional office level unless they could create an important precedent or otherwise raise policy issues. All decisions going beyond day-to-day routine should be reported to head office for information and, if necessary, comment.' 9.8 An integral part of the establishment of EIS has been the progressive development of responsibility from Central Office to the States and in turn the works level. To facilitate this, Regional Offices have been strengthened and greater emphasis given to selecting appropriate technical officers with management skills. Rotation of Meat Inspectors '9.9 Meat inspectors should normally be posted to establishments for a minimum of one year unless family separations or other hardships are involved. In those cases, three months postings would be reasonable.' 9.9 This recommendation is agreed with in principle. Full implementation has been delayed by a claim for award variation by the MIA, review by the Human Relations Consultant and an internal review of temporary transfer conditions and procedures. As a first step, arrangements have been made for staff from closed meatworks to undertake three months temporary transfers in a planned manner. This has materially reduced the frequency of rotation of Meat Inspectors. A mangement program in accordance with the recommendation has been developed and negotiations with the unions on a proposal including, among other things, 12- month term transfers have begun. Detection and Investigation of Malpractices '9.10 The Department should, as a matter of some urgency, re-organise its Compliance and Evaluation Unit and establish an Investigations Unit, as proposed in its final submissions. The relations between the Investigations Unit and the AFP will require close attention-a good working arrangement between the two is essential. The employment of some former police officers in the Investigations Unit is recommended.' 9.10 The Compliance & Legislation Branch has been established comprising, Compliance, Program Review an Legislation Section with an Investigations Unit A former Commissioner of ACT Police was the first head of the Investigations Unit and the unit is now headed by a newly recruited senior officer with a background in investigative matters. Disscusions on the working relationship between EIS and the AFP have been held. Agreement has been reached between the two and a Memorandum of Understanding between the two parties has been implemented. Working relationships with the AFP are considered sound and operating effectively. On the recommendations of Mr L. L. Gast, Associate Administrator, USDA the Branch Head position has been approved as a 'Senior Assistant Director' with PSB approval. Eight Regional 'Compliance Officer' positions have been established, and the Unit is operational on 27 February 1984. The other sections of the Branch are involved in reviewing the effectiveness and efficiencies of the EIS inspection effort investigating allegations of malpractice developing Commonwealth legislation appropriate for the present inspection function and new functions in this area assumed by the Department. Information Management '9.11 All telephone communications on matters which are not routine should be recorded in writing and filed appropriately. Complicated or important matters should be confirmed by letter.' 9.11 This is now normal office practice; and, specific instructions have been issued to all staff to ensure that this requirement is complied with. '9.12 Any incidents of possible malpractice should be fully documented and filed both on the file relating to the particular establishment and on a file relating to the type of malpractice.' 9.12 All incidents of possible malpractice are fully documented, actively pursued to resolution, and filed in a separate filing system. A computer based retrieval system has been developed and implemented. This allows for establishment history to be retrieved quickly. The incidents are categorised into 'active', 'inactive' or 'history'. A summary of the incidents is produced quarterly for the Minister. Free or Cheap Meat or Other Benefits '9.13 Gifts of free meat to meat inspectors, veterinary officers or other government officers should not be permitted in any circumstances. 9.13-9.18 Export Control Act 1982 contains provisions, including severe penalties specifically designed to stamp out the practice of giving free or concessional meat to inspection staff. 9.14 The purchase of meat by such officials from meatworks at prices available to the general public, or to all workers at the premises, should be permitted. Instructions issued in May and November 1982 advising industry and inspection staff of new requirements. 9.15 The purchase of meat by officials in any other circumstances should be permitted only with the written approval of the Department. that EIS staff are not to receive free or discounted product (unless it is freely available to the public at that price) 9.16 In no circumstances should officials be permitted to purchase meat on terms better than those available to the full-time staff of the meatworks. that industry are not to make any such offer. 9.17 Any meatworks which supplies meat, or official who receives it, in contravention of the rules prescribed should be subject to appropriately severe penalties. Attendance recording has been tightened up and unannounced checks introduced. These are continuing on an ad hoc basis. Close supervision is also being given to travelling allowance claims arising from the seasonal and high level commitment to provide relief inspectors in different States. Follow up action, including laying of charges, is taken where appropriate. 