Wednesday, 30 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Regulations and Ordinances: Availability of Publications and Video Materials 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 before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersede the Australian Capital Territory 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 videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 24 citizens), Harradine (from 450 citizens), Hearn ( from 86 citizens), Messner (from eight citizens), Reid (from 67 citizens), Robertson (from 149 citizens) and Sibraa (from 45 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 Senators Robertson (from 10 citizens) and Zakharov (from 995 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth 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 Senators Archer (from 16 citizens), Collard (from 254 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 98 citizens), Messner (from 100 citizens) and Robertson (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in 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 three 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 remain sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as 'Australian Soldiers' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hand of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 229 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'Joint Australian-U.S.' Electronic Communication Facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 90 citizens) and Primmer (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia: Concerned about the unprecedented threat to the survival of life on earth by the nuclear arms race, Concerned that $1 million per minute is spent on armaments while members of the human family suffer starvation and deprivation, Convinced that the peoples of all Nations wish to live in peace and brotherhood , Do humbly pray that Federal Government, as a matter of urgency: 1. Submit to the United Nations a proposal for each nation's funding for defence and armaments to be cut progressively by not less than 1 per cent initially, and by an increasing percentage yearly. 2. At least half of this saving be devoted to increased funding for international aid organizations developing self-sufficiency in the Third World. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hearn (from 156 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs for example Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 12 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Special Broadcasting Service-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to sub-section 79 ZH of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1977 2. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement on expenditure for February 1984 3. Christmas Island Annual Report 1981-82 4. Register of co-operative societies-Annual report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 12 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939 5. Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-report-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations relating to the report-made in the House of Representatives on 29 May 1984 6. Non-Wage Incomes the Professions-report Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.04) —I move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966. In doing so, I indicate that as a result of technical problems the actual introduction will be at a later hour this day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Extradition ( Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.05) —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- This Bill provides for amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 which governs extradition between Australia and other member countries of the Commonwealth. That legislation is based on a scheme, known as the London Scheme, agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1966 to regulate the extradition of fugitive offenders between Commonwealth countries. All Commonwealth countries have based their domestic extradition legislation insofar as it relates to extradition with other Commonwealth countries on the London Scheme. In 1983 Commonwealth Law Ministers met to review the London Scheme and agreed to certain changes to it to improve its operation. Putting these changes into effect requires amendment to the legislation of the various Commonwealth countries and this Bill provides for those amendments to the Australian legislation. In addition the Bill incorporates amendments considered necessary to resolve difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the legislation and to tidy up the drafting and organisation of the legislation. The more significant amendments provided for by the Bill are as follows- Voluntary return-this procedure will allow a fugitive to waive the full extradition process and be returned voluntarily to the requesting country. Appeal by requesting country-at present only the fugitive may appeal against a magistrate's decision on an extradition application. This amendment will permit an appeal to be lodged on behalf of the requesting country if the magistrate rejects the extradition request. Executive discretion to refuse extradition-this amendment will extend the Attorney-General's discretion to refuse to extradite in any situation where it would be unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. At present the discretion may only be exercised if the triviality of the offence, mala fides or lapse of time would make it unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. Extradition for fiscal offences-this amendment will make it clear that offences against laws relating to taxation, customs duties, foreign exchange control and other revenue matters which have hitherto not been extraditable, will be extraditable provided there has been a fraudulent intent. Speciality rule-this amendment will make clear that an extradited person may not be tried in the requesting country for offences other than those in respect of which his extradition has been granted until he has been given an opportunity of leaving that country. At present the legislation provides that a person may not be tried for any offence other than an offence in respect of which extradition was sought until he has been given the opportunity of returning to the requested country. Offences of a political character-this amendment will provide that a decision to refuse extradition because the offence in respect of which extradition is sought is of a political character many only be taken by the Attorney-General and not the magistrate. Decisions of the courts in this area have not been helpful and it is considered that in any event such decisions would more appropriately be taken by the executive. This is the practice in the United States of America. Evidence that may be led by a fugitive-an extradition hearing is not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the fugitive but whether a case exists which could justify the fugitive's trial in the requesting country. Magistrates have in the past permitted fugitives to lead evidence to challenge the merits of the prima facie case sought to be established by the requesting country. This amendment will make it clear that such evidence may not be led. The fugitive may of course argue that a prima facie case is not established. Convictions in absentia-this amendment will make it clear that, where a fugitive is sought for an offence in respect of which he has been convicted in absentia, whether that conviction is final or not, the requesting country must produce evidence of guilt as well as of the conviction. Application for habeas corpus-at present a fugitive committed to prison to wait extradition may apply for habeas corpus to any court of competent jurisdiction. The proposed amendment will make it clear that application may be made to the Federal Court or the appropriate State Supreme Court but not both. Any appeal from the Federal Court or a State Supreme Court will be heard by a Full Court of the Federal Court. The amendments proposed will significantly improve the Extradition ( Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and facilitate the processing of extradition requests by and of Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Extradition ( Foreign States) Act 1966. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.07) —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- This Bill provides for amendments to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. That Act regulates Australia's extradition relations with countries that are not members of the Commonwealth and with which Australia has extradition arrangements. Most of the amendments to the London Scheme agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1983 to which I referred in introducing the Extradition ( Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1984 are equally applicable to the legislation governing extraditions between Australia and countries which are not Commonwealth countries. They would accordingly improve the operation of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. This Bill incorporates all the amendments proposed to the Extradition ( Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 which are appropriate to be incorporated in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. As such the Bill will significantly improve that Act and facilitate the processing of extradition requests by and of Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.08) —by leave-I move: (1) That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge be extended to 7 June 1984. (2) That the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge have leave to meet during the sittings of the Senate during the remainder of this period of sittings. It has become clear to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, in the course of its inquiries, that it is not possible for the Committee to conclude its investigations and present a properly considered report within the time limit set by the resolution of appointment, which required the Committee to report by tomorrow. The Senate will appreciate that this is an inquiry which must be conducted with the utmost care and it cannot be rushed. The Committee has asked me to indicate that it is not confident of being able to present a report even within this proposed extension of time, and it may well be necessary to seek a further extension. Indeed, the Committee may need to be extended into the Budget sittings. With authority to sit during the sittings of the Senate, as proposed in my second motion, the Committee will seek to make progress during the remainder of this period of sittings. I indicate to the Senate that the Committee would take advantage of any such authorisation very sparingly. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.10) —I understand from the Clerk that the request from the Select Committee on the conduct of a Judge is a unanimous one. I just wish to say to the Senate that the Opposition will certainly support any request from the Committee that relates to its ability to do what is a very important task. For that reason the Opposition will certainly support the motion that has been moved by the Chairman of the Committee. I simply wish to affirm the Opposition's support for a full and proper examination of the matters that have been referred to that Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.11) —As I understand it, either the motion before the Chair is in two parts or there are two motions before the Chair. Senator Tate —Mr President, I think I moved a single motion, but it is in two separate and distinct parts. Senator HARRADINE —I wished to have that point clarified, because I understood Senator Tate to seek leave to move two motions. Irrespective of whether he moved two motions or one motion in two parts, I am opposed to the second part of it. I quite readily accept the request of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, in view of the important subject matter that it is inquiring into, to extend the time by which it must report. As Senator Tate said, it may need to extend the time by which it must report to the Budget session. I am very much opposed in principle to a committee of the Senate meeting while the Senate is sitting. I think this is the third time that we have had a request of this nature from a committee of the Senate. I believe it is a matter upon which the Senate must sooner or later make a stand. The Senate has certain functions to perform. It has an audit and control function in relation to executive government action. Each senator has an expressive or representative function and certain constitutional responsibilities. Of course, one of those constitutional responsibilities is the subject matter of the Committee's consideration. These are responsibilities of the Senate as a whole. I believe quite firmly that unless the Senate makes a stand on the issue of sub-committees meeting and therefore taking senators away from the chamber when the Senate is sitting, the question to be resolved will be whether this chamber as a whole is just a rubber stamp for decisions that are taken by the parties and in the caucus rooms. Senator Chipp —Last night 10 senators were paired by the major parties. Senator HARRADINE —Of course, this is another aspect. In a very vital debate last night on the censorship regulations, 10 senators in the major parties were paired. When matters come before the chamber, very often individual senators raise issues that had not been thought of by the Caucus or by the major parties. I cite as an example what happened last night on the question of hard drugs. The Government was pushing through amendments to regulations to permit the importation of publications that incited the use of hard drugs. When during a previous debate I stated that that is what was happening, the Government said that that was not right. Of course, ultimately it was proved to be right. Now the Government is proposing draft amendments to try to fix up that aspect. That is just one of the examples of what could occur during a debate on a particular issue. If we continue to allow committees to meet while the Senate is in session that will be to the disadvantage of members of those committees who are not present in the chamber or are unable to hear in their rooms what the debate in the chamber is all about. They may miss some point of relevance to their constituencies. Secondly, such a practice limits to a certain extent the representative and expressive functions of individual senators who happen not to be members of such a committee. Senator Gareth Evans —How do you think other parliaments operate? How do you think the United States operates? They are individual representatives. Senator HARRADINE —We are talking about this Parliament and the way that the Senate in Australia has operated over a number of years, not how the United States Senate might or might not operate. We have certain constitutional responsibilities that are rather more important than those of the United States Senate. The committees of this Senate are subordinate to the Senate itself. A subordinate committee should not take away from the responsibilities that devolve upon the Senate as a whole. Consistent with that principle and the other principle I mentioned, we should not as a general practice allow committees of this Senate to meet while the Senate itself is in session. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.17) —in reply-In relation to the formalities as to how this matter should be conducted in the chamber, it is true that I sought leave to move two motions and then read both parts of the motion. It may assist the Senate, and in particular Senator Harradine, if I move each motion separately. I am happy that that be done. The PRESIDENT —Is leave given to put the two motions separately? Leave granted. Senator TATE —The first motion deals with an extension of time for presentation of the Committee's report. I move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge be extended to 7 June 1984. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.18) —I move: That the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge have leave to meet during the sittings of the Senate during the remainder of this period of sittings. As I said in my opening statement, the Committee will use this authorisation sparingly. As the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Durack, are members of the Committee, it would be unlikely that the Committee would sit if matters of substance were being conducted in the chamber. That undertaking has been given by the Committee ; it will sit only when nothing of major significance is occurring in the chamber, which does happen from time to time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.19) —I do not seek to take issue with Senator Harradine but rather to take forward the matter that is raised. I should hope that some reasonably early opportunity will be taken by the Senate to discuss the future of the committee system as a whole as well as its relationship to the sitting times of the Senate. The points raised by Senator Harradine have been historically the principles that have been applied. But I am not sure that the interjection from Senator Gareth Evans that there are other ways in which one can go about it was not an appropriate interjection. Perhaps we should be thinking a little more about how we could get a greater volume of work through in the limited hours that are available. I suggest that the Government give consideration to bringing on for debate with plenty of notice during General Business the paper on the Committee system which was prepared by an all party review group so that this matter and other matters can be discussed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1983-84, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. I advise the Senate that copies of the report will be made available as soon as they have been printed. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PRIMMER —I seek leave to make a very brief statement explaining remarks made by the Committee in its report. Leave granted. Senator PRIMMER —In its report the Committee stated: The Committee particularly draws the attention of the Senate to the failure of the Department of Trade to supply answers to questions. Written replies to a number of questions were promised by the Department at the hearing on 30 April. The Committee considers that the provision of detailed written answers to questions is a normal and necessary part of Estimate Committee operations, and is essential for the proper consideration of Appropriation Bills by the Senate. The Committee believes that debate on the Second Reading of Appropriation Bills 3 and 4 should not proceed if satisfactory written answers are not provided in advance of the Bills being called on. Mr President, because of the seriousness of the Committee's recommendations, I feel I should inform the Senate that we have now received the outstanding answers from the Department of Trade. They were handed to the Secretary of the Committee at 10 minutes past 9 this morning. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1983-84, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, I seek your guidance. The tabling of that report activates a contingent notice of motion I have given. Would it suit the convenience of the Senate to wait until all Estimates committee reports are dealt with before I proceed with that notice of motion? The PRESIDENT —I suggest that that course of action be followed. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1983-84, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. I inform the Senate that copies of the report will be available as soon as they have been printed. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Georges, I present the report from Estimate Committee F on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1983-84 together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.17) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Baume from moving that the particulars of the proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1984 contained in Divisions 270 to 284 for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs be recommitted to Estimates Committee D for consideration and report to the Senate on or before Friday, 1 June 1984. I understand that the procedure here is in two parts. The first part seeks to suspend Standing Orders and the second part seeks that a motion be moved. I want to speak only to the first part, that is, to the motion which would allow me to move to take certain action to recall an Estimates committee in public hearing. I point out to the Senate that this matter arises out of part of the examination of the estimates of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs contained in Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) and out of matters which arose subsequently in the Senate by way of a censure motion. It became necessary to take this course of action when other avenues which we sought to use to achieve a further public hearing failed. I will discuss those avenues later. We tried other avenues. It is necessary to move down this road of urgency to reconvene the Committee. We could not take this action or move this motion before the reports of the Senate Estimates committees came before the Parliament because, contained in those reports, is information which is necessary to the case we want to make. The report of Estimates Committee D contains information necessary to the debate. It also contains a minority report presenting certain views and another document to which I will refer later if this motion succeeds. I understand that the Senate intends-- Senator Chipp —You know this will succeed. Talk about it after you move your motion. Senator PETER BAUME —I will be very brief on the motion to suspend Standing Orders. I am not far from finishing. The Senate intends to consider the Appropriation Bills in the Committee stage either today or tomorrow with the intention of finishing them by Friday. Because of that I want to make the point that there is some urgency to get this matter under way. That is the reason I have sought to suspend Standing Orders. It is the correct time to take this action. If any reconsideration is to occur, now is the time for it to be done. I will speak, in slightly more detail, on the substantive motion if this motion to suspend Standing Orders succeeds. I invite the Senate to support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Recommittal Senator PETER BAUME —(New South Wales) (10.30)-I move: That the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1984 contained in Divisions 270 to 284 for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs be recommitted to Estimates Committee D for consideration and report to the Senate on or before Friday, 1 June 1984. I thank the Senate for agreeing to the suspension of Standing Orders. This matter arises out of issues canvassed in a censure motion earlier this month in the Senate. It is not appropriate for me again to go over the details of that motion or to canvass the particular matters. However, later in the debate on the Appropriation Bills we may well use opportunities to do that. I will refer to those matters relevant to the need now to re-examine the estimates of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. I remind the Senate that Estimates Committee D did examine that Department on 3 May; that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) submitted a letter relating to part of the evidence and to answers given on the following day, that is, 4 May, and that, after the following weekend, matters raised in the evidence and in the letter were canvassed in a censure motion against the Minister in the Senate on 8 May. During that debate an exchange took place, and I refer honourable senators to page 1729 of the Senate Hansard of that day. During Senator Colston's speech he took us to task for not having raised the matter immediately. The following interchange then took place: Senator Macklin —You can recall the Estimates Committee tomorrow night, on request. Senator Colston —I can recall it if requested. Senator Peter Baume —I request you. Senator Teague —I request you. Senator Martin —I request you. So we took up the offer immediately. Senator Chipp —A group of bloody parrots, were they? Senator PETER BAUME —Nevertheless, we were impressed by Senator Macklin's suggestion and by Senator Colston's echoing it. We followed that up in the chamber with a formal letter of request that the Committee reconvene. The letter of request was not just that the Committee reconvene but that the Committee be reconvened 'to seek further information in relation to the Estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs'. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that letter which we submitted to the Chairman of the Estimates Committee. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The Chairman Senate Estimates Committee ''D'', Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. Dear Senator Colston, In view of the debate in the Senate today and the significant issues raised about the conduct of Estimates Committee D, we request that the Committee be reconvened to seek further information in relation to the Estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. We suggest that 8 p.m. on Wednesday 9th May would be an appropriate time. Yours sincerely, Kathy Martin P. Baume (Senator for Queensland) (Senator for New South Wales) Baden Teague(Senator for South Australia) Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. We then attempted, at the private meeting which followed, to recommit the estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs for re-examination because that was the obvious course to take. When the Committee did reconvene I moved a motion that the Committee reconvene in public session to take further evidence. I regret to say that at that private meeting a vote was taken on the motion I moved. The vote was lost, I regret to say, strictly on party lines. The vote against the Committee's reconvening was three all, with three Liberal senators moving to reconvene, three Labor senators opposing it, and the Chairman, as is his right, using his casting vote to vote to prevent the Committee's reconvening. We then had to consider our position, which gave rise to the minority report that has now been ordered to be printed in the Senate and in which we set out some of our very real concerns about the failure to reconvene the Committee. I direct the attention of honourable senators to the minority report. We will mention it during debate, but the point we make is that the Senate has not been well served by that decision. Estimates committees, as part of the Senate, have a duty to the Senate, to the system of government, to the whole Westminster system. Senator Grimes —Pious bullshit. Absolutely pious nonsense and you know it. Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested in Senator Grimes's first interjection. I hope Hansard will have picked it up and will record the word he used because I think it is unparliamentary. Senator Chipp —The second word. Senator PETER BAUME —No, the first word was the word he used; let us record it. Senator Grimes —What is wrong with pious? Senator PETER BAUME —I refer to the first noun he used. We believe that the Westminster system of government requires that people tell the truth to parliamentary committees as they would to the Parliament. We believe that sufficient matters arose during this examination on 3 May and the letter which followed to warrant reconvening the Committee just to re-examine those particular matters. Senator Grimes —Who are you saying didn't tell the truth? Senator PETER BAUME —I am just making my own speech. I direct the attention of honourable senators to that minority report. Another matter has occurred subsequently to make recommittal of the Estimates Committee evidence, and re- examination of it, necessary and desirable. I refer honourable senators to the material which has just been tabled and ordered to be printed. Included in that is a personal statement by Dr A. Taloni, First Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, in relation to the evidence he gave to Estimates Committee D. In that statement, Dr Taloni makes two statements: First, because he knew that the Minister considered that as a survey was being conducted by another department, questions relating to that should be addressed to that other department, he gave certain answers that he did. I point out that we were examining the salaries estimate for officers of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and to the extent that the officers had been involved in this matter, they should have answered. Secondly, Dr Taloni's personal explanation says: During the final phase of the questioning . . . I mistakenly believed . . . He goes on to explain what he mistakenly believed about the questions. It is apparent that the evidence given to us was, to use Senator Macklin's phrase during the censure debate, if not untruthful, intended to conceal the facts. I think I quote Senator Macklin fairly accurately. Senator Chipp —Or to not divulge the whole facts. Senator PETER BAUME —Or to not divulge the whole facts. The purpose of reconvening the Committee is to go over those questions again, to examine those matters and to bring out the facts which were not made clear to us during the estimates examination. It is quite possible for this re-examination of this part of the estimates of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to be conducted expeditiously. It is a very limited matter, a very limited part of the Department's evidence, and we could do that with some expedition. It does not need to be a long public hearing. The ambit of interest is limited generally to the matters which have been in contention, which have been raised in the Senate, which were the subject of Senator Ryan's letter and which were the subject of Dr Taloni's subsequent personal explanation. I point out to the Senate that Estimates Committee A has already taken a decision to reconvene and to hear some other matters. I believe it is reconvening tonight, Wednesday night. There is no reason why Estimates Committee D could not do the same thing-reconvene tonight, hear this evidence and clear up this matter. There is no reason why the Estimates Committee cannot report by the date which is mentioned in the motion I have moved, 1 June. Further, there is no impediment to the Government obtaining Supply, as it needs to do, even if this examination is incomplete. I have taken advice on this and there is no constitutional reason why we cannot proceed to deal with the Appropriation Bills , to pass them and to give the Government the Supply it needs even if this matter takes a little longer. For all those reasons, because of all the doubts that have arisen about the evidence given by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, and because the Estimates Committee itself has denied to us, the other members of the Committee, the re-examination which we believe is necessary, we now appeal to the Senate to pass this motion and to direct the Committee to reconvene in public session, to hear this evidence and to allow this matter to be cleaned up. We believe that is owed to officers of the Public Service; we believe it is owed to the Committee; we believe it is owed to the Parliament and we believe it is owed to the Westminster system of government: And I commend the motion. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.39) —Mr Deputy President, I note that Senator Baume has not spoken at length on this matter and I do not intend to do so either. I do not wish to hold up the proceedings of the Senate. However, I would like to mention some historical aspects in relation to the motion before the Senate today. Estimates Committee D met on 3 May and 4 May. On 3 May the following departments were examined: Education and Youth Affairs; Sport, Recreation and Tourism; Home Affairs and Environment; and Science and Technology . On 4 May the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were examined. The only department in contention at the moment in relation to the motion that is before us is the Department of Education and Youth Affairs which was heard on 3 May. On page 131 of the Estimates Committee D Hansard for 3 May the following question from Senator Teague appeared: Has the Department commissioned any public opinion surveys since 5 March 1983? Dr Taloni answered: 'No'. From that place onwards in the Hansard it may be seen that a fair amount of discussion and questioning ensued. It ended on the same page with Senator Teague going on to ask some additional questions. If we turn to page 137 of the Hansard, however, it may be seen that Senator Peter Baume took up this matter again. He 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-I did say that, yes. Senator Baume then asked a series of questions about this matter. They appear on pages 137 and 138 of the Hansard. The Committee then went on to other matters. On the morning of 4 May, in my capacity as Chairman of Estimates Committee D, I received a letter from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). This letter has previously been mentioned in debate. It in fact appears in the Senate Hansard of 8 May on pages 1709 and 1710. I will take the Committee 's time to reiterate something in the first and second paragraphs of that letter . The Minister wrote: 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. The letter goes on to outline how there may have been some misunderstanding at the Committee hearing the day before. When the Estimates Committee met that afternoon after I had received that letter I notified the Committee that I had received it. At the Estimates Committee D hearing on 4 May I first opened the hearing and mentioned some matters of a technical nature. As reported in Hansard , I then 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. I did not try to incorporate the letter in Hansard at that time because then the letter would have been included in the Hansard record for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. What I did was accept it as additional information so that it could be compiled with the additional information for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and thus found easily if required. Copies of the letter were made at the time. Those honourable senators who were present were provided with a copy. I regret that I found out later that some of the honourable senators who were not present at the time did not receive a copy of the letter until some time later. Following the receipt of that letter, I received a letter from Senators Baume, Martin and Teague. That followed an interchange which we had in the Senate and which has been mentioned, but I wish to carry it a little further. In the course of my speech on 8 May on the censure motion this exchange, part of which has been mentioned previously, occurred: Senator Macklin —You can recall the Estimates Committee tomorrow night, on request. Senator COLSTON —I can recall it if requested. Senator Peter Baume —I request you. Senator Teague —I request you. Senator Martin —I request you. I must admit that the request of those honourable senators was made with much more vigour than I have just indicated. The exchange continues: Senator COLSTON —Honourable senators should put their request in writing. That was probably also said with a little more vigour on that occasion. Subsequently I received a letter-- Senator Peter Baume —Very shortly after. Senator COLSTON —It arrived shortly afterwards and was short but pertinent. That is the way I like to receive letters. The letter was handwritten and was quite legible. It has been incorporated in Hansard by Senator Baume. The letter said: In view of the debate in the Senate today and the significant issues raised about the conduct of Estimates Committee D, we request that the Committee be reconvened to seek further information in relation to the Estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. We suggest that 8 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th May would be an appropriate time. That letter was signed by Senators Martin, Baume and Teague. At that stage I considered that the proper course of action for me-this is probably open to debate-was to call a private meeting to discuss the request. A private meeting was called for 9 May. The request was considered and there was debate from, I think, all members. I did not contribute very much because I believed that, as the Chairman of the Committee, I should not make too much of a contribution. After the request was considered the Government members were not persuaded that additional hearings were required. That is the matter that is open to debate at this stage. Senator Baume mentioned that when a vote was taken the vote was three-all on party lines. I suppose that it was on party lines on both sides. One cannot just say that there was a party line on the Government side. There was a party line on the Opposition side as well. Senator Baume said that I exercised my right to make a casting vote. Having had a look at the Standing Orders since then, I am not sure that I needed to exercise a casting vote because if the vote was three-all the motion was lost and I would not have had to exercise a casting vote. The Standing Orders state that the chairman of a committee shall have a casting vote. As far as I am concerned, it is a moot point as to whether the vote should have been made. Irrespective of whether it was-- Senator Peter Baume —You did use a casting vote. Senator COLSTON —I did. What I am saying at this stage is that I am not quite sure that it was absolutely necessary. Even if it was not necessary, the vote was lost because the Government members were not persuaded that an additional hearing was necessary. When the answers came back from the departments, there was also a letter from Dr Taloni. I was not quite sure whether it should have been regarded as correspondence to the Committee or as additional information. But as I had taken Senator Ryan's letter as additional information I thought it proper to include Dr Taloni's letter with the additional information which was tabled this morning. I would like to read Dr Taloni's letter. It has been mentioned but its contents have not been canvassed today. Dr Taloni said: I wish to make a personal statement to the Committee in order to explain my answers at hearings on 3 May 1984 as recorded in Hansard, pages 131-133, 137-138 . My impression at the time of the hearing was that there were three surveys (and the associated funding) under discussion. Whether valid or not, these perceptions affected the quality and clarity of responses. The three surveys which I thought were under discussion were: 1. An independent survey proposed by this Department but not proceeded with. 2. A well publicised survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State (SMOS). 3. An add-on survey to the SMOS survey on behalf of this Department. I was aware that the Minister considered that, as the survey combining 2 and 3 above was being conducted by SMOS, questions relating to it should be addressed in the context of that Department's bids for additional estimates. I was aware that additional estimates had been sought by SMOS for the add-on survey. During the final phase of the questioning recorded on page 131 I mistakenly believed that questions were being directed to me on details of the add-on survey. In that context I was replying to the effect that I had no detailed knowledge. This was correct. I was aware of general aspects such as agreement by the Minister to the add-on survey and to the fact that discussions were taking place between officers of the Departments and ANOP but that was the extent of my knowledge. I did not have details nor was I required to have them. I was not involved in discussions on the areas to be covered by the add-on survey, let alone on the details of questions to be included. To the best of my recollection I have not had any meetings with departmental or interdepartmental staff or of staff of external organisations to discuss the add -on survey. The survey questions and the reasons for them were of no direct concern to me in my present position. For the record, I had two discussions with ANOP staff. The first lasted a matter of minutes and concerned the preliminary findings of the Youth Attitudes survey in the context of the production of a Participation and Equity Program ( PEP) publicity film. The second was a meeting arranged to again discuss publicity for the Participation and Equity Program. Neither discussion related to the add-on survey. This meeting is referred to on the bottom of page 137 of Hansard. I felt concerned after the conclusion of the Department's hearing about the possibility of there having been some confusion and immediately on my return to the Department, no later than 7.15 p.m., I advised the Permanent Head of this. I advised him that the Committee should be informed of this and that the matter should be clarified. The Minister was advised by the Permanent Head and agreed to write a letter of clarification to the Chairman of the Committee. I add this statement on my own behalf, to explain the circumstances pertaining at the time and the apparent inconsistency in information presented during the hearing. As I said, that letter from Dr Taloni was just tabled with other additional information. I think it does explain to some extent the confusion that prevailed at the time those questions were asked. Those of us who have been involved in Estimates committees for some time know that confusion does arise from time to time. Usually the confusion can be resolved at the time of the Estimates Committee hearings. Confusion arises because not all officers know about every matter. Sometimes it occurs because one matter is confused with another. It seems to me that that is what happened on that occasion. Along with my fellow government members on the Committee, I was not persuaded at the time we held the special meeting that there should be another meeting of the Estimates Committee. In contrast with what Senator Peter Baume said, after receiving Dr Taloni's letter I am even more convinced that we do not need a further hearing of Estimates Committee D. I am a little confused about part of the motion moved by Senator Baume. I guess this confusion can be resolved later. The motion states in part that the particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1984 contained in Divisions 270 to 284 be recommitted. Again, I this will probably be resolved later but it seems to me that the main area of contention centres around this survey and the answers concerned with the survey. Perhaps we could have narrowed it down. We might even be able to do so. I reiterate that the Committee, and I believe the Government, is still not persuaded that a further hearing is required. I have been here long enough to know that although I have the argument , I do not have the numbers, and I suggest that we put the motion to the vote. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENT) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84 SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1984-85 SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1984-85 AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.57) —We are debating the package of Appropriation Bills. It includes the examination of the Estimates recently undertaken by Senate Estimates Committees. A senator is entitled to debate anything he or she wishes to bring to the attention of the Senate in the debate on the Appropriation Bills. First, I would like to discuss briefly the meaning of Estimates, because I do not think the Government members in this place are fully aware of what the Estimates are all about. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I remind the honourable senator that this is a second reading debate and that matters to be discussed are not as broad as she is indicating. This is not a first reading debate; it is a second reading debate. Senator WALTERS —As I understand it, the debate is to cover discussion on any item on which moneys will be spent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It may cover those matters that are raised within the Estimates. That is quite right. Senator WALTERS —That would mean any business at all. Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, I would appreciate the Attorney- General leaving it to you to instruct me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am making the point to you, Senator Walters, that the only matters under consideration are those contained in the Estimates. Debate may not be as wide ranging as you are intimating at this stage. If you intend to move outside that very broad range of matters included in the Estimates, I will have to call you to order. Senator WALTERS —We will perhaps leave it until you have cause to do so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, until such time as you step outside that range . Senator WALTERS —I think it would be a good idea if we were to discuss in this place what the Estimates are all about, because it is obvious, and Senator Peter Baume has just brought it to our attention, that one of the Ministers in this place is not aware that the information being sought by members of both the Government and the Opposition involves legitimate questions which should be answered to the full extent by the Minister. If the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is unable to do that, it should be done by officers of that Department. There is never need for questions not to be answered truthfully and fully. We have just had an example of what occurred in the Estimates Committee referred to by Senator Peter Baume, when matters were not dealt with in the best fashion. From the fact that the Opposition has just won its motion and that the Government did not even demur, it is understood that the Government accepted that that Estimates Committee was indeed run in a very poor fashion and the Minister has a lot to answer for. That attitude is very prevalent throughout the Ministry today, not just from Senator Ryan. I would like to talk a little about Estimates Committee E. I am not a member of that Committee but, Madam Acting Deputy President, as you are well aware, anyone is entitled to attend any of the Estimates committees and to ask questions. I was sitting in my room preparing a speech for the following day and I had the intercom on and was listening to Estimates Committee E which was being broadcast from the Senate chamber. Senator Kilgariff asked a legitimate question about rents, I believe, of the officer in charge of that division of the Department of Defence and the officer told him that he did not have the information available. As you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that often occurs in Estimates committee meetings. The officer of the Department will then say that he or she will get the information the honourable senator has requested and forward it at a later date. That is exactly what the officer offered to do in this case. Senator Evans, our Attorney-General, the first law officer of this country, was in charge at that particular Estimates Committee meeting, and he made an aside to that officer which was not heard by the members of the Committee but which floated over the intercom. That comment, after the officer said he would get the information, was: 'Well, don't try too hard'. Senator Evans is chuckling away at the moment and thinking he is dreadfully clever. That is typical of the attitude of the Attorney-General to the whole of the Senate. If honourable senators remember, it was the same Attorney-General who ordered spy flights to go over Tasmania. Exactly the same attitude was expressed by the Attorney-General in this area. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I just draw your attention to the fact that you are now stepping outside the bounds of the Estimates Committee debate. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, I am explaining the history, what is expected of the Senate, what is expected of Estimates committees and the attitude of the Ministers in charge of Estimates. I am being very critical of the attitude of the Ministers of the Government to the Estimates committees. For the Attorney-General to instruct an officer not to get the information for which an honourable senator had legitimately asked I believe is a disgrace. While the Attorney-General thinks it is a big joke, the people on this side of the chamber do not consider in any way amusing instructions by Ministers to their officers not to get information that has been legitimately requested. As a result of hearing that remark on the intercom I came down to the chamber and said to the Attorney-General that I thought it was most inappropriate. He certainly did not deny it and he could not deny it, but he treated the whole thing in a cavalier fashion, which he always does when he has been caught out doing something completely reprehensible, as he did on this occasion. I then went up to the Hansard office and listened to the tape to make sure that what what I had heard commented on was indeed accurate, and it was. The Hansard officers assured me that they would consider whether the comment should go in the Hansard record, because I requested that it should. It was very clear to the Hansard reporter that that was what Senator Evans had said. But Hansard decided, in its wisdom, and I respect that, that it was an aside and that it did not print every aside that was made. It certainly was made and was an instruction to the officer sitting beside the Attorney-General not to go forward and get the information that Senator Kilgariff had asked for. That is the general attitude that I am objecting to in this debate. If we look at what has happened since this Government has been in power we find that there has been tremendous change in the everyday life of the Australian citizen. The Sex Discrimination Bill was financed under the Estimates, so I am quite sure that I am able fully to discuss that Bill. Let me start by saying that I believe there is need in Australia for a sex discrimination Bill, if for no other reason than an educative one, to point out to people that there is sex discrimination and that people should be aware of it and made to think about it. Let us not say that I am for sex discrimination and that I am against any sort of Bill. However, I will not be intimidated into voting for a Bill on its name alone. I was told that I was being hysterical. We were all told that many times when the original Bill came forward. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, this is not the second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill. If you want to discuss the Sex Discrimination Bill you must discuss it in the terms of the financing of that legislation. Senator WALTERS —When I introduced the sex discrimination area of my speech I said that the Bill was a costing in the Estimates and therefore I would be entitled to speak about it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You are not entitled to debate the Sex Discrimination Bill in itself, Senator Walters. Contain your remarks to the actual financing of the legislation and you will not have any concern expressed by the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I am objecting to the costing of certain areas of the Sex Discrimination Bill brought forward in the Estimates. As I said, I was told that I was being hysterical when I objected to certain areas that have certainly incurred costing in the Sex Discrimination Bill. Some 80 amendments later, after I had been told I was hysterical, the Government passed the Bill. I wonder how many other people were being hysterical on the Government side. The Minister was certainly being hysterical before the 80 amendments were passed. That Bill interferes with religious freedom, and the Australian people will find that their general freedom also will be interfered with. We have a situation where people with certain religious beliefs are no longer able to carry out activities concerning those religious beliefs purely because of certain clauses in the Sex Discrimination Bill. This restriction has been extended to the ridiculous point where the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been told that it should change the language it uses in the presentation of news items to fit in with the concept of sex discrimination. The Family Law Amendment Bill that the Government brought in-again this involves a cost saving-introduced the concept of divorce by post. That is another matter that will certainly change the way of life in this country. Now a couple simply has to separate for 12 months, fill in a form, send it in and they will receive a letter that says: 'Dear Mrs Smith', or 'Dear Mr Smith, your divorce came through on such and such a date'. We have been told that that will save the Government money. That is not the most important consideration in the Australian way of life. The most important thing in maintaining the stability in our country is to have stable marriages and stable family situations. But this Government has introduced divorce by post. It has made divorce so easy that future generations, when considering marriage, will know in the back of their minds-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, once again you are ranging outside the matters raised before the Estimates committees. I draw your attention to the fact that I will provide you with an opportunity to debate the matters that were considered by the Estimates committees. You cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, ask me to consider that divorce by post, to the extent that you wish to debate that matter, is included among those matters considered by the Estimates committees. I will entertain a certain amount of latitude but I am not prepared to entertain it to that extent. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, you will remember that I said that the Government had said that divorce by post was a cost saving, and the saving of costs in the Family Law Court is part of the matters considered by the Estimates committees. I stipulated that right from the beginning of my remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You tend to make that sort of statement at the beginning of your remarks and then you range very broadly in your remarks. Each time you do that I will have occasion to bring you back into line. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, when I mentioned that cost savings are not the only thing involved and then go on to elaborate by stating why I believe there are more important things than cost savings-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —By doing that you are engaging in a second reading debate on that legislation and certainly not a second reading debate on the Estimates. I ask you to confine your remarks to that those matters raised in the Estimates committees. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, if I make mention of costs savings but I cannot mention why I believe those costs savings are unjustified, then you are hindering my debate tremendously. If I mention matters in relation to which I believe moneys have been wasted, can I not elaborate and say why I believe they have been wasted? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I have informed you that I will provide you with an opportunity to range in your remarks as widely as possible within the terms of the appropriations package. Once you step outside that package, I will have to call you to order. I will do so each time you adopt that course. Senator WALTERS —As I have stated already, the amendments introduced by the Government in the family law area have changed tremendously our present way of life and the stability of marriage. So we have the family law situation and we have the sex discrimination legislation. I now turn to video material. Madam Acting Deputy President, I do not know whether you will rule me out of order in referring to video material, but a cost saving is certainly entailed in this item. According to the Attorney-General, the new legislation provides for a great cost saving. I will leave it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to rule whether I can expand on why I believe the great cost saving in this area is wrong. If you rule me out of order in saying that I believe that such a cost saving is not justified, I feel you will be containing my remarks beyond what I believe is reasonable. Before I commence my remarks on that matter, I seek your judgment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, if you confine your remarks to costs and cost savings, the Chair will entertain such references. Once you range in your remarks into matters concerning legislation that has either been passed or is before the chamber, I will call you to order. Senator WALTERS —I presume then that in relation to the motion that was passed last night which provided for the allowance rather than the disallowance of the regulations, I can at least say that the Attorney-General believes that this will effect a tremendous cost saving. But, as in the family law area, cost savings in this area are not everything. The Attorney-General said that the purpose of the exercise was to save Customs duty. He said that the barriers to the importation of hard core pornography have been lifted. However, he added that child pornography, publications inciting terrorism and acts of significant violence or sexual violence will be excluded from importation. The standards in this country are now way down if it is said that a cost saving is more important than those matters of concern that should arise from the adoption of these regulations. As I said last night, the standards set by the Attorney-General are so low that I am not prepared to abide by them. We have a report that tells us that this cost saving-allowing all this rubbish into the country-will do harm to the young of this nation. A report from the United Kingdom says that no matter what sort of cost saving is entailed, harm will be done to children who see these things. If these X rated videos are allowed into the country and parents are able to hire them, children will see them. The report makes it very clear that in the United Kingdom over 50 per cent of 13- and 14-year-olds have seen the sort of X rated video material that the Attorney-General is now letting into the country because it is cheaper as it does not have to go through the rigours of Customs. He says that the barriers to the importation of hard core pornography have been lifted. The United Kingdom report states that children in the United Kingdom have formed video clubs. They pool their pocket money and vie with each other to see who can get the worst of these videos. They take them home and view them after school while their parents are at work. The report says that tremendous short term problems have been caused to these children. They are having nightmares and are unable to erase some of the more horrendous scenes from their minds. The short term problems that they are facing are quite horrific. The Attorney-General tried to discredit this report. However , he did not speak to the chairman of the working party, Lord Swinfen. I spoke to him, and he assured me that no criticism has been made of Part II of the report which substantiates all the figures contained in Part I. He assured me also that similar reports have been made by the European Community committee on youth. This problem is being found to exist in both Europe and the United Kingdom. While that is happening and while Sweden is reaching the stage where it is withdrawing from open slather in this area-Sweden is bringing in laws to stop this sort of thing-what is happening in Australia? The Attorney-General is opening our gates to all the stuff that he believes should be allowed in the country. As I have already said, we have divorce by post. We have a sex discrimination Bill that interferes with our religious freedoms. We have barriers to the importation of hard core pornography being done away with altogether. Madam Acting Deputy President, we are slowly but surely moving towards a republic. We have been told by the Prime Minister-- Senator Childs —A point of order. It seem to me that Senator Walters is once again straying from the appropriations and deliberately engaging in commercials from other debates in which she took part. I ask that she be directed to make her speech relevant to the appropriations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On two or three occasions in this debate, Senator Walters, I have brought you back to the appropriations package. I remind you that you are beginning to range a little outside those boundaries once again. If you contain your remarks to the costing of the appropriations package, there will be no further difficulty. Senator WALTERS —I have done so up to date, Madam Acting Deputy President. Indeed, I have made sure that every one of those matters has referred to costing . What I was saying was that we are moving towards a republic, slowly but surely . I will explain how that matter is within the estimates. We have been told that there will be a change to the oath of allegiance. We have been told by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that de facto spouses of members of parliament should be entitled to travelling allowances. That would be a cost on the taxpayers of this country. Though the Special Minister of State so contends, he has not stipulated what duration of relationship would constitute a de facto relationship. As far as he is concerned, if a member of parliament wants to travel overseas and take a de facto spouse-even a de facto of the moment perhaps -the taxpayer will have to finance that travel. I repeat: We are slowly moving to a republic. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has decided unilaterally that Australia will no longer have its traditional national anthem; he has chosen another and indeed changed the words of the song. Again he has moved to do away with the oath of allegiance. These again are changes in our way of life. We know that the external affairs power will be used, and has already been used . It is the greatest threat to our State. We know that Mr Hawke does not believe in State governments. He made that clear in his Boyer lectures prior to becoming Prime Minister. He used the external affairs power to make sure that Australia interfered with the rights of Tasmania in wanting to build a dam. At the time we were told by the Chief Judge of the High Court that the use of the external affairs power would interfere with every part of our day to day living. The external affairs power, if used to the fullest extent, would interfere with the rights of every State and individual in Australia. It certainly is beginning to. As I said, its use prevented Tasmania from building a dam. We have been told that, if Tasmania does not introduce a sex discrimination Bill within two years, the Federal Government will introduce a sex discrimination Bill applicable to Tasmania. We have been told that the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill will be applied to Tasmania, as well as every other State. That type of Bill may be appropriate in certain areas, for example, in the Northern Territory in respect of Aboriginal land rights; but it is not appropriate in Tasmania, for that State has no indigenous Aborigines. The tribal Aborigine certainly has great affinity with some of his sacred sites, but that situation is not applicable in Tasmania. Yet the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) tells Tasmania that an Aboriginal Heritage Bill will be introduced in respect of Tasmania. It seems to me that the ambitions of the Prime Minister are being fulfilled. As I said, the Prime Minister said in his Boyer lectures that Australia needs to be a republic; it does not need State governments, but a Federal Government only. He is certainly leading us towards that. Before the last Federal election I was asked whether we would need to have a referendum before Australia became a republic. I said at the time that if we are led all the way along the path, with changes of the national anthem, the oath of allegiance and the Australian flag, it is only one short step to become a republic. That is the way the Prime Minister is going at the moment. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(11.26) —Unlike the previous speaker I shall be brief and to the point. I must say that if the views we have heard from Senator Walters this morning are the views of the Liberal Party throughout Australia, that Party will remain in Opposition for a very long time. I was Chairman of Estimates Committee E. I really do not know what I did to deserve that honour. However, I have been a member of Estimates committees, both in government and in opposition. The things that Senator Walters complains about this morning have been happening for years. Meetings have been adjourned for further information; officers attend the meetings without knowing answers; answers arrive weeks later ; departments, like the Department of Defence, have been guilty of supplying late answers ever since I have been a member of the Senate. When in Opposition, former Senator McLaren and others complained about the very same things that Senator Walters complained about this morning. Senator Walters complained also about the attitude of Senator Gareth Evans towards Estimates Committee E. Let me say to Senator Walters that by comparison with the attitudes of Senator Withers when he was Minister in charge of an Estimates committee, Senator Evans acts more like a choir boy. When Senator Withers was in charge of an Estimates committee he would answer that he had not read the papers, and he stopped public servants from answering questions. Though we complained about his actions, in the same way that Senator Walters complains about Senator Evas, I think they are tactics often used by the Government of the day. As I say, I was the Chairman of Estimates Committee E, and we dealt with the Department of the Special Minister of State. I wish to refer to only one matter and it is relevant to the Australian Electoral Commission. It is relevant because a question was asked about that matter during the hearings of that Estimates Committee. It concerned the Richmond by-election held earlier this year. On 29 February 1984 I asked this question: Is the Minister aware that during the recent Richmond by-election the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Richmond ruled that only two scrutineers for each candidate would be allowed at each polling place when the votes were counted. As some polling places had more than two polling booths, was this ruling a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? If that was the case, will the Minister ensure that it does not happen in the future? On 1 March 1984 Senator Evans, representing the Special Minister of State, provided an answer as follows: The Australian Electoral Commission has advised that the Divisional Returning Officer for Richmond did rule that each candidate was entitled to be represented by only two scrutineers at each counting centre. The Australian Electoral Commission has further advised that this ruling was quite consistent with the provisions of section 130 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it applied to the Richmond by-election. That section provides as a general rule that a candidate is not entitled to be represented at the scrutiny at a particular counting centre by more than one scrutineer. . . . I disagree completely with that interpretation. I cannot remember that happening in the past. I have been involved with Federal elections and State elections in New South Wales since 1961, and in my experience that particular ruling has not applied.The answer continued: The section goes on to provide that the Divisional Returning Officer for the division may increase the number of scrutineers. The Special Minister of State has advised that the problem Senator Sibraa brought under notice should not arise in the future. One of the many electoral reforms effected by the 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act was an amendment to section 130 to ensure that a candidate was entitled to be represented at the scrutiny at the counting centre by as many scrutineers as there are officials engaged in the scrutiny or counting of ballot papers at that centre. I believe that this was the practice which applied many times in the past. But that section has now been tightened up. I am pleased that the necessary amendment to section 130 will be effected for the next election. However, I still query the Richmond returning officer's instructions that only two scrutineers would be allowed for each candidate at each counting centre. I make this point because the Commonwealth Electoral Office's internal manual and also the 1980 scrutineers' rights, duties and powers leaflet published by the Australian Electoral Office make it clear that each candidate is to be allowed one scrutineer at each table. I just want to explain that a table is regarded under the Act as a polling booth. Therefore, it seems wrong to me that a candidate at a polling place-now we are talking about a school or a hall-with, for example, four tables can be allowed four scrutineers during the hours of polling and then be told at 8 p.m. that in this case only two scrutineers will be allowed to watch the count. This ruling in the Richmond by-election meant that the Labor Party in some instances could not get an accurate distribution of preferences on the night. On the day following the election when the National Party of Australia was claiming an estimated 3 per cent decline in the Labor vote I was disputing the figures and, although I was ultimately proved to be correct and in fact there was a swing to the Labor Party, it took until the official declaration of the poll to get the exact figures. I can understand the pressure that the returning officer in Richmond was under to get an early result and also the fact that he did not expect the seat to go to preferences. I think this was the first time ever that the seat has gone to preferences. However, I believe it would have been better for all concerned if the votes cast at each polling booth-that is, at each table-had been counted at that table and, therefore, an accurate preference distribution could have been obtained by the scrutineers that night. In the Lowe by-election in 1982 where there were 12 candidates and the distribution of preferences could have been vital, the Labor Party was able to obtain, as was the Liberal Party, an accurate preference distribution from every polling booth in the electorate on the night. As I said earlier, I am pleased that this section of the Act has been amended so that the problem will not arise at the next and subsequent Federal elections. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(11.33) —The Senate is debating a group of Bills, some of which relate to the supplementary appropriations for the present year and others which give the Government the Supply that it will require until the passing of the Budget in August of this year. I do not wish to talk at length or in detail on any of the matters in the Bills. I want to use this opportunity to address my remarks more to the Supply Bills than to the Appropriation Bills. I want to talk about the climate in the pre-Budget session in which a number of attitudes are being expressed throughout the community with regard to the structure of the forthcoming Budget. I think it is fair to say that there has been a lot of public discussion about this subject. I am interested in the views that have been expressed by our economics writers and by those who have been consulting with government through various associations. It seems to me that if we are to use the word 'consensus' we can say that there is a consensus of concern about the level of the deficit in this year's Budget. Press editorials and headlines indicate that there is a vicious deficit circle, which is a problem for any government, particularly in the current economic circumstances. I think that if we look first at what some associations have been saying and then draw those views together it is possible to say that there is a concern that the deficit will present difficulties in respect of interest rates, private investment confidence and things of that kind. Of course, these matters are absolutely fundamental to the health and growth of our economy. This critical question, of course, lies with the Government as it casts its Budget. However, we need to look at the cumulative effect of deficit budgeting. The Australian newspaper produced figures earlier this month which indicated that the total national debt was about $76 billion. This was translated into figures which showed that it represented about $5,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Repayments of past government borrowings will, in the next financial year, exceed for the first time total expenditure by, for instance, the Department of Defence. The rapid growth in public debt will ensure that Australia has relatively high and unnecessary interest rates in the years to come and make it very difficult for governments to cut taxation significantly in the future or undertake programs which they might consider desirable or essential to improve the standard of living of many Australians. Certainly, the level of interest rates will make it difficult to stimulate economic activity for long term growth. The Australian indicated that the total net public debt will be about $76 billion in 1983-84 and about $105 billion in 1985-86. Public debt this financial year will equal about 41.5 per cent of total gross domestic product compared with an average level of 32 per cent to 25 per cent between 1975 and 1982. It is thought that by 1985-86 it will be around the 50 per cent mark and that is a high level in any terms when one looks at the economic activity of a country such as Australia. This, of course, leads to expenditure on public debt interest , which will amount to about $6,200m or 3 per cent of gross domestic product, while expenditure on defence is expected to be less than $6,000m in the next year. So that gives some basic comparison between what we must do to fund the deficits in our Budget. This leads people who are interested in commerce or trade to say that if progress is not made now to reduce the structural deficit we will become increasingly locked into a vicious circle of large deficits, high rates and high taxation. As I said, I have taken some interest in the different comments that have been made during the pre-Budget period. Some of those comments relate to the effect that the Budget deficit will have on the economic situation and our exports. It is suggested by Des Keegan, an economics writer for the Australian, that there is strong evidence that we face a possible exports collapse next year and a current account deficit sufficient to precipitate a run-down of foreign reserves and a flight of capital. He wrote in May of this year that, contrary to the usual trends, after two years of recovery and a probable couple more, raw materials have collapsed. He said, as other writers and commentators have said, that Australia depends on primary industry and mining for about three-quarters of its export earnings and that in most cases these are not faring well and the