9.18 Any meatworks which gives money or other valuable benefit to an official, without the approval in writing of the Department, or which helps an official to make a false claim for overtime payments, reimbursement of living or travelling expenses, or other money payment-whether from the meatworks or from the Department-should be subject to severe penalties. So, of course, should the official concerned.' A review of ovetime being worked has been carried out by Regional Directors and checking procedures on overtime tightened. All aspects of these recommendations have been implemented and are being monitored. Penalties for Past Transgressions by Officials '9.19 It would not be practicable to attempt to discipline all those officials who have come to notice as the recipients of wrongful benefits. It would not be fair to punish only those who have confessed to receiving money. On the other hand, some types of conduct cannot go unpunished. 9.19-9.20 All cases have been actively pursued and are the subject of a quarterly report to the Minister. The intention by the Commissioner that all past cases of free meat to Inspectors need not be pursued has been recognised. 9.20 I recommend that the cases which should be particularly pursued, with a view to appropriate prosecution or other disciplinary action, are those where substantial personal benefits have been demanded by an official, with express or implied threats, and those in which substantial benefits have been offered and received in circumstances suggesting that a particular return, by way of neglect of duty or other clearly wrongful act, was expected of the recipient.' The Role of the Unions 9.21 The Australian Meat Inspectors Association will have a vital role to play in the months ahead in helping its members to come to terms with new organizational arrangements, perticularly where merging, or working closely, with State Government employees is involved. There will also be changes in manning scales and in responsibilities. Finally, inspectors will have to adapt to doing without certain valuable 'perks' of office-to put the matter in the kindest possible terms. 9.21-9.23 The Department has consulted both generally, through established Regional and Central Office Consultative Committees, and specifically, by special meeting of Executive, MIA, with both the MIA and POA concerning the many changes being made to long established practices. Union participation has been invited in a number of exercises. Union response has been good. 9.22 The Association has been very active in support of its members over the years and will no doubt wish to be closely involved in the developments which will now occur. The Department must recognise this fact and consult closely with the Association before committing itself to proposals which could affect the industrial interests of meat inspectors. I am confident that the Association will respond in a responsible way to the clear need of the industry for a new approach to meat inspection. The various consultants have consulted with the unions who have and continue to play a major role in connection with implementing many of the recommendations made by the various consultancies and accepted by the Department. A specific consultative mechanism, the Efficiency Initiatives Consultative Group , has been established to facilitate implementation of revised priorities and procedures. The group comprises senior representatives of the MIA, POA, EIS and PSB. Some of the matters currently being considered by the Group are: revised meat inspection procedures revised inspection procedures and other products review of staffing levels temporary transfer conditions and procedures. 9.23 The Professional Officers Association should similarly be closely involved in any proposed changes affecting the industrial interests of its veterinary officer members. As a result of the transfer of the NSW domestic inspection service to the Commonwealth on 1 July 1983, a special union consultative group was formed to facilitate liaison between the unions, Commonwealth and State on this important matter. The industrial relations area of the Department has been strengthened and proper communication mechanisms established between the industrial relations area and Export Inspection Service. The unions have membership on the Ministerially appointed Interim Inspection Policy Council. Registration of Premises 9.24 It is recommended that the DPI should promote in every way possible the concept of common standards of construction, hygiene and meat inspection for Australian meatworks. This Australian domestic standard should then also be applied in the case of all foreign markets which are prepared to accept it. Different special standards will then be only applied to those meatworks wishing to produce for export to those countries which insist upon such special standards. 9.24 A draft Australian Code of Practice for construction of abattoirs has been prepared by a joint State/Territory/Commonwealth Working Party and has been distributed to the Regulatory Authorities for comment following consideration of any comments the draft will be made available to industry and other parties for comment. It is intended that the finalised document will be presented to SCA/AAC in August 1984. A draft Australian Code of Practice for non-slaughtering establishments and construction materials has been prepared and circulated to Working Party members . The development of an Australian Code of Practice for the production and inspection of meat is being undertaken by a task force within the Service consultations are in progress waith States/ NT, staff associations, industry, overseas countries issues were discussed in US, Canada and Europe, July 1983 and were further considered at an Australian/US/Canada/NZ meeting in Wellington , April 1984 pilot trials of revised post-mortem inspection procedures-cattle and pigs-were completed November/December 1983 field trialling of revised post-mortem inspection procedures-cattle and pigs- commenced February 1984 and are scheduled for completion in April-7 abattoirs in 4 States staff associations and abattoir management have been closely involved in trials pilot trials of Accepted Quality Level (AQL) Quality Control approach to carcase hygiene are in progress and expected to be completed in February 1984-5 abattoirs in 3 States completion of pilot trials and field trials will take longer than anticipated because of complexity of AQL/QC approach and lack of objective data. '9.25 The requirement that applicants for export premises registration should be 'fit and proper persons' is endorsed, but it is recommended that the power to refuse registration on this ground be used sparingly, particularly in relation to activities which did not endanger public health and which were indulged in before the requirement was introduced. With regard to future misdeeds, refusal or cancellation of registration should usually be based on conviction for a relevant criminal offence or failure to 'show cause' in the face of some cogent evidence of serious wrongdoing. The Department should have legal advice available at hearings of difficult registration applications. 9.25-930 Appropriate statutory provisions consistent with these recommendations have been made in the Export Control Act. Prescribed Goods (General) Orders that are being drafted will specify detailed conditions associated with the fit and proper person criteria. 9.26 It will be necessary to apply the test of fitness and propriety to persons who would participate in the management of the business as well as those who actually control the business. 9.27 Considerations of financial standing or technical competence should not be used as indicators of likelihood to indulge in malpractices, though they may be relevant for other purposes. 9.28 Appropriate appeal provisions should permit the testing of any adverse decision about a person's fitness to be associated with a registered establishment. 9.29 The DPI proposal to make it a condition of registration that may not be given to DPI officers, and may be sold to them only on terms approved in writing, is generally endorsed. See paras 9.13-18 above. 9.30 There should be provision for the Minister to suspend the registration of an export establishment in cases where there is cogent evidence of serious or repeated malpractice. The onus should then be thrown upon the applicant to show cause why the registration should be restored pending the cancellation hearings. Again there should be appropriate provision for appeal.' '9.31 The DPI should consider employing officers with appropriate expertise in the construction of buildings and in mechanical equipment to assist with technical aspects of applications for registration. Other disciplines, such as food technology, should also be considered.' 9.31 EIS now has a number of officers with the appropriate experience and qualifications, referred to in this recommendation. When positions become vacant they are being reviewed to ascertain whether or not the designation and classification is satisfactory and when being filled officers with the appropriate background will be employed. Industry Responsibility '9.32 Much greater emphasis should in future be placed upon the acceptance of responsibility by managements for the quality and wholesomeness of their products. The meat inspection service should see its role primarily as policing controls instituted by industry, rather than providing those controls itself. 9.32-9.33 The Department is studying, and implementing where possible, revised inspection arrangements under which firms undertake greater responsibility for the quality and wholesomeness of their product. A number of reviews, in both meat and other products areas, are underway aimed at ensuring further development of responsibility to industry. 9.33 Recent history would suggest that a close watch needs to be kept on most operators, but where high standards are maintained and the inspection service believes the operator's self-regulation can be trusted, there should be some relaxation of controls-with a consequential financial benefit to the operator. For such an approach to succeed, both carrot and stick are necessary. A direct relationship between levels of surveillance and cost to the operator (based perhaps on the number of inspectors) would provide the carrot.' Each establishment is assessed annually in terms of its 'risk' in respect of compliance and construction requirements Program Review officers evaluate 'inspection control' at samples of establishments and relate them to management's record integrity and reputation is assessed by Compliance Officers and an overall ' risk profile' developed. See also recommendation 9.5. Sampling and Species Testing '9.34 The stick is provided by likelihood of detection in malpractice and the resulting penalties. Some aspects of the inspection service's role in this have already been dealt with (para 9.10 above). I also recommend that the random sampling and species testing of export products should continue indefinitely. However there should be a marked concentration of effort in areas of greatest risk, such as manufacturing beef awaiting shipment in independent coldstores and minced products. The areas and level of sampling should be reviewed from time to time. Samples should also be taken from any batch of meat which has given cause for concern about its nature, either because of its appearance or because of doubts about seals or documentation.' 