problems are not short term. He said that the oil shocks of the 1970s, the growth of surplus farm produce in the European Community and Japan's strategic buying success in commodity markets are fundamental changes which have threatened many Australian metals and foodstuffs with lower prices and, in some cases, declining volumes in terms of export possibilities. He further said that iron ore miners with installed capacity of 45 million tonnes were cut back to exports of less than 30 million tonnes per year by the oil shock. He pointed out that this has picked up somewhat. Above all, I think it is fair to say that our exports could experience some difficulties in the future and that these difficulties certainly do not need to be made more extreme by the size and financing of deficits and the effect that they can have on our currency and other relative matters. Yesterday the head of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd called for a cut in the deficit. He again made the same point about effects of the financing of the deficit on interest rates and on exports in particular. In this pre-Budget situation I think it is very timely to look at the indicators such as those that were given by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd in its March bulletin. It stated that a vital aim of government policy must be to avoid upward pressures on the underlying trend in interest rates during the present critical phase of economic recovery. To this end, the direction of fiscal policy must be to reduce public sector demands on the capital market. A further comment was made by the ANZ Bank that, apart from seasonal increases in the June quarter, given appropriate policies it is possible that an uptrend in interest rates can be avoided, barring unforseen developments overseas. Beyond the June quarter, critical factors determining interest rate trends will be the level of public sector borrowing, private sector demand for funds and inflationary expectations. The combination of a diminished contribution to monetary growth from the overseas sector and an expected reduction in the size of the Federal Government's 1984-85 Budget deficit will help to curtail the size of the Federal bond selling program. A significant reduction in the total public sector borrowing requirement, particularly as a result of a lower Federal government deficit, would appear to be a key requirement for a favourable interest rate trend, especially in an environment where the private sector's demand for funds is strengthening. I will quote further from other bodies such as the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. In its April review it said that, if the recovery is to continue, consumer and investment spending must be encouraged and there must be no conflict between public and private sector borrowing. It said that, as far as the overall picture is concerned, we are still beset by inflation far in excess of that of our trading partners, interest rates are still relatively high , wages continue to escalate, unemployment is still running at about 10 per cent and seems likely to worsen, private investment shows no signs of picking up and public indebtedness has grown apace. It is also said that under those circumstances, a tight Budget is imperative. The deficit must be significantly reduced and the money supply contained to try to push down interest rates and inflation. In a Budget submission, the Council of Small Business Organisations expressed the view that the overall Budget deficit should not exceed $7 billion as the first stage of an overall strategy commitment that will provide substantial reductions over a five-year period to the point where we start to live within our means and the huge public debt the community now carries and has to service can be significantly reduced. The Business Council spoke about the public sector finances and the total deficit. It made the point that the chief worries about large deficits are that the Government will either fail to finance them sufficiently by borrowing, thus printing money and fuelling inflation, or finance them in sharp competition with the private sector, thus crowding out private investment and forcing up interest rates and the exchange rate. It said that the current and prospective government deficits at all levels are now very large. In all of what I am saying, it is incumbent upon State governments, as well as the Commonwealth Government to keep in mind the indebtedness that arises from their programs and demands. A cumulative situation can be aggravated from a number of different sources. The total of the deficit at all levels of government is very high and, as mentioned in the figures that I quoted earlier in comparison with the gross domestic product, we should be concerned about it. The Business Council has spoken directly with the Government on these matters as have many of the other organisations from which I have quoted in this speech. However, I was interested in a Department of the Treasury bulletin entitled ' Round-up of Economic Statistics' released in May. It points out that retail sales weakened in the March quarter. It went on in some detail to give the figures of that activity and mentioned the confidence of the community as reflected in retail sales. Whilst one can look at some other areas-for example, motor vehicles-in which there has been a strong rise in activity, one does not find that there has been a rise in retail sales if one takes into account the increase in the consumer price index and the affect that that has on relevant prices. Of course, that was one of the concerns of the Council of Small Business Organisations to which I referred a little earlier. That same Treasury bulletin of statistics for the labour market mentions the unemployment situation and the last recorded employment figures. The bulletin gave comparisons between what had occurred in the previous month and what had occurred in the comparable period in the previous year. It points out that unemployment has not improved in the sense that we could see any improvement in the figures for long term permanent jobs. There has been an improvement in the figures for part time employment which is reflected in the figures. However, I think everyone would acknowledge that the overall prognosis for our employment position is not one that gives us great comfort. It shows that there has been an increase in unemployment and, whilst the participation rate may have improved somewhat, that there are still far too many people who could be productive and useful and who desire to join the work force, in particular with full time permanent jobs and not jobs that have been created on sometimes a temporary basis and sometimes a part time basis by some of the employment programs. That leads me to say that, with all of this serious debate about the development of the Budget at the present time, the community needs to be concerned about the size of the deficit. I think it is incumbent upon those who look at government expenditure to recognise that there are very strong structural reasons why budgeting is difficult. There are lots of areas where ongoing programs require additional finance. The options are very often narrow when one is working to produce a budget. It seems that the consensus of opinion around the country is that it is very important that the level of the deficit does not make it more difficult for a realistic recovery and it is not one that can allow us to believe that some illusory programs and some illusory benefits will be the way in which we see the recovery underpinned into the future. I have referred those remarks to the Supply Bills and pointed to the many experts and business organisations which have drawn the Government's attention to their reading of the economic situation and their leaning towards a fairly tight Budget so far as the deficit is concerned. That would be more appropriate for Australia in this coming year. An increase in the level of activity would allow for confidence in investment to improve and above all would assist our export earnings. Export industries would be competitive. The Audit Amendment Bill which is included in this package concerns charges through the Department of Finance which I welcome. There is no need for me to speak in any detail about that matter. It is part of a package of convenience and it has the support of the Opposition. I hope that, in this run down to the Budget session, we are very aware of the need of the Australian Government, on behalf of the Australian people, to watch very carefully the position in which it places us as we seek to have an economic recovery and a return to employment for those people who have, at present, very limited prospects for regular and permanent employment in the future. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.50) —The Senate is considering the Appropriation Bills and Supply Bills, which deal with supplementary expenditure incurred by the Government during the year. They are the additions to the Budget of last August. When we debate these Appropriation and Supply Bills, the Senate is given the opportunity to look in detail at the expenditure of the Government and at the policies of the Government. The Bills also give us an opportunity to look at the promises of the Government, the foreshadowings of the Government, and in fact the achievements of the Government. They give us a chance to take stock and to see where the country is going. The Government is now some 15 months on its three-year course. It intends, for its own expedient reasons, to truncate that course. A government which has said repeatedly that it is wrong to cut short a three-year period is about to cut it in half. It will do so for one reason only: It is running scared. It knows that, as the months go by, through next year all of the statements of rosy promise for the future will collapse around it. It knows that the economy is worsening and that it cannot achieve what it set out to achieve. It knows that those pieces of legislation it has stacked up until after the election will be grossly unpopular . So this autumn session has been a denuded session, stripped of legislation, because the Government is frightened to bring in the legislation it wants but which it knows will be unpopular. The real question for people to ask is this: What are the surprises to come forward should the Government be re-elected? I want to test that now. The Government is saying that the period ahead will be one of recovery. I have asked the Government to elaborate on that and to give me information. It has not done so. Several days ago in this place I asked whether the Government was aware that the Department of Primary Industry in its estimates had indicated that the amount of revenue from primary industry in the next year, 1984-85, will be 23 per cent less than for this year, that is, one-quarter less. That statement is in Hansard, clear for everyone to read. One-quarter less volume of money will come from primary industry and, through primary industry, into the community, one-quarter less money to create consumer demand and to create jobs. I pointed out that manufacturing industry had indicated that its volume of capital investment, which creates jobs, is continuing to fall and that fall could be of about 30 per cent or more. I therefore asked whether in the case of manufacturing industry that was an indication of a decline, a shrinking of industry, and therefore a shrinking of jobs. I pointed out that the mining industry had said at its recent conference that there would be a shrinking of capital investment in the mining industry of the order of 30 to 35 per cent. That in itself must mean a shrinking of jobs. So in the three areas of the private sector where job creation satisfies some three-quarters of the community-primary industry, manufacturing industry and mining-there is clear evidence, and official statements, of decline in the future. I asked, and have had no answer: Where therefore will the jobs come from ? Will they come from further expansion of the public sector? Of course, even if it were expanded, it could not be said whether the expansion would be in the tertiary sector or wherever. There has not been an answer. In any case, as we get more and more information, we see that the promises that have been made are falling away. We all recall that Mr Hawke went around Asia some month or two ago and made statements wherever he went emphasising that the volume of exports from Australia would increase and price levels would be stable or better. In point of fact, one after the other there has been a collapse of those markets. Whilst the Prime Minister was travelling, it was quite clear to the Australian mining industry that the amount of minerals, particularly iron ore, being exported was falling and that the price had fallen. Whilst he was travelling, he must have known that in fact coal contracts were falling. He had made a statement that there would be no further unemployment in the mining industry. Of course, hundreds of people were disemployed from the mining industry. We now know that the mining industry is facing with considerable gloom the immediate years ahead. We now know that and we know that the price of coal as arranged between Australia and Japan is lower. Of course, the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen ) said that it was the private sector which had done that, but that has been happily denied. In fact, the Government which promised that there would be none of these things now faces a situation in which coal prices are lower and the coal industry faces considerable difficulties in the immediate future. I wanted to reassure myself about these kinds of promises so I looked up the Press cuttings relating to the Premier of New South Wales, who did a similar journey around Asia in 1980. He came back with glaring headlines. He said that in the future two million tonnes more coal would be going to Japan and indeed that China would be exporting oil to Australia. They were grand headlines indeed . But what was it all about in the end? Nothing. Nothing came of it. It is well to remember these grand tours. It is well to remember, too, that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, when overseas, made grandiose statements about the need to cut protection. He did that because the countries with which we trade have adverse trade balances with us. In other words, we sell more to them than we buy from them, and they want us to put down our barriers. We have to hear a great deal more on this journey because in dollar terms we import about three times more per capita from those countries than they import from us in general terms. The great danger comes if we do what Mr Whitlam did. Incidentally, I think the advisers who are advising Mr Hawke today advised Mr Whitlam. I believe that the very adviser who advised Mr Whitlam to cut tariffs by 25 per cent across the board-he was foolish enough to do it-is now advising the Hawke Government on the assets test. It is well to remember that, in 1974-75, 110,000 people immediately lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry because of one single action of the Whitlam Government. This is the Government which says it will maintain increased employment, but the very advisers of the Whitlam time are advising again. The Australian Labor Party has not learned. The Whitlam Government was thrown out because it created unemployment, because it created a soaring inflation rate of 17 per cent, 18 per cent, on the way to 20 per cent. This Government has not learned. That is the background to the present situation where the primary industry has lower earnings expectations and the mining and manufacturing industries have very much lower investment expectations. We have a beef industry which is threatened in its exports to Japan. Indeed, the Prime Minister made brave words-- Senator Walsh —Are you going to talk up Rundle again? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am glad to know that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, is awake because on all these basic resource issues-coal and iron ore, for example- he has a personal responsibility. It is well for those listening to know that all he can do here is grin inanely and enjoy the facts I recite in regard to the Whitlam and Hawke governments' sheer lack of accomplishment. Let us get on to that because this very man who is grinning at us today sat in opposition for eight years, telling us why we should not mine, mill or export uranium. He was telling us of all the horrible dangers of uranium because he knew that his Party might get a vote of fear from somebody. He knew that if he could play upon the fear of people, that even though he knew it was wrong at the time, he might gain some benefit. He knew that it was wrong but he and his colleagues did it all the time. What is he doing now? He is saying that mining and milling are good, that they are safe; let us get the uranium out. Indeed he goes far further than I would have gone, as the previous Minister, in terms of advocating safety. Now he is hooked because if it is true that the Slatyer committee goes further and further, the very denials he made on enrichment will come and sit on his lap because he had the opportunity. The Minister grins. This man who could have encouraged an industry which would have created jobs in this country, which would have given more benefit to people-more money for social security, education and housing-sits here and knows that by his own destructive actions in opposition and by his own deliberate inertia in government, he himself is partially responsible for the high and growing unemployment in this country. This is the kind of situation we are facing now. Let us have a look at this matter because perhaps he will grin again when I recite the record of this Government. This Government came to power on one main promise, that it would lower unemployment by 2 per cent over its period in government. That was the statement made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. The Government was not in power for one month before, having summoned a National Economic Summit Conference, it said no, it would adopt option A; an option which , instead of decreasing unemployment by 2 per cent, would prospectively increase it by 2 per cent. I have here a table from the Summit Conference report which shows that option A would produce 8.9 per cent unemployment in 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government, 10 per cent in 1983-84 and 10.1 per cent in 1984- 85. Within several months of being elected the Hawke Government said that in point of fact it would break that promise, because there would be growing unemployment over its period of government. However, the problem goes further than that. Let us look at the total dishonesty of this Government. These are the kinds of promises that the Hawke Government made, and these are some of its achievements. The promise: Income tax cuts for six million workers. What is the achievement? There have been no income tax cuts and because of inflation every taxpayer is paying substantially more. So on promise No. 1, not only have there been no cuts but also there is higher taxation for all. The promise: A new six-step tax scale so that there are easier increments of taxation and people in the lower scale will pay less. What is the test of that promise? There has been no change at all and because of inflation more people have moved from the 32c into the 46c in the dollar bracket. More people are paying higher taxation. What was the third promise? An increased tax threshold, to $5,000, so that pensioners and those on very low tax do not pay tax at all. What is the reality? No change; the tax threshold is still $4,462. The promise: An increase in the pensioner tax threshold to $5,893. What is the achievement? No change; nothing at all. The promise: An increase in the spouse and sole parent rebate. The achievement? No change at all. The promise: No new capital gains tax. The achievement? A very real amendment to section 26A of the Income Tax Assessment Act-a lump sum tax which is in fact a capital gains tax, and now we have a raid in the form of an assets test. The promise: Cheaper petrol. Indeed, Senator Walsh, who has left the chamber, and his colleagues when in opposition argued all the time that if they were put into government they would reduce the price of petrol. The world price of petrol fell but in fact we have dearer petrol. It gets worse than that because this Government is indexing the price. The promise: No devaluation of the currency. The Government was scarcely in office a week or two, and we had a 10 per cent devaluation. The promise: No change to superannuation schemes. The reality? An attack on people's savings, an attack on voluntary providence; a saying to 1.8 million people that although it promised them that it would not attack their superannuation, and many of those people supported the present Government for that promise, it will now tax it. Worse than that, it said it would force people away from keeping their capital; it would virtually conscript their capital because it would advocate and by duress achieve their purchasing an annuity and so destroy their capital and get revenue from that annuity. I go further. The promise: Raise the pension to 25 per cent of the average wage over a three-year period. We have gone on a journey of 15 months, half way, and have had nothing. Yes, there will be something in the Budget but of course such measures will be devalued for other reasons. I will come to that when I mention the consumer price index. The promise: Fringe benefits income levels to be indexed. Yes, they are indexed, but means tested on the basis of assets. The promise: A reform of the absurdly strict family income supplement income tests. There has been no change. The promise: Pension increases to come three months earlier. Again, no change. That is not a bad list at all. However, every day or two I hearten myself by reading these various promises. I read too, for example, a telegram from Senator Don Grimes, then Labor shadow Minister for Social Security, to a Mr E. Hunt of Connells Point: Labor policy is to restore means test free pension to those over 70 and reintroduce access to the health services for these people. This could not be done immediately but would be a matter for the first Labor Budget. The first Labor Budget has come and gone. It is quite clear that in the second Labor Budget that will not occur. I hold a further letter to the same gentleman, signed by Senator Grimes and making the same promise. These are the kinds of promises that were made before the election. Senator McIntosh —That was before we knew about your deficit. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —'Before we had the deficit', is that what is being said? Senator McIntosh —Before we inherited your debt. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am always glad when people talk to me about that. Members of the Australian Labor Party are now pinning themselves to their alibi of higher deficits. I hold in my hand the Labor Party's economic policy, issued one month before the Federal election of last year. Paragraph by paragraph it is argued that there is no serious worry about the size of a deficit, that in fact a high deficit is not inflationary and does not encourage unemployment, and that high deficits have virtue. Indeed, let us hear again this comment. Why did the Government not keep its promises? If that Scottish accent says the Government did not keep its promises because it inherited a higher deficit than it expected , the honourable senator should go back and read the economic policy statement in which the Labor Party sees virtue in very high deficits. It sees in them greater employment and no effect on inflation. Thus we should not hear that argument from the Government. Still consoling myself on that theme I look to a newspaper article headed 'Treasurer refuses details of forward revenue estimates '. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Because they are illusory. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The reason the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave for refusing those details, even though he had criticised a former Treasurer for doing the same thing, was that the figures would be illusory and not to be trusted. The Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, was reported as saying: . . . the reasons why revenue projections were not published when expenditure projections were was that revenue projections were subject to a greater degree of uncertainty than estimates of outlays. The Treasurer said that we cannot have these forecasts because they are illusory . Thus one by one the alibis of the Labor Party have gone. It is now scrambling urgently towards an election. It is trying to pretend it will not hold an election for a while yet while trying to have the boundaries rearranged quickly so that it can spring an election on us in a sudden panic because it knows that its economic world is falling around it. It knows that in the months of next year and later this year interest rates are likely to rise. It knows after looking at the April figures for unemployment that 884,000 people were unemployed and that unemployment is creeping up again. It tried to hide behind seasonal figures and behind the question of participation. But the fact of the matter is that the individual human beings who are unemployed and suffering the degradation of unemployment will be counted and their numbers are increasing and are likely to continue increasing. Indeed, Labor Ministers are indicating that that trend will continue. We are now facing the fact that everything the Labor Party has said, every promise it has made, has blown out and has proved to be absolutely false. In the education sphere the Labor Party did not tell the independent schools system that if it were elected it would attack independent schools. Indeed, it did not indicate that it would alter the basic rate for all independent schools or alter the percentage link between the cost of a government school and an independent school. Some seven hundred and fifty thousand students and their families were left in the belief that nothing would happen. The Labor Party did worse that that. It did much worse. It let the two million people in Australia who are on pensions believe that it would not touch them. In fact, 89 per cent of all people who were eligible by age were receiving a pension of some sort. On that basis they had shaped their lives, their resources and those of their families. They were led to believe that they would be secure. One of the ugliest things that could possibly happen was that the very people who made the promises-Senator Grimes in particular, who had made comments against the introduction of a property test-and gave the assurances are now making the attack. In the next few days they will water it down because they would not be game otherwise. In the Senate when they were in opposition I was told many times that I must not refer to factions within the Labor Party. They said that there was no left wing and no right wing in the Labor Party; those factions did not exist. Now members of the Labor Party openly organise themselves into factions. The left wing advocates one thing and the right wing advocates another. Honourable senators should bear in mind one thing for certain : No matter what comes out in the assets test wash in the next few days it will be no indication at all of what attacks will be made upon pensioners if this Government is re-elected. On the basis of its broken promises the people of Australia simply cannot trust it any more, on pensions or on anything else. The Prime Minister tries to divest himself of all these unpopular decisions. He tries to blame the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) when education is in bother and the Minister for Social Security when social security is in bother. But the Prime Minister made all these promises. He said all these things and seduced the people of Australia into support for him. Mr Hawke made the promises and he broke them. Let us consider an extraordinary situation. From August last year we had a test that was to be a property test. There was talk of caravans, holiday homes and everything else and of putting the jewels under the carpet and buying antiques or paintings. That kind of nonsense which completely disturbed and upset the two million pensioners in Australia, was allowed to go on. Inevitably, when the Government knew it was wrong, the Prime Minister said: 'It is wrong. I know it is wrong in substance, so we will not do it, but we will not in fact tell people that they can do what they like with their savings now. We will set up a committee'. The Prime Minister, in setting up the Assets Test Review Panel, did not in fact establish a basic principle. He must have known, as must the Government, that home ownership is the key to the Australian retirement plan and that 70 per cent of Australians have so geared themselves as to have a home as their basic asset when they retire. If they are going to continue to live in that home its value is irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether it is valued at $400,000 or $4,000. It is a home; it is simply a place to live. Are we to have the ludicrous situation of having to advise new generations that when they buy their lifetime home they make sure they choose an area of declining property values because if they choose an area of stagnant or growing property values, even though it would still be the same home that they paid for, they will do themselves out of the pension? What an ugly corrupt situation! No wonder that in the post-war years somebody said that they did not want people to be little capitalists. No wonder they did not want them to be! But this is the ugly situation. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, knew that the centrepiece of retirement is the home a person lives in. Did he direct the Gruen Panel to exclude the home? Not he! I make it clear that the fact that the Gruen Panel has included the home is because Mr Hawke did not put any conditions on that. He allowed a situation to develop and every pensioner who owns a home is now in a dilemma. Will it become easier to get a pension if one lives in the country rather than the city or in Tasmania rather than Sydney? In other words, a real estate value will determine whether one gets the pension. To state this situation is to state a tissue of promises and falsehoods from go to whoa. Every feather that the Hawke bird had in him and in his Party 15 months ago has now been plucked. The very promises that have been made have fallen into disrepair. The left wing and the right wing of the Hawke bird are pulling him apart. The fact of the matter is that the real future of Australia is one of serious insecurity for all in terms of jobs, rising unemployment, and a fiddle of the consumer price index that has devalued wages and pensions. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.20) —The Senate is debating cognately a number of Bills dealing with appropriation, Supply and audit. I wish to use the time available to me today to devote my remarks to a matter that receives very little attention in this chamber; namely, that of audit. The Opposition welcomes the introduction of the Audit Amendment Bill. While we acknowledge that the intention of the Government may be good, its progress down the path of improving management performance and accountability within the public sector has been both slow and disjointed. The Bill seeks to do a number of unrelated things. Firstly, it seeks to grant leave of absence to an Auditor-General as determined by the Minister; secondly, it outlines a procedure for resignation of the Auditor-General with the delivery of a letter to the Governor-General; and thirdly, it determines the forms and conditions of appointment and of superannuation payments in circumstances of physical and mental incapacity. The Bill also seeks to increase the limit under acts of grace payments within section 34A of the Audit Act from $25,000 to $50,000 for a single amount as an act of grace payment, and to double to $10,000 the amounts paid in any one year by way of periodic payments. I am not sure whether these increases are an indication of things to come. I assure the Senate that the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts will be looking very closely, as it usually does, at any acts of grace payments. Furthermore, and I believe rather significantly, the Bill also enables concise recognition and identification to be made of the spending of funds, and amends the way in which departments in some cases traditionally manage their funds. An act of grace payment is an amount which is not otherwise payable in pursuance of the law or under a legal liability. Only when a matter cannot otherwise legally or justly be considered and determined is it appropriate for an act of grace payment to be recommended. The Minister for Finance or a person appointed by the Minister for this purpose must be satisfied that special circumstances make it reasonable for an act of grace payment to be made. I wish to emphasise the very close working relationship between the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. Throughout the year the Public Accounts Committee examines all reports of the Auditor-General in detail. The Committee then takes evidence from selected departments and makes a report to the Parliament. The Government responds by way of a finance minute. The Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, therefore, work very closely together in reviewing the stewardship and efficiency of the receipt and disbursement of public moneys. I take this opportunity of welcoming the Government's 1984 paper called 'Budget Reform', particularly the changes forecast in Chapter 5. Several features of this paper are included in the Audit Amendment Bill which is now before the Senate. I refer, for example, to the truncation of appropriation for administrative expenditure. While in normal parlance truncation may be regarded as a grouping together or reduction of information, the purpose of this change is to manage the facilitation of the parliamentary scrutiny of government programs and activities more effectively. The other reform which I hope the Government will move into is the introduction of what are known as cash limits, whereby a cash limit is applied to block expenditure rather than to an individual item, and a number of related programs within the block are put together. This gives managers some discretion in moving funds from one area to another but with the knowledge that there would be no supplementation. I believe the clearer establishment of goals and objectives of government programs should be more clearly defined together with the development of what we might call performance indicators. I take this opportunity to comment briefly on another aspect of audit; namely, internal audit, which I believe is an essential means by which management may monitor the effectiveness of management controls. By this mechanism management is kept informed of the appropriateness of systems and the procedures which it employs. It is regrettable that previous attempts to improve internal audit in the Australian public sector generally have been unsuccessful. I acknowledge that there are moves at the moment to try to enhance this status. I think one of the difficulties is that in the past many of those failures have resulted from an insufficient interest on the part of permanent or statutory heads. I think that the lack of support for internal audit by senior management was reported on in the 184th report of the Public Accounts Committee. That report stressed that it was essential that heads of departments and authorities cultivate a genuine interest in internal audit and learn to use it effectively. It is regrettable that all too often the permanent heads tend to over- concentrate on policy matters and ignore administrative and financial affairs. This, of course, cannot be condoned. They have a clear obligation under the Audit Act 1901, as amended. It is clearly essential that internal audit officers must be motivated, qualified and experienced and that they must be capable of entering and encouraged to enter and stay in internal audit so that they can attain their full potential. There is some concern at the lack of internal auditors who have up to date automatic data processing skills in an environment in which progress is moving very rapidly. I believe the Public Service Board should continue to give a very high priority to the development of general standards for ADP auditing in the public sector. The role of the Auditor-General is often taken for granted by both the community and this Parliament. Indeed, headlines may be created momentarily when an area of difficulty is discovered, but unfortunately in the past such issues often have been buried rather hurriedly as the media in particular moves on to another dramatic story often in an unrelated field. Unfortunately, far too little time is devoted to debate of the Auditor-General's reports. The problem does not stop there. Honourable members and senators do not always have the interest or the incentive to pursue such matters within the Parliament. The initial release, for example, of a Public Accounts Committee report is given only limited time for debate, if any, and the report does not come up again until perhaps some weeks or months later. The public concern and interest, therefore, tends to lessen with the passage of time. I cite two pertinent examples as illustrations of my concern. It is hoped that two reports on today's Notice Paper will come on for debate this afternoon. I refer, firstly, to the Public Accounts Committee's report on HMAS Tobruk which was tabled on 7 March, nearly three months ago. Since this report dealt with some technical problems concerning both the design and the construction of the ship, the contaminated hydraulic system, defective sewerage systems, poorly designed and inadequate locker spaces, deficiencies in the project management of the Department of Defence and the tragic death of naval reserve Cadet Kenneth Dax, the matter should have been dealt with more promptly. Report No. 221 of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) on the Australian War Memorial was tabled even earlier, on 14 December 1983. Both reports illustrate the difficulties in debating reports promptly and fully at the appropriate time and not delaying debates. Acknowledging the increased interest by both Federal and State governments in financial reporting, I welcome the initiatives of the two major accounting professions-the Australian Society of Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia-to establish an accounting standards board for the public sector under the chairmanship of a distinguished public servant, Mr R. G. Humphry. After all, nearly 20 per cent of the members of the Australian Society of Accountants are now employed in government. As the present Auditor-General now approaches his retirement, I believe that it is right that this Parliament should pay a tribute to the value of his work, first in the Australian Taxation Office and in more recent times as a very distinguished Auditor-General. Keith Brigden, as Auditor-General, has brought to that office a determination to adopt approaches different from the traditional audit function. I welcome those initiatives. The large number of matters that have been drawn to the attention of the Parliament is evidence not only of Keith Brigden's competence but also of his officers' professionalism. Keith Brigden's efforts in the past have, not unexpectedly, created some friction within the Service and have also brought comments from outside professional bodies, since in the latter case the Auditor-General always held a very strong view on the use of external auditors. In fact, he was very strongly of the opinion that accountability was best served by the Parliament's own auditor. I therefore take this opportunity of wishing Keith Brigden, who is now in hospital, a quick and complete recovery. The Government has already named a successor to Keith Brigden. He is John Monaghan from the Public Service Board, a man whom I might say is not skilled in accounting but who is by profession an economist. While I do not doubt the qualities of Mr Monaghan, I believe it does not enhance the concept of professionalism, particularly accounting professionalism, within the office of an Auditor-General to appoint a man from outside the profession-an economist- particularly at a time when both the public sector and the Parliament are trying to raise and improve standards of management accounting techniques especially within the public sector. I wonder what would be the reaction of the legal profession if, for example, a psychologist were appointed as Solicitor-General. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make these comments. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.33) —I wish to address my remarks to aspects relating to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. This Department is extremely important to the whole of Australia, but it has particular relevance to the Australian Capital Territory as the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Recreation (Mr Brown) has so many responsibilities within the Australian Capital Territory. In regard to tourism, I certainly welcome the great increase in funding in last year's Budget to the Australian Tourist Commission. As I have said previously, I was disappointed then that tourism in the Australian Capital Territory did not receive the same emphasis from the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren); nor again did we find in the Supplementary Estimates that he had in any way sought to redress the imbalance and provide additional funding for the Australian Capital Territory Government Tourist Bureau in Canberra and extra money to be spent in conjunction with the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau. One aspect of funding was important to the Australian Capital Territory. It relates to the Olympics for the Disabled being held in Australia, in particular in the Australian Capital Territory, in the bicentenary year of 1988. There was no funding for this project in the Budget or in the Supplementary Estimates. I think it is appropriate that we review what has occurred with respect to the Disabled Olympics. The Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation started working on this matter at least as early as October 1982. The then Prime Minister, other Ministers and departments were all involved in working towards achieving the holding of these Games in Australia in 1988. Of course, it was appropriate that the Federation should then write to the new Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and it did so on 21 March 1983. The Federation received a letter from him, which I will read. The letter is from the office of the Prime Minister in Canberra. It states: Dear Dr Grant- Dr Grant is the President of the Federation to which I referred- Thank you for your letter of 21 March 1983 concerning a possible bid by Australia to stage the 1988 Olympic Games for the Disabled. I fully support the concept of staging these Games in Australia as a means of encouraging and supporting our disabled athletes. As the draft Program for 1988 prepared by the Australian Bicentennial Authority indicates, the Government also sees the holding of the Olympics for the Disabled in Australia as an important component of our Bicentennial celebrations. I am confident Australia has the facilities and expertise to hold such an important international event and I wish Australia's application later this year every success. Dr Grant knew that that letter did not actually guarantee funding, but he was entitled to feel encouraged by the confidence displayed in the letter from the Prime Minister. Other correspondence indicates that the Australian Bicentennial Authority certainly had these Games in its program. The Executive Director of the Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association of Victoria wrote to the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority on 23 March last year, indicating the expertise amongst her Association. She had been chairman of the organisation involved in arranging the 1981 Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Games held in Melbourne. She indicated the Association's pleasure at seeing that the 1988 Games were, at that stage at least, part of the draft program for the 1988 bicentennial celebrations . There was wide support and encouragement in the community for this organisation to proceed with its bid to get funding from the Government. It was seeking from the Government an underwriting of funding for the Disabled Olympics in 1988. I shall not go through the letters that the Association received relating to this matter, but there was clearly a wide perception of the benefits to all Australians and to the disabled community from holding these Games in Australia. Based on this encouragement, Dr Grant wrote back to the Prime Minister on 26 April. He also wrote to the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Perhaps one of the most important things that occurred in the history of this matter was the response of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The Federation's submission went to the Prime Minister, Mr John Brown and Mr Uren on 19 May 1983. Subsequently, in the same month, Mr Brown addressed the National Executive of Sporting Directors in Canberra. It was a closed meeting, which was appropriate, but he subsequently talked with the Press. It was not a casual run- in with the Press, where he made some lighthearted answers; it was clearly a serious interview which was reported in the Canberra Times on 22 June 1983. The article referred to the meeting and the fact that the Press was not part of it but had the opportunity to speak to the Minister afterwards. He ranged over sporting issues and the role of the Australian Institute of Sport. The article states in part: The proposed inaugural Australia Games in Sydney in January had Federal Government support but were cancelled for a number of reasons, primarily because the organisers had found it difficult to raise additional funds in an Olympic year. Mr Brown confirmed government support for the Games and said, ''I would hope that by 1988 we would have an Australia Games properly set up and that it would extend into the wider area of handicapped athletes and the community generally.' ' . . . . Mr Brown said he fully supported Australia's move to secure the 1988 Disabled Olympics. Considering it was an obscenity- that is a strange word to use- Considering it was an obscenity that we missed the 1988 Olympics, and I have no doubt that given [an earlier] change of government in Victoria and Australia we would have got those Games in our bi-centennial year, I applaud the efforts of Canberra to get the handicapped Olympics. ''We haven't discussed it yet but I'd be surprised if there wasn't great government support . . . I don't care where it is held as long as we get it.'' Were not the disabled and the rest of the community entitled to be delighted with that response and the prospect of government support for those Olympics? The saga goes on. There was a meeting in London in August, by which time no response had been received from the Government. Support was given to the proposal. I have a letter from Mr Julius Patching of the Australian Olympic Federation, who said: We are delighted to hear of your bid to host the 1988 Olympics for the Disabled in Canberra, and you can be assured of the complete support of this Federation. We did try ourselves to get the 1988 Games to Australia, but the Treasury and Co. would not be in it: a great pity. Congratulations on a very well prepared proposal. If you think there is any way we can enhance your bid internationally or locally, please let us know. The support was genuine and widespread from all sporting and handicapped organisations, from local business houses, from the Australian Institute of Sport, and from the Canberra College of Advanced Education, which was involved with proposals for accommodation. With the public support of the Prime Minister and Mr John Brown, to which I have referred, people were entitled to think that that was genuine. There was great difficulty in getting a response from the Government in relation to the submissions. By August, when no response had been received, it was acknowledged in a letter from the Minister for Territories and Local Government that at least he knew that. It became apparent that the whole thing would have to be deferred to the next international meeting in January. The House of Assembly supported the proposal and its recommendation, strongly urging that the Games be held in Canberra, was also conveyed. There were discussions with the Department, and the Federation was asked to supply additional information, which it did. That comprised some 56 pages additional to the original submission, which it will be recalled Mr Patching had said was an excellent submission. I know that 56 pages in itself does not necessarily indicate quality. I will not go through the whole submission today, but I assure honourable senators that the matter was dealt with in great detail. The Canberra Tourist Bureau offered its support, and it was clear from this community that everything that needed to be done would be done. The worst part of the story, really, is that by January of this year, when the meeting was to be held in Innsbruck, no answer had been received from the Government. Dr Grant was due to have left Australia to attend that meeting but he had not received a response from the Government. We all know now that the Government refused to co-operate with bringing these Games to Canberra. It did not reply in a way which I thought was polite to the disabled or to those who had done so much to prepare the submissions. To say the least, the decision was disappointing for everybody concerned, and no adequate explanation for it has been given. The suggestion that it is customary for the Games to be held in the same place as the Olympic Games is not correct. It has been held in the same place but not always. In fact I think on more occasions it has not. The suggestion that Canberra did not have the facilities was also, I think, inaccurate. Certainly some things would need to have been done. In a radio interview Mr Brown referred to the fact that we did not have an airport that would enable disabled to get off aeroplanes easily. That situation could have been corrected by 1988. If we believe government promises about what might happen with our airport, we are entitled to think that that would not be a problem. Of course, it was a warning that the Government had very little intention of doing what ought to be done to our airport, and that has been confirmed as late as this week. There were other instances when Mr Brown gave great support to the Disabled Olympic concept, as he did in answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 22 September last year. It is the rudeness and the ineptness of the Government that I complain about mostly. It did not reply to Dr Grant. It did not give him an opportunity to put in a bid. The Government said subsequently that Korea had put in a bid. In fact Korea did not, until it realised that Australia was not going to, and of course the Games are now going to Korea. It is quite clear that it was accepted internationally that Australia wanted the Games and that that had the blessing of its Prime Minister. It was accepted that, 1988 being our bicentenary year, it would be a very appropriate activity to hold in Australia at that time. There was no bid from anywhere else, including Korea, until the death knock at the meeting when Korea indicated it could hold the Games. I cannot understand why the disabled athletes in particular and the community and the bicentenary concept in general have been handled in the way that they have. I think we are entitled to feel that Canberra and Australia have been let down by the Government as far as this issue is concerned. I think it needs to be placed on record that the amount of funding that has been given to sport, recreation and tourism does not adequately explain why it is that this event, which could have been funded over a period of years and could have been of such benefit to the disabled and to this community, has not been endorsed by this Government. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, will be absent from the chamber this afternoon. Any questions which normally would be directed to Senator Gietzelt, in relation to his portfolios or those he represents, should be directed to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Senator MISSEN —I direct a question to the Attorney-General, of which I have already given him some information. First, will the Attorney-General inform the Senate whether any representations have been made by Mr Kerry Packer or other persons on his behalf to all or any-if so, which-Ministers of the Hawke Government since the tabling of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the National Crime Authority legislation? Secondly, if so, did such representations relate to any-and, if any, which-of the terms of the proposed National Crime Authority legislation and/or to the termination of any-and, if any, which-of the current inquiries of the Costigan Royal Commission? Were such representations made orally or in writing? If the latter is the case, will the Attorney-General make such representations available to the Senate? When were such representations made? Thirdly, if the Attorney-General is unable immediately to answer these questions in relation to other Ministers, will he obtain and supply answers before the commencement of debate on the legislation in the Senate? Fourthly, will the Attorney-General now give an answer in respect of such representations made to him personally? Fifthly, has the Hawke Government made any-and, if so, what-decision or decisions in respect of any such representations made by or on behalf of Mr Kerry Packer? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to the first part of the question is, in my case , no; in the case of the Special Minister of State, no; so far as other Ministers are concerned, I do not believe so. Certainly nothing has been communicated by them to me that would suggest that any such representations have been made. However, I shall seek a response from them, which I have not yet been able to do, and advise the honourable senator in due course if there is any reason to change the answer I have just given. The second part of the question asked whether such representations, if any, related to various things and when they were made. The answer to all those matters is: Not applicable. The next major part of the question asked, if I was unable immediately to answer the question in relation to other Ministers, whether I would obtain and supply answers before the commencement of debate on the legislation in the Senate. I doubt very much whether that will be possible, but I shall give the honourable senator the information as soon as possible. The second last part of the question asked whether I would now answer in respect of such representations made to me personally. I have already done so. The answer to the final part of the question at this stage is: Not applicable. Senator TATE —Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicate to the Senate whether the car industry plan announced yesterday has received favourable or unfavourable reviews from analysts and commentators? Whatever the answer to that question, does he acknowledge the concern and misgivings of some sections of the trade union movement? Can he quantify the impact of his proposals on unemployment prospects as compared with continuing with more of the same? Senator BUTTON —I think it is for others to judge whether the response to the passenger motor vehicle plan announced yesterday has been favourable. Insofar as there has been an element of criticism from some sections of the trade union movement, I think it is very important that those who comment on this matter, particularly in view of the fact that it involves substantial restructuring of an industry, should get their information right. That includes, for example, the Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce, Senator Peter Rae, who yesterday in the Senate said that the motor industry was a widely irresponsible industry and that car sales had dropped by 19 per cent in the month of April compared with sales for the previous month. Car sales in April in fact were down 13 per cent on the previous month, a result that did not surprise the Government in view of the fact that there were only 18 selling days in April compared with some 24 in March. Senator Rae went on to say that he had consulted with the industry. If he had been doing that on a regular basis he would know that the number of car sales has improved in May. Senator Rae commented that the plan would be very hard on Volvo and Peugeot, which he said would be very heavily hit by this plan. Peugeot went out of business in Australia in 1983 as a result of the operations of the plan of the Fraser Government; it has nothing to do with the present Government. In a sense what he says may be true in respect of Volvo. Volvo assembles cars in Australia at an enormously high rate of protection. The amount paid for what is equivalent to a job subsidy for each worker for assembling a Volvo in Australia is enormous -something like four times the amount of subsidy provided in an already very heavily subsidised industry. The Government has had discussions with the assemblers of the Volvo motor car, which happens to be the Nissan motor company which is located in Melbourne. If Volvo decides to phase out its operations arrangements have been made to ensure that that will not have a detrimental effect on employment at Nissan and that the labour force engaged in that operation will be transferred to other work. The criticism from sections of the trade union movement about alleged unemployment consequences of the plan has come largely from the New South Wales Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia. Mr Thompson has received widespread success in appearing on television and radio programs announcing the dire consequences that will result from the plan announced by the Government. In 1981 when the former Government made some arrangements in relation to the motor vehicle industry, if I might call them that, Mr Thompson announced the result would be that 17,000 jobs would be lost in the industry in New South Wales. I find that an extraordinary figure, considering that only 7, 400 workers were employed in the industry in New South Wales at the time he made the statement. Last week Mr Thompson, before he knew-- Senator MacGibbon —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is debating the paper he presented yesterday. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order involved. Senator BUTTON —Before Mr Thompson knew the contents of the present Government's plan, he announced that it would result in job losses of 8,000. Later he amended that figure to 20,000. I am saying these things only because Mr Thompson has a very legitimate interest to protect in terms of employment in his industry. He is a distinguished trade union figure in Australia. I think it is very important that the facts in relation to these matters be stated and that any process of structural change in the automobile industry in Australia recognises the fact that over time there will be reductions in employment in this industry, just as there have been in motor vehicle industries throughout the world. Australia cannot be immune from that process and survive as a manufacturing nation. I think that approach has to be recognised on a bipartisan basis and by all Australians concerned about the future of manufacturing industry. The history of this industry shows that in the past 10 years 11,000 people employed by the plan manufacturers alone lost their jobs. The Government is concerned that if that process is to continue and if there is to be a general reduction in the size of the work force, that should be accomplished in a structured and orderly way and not in the sort of way in which it has happened in the past. I plead in a sense for a bipartisan approach to the very important questions involved in structural change in the industry. The PRESIDENT —I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the presidential gallery of a distinguished former senator from South Australia, Geoff McLaren. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to our erstwhile colleague a warm and friendly welcome upon his return to Canberra. Senator LEWIS —Former Senator McLaren apparently has come back for the debate this afternoon on the Estimates committees. I ask the Attorney-General whether the New South Wales Attorney-General has been given direct access to Commonwealth parliamentary draftsmen working on the National Crime Authority legislation? Did the Attorney-General authorise any such access and were any other State Attorneys given similar privileges? Will the Attorney-General table any records of communications between himself and Mr Landa about the national crimes authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no idea what Senator Lewis is talking about when he refers to direct access by the New South Wales Attorney-General and parliamentary counsel in the context of the crime authority legislation or anything else. If there is any foundation for any suggestion, interesting or otherwise, in that respect I will follow it up and let the honourable senator know. As for the communications between myself and Mr Landa about the crime authority Bill, I cannot recall anything special about those communications; they are of exactly the same character as communications I had with other Attorneys-General and police Ministers in the context of the intergovernmental deliberation and consultations that have taken place. If there is any correspondence or something of that kind-which I cannot for the moment recall, especially with Mr Landa-I will be happy to consider tabling it. But I do not believe there is anything of that kind. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to a question I asked on 10 May 1984 in relation to aids for disabled people and the Minister's response that funds for this purpose had been fully committed for the current financial year. Have additional funds for this purpose now been made available? If so, what is the level of these funds, and how much will be allocated for use in Queensland? Senator GRIMES —I remember the question asked by Senator Colston some weeks ago concerning the aids for disabled persons program. I said at the time that the States that administered the program and the funds had in fact spent all funds this year and more needed to be made available. The Government approved an additional $3.8m in funds for 1983-84 to provide an emergency boost to the program. It was my understanding that the Minister and his Department were to review the program and that the States would be advised that they would be expected to ensure that future allocations are spent in priority areas. I am unable to give Senator Colston details of the State by State breakdown, but I shall seek the information from the Minister for Health and let the honourable senator have it as soon as possible. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that there is an agreement between Australia and the United States defence authorities which obliges the United States to keep Australia fully informed of likely decisions about the operations of United States bases in Australia? Is it true that the United States has appropriated approximately $126.8m to expand the Nurrungar base in Australia to make it compatible with the new DSP2 satellites? Under the agreement to keep Australia informed, has the United States officially or unofficially informed any Australian official or Minister about that expansion? If so, has the Government accepted the reasons for the expansion, and the implication of approval of nuclear war fighting involved with the new satellite program? If not, is the Government concerned about the failure of the United States to live up to an agreed obligation, and is the Government demanding a full report on this change? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can inform the honourable senator that the matters to which he has referred will be dealt with in a statement that the Prime Minister will be making before the Parliament rises at the end of next week. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to Senator Evans in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In what ways was the Department of Foreign Affairs involved in the recent visit to Australia by Ms Petra Kelly, a prominent parliamentary member of the West German 'Greens Party'? Were any resources, financial or otherwise, of the Department involved in the visit of Ms Kelly? Under what policy of the Government was any expenditure or utilisation of resources by the Department, if any, taken in connection with the visit of Ms Kelly? Senator GARETH EVANS —The information supplied to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter is as follows: Dr Petra Kelly visited Australia in May as an official congress visitor to attend ANZAAS 84, and spent a short time after the congress visiting other centres at the invitation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In August last year Dr Beryl Rawson, the Chair of the Women's Studies Section of the 54th Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, advised through Senator Ruth Coleman the section's intention to invite Dr Kelly to attend ANZAAS as a guest speaker. Dr Rawson indicated that there was considerable interest in a number of universities and other groups in meeting with Dr Kelly. Dr Rawson accordingly sought financial support under the Department of Foreign Affairs Special Overseas Visitors Fund to help cover the travel and related costs of Dr Kelly's participation in the congress and to enable her to visit other centres in Australia. It was agreed that ANZAAS and the SOVF would share the expenses of Dr Kelly's visit. Dr Kelly was therefore invited by our Embassy in Bonn to spend a short period at official expense travelling in Australia outside the period of the congress itself. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said he believed-and I do not dissent from this-it appropriate that Dr Kelly, a member of the German Parliament and a prominent political figure, should be given the opportunity to gain a broader understanding of Australia than would otherwise have been possible if her visit had been confined to Canberra and the ANZAAS congress. If the honourable senator requires any information other than that which I have specifically addressed, I shall ensure it is given to him. Senator HILL —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is he aware of the claim by Mr David Combe that he is still under surveillance by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Is it true, or is Mr Combe just being a ' damn fool', to quote the Attorney-General's description applied in another context? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no foundation whatever for Mr David Combe's allegations, claims, complaints or whatever in this respect. On the instructions of the Prime Minister, subsequently confirmed by me, ASIO ceased surveillance of Mr David Combe in May 1983, and the Director-General of Security has informed me that Mr Combe has not been under surveillance at any time since then. I appreciate that giving this information directly and explicitly in this way is something at odds with the standard response to inquiries of this kind about whether people are undergoing ASIO surveillance. I do not want it to be thought that this is other than a wholly exceptional answer based on the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a segment screened on 60 Minutes last Sunday, 27 May, which disclosed that eyes have been illegally removed from a number of deceased patients at a hospital for transplantation? Has the Minister called for a report on these allegations? Has there been any infringement of Commonwealth laws in respect of these allegations ? Can any action be taken against those who charge for services involving the transplantation of illegally obtained eyes? Can any action be taken against doctors and other unqualified hospital staff who remove eyes from deceased patients either without their prior permission or without the permission of relatives? Can doctors who conspire to obtain eyes from illegal sources be prosecuted if they claim on Medicare after transplant operations? Has the Minister for Health any evidence that similar practices are occurring at any other hospital in Australia? Senator GRIMES —I would assume that the references to the program have been drawn to the attention of the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett. I know that he would not have seen the program at the time it was screened because he and I were on a plane between Adelaide and Canberra at that time. I have no information from the Minister for Health about any action he has taken or any suggested actions he might take, as implied in Senator Jones's question. I will refer the whole matter to the Minister for Health and seek an early reply. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I remind him of an answer he gave me on 2 May about the funding of market research into attitudes linked to the Government's now deferred referendum proposals. Does he recall saying that he would be happy to table the results of that research and give an undertaking to provide the information to a meeting of the appropriate Estimates committee? Is he aware that his Department told Estimates Committee E on 3 May that the results of the research, which in conjunction with preparations for an advertising campaign cost taxpayers $42,218, will not be made public? Why has he gone back on his undertaking to the Senate? In addition, I ask him how he can justify this attitude, given the answer by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs on 9 May referring to another publicly funded survey , and I quote Senator Ryan: It is not our intention to withhold from the Parliament or the public information which has been sought by public funding. Senator GARETH EVANS —I confess that I had not noticed that the answer to which Senator Chaney referred about not making research available was given in those terms or, indeed, contradicts anything that has been said earlier. I certainly have no particular axe to grind in this respect and no reason to withhold any such information that may be of general public interest or interest to the Parliament. I will ensure that such information as it is possible to table will be tabled in this respect. I have no difficulty with it and I do not see that it quite deserves the production number that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make of it. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney-General whether answers delivered by his Department to the Estimates Committee can be relied upon or not as being factually accurate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am tempted to say a great deal. I have nothing further to add to my previous answer. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. In Tasmania the State Government has recently informed people buying former Department of Housing and Construction homes on rental purchase that, in addition to the repayments in the agreement, an administrative fee will be charged. A number of people have held these agreements for some 30 years and consequently many are approaching retirement or are already in receipt of a retirement pension. Is this a matter within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement or is it solely the responsibility of the State Government? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Housing and Construction has informed me that under the current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement it is a State government responsibility to determine the terms and conditions of home purchase assistance loans, subject to fairly broad guidelines in that Agreement. The charging of an administration fee on loans is consistent with these guidelines. I understand that the cases referred to are purchase contract arrangements entered into under the Tasmanian Homes Act 1950. Under the arrangements, purchasers agreed to buy Federal and State funded rental dwellings at concessional rates. Purchasers also agreed to meet certain charges, including insurance, rates and land taxes. The Tasmanian Department of Housing and Construction administers these charges and the Tasmanian Parliament recently amended the Homes Act 1950 to include a charge of $156 per year on purchase contracts to cover the administrative costs of the Department of Housing and Construction. The interest rates charged by private housing finance institutions include a loading for administration. Administration fees are also often charged when loans are taken out. Purchase contract arrangements ceased in Tasmania in August 1976. However, interest rates charged by Tasmania and other States for home purchase loans under the current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement include a loading for administration costs. So the responsibility is that of the State Government. The imposition of this charge resulted from an amendment to the legislation which was made recently in the Tasmanian Parliament and is outside the gamut of the Federal Minister and the Federal Department. Senator ARCHER —The Attorney-General would be aware of widespread community concern, evidenced by the thousands of people who have signed petitions presented to the Senate and by other direct representations to honourable senators, about relaxation of the entry and distribution standards for pornographic video material and other material which the Government has accepted and which the Senate last night agreed to, thanks to the votes of the Australian Democrats. What expressions of community support has the Government received for this approach which the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee unanimously agreed had made control of this material more difficult? Will the Attorney- General name the organisations concerned so that we can more properly judge the strength of the alleged push to which the Government has responded with its new regulations? Senator GARETH EVANS —The support which has been received for the Government's position on this matter has been essentially, as one would expect, from civil liberty organisations. More particularly, it has been from the women's advisers to every government in Australia with whom these policy issues were specifically canvassed by me, as I described to the Senate last night, a few weeks ago. Senator Walters —That is not so. Senator GARETH EVANS —As much as it might hurt Senator Walters to appreciate that the voices that she represents or speaks for in this country are those of a vociferous minority out of touch with the mainstream of thinking and civilised values in this country, I am afraid I have to advise her that that is so. In this instance, the silent majority, the less vociferous majority in this country , are the ones who are in touch, I believe, with the kinds of values that are reflected in this package of legislation. I repeat, as I did at nauseous length during the debate which has gone on for many weeks in this place and which was brought to a conclusion last night, that what the Government has done in this respect has been to introduce controls which are in very many significant practical ways tighter and more effective and likely to be tighter and more effective so far as extreme categories of nasty, unconscionable, unacceptable video material in particular are concerned. I refer in particular to child pornography, bestiality, terrorist material and, most specifically of all, that material which involves extreme gratuitous depictions of violence and, in particular, gratuitous depictions of violence of a sexual kind involving non-consenting parties. Those situations, which have been a quite legitimate and understandable cause of community concern, are now directly and explicitly addressed by our import control legislation in a way which was not the case before, resulting in a situation in which the law was both unenforceable and unenforced. Moreover, this situation is addressed in a systematic and thorough-going way at point of sale and point of hire so far as videos are concerned by the new domestic legislation we have now introduced into the Australian Capital Territory and are in the process of introducing in all the participating and supporting jurisdictions around Australia. There is no foundation for the campaign of scuttlebutt, innuendo, scandal mongering and general idiocy that has been maintained and supported by the troglodytes and neanderthals in this particular Parliament who are so vociferous on occasions such as this. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question. I did not hear part of what the Attorney said because there was a certain amount of noise at the time. Will the Attorney advise me which groups of women he said had supported this Government's position? Senator GARETH EVANS —I referred specifically to the women's advisers to the various State governments and the Commonwealth Government who meet regularly for the purpose of advising their respective governments on these matters and who had been expressing concern at the possible implications from a feminist perspective of the increasing, as it was understood to be, spread of pornographic material, in particular violent pornographic material. This has been the subject of very extensive debate within the women's movements, within groups of all shades of ideological opinion, and it was important to explore the issues fully and thoroughly and to ensure that we were not acting in some way that was going to be offensive to mainstream feminist thought and women's group thought in this country. I believed the best way of tapping that opinion and debating and fully discussing these issues was in the particular environment that I mentioned. Again, I am not going to cop criticism from someone who has never heard of Leda and the swan, Europa and the bull or perhaps Eve and the snake when it comes to having sensible discussions about the extent to which one can control bestiality or anything else. These things have to be discussed at a level of seriousness and a level of intelligence which it is beyond the capacity of the honourable senator to produce. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Australia Post advises customers that there is a 24 -hour delivery service between capital cities. However, I am informed that there are frequent delays. A letter recently posted in Sydney on 6 May arrived in Launceston via Hobart on 14 May in spite of being correctly addressed. What are the reasons for such postal delays? What is being done to improve the situation? Senator BUTTON —I am sorry to be pedantic in answer to the honourable senator's question, but a letter posted on 26 May in Sydney which arrives in Tasmania on 14 May is a phenomenal performance for Australia Post. As the letter was posted in Sydney I assume that there are still problems in the organisation of the Sydney mail deliveries. Australia Post has been making very serious efforts to overcome those difficulties. In view of the fact that the question requires a more detailed answer, I will direct it to the Minister for Communications and obtain an answer as quickly as possible. Senator MacGIBBON —Is the Attorney-General aware of an examination conducted into the affairs of Mr James McCarteney Anderson in the Federal Court of Bankruptcy in Sydney on the seventeenth of last month? Is he aware that in the course of his evidence, Mr Anderson said that in the 1960s and 1970s he managed the Venus Room Bar and Grill in Kings Cross for Mr Abe Saffron? Has the Attorney -General been informed of Mr Anderson's allegation, available in the public transcript, concerning Mr Saffron's partners? Will he investigate the truth of this allegation concerning Mr Saffron's partners? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware and have been for some weeks of the scandalous allegations made by Mr Anderson in the course of his evidence and the proceedings referred to by Senator MacGibbon. I am only surprised that the gutter crawlers in the Opposition have not made it their business to put this material on the public record sooner than they have. Senator Chaney —It is on the public record. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is on the public record. I am only surprised that they have not brought it to the public attention sooner in the way that Senator MacGibbon is now proposing to do. The matters raised by Mr Anderson are, to my knowledge, being fully and thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities. I have nothing more to say on that subject. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a report in the latest edition of the National Farmers Federation newsletter which claims that there is a prima facie case of dumping of New Zealand mutton on the Australian market over recent months? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the report is accurate? If so, what action has the Government taken to rectify the problem? Senator WALSH —Some time before the Minister for Primary Industry went overseas- indeed, it is a month ago now-I was left a minute by him on this matter. I am aware of the report to which Senator Richardson referred. I think it was published early this month. Mr Kerin was clearly aware of it before the publication in the National Farmers Federation newsletter because he told me that the imports for January and February of this year were at values lower than those which applied last year and that there have been allegations that New Zealand mutton is being dumped in Australia. He advised the people who approached him and who, apparently, approached other Ministers, that there were recognised procedures for requesting counterveiling duties and that those procedures were being followed; so Mr Kerin told me a few weeks ago. He also told me that during his visit to New Zealand last month he discussed the issue with the New Zealand Minister for Agriculture and was advised that New Zealand mutton trimmings were being exported to meet a specific demand but that trade was expected to stop once northern Australian cattleworks commenced their kill. I am not sure whether that is responsible for the imports to which Senator Richardson referred. The Minister is returning to Australia within the next few days. I will see whether he has anything to add to the advice which he provided a couple of weeks ago. Senator DURACK —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to comments by the Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Mr Peter Bailey, on the recommendations of the Commission for action to be taken against public comment which might be construed as inciting racial tension, which have been the subject of a report about which the Attorney-General is no doubt aware. What stage has the Attorney reached in his consideration of the Commission's recommendations? Does the Attorney agree with Mr Bailey that if the Commission's proposals were adopted, remarks such as those by Mr Hugh Morgan of the Western Mining Corporation Ltd on Aboriginal land rights could have been covered by such a law, but that the views expressed by Professor Geoffrey Blainey on immigration would not? Is the Attorney concerned that any movement in the direction advocated by the Commission in respect of such a law would have the effect of restricting debate on what may well be sensitive issues but are matters which, nonetheless, should be freely discussed in a free society? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have said on numerous occasions that I am acutely aware of how sensitive is the balance of competing interests here involved between, on the one hand, a need to maintain traditional principles of free speech in their fullest possible extent and, on the other hand, arguably the need to curb some of the grosser manifestations of racist propaganda which have been all too unhappily visible in recent times. I think it has been universally accepted by those who have thought, written and spoken about this topic that, however distasteful one might find some contributions to public debate on these issues to be, nonetheless, mere distastefulness cannot, in itself, be a legitimate ground for seeking to limit such statements because otherwise one would be unduly limiting free speech. I suspect that the comments of Mr Morgan and, to some extent, even of Professor Blainey, would come within that description and justify that kind of response. The matter is still being looked at very closely by the Government. As I said before, it is the subject of a report from the Human Rights Commission under Mr Bailey which came down in the latter part of last year. It has been the subject of a request by the Government for submissions from the public which have now been received in quite a significant number. I am in the process of trying to engage a high level consultant, given limited resources presently within the Department to devote to this job with the thoroughness and speed which it needs, in order that I might be in a position to make some appropriate recommendations to the Government in a few months time. Beyond that I am not in a position to comment further except to say that I think Mr Bailey's remarks and the Commission's report have been rather spectacularly misrepresented in a number of places. What is involved in their recommendations is not any penal sanctions being attached to language which they argue in limited circumstances should be rendered unlawful. Rather, it is a matter of that language exposing itself to the kind of jurisdiction which otherwise exists for the Human Rights Commission to seek to conciliate and, in other ways, ensure that that conduct is not repeated. It is not a matter of creating a criminal offence. That has not been proposed although, on one version of what the Commission has proposed, it would involve making certain kinds of speech unlawfully. The other thing the Commission, of course, has proposed which, as I have indicated in many ways seems to be a possibly more attractive solution, is to expand, to a small extent, the notion of group defamation to enable affected groups to take some kind of civil remedy in appropriate circumstances. But the Government has made no- Senator Durack —It would be class action against Mr Hawke, would it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I leave it for Senator Durack, in his usual jurisprudential flair, to analyse the nature of the case that might be made in that sort of circumstance. It simply is premature to speculate how any such law might operate. It begs a whole series of questions about whether there should be such a law at all. I repeat that the Government has made no decision about this, but we do acknowledge, as I hope Senator Durack would, that it is an acutely difficult one to get the balance right. I simply hope that any further contributions from him or from the Opposition generally to any debate we might have are constructive and not destructive and that what we end up with, if anything at all, is something that is a genuinely effective and sensitive provision and not one that goes too far in either direction. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister inform the Senate what progress has been achieved in the allocation of funding to Victorian projects under the women's emergency services program? Senator GRIMES —In my absence the Acting Minister for Social Security, Dr Blewett , announced an agreement with Mrs Pauline Toner, the Victorian Minister for Community Welfare Services, for the disbursement of some $820,000 to Victoria under the women's emergency services program. As Senator Zakharov would know, the Victorian Government already provides significant funding to women's emergency services. The aim of the Commonwealth contribution is to improve the pay and conditions for refuge workers, to improve services to assist migrant residents and to provide more adequate funding for existing refuges generally. Many Victorian refuges benefited from the disbursement of these funds. Three and a half new positions were created and payment of an establishment grant was made to a new refuge at Barwon. Some 11 1/2 new positions were created to bring all existing refuges in Victoria to a level of at least three and a half subsidised staff per refuge. There was expenditure on property purchases and establishment costs for the new interim accommodation service. Four and a half positions were created for refuges to provide ethnic workers for migrant residents and establishment costs associated with this were paid. There has been renovation of a refuge property for the Aboriginal Advancement League Women's Refuge and Mordialloc Half Way House. There has been the introduction of recreation leave provisions for all existing and new positions and the payment of a staff relief loading to all refuges. Other changes include the provision of workers compensation coverage to match State provisions, the payment of new subsidised positions at the rate payable by the State, a grant to each refuge to provide more adequate levels of operating costs, the purchase of nine replacement vehicles, and a research and evaluation program on Victorian women's refuges. Many refuges in Victoria have benefited from the additional funds. I will provide Senator Zakharov with a full list of those assisted. The women's emergency services program took a long time to get under way, but now that the funding has gone out, I believe there is general satisfaction with the payments in the women's movement. Senator HAMER —My question is to the Attorney-General, and I refer him to the Government's propaganda publication The Record of Government, each edition of which costs the taxpayer almost $30,000 to print. Is the Attorney aware that the Prime Minister's preface to the current edition boasts that the Government has ' a record of achievement of which it can be justly proud'? Does he believe these glowing words are justified by two particular references in the section devoted to his own portfolio, namely, those dealing with an Australian Bill of Rights and constitutional reform? As the document claims that an Australian Bill of Rights has been prepared, is he prepared to expose the Bill in draft form or does he insist on keeping it secret until after the election? Finally, given the publication's reference to deferral of all the Government's referendum proposals , will the Attorney add to the Prime Minister's throw-away line last month, which announced a referendum for simultaneous elections at the time of the next election by telling us what other referendums are to be put at the same time? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's record has indeed been a fine one in a whole series of respects that are identified in the document in question. Of course, some of those achievements have a longer gestation period than others and the real triumph is in their conception and initial preparation rather than their actual production. In some instances the feat involved in their conception and initial creation is such as to justify some public reference to the triumph, albeit that the stage is a relatively early one. In relation to the Bill of Rights, as I have said on various occasions, a great deal of effort has already gone into the preparation of that document. An extended process of consultation is now envisaged for it to make it ultimately an even more triumphant piece of legislation than it might be if we were to act with undue haste. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I note newspaper reports of the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to examine urgently the question of nurse education. Can the Minister say whether the establishment of this committee has satisfied the many nurse unions and groups which seek increased tertiary education places for the nursing diploma in 1985? Can the Minister say when the committee will be finalised, when it will have its first meeting, what its terms of reference are, and whether those deliberations will be available for consideration for this year's Budget? Senator RYAN —I do not think that the various nurse representatives who are agitating for the total transfer of basic nurse training from hospitals to colleges will be satisfied by the announcement of the interdepartmental committee. However, I think that they are reassured that the Government is treating this matter with a great deal of care and thoroughness. The work of the IDC will enable our Government and all State governments, which are also clearly very involved in this, to get a clearer picture of all the issues involved in the transfer of basic nurse training from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. There are many implications involved. There is the whole question of labour market needs for trained nurses. There is the question which State Ministers for Health have raised as to the capacity of the trained nurse work force to fill the places in hospitals that would be created if trainee nurses were taken out into colleges. There are cost implications for the CAEs in having considerable additional new courses. It is not simply a matter of setting up a few courses but of ensuring that there is a proper relationship between the theoretical courses in the colleges and the practical training in hospitals which must continue in some integrated way with the college basic training. There is a whole range of industrial issues, cost issues, and manpower-or should I say labour force-needs for nurses which have to be considered very carefully. The representatives of various nurse organisations have themselves given a great deal of careful thought to these matters and have been very co-operative in the various discussions which I, the Federal Minister for Health, Neal Blewett, members of the Tertiary Education Commission, members of my Department and the Federal Department of Health have had with them. There has been ongoing discussion and consultation. However, the issue is one that has immense cost implications. It has immense administrative implications for State government health portfolios, the Federal Government health portfolio, and of course, the Federal Government education portfolio. The IDC will have a very complicated task on its hands to gather together all the relevant information so that all the governments involved, which means really all Australian governments, can approach this matter in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way. Once that position is arrived at I am sure that the representatives of nurse organisations will be satisfied. The timetable raised in Senator Crowley's question is a short one. We hope that within the context of budgetary discussions we will be able to proceed to a much clearer picture of the needs, costs and so forth than we have at the moment. The timetable is a short one. The decisions reached will, of course, be a matter for governments to arrive at as soon as possible without short-cutting the various complicated issues involved. We wish to avoid arriving at a solution in the short term which will not meet the aspirations of nurses for an upgrading of their training. That is an aspiration which we share but which we consider must be reached in a very careful and proper way. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. It arises from the appropriately self-mocking reply that he gave to the question by Senator Hamer. I must congratulate the Attorney on, for the first time since I have known him, finding an appropriate target to mock. I ask the Attorney: Is the draft Bill of Rights which he is proclaiming in the Government's propaganda publication available for the purpose of the consultations which he has talked about? If it is available, to whom is it available-is it available to the public , the media and the Opposition-and who in fact is he consulting on the Bill of Rights at this stage? Senator GARETH EVANS —The draft Bill in its present form has been made available to all State Attorneys-General on a confidential basis to seek their reactions on it as to the implications that they might care to draw my attention to concerning State law, given the way it is drafted at the moment. It is also proposed to make it available, if that has not already been done, to the Law Council of Australia, in particular to seek its reaction to the jurisdictional and technical aspects of it. It is proposed that further consultations of this kind take place over the next few months. Whether that will be in the context of some form of exposure draft of the Bill being made fully public is a matter to which I and the Government will give further consideration in due course. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent remarks made by Dr Caldicott on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's program Pressure Point to the effect that Australia supported the Western bloc in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament and that therefore Australia was preventing agreement on mandates for committees on nuclear test bans, outer space and a nuclear freeze? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this is the correct Australian position? Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention has been drawn to the remarks made by Dr Caldicott on that usually distinguished program, Pressure Point, to the effect that in the Conference on Disarmament the Western bloc was preventing agreement on mandates for committees in three areas. I understand that Dr Caldicott did say that Australia supported the Western bloc, as she described it, in this obstruction. The situation is that Dr Caldicott is quite misinformed. The Conference on Disarmament operates by consensus and for convenience most of its delegations caucus in three groups-the neutral and non-aligned group, the socialist or Warsaw Pact group and the Western group. The Australian delegation caucuses with the Western group but it retains its freedom of action. It is correct that there is a procedural stalemate over the mandates of three committees in the Conference but, far from acquiescing in this, Australia has been working hard to seek solutions. The first matter Dr Caldicott referred to was the nuclear test ban. The members of the Western group have so far this year reached no agreed position amongst themselves on the mandate. Far from being a source of obstruction, the Australian delegation has been prominent in seeking a solution in accordance with the Government's strong support for a nuclear test ban. As to the question of outer space, the Western and neutral and non-aligned groups have been agreed on a draft mandate since August last year. It is the Warsaw Pact countries, the socialist group, that is holding out against that formulation. The third committee is to address not a nuclear freeze as such but the prevention of a nuclear war. That is the topic. There are three competing draft mandates, any one of which Australia could support. Here again we have been active in trying to find compromise solutions. It is regrettable that people who come here with a fanfare and a considerable popular following can find it within themselves to misrepresent so spectacularly the truth on matters of such great significance as this. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Is it a fact that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment will shortly be determining a number of appointments and reappointments to the Council of the Australian National Gallery? Will the Minister consider making the membership of that Council more widely representative and dispersed both geographically and by occupation and qualifications? When does the Minister anticipate making an announcement on the future membership of the Council? Before making any appointment or reappointment , will the Minister table in Parliament the attendance records of the present members of the Council? Senator RYAN —I have no information from the Minister as to the timetable for appointment or reappointment of members of the Council of the Australian National Gallery. I will pass on to the Minister Senator Townley's question and the suggestions contained in it about a wider geographical representation. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the recently publicised case of Mrs Damalas, a severely disadvantaged mother who in five years of dealing with doctors and social workers was not informed of her eligibility for social security benefits. Can the Minister say whether the Department of Social Security has a system whereby its current information services are monitored and evaluated for effectiveness in reaching potential clients? If so, what is the present method being used? Senator GRIMES —My attention has been drawn to the case in which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on 13 April this year, awarded Mrs Damalas arrears of the handicapped child's allowance. I understand that the handicapped child's allowance was granted to Mrs Damalas for her son George from 15 December 1982. She had applied for arrears for the four years since George's birth in November 1978. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal accepted that the special circumstances which applied in Mrs Damalas's case precluded either her or her husband from the opportunity for contact with possible sources of information on the handicapped child's allowance. I am pleased that this matter has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion and I am satisfied that it was dealt with as speedily as the appeals process that we have allows. In relation to Senator Elstob's other question, the Department and I are very conscious of the need to inform potential clients about their rights and entitlements to departmental services and programs. However, in relation to most of those programs it is extremely difficult to determine the number of potential clients. The Department relies heavily on feedback from welfare and community organisations as well as direct information coming from clients and members of the public through the regional office network and State administrations. This direct feedback comes in a number of ways such as counter inquiries, telephone hotlines and radio talk-backs, et cetera. Monitoring and evaluation is carried out on particular components of the information service rather than on the service as a whole. A number of specific projects which are currently under way include market research in Western Australia on certain information strategies in relation to sickness benefit, evaluation of the effectiveness of the information program in the Northern Territory aimed specifically at Aboriginals, the migrant information needs survey being conducted in the Marrickville region of Sydney, and evaluation of a pilot information dissemination system being conducted in conjunction with Australia Post in Melbourne. However, we will continue to look closely at all programs to ensure that as much information as possible is given with as wide a coverage as possible. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer the Minister to criticisms of the Commonwealth Schools Commission made recently in an article by Luis Garcia in the Sydney Morning Herald, apparently repeating the views of the Minister. Does the Minister stand by the quite severe criticisms of the Commonwealth Schools Commission made in the article and, if so, considering the seriousness of the criticisms, what action has she taken or will she take to correct the problems discussed? Senator RYAN —It is the case that in an article by Luis Garcia he repeated some of a very lengthy interview I gave him about matters concerning the Commonwealth Schools Commission report. I gave Mr Garcia quite a lot of comment on the exercise that the Schools Commission had involved itself in and he, or the Sydney Morning Herald, chose to repeat a very small part of it. I did say, and I am pleased to place it on the record, that it was not only my view but also the view of all education bodies with whom I had had consultation that the Schools Commission had done an outstanding job of consultation concerning the new schools funding formula. I think every national group with whom I met and with whom the Prime Minister met made a point of saying that the Schools Commission had carried out excellently its brief to consult widely on this matter. It was also acknowledged, I think by all parties, that the Schools Commission had an extraordinarily difficult task to undertake in that it had to try to find a consensus amongst what has become a very diverse range of views about the best and most equitable way to resolve the question of schools funding. It is the case, and it has been public knowledge for some time, that there were two dissents from that report. They were the dissents from Van Davy, who is the President of the Australian Teachers' Federation, and Joan Brown, who is a nominee of the Australian Council of State School Organisations. It would come as no surprise to anyone in this place that a report without dissent is a stronger report than one with some dissent. The Government takes account of the fact that two members of the Commission did not find themselves in agreement with all parts of the Commission's report, although they are not in disagreement with the entire report. Nonetheless, two members of the Commission did find themselves finally in disagreement with some aspects of the report. On that account, it is the case that the report is not as strong and clear in its advice as it would have been had it had for each and every one of its recommendations the support of every member of the Commission. However, I remind honourable senators that dissenting reports from the Schools Commission are no new phenomenon. In fact, there have been dissents on four occasions in recent years. In April 1978 Mr Greg Dunne dissented on the report in relation to the 1979-81 triennium. In November 1980 Dr Mossenson indicated that he did not agree with the content of the report on schooling for 15 and 16-year-olds. In August 1981, Joan Brown and Allan Marriage signed a dissenting report in relation to the report for 1982. Of course, there are also the two dissents to which I have referred. It is clear to me at this stage that when a body is trying to represent the great diversity of views in this community about the needs in education and the appropriate forms of Commonwealth assistance it is not always possible to get complete agreement from all members. This was the case with this report. Nonetheless, the report is a very useful one. The Government is giving extremely serious consideration to all of its recommendations, in the budgetary context, of course. Senator Chaney —Oh! That is a nice change. Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney seems surprised and perhaps delighted that I have given him this additional piece of information. Quite clearly, the recommendations have to be considered within the budgetary context and the views of the Commission's majority report will be of fundamental importance to the Government in arriving at its decisions, but other matters will be taken into account. The views put in by the dissenting commissioners of course will be taken into account and the views put to me and to the Prime Minister in the extremely successful round of consultations we had with national organisations will also be taken into account. When we have considered all views and all the recommendations of the Commission we will resolve an approach to school funding in the budgetary context which will be revealed when I issue the guidelines for the Schools Commission for 1985. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question to the Minister was not about the dissenting reports, nor about the content of the Schools Commission report. It was about criticisms which the Minister has made of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Senator Ryan —Which ones? Senator PETER BAUME —The ones mentioned in Luis Garcia's article. I ask the Minister whether she stands by the criticisms of the Commonwealth Schools Commission made by her in that article? If so, what action will she take to correct the matters which she found it necessary to criticise? Finally, I ask the Minister what opportunity she will make available to the Commonwealth Schools Commission to answer the serious charges she has made? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to confine herself to the supplementary question. Senator RYAN —I do not think there is any substance to the supplementary question. The article drew attention to the fact that I had commented upon the existence of dissenting reports. There was also the fact that on the very important question of a funding formula for government schools there was no agreement within the Commission. Clearly that is a matter of concern which has to be taken into account. Whether these things amount to criticism or to a factual discussion of the format of the report, I will leave honourable senators to decide. Senator BUTTON —Earlier in Question Time Senator Childs asked me a question about a delay in an Australia Post delivery between Sydney and Launceston. I apologise to Senator Childs if I misheard the question. I am advised that the answer to the question is as follows: Australia Post provides next day delivery for standard articles posted between most capital cities, and between capital cities and some provincial cities, provided such articles are posted by the advertised closing time. The next day standard Sydney-Launceston applies to articles posted only within the Central Business District (CBD) of Sydney. If the article mentioned by Senator Childs were posted in the Sydney CBD area by the advertised closing time on Sunday 6 May . . . it should have been delivered in Launceston on 7 May. If posted after the advertised closing time on 6 May, it should have been delivered in Launceston on 8 May. Without the cover of article, Australia Post is unable to establish conclusively the reasons for the delay. In early May, however, there were industrial difficulties in Sydney. At that time also difficulties were being experienced in clearing delivery delayed mail which had accumulated at the Hobart Mail Centre as a result of an earlier industrial dispute in April. I summarise the answer by saying that Australia Post has a standard which it tries to keep, but in the particular circumstance raised there was an industrial dispute in Sydney and the article was sent to Hobart instead of Launceston by mistake. The letter was consequently delayed. I seek leave to have the rest of the formal answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- These two factors, combined with the fact that the article was apparently misrouted through Hobart, instead of being forwarded direct to Launceston, could have led to the delay the Honourable Senator refers to. Australia Post is very much aware of the difficulties which mail delays can cause for its customers and is making every effort to improve the service. In New South Wales, for example, after recent meetings with the main union concerned, steps have been taken to improve management/staff relationships and the situation in New South Wales is showing signs of improvement. In addition, special arrangements have been made to deal with delayed mail which has resulted from recent problems at the South Western Suburbs Mail Centre (Leightonfield). The difficulties which led to the dispute at the Hobart Mail Centre have been resolved and all delayed mail has been cleared. Senator GRIMES —Earlier in Question Time Senator Colston asked me a question about the allocation of $3.8m for the program of aids for disabled people. The State by State break-up is as follows: New South Wales, $1.3m; Victoria, $1m; Queensland, $600,000; South Australia, $350,000; Western Australia, $350,000; Tasmania, $105,000; Northern Territory, $38,000; and the Australian Capital Territory, $57,000. I hope that adds up to $3.8m. Senator GARETH EVANS —During Question Time earlier today, Senator Lewis asked me , for reasons that remain obscure, about supposed contracts between Mr Paul Landa, the New South Wales Attorney-General, and those working within my Department on the drafting of the National Crime Authority Bill. I have now been advised by the two draftsmen involved with the legislation, namely, the First Parliamentary Counsel, Mr Geoff Kolts, and Mr Tom Reid, that neither of them have had contact of any kind with Mr Landa. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation arising out of Question Time. Leave granted. Senator COATES —During Question Time, Senator Archer asked a question during which he referred to unanimous parts of the report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee tabled yesterday. I am Chairman of that Committee. He used, as I noted them, words such as 'make the control of such material more difficult '. In case this sort of suggestion becomes ingrained in history I just explain that the Committee said no such thing. The Committee was not asked such a question and did not purport to answer it. The Committee was asked for its legal advice only in a very narrow sense. There were some references in the debate last night which in my opinion stretched the truth. I think Senator Archer's claim went a little further than that. I ask all honourable senators not to rewrite the report by inserting things which the report did not say. 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 KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As a person in the Senate who represents the Northern Territory, I wish to speak briefly to the Christmas Island annual report 1981-82. The Northern Territory will have a closer association with Christmas Island because the Federal Government has indicated that Christmas Island, like Cocos (Keeling) Islands, is to be associated with the Northern Territory in Federal election matters. Legislation for the purpose for Cocos (Keeling) Islands is now before the Houses of Parliament. in the last few weeks it has become clear that there was no consultation with the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands as to whether they wishes to be associated with the Northern Territory in relation to Federal elections. One would presume that this situation will occur with the Christmas Island people and they will become part of the Northern Territory in Federal elections without being consulted on the matter. Nevertheless, it is a good thing that the Christmas Island people will have the ability to vote in Federal elections after Christmas Island is integrated into Australia. I believe the report is very timely given the various matters relating to Christmas Island which are coming before the Houses of Parliament. The report is most interesting. I notice that reference is made to the Christmas Island resettlement scheme. Some publicity has been given to this matter recently, particularly in the Western Australian newspapers. In regard to Christmas Island the West Australian under the heading 'Govt ultimatum on closure', reported: The Federal Government sent a blunt warning to Christmas Island yesterday, that unless enough workers were willing to quit the island, the entire operation would have to fold. That report appeared in the West Australian on 9 May. On Thursday, 10 May a further headline entitled 'Mining chief quits and blames Govt' appeared in the newspaper. That headline related to the industrial trouble on Christmas Island. One does wonder what is going on when one considers that so shortly after the Federal Government inflicted its view to quite a degree on Christmas Island, the Federal Government is speaking very bluntly to these people and giving them an ultimatum. I believe this matter should be aired further in the Senate. I wish to ask a serious of questions of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs ( Senator Gietzelt), who represents the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in this place. I refer the Minister to the Government's stated intention to close the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd if a sufficient number of workers do not resign from the company. I ask: Firstly, what actions have been taken so far by the Government and the Phosphate Mining Co. with regard to the closure of the company? Secondly, what action does the Government intend to take if a sufficient number of employees have not voluntarily resigned by the deadline date, 1 October? Thirdly, is it the Government's intention to provide jobs on the Australian mainland for any workers prepared to move from Christmas Island to the mainland? Fourthly, in the event that the company is forced by the Government to close, will the Government help to relocate the islanders and provide them with employment? Fifthly, what is the future for the economy of Christmas Island if the mine remains in operation and if the mine is closed? Sixthly, does the Government envisage any role for the Northern Territory in this matter? As I say, reading this most comprehensive report gives me great pleasure. It indicates that the community of Christmas Island is made up of various ethnic groups. All in all it appears that the administration of the island and its way of life is something that should be encouraged and respected. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The challenge of getting through documents in a short time faces us once again, particularly in relation to this very comprehensive report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. If this is the report of the Interim Commission one wonders perhaps what the full commission's report will be like. The report took on, and I think addressed very well, the challenge of its initial brief or terms of reference. The report contains many recommendations- some 81 in number. I shall draw attention to the significant ones. I believe the Interim Commission has taken a very significant first step in addressing the problems of occupational health and safety in our society. It is not a matter that is novel but it is a matter that is still not part of large public debate or information. I am very pleased that this Government is once again putting on record its view in relation to these matters and, in fact, taking a stand, firstly, by establishing the Interim Commission and, secondly, considering its report. I look forward to hearing the Government's definitive response to it. Probably the most significant recommendation that emerges from the Interim Commission's report-I might say that I have not had time to dwell on the way in which it went about seeking the information and the consultation from which it drew its final conclusions-is the recommendation that there should be established by statute a national occupational health and safety commission and that it should be named the national occupational health and safety commission. I am afraid that the letters lack a little when one shortens them. I believe the second most significant recommendation is that this commission should be the umbrella organisation to encompass a national occupational health and safety office as its operational arm and a national institute of occupational health and safety as its technical and scientific arm. The third recommendation stressed that the national commission should be tripartite-that is, it should be made up of government, employee and employer representation-and that it should have representations from the Federal departments of Employment and Industrial Relations and Health and from all the State and Territory health ministries. Further, it has been recommended that it should be supported by an infrastructure of standing committees, industry committees and working parties, all of which should adopt at every level the basically tripartite committee constitution and from that, both as a model and in practice, broaden the participation and understanding of matters of occupational health and safety at all levels in our community. Finally, there is a recommendation that one Minister should be responsible for all the occupational health and safety matters at the Federal level. It is the decision of the Interim Commission that this Minister should be the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The significance of the sub-groups of those recommendations needs further deliberation and thought. We cannot be expected to understand the full ramifications of those matters first up. I am interested in looking at the overall view as well as at the establishment of a national institute of occupational health and safety. The challenge to it would be to establish standards and to measure and provide the technical expertise to do the basic research. It would be charged with making that information accessible and readily available to people in the community. I note with great delight that the Interim Commission says specifically that that means such publications need not only to be scientifically accurate but also to be able to be understood. That means there would be simplicity in the way in which they were presented and, as the report specifically mentioned, they would be published in as many languages as are necessary for those people who seek the information contained therein. There is also special concern expressed by the Interim Commission that those people in the community who are not necessarily blue collar workers or employees in the ordinary understanding of people earning a wage or salary should also have access to the information, the support, the aims and objectives of such a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Women, migrants, the handicapped, volunteer workers and other members of the community are particularly mentioned. I think this is very encouraging. It is certainly in line with one of the submissions that I put to the Interim Commission, because I feel it is very important that matters of occupational health and safety address the relationship between health and work for all people in our community, not only those who are in the paid work force. I commend the Interim Commission, in particular, the Chairman, Dr Richie Gunn, for a very thorough and fascinating document that I will delight in dwelling on further. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak on the report entitled Non-Wage Incomes the Professions, which has been prepared by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. This report had its origins in the National Economic Summit Conference of last year, when a number of groups in the community came together to discuss Australia's economic problems and to try to devise a strategy to overcome them. At the Summit consensus developed in regard to goals to be sought in Australia. In particular, the Summit participants decided that there was a need to have a joint goal, a simultaneous objective, in Australia to fight both inflation and high unemployment. That was a move away from the goal of the previous Government , which basically was to fight inflation first. The Summit held the view that there was a need for restraint on the part of all sections of the community and all income groups, including non-wage groups. The Summit followed the period of the introduction of the so-called wages pause, which was a very inequitable excuse for an economic policy. It was a policy which basically required sacrifice in regard to income claims on the part of only one section of the community-the wage and salary earners. As a result of the Summit meeting and negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the prices and incomes accord was signed and agreed to between the two organisations-the Government and the ACTU. It is a most comprehensive agreement which covers a wide range of matters and goes beyond pure industrial conditions and wages and incomes. The basic objective of the accord was to stop the economic recovery we are now witnessing in Australia being choked off by an inflationary surge. The view was taken that a key element in fighting inflation must be to ensure that the total of income claims made by all sections of the community is moderated. It also provided that the burden of sacrifice and moderation should be shared by various sections of the community. The accord provided for a number of measures, including those dealing with the non-wage income sector in the community. It provided for the prices surveillance authority. It specifically refers to surveillance of prices, particularly those set by large corporations which have market power. It certainly calls for equity in regard to the setting of prices as a form of income. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) also wrote to the chief executives of a number of large companies asking them to moderate certain types of incomes paid by those companies in the form of dividends and executive salaries. As I mentioned, the accord referred specifically to this area of professional incomes, which is the subject of the report we have before us. Following the Summit the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) wrote to various professional groups about the need for restraint. At that time it became apparent that a very real problem and a very major problem was the sheer lack of information and data in Australia on levels of professional incomes and, perhaps just as importantly, on how the various professional groups in the community actually arrived at their fees for their services. At that time some groups' fees were set by public tribunals. The fees of the medical profession and the pharmacy