9.34 These recommendations are in operation with practices under ongoing review. Field testing of a species testing kit has commenced in Queensland, enabling inspection staff to conduct species testing at the works this gives promise of being less costly than the laboratory testing procedures currently used expect progress to all slaughtering establishments in Queensland by October 1984. Refrigerated Containers 9.35 There should be provision for at least a limited check on the contents of refrigerated containers which have arrived at a wharf after travelling long distances relying on 'snow shooting'. 9.35 A working party consisting of representatives from the Chamber of Shipping, Customs and EIS met in 1982 to discuss issues and as a result the; seal type has been changed to the Danish 'one-seal'-a security device-on shipping containers. The effectiveness of the 'one seal' is being monitored compliance staff encompass within their program. Penalties 9.36 The penalties provided for breaches of regulatory provisions must have regard not only to the underlying criminality of the offence-as where public health is put at risk-but also to the damage which breaches could do to a vital industry. EMR's should be kept constantly under review, so that they are not out of step with industry requirements, as appears to have been the case with 'robbing the pack'. Because the rewards for villainy can be very great, so must the sanctions be; the recently introduced and proposed levels of penalties are appropriate. On the other hand, when it comes to enforcement, there should not be an over- reaction against past weakness. Sanctions should be invoked with proper discretion, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case. 9.36 Recent penalties of a nominal nature imposed by the Courts relate to industry malpractice under the provisions previously existing. A new range of penalties is provided for in the Export Control Act with a maximum $100,000 fine or five years imprisonment or both. In all inquiries due consideration is given to all the circumstances of the case . Security Arrangements 9.37 Generally speaking there should be no increase in the levels of physical security which were imposed on meat in the export chain after the substitution scandal. Those arrangements should be kept under review and some requirements should be relaxed as soon as it is thought that Compliance and Investigation Units are firmly established. 9.37 Physical security arrangements are the subject of continuous review; findings to date indicate areas in which some rationalisation can be undertaken restrictions relating to transfer of product between category A establishments have been removed expected that further changes resulting in some relaxation will be made following the establishment of the Regional Compliance function on 27.2.84. however, any change is dependent upon acceptance from the relevant overseas authorities. Management of the Service has made it clear to industry that while it will pursue every avenue to reduce the high cost of the present physical security arrangements, it considers the risk is still too high to reduce the present intensity. Therefore, any change to the present system is being replaced by equally effective, but less costly, arrangements. Use of 'Australia Approved' Stamps 9.38 Should be replaced with ones of fresh design as soon as arrangements for their smooth introduction are completed. Their future production and distribution should be strictly controlled. Penalties for theft, wrongful possession and forgery should be heavy. 9.38 Stamp design has been finalised. Export Meat Orders to be produced in second half of 1984, incorporate new stamp. The Export Control Act 1982 contains severe penalties for incorrect manufacture and usage of the stamps ($100,000/5 years or both). The Act applies to existing stamps also from 1 January 1983. Carton Sealing 9.39 DPI should continue to use its present system of carton sealing for the time being. It should continue to investigate, and to consult with the industry about the use of one piece cartons, and improved methods of sealing. Unless present sealing methods can be made more effective and less costly, their use should be reconsidered as soon as the Department is satisfied that its Compliance and Investigation Units are operating effectively. The possibility of numbering cartons for better documentary control and tracing purposes should be further considered. 9.39 The present carton sealing system is being re-evaluated to try to develop a more efficient and less costly system of carton security, utilizing existing meat industry procedures the CSIRO and manufacturers of carton closing systems have been approached to determine if systems can be modified to ensure tamperproof closures on cartons. Development of a new carton label which would be bar-coded or bear an encoded number to enable identification of individual cartons is proceeding. A computer-based carton seal number checking trial is presently underway in Melbourne, aimed at reducing the need for full time inspector presence in some areas. Sealing of Loads 9.40 The sealing of loads should also continue for the time being. Here again there is a need to keep technical aspects and record-keeping procedures under review in the light of evidence about how the present seals can be circumvented. Because of the great inconvenience and added costs which sealed loads can cause in some cases, the Department should investigate, with the export meat industry and the transport industry, ways in which exemptions from sealing could be granted. This will probably depend upon the development of a surer system of documentary controls than exists at present. In time it may be possible to eliminate the need for sealing loads. In the meantime consideration should be given to requiring receiving inspectors to sign for meat received and acknowledge the seal number.' 9.40 Truck sealing with Tyden Seals is to continue for the time being pending re- evaluation by the Compliance Section. Sealing of Premises 9.41 The sealing of premises should be the first of the current security measures to be relaxed when the inspection service feels sufficiently confident of its policing arrangements to do so. The first step of relaxation should permit senior officers of a company to break seals provided advance telephone warning is given to a nominated officer of the inspection service and a written report is made of the circumstances by the company officer. Such incidents should be attended by DPI officers on a random basis.' 9.41 A study of practices and problems has recently been completed. Analysis of the findings indicates areas in which some rationalisation can be undertaken and appropriate changes are expected to be implemented shortly. Reduction in the level of physical security is linked closely to the development of an effective compliance program. USDA have indicated that their concurrence with a reduction in physical measures is largely conditional on this program being developed. An extension of the security categoristion of meatworks is being undertaken in further defining categories where relaxation of security can be implemented. Segregation in Coldstores 9.42 The complete segregation of export meat from other products in coldstores should only be required where there is a real possibility-because of the nature and method of packing of the products-that the goods could become contaminated or confused with similar goods or where domestic product could be deliberately substituted for export product. The degree of segregation required in each case should depend upon what is reasonable, given the physical set-up of the coldstore and the current pressure on storage space. The regulations concerning segregation of export meat in coldstores, smallgoods factories and permitted canneries should be in line with practices. Accepted non-observance of regulation creates a dangerous precedent.' 9.42 Segregation of domestic and export meat is being maintained. Establishments provide floor plans which are evaluated on their merits. Some relaxation of current requirements appears possible when effectve inventory controls are instituted by industry. Inventory Control '9.43 The Department should press on with its studies of inventory controls as part of its armoury of weapons against malpractice and, in particular, as a possible replacement for expensive physical security methods. At the least, company records should disclose certain prescribed types of information and be readily available to meat inspection officers. They would provide a starting point for investigations and, in the hands of properly qualified persons, could provide valuable evidence of malpractices.' 9.43 Consultants studied and reported on inventory controls as a possible replacement for existing physical controls which are under consideration. EIS has commenced further studies which do not directly involve inventory control but which are aimed at developing cost effective security measures. The use of industry inventory control systems, where in operation, to enhance security is being studied. AMLC Licences to Export '9.44 AMLC should retain its separate function of licensing exporters, whether or not they operate export meatworks. Only those who intend to export on their own account should be licensed. The principles for the grant of a licence should be similar to those applying to the grant of registration of export premises, with due allowance of the differences in the two functions. Close liaison between DPI and AMLC should be designed to prevent anomalies in the grant or refusal of registrations and licences. Legislative provisions should permit the two bodies to have regard to each other's decisions.' 9.44-9.48 DPI has ongoing liaison with AMLC to confirm respective areas of responsibility and associated co-ordinating activity for the inspection of trade descriptions and supply according to contract specifications. The Chairman of the Inspection Policy Council is a member of the new AMLC Policy Council. Since 1 October 1983 when objective trade descriptions were introduced DPI has been responsible for monitoring trade descriptions. AMLC has revised its involvement in Quality Assurance. AMLC Powers of Inspection '9.45 While reluctant to argue strongly against an increased inspection role for AMLC- particularly since it is on the borders of my terms of reference-I am bound to point out the illogicality of trying to unify State and Federal inspection systems while, at the same time, creating an additional Federal system. AMLC has retained its separate function of licensing exporters regardless of whether they operate export meatworks. Amendments to the AMLC Act in 1982 ensure that only those who operate on their own account should be licensed. AMLC and EIS are maintaining close liaison to minimise the chance of duplication occurring. 9.46 I believe that there should be a method whereby any shortcomings in export quality can be investigated, advice given and repeated failures to comply with overseas requirements dealt with. This system should be independent of the day- to-day inspection system, which may itself be partly at fault. 9.47 However I am not convinced that this type of 'trouble shooting' could not be performed under the overall umbrella of the Export Inspection Service-given proper liaison and co-operation with AMLC. 9.48 This is something to be worked out between DPI and AMLC, having due regard to possible cost savings and the risk of overlapping functions on the one hand, and the need for independent expertise in the field of quality control on the other. ' Export Documents '9.49 DPI should proceed with its plans to obtain independent advice on the possible benefits which automatic data processing could bring to documentary controls over the export of meat. There is potential here for much greater efficiency without the loss of security, but the initial costs will be high, and all interested areas of government and industry should be closely consulted before any commitments are entered into. The present manual system works reasonably well and the supposed benefits of technological change could prove illusory.' 9.49 ADP trials on the issuance of health certificates by regional offices have indicated such systems are costly to run, not only to Government but to the industry accordingly, it has been decided not to proceed with such arrangements; present manual systems are continuing. A complete review of documentation and certificates is scheduled to be finalised by 30 June 1985 with streamlined procedures introduced by end of 1985. Reviews to date have lead to the introduction of high speed facsimile equipment in each Regional Office, better telex systems and a reduction in the number of documents required to export product. Halal Slaughter and Certification '9.50 It is recommended that there be a single system of halal slaughter certification in Australia with an official Australian government certificate and an official Australian government stamp. This system should be under direct and continuous supervision by the Export Inspection Service of DPI. 9.50-9.53 A new system of Halal slaughter certification which meets the criteria established by the Royal Commission was introduced on 1 January 1984. The cost restraint aspects have been met by the establishment of a Halal Fee Justification Panel. 9.51 Description of product as halal, documentation for halal product and halal slaughter stamps should all be accorded the same status as other product descriptions, documentation and stamps and attract the same penalties for misuse . 9.52 With provision for the possible acceptance of others, those now in the field should be responsible for the religious aspects of halal slaughter. As long as those in the field are able to provide a satisfactory service, any further additions should be limited to those who appear to be capable of providing a similar service which would be accepted at least by some Muslim countries. The continued role of AFIC and the other bodies in the field should be reviewed from time to time in the light of their performance. There should be no monopoly of supervision of the religious aspects by AFIC, or any other body, if that can be avoided. 9.53 The reasonable costs, and only those costs, incurred by AFIC and the other bodies in the performance of their supervisory functions should be reimbursed. The necessary sum could be raised by a levy on exporters and producers dealing in the market for halal meat.' Game Meat '9.54 The meat inspection service should give the fullest possible coverage to companies or persons wishing to develop the game meat industry. It seems clear that the industry can only hope to develop successfully if there are tight quality controls observed by the companies involved and reasonably close supervision by the inspection service. This must include some supervision of field operations, because lax standards in the field can only lead to a product which is a health risk-and one bad incident of this type could easily put paid to whatever fledgling industry may have developed.' 9.54 Studies of the game meat industry are ongoing. Data has been collected on Australian and overseas requirements with respect to inspection of game meat. Provisions for game meat are being developed for inclusion in Ministerial Orders . A Game Meat Code of Practice is currently being developed in co-operation with the States and Northern Territory. The EIS Compliance Unit will pay particular attention to the game meat industry. Pet Meat '9.55 Generally speaking, all pet meat for export should be dyed with brilliant blue and come under the control of the meat inspection service. Written exemption could be considered in return for special security measures. Premises where such meat is processed should be registered and periodically inspected by the service or its agents. Prescribed records should be kept. 9.55 From 1 February 1983 all pet meat flesh for export has had to be stained. On-going consultations are taking place with States/Territories to ensure periodic inspections of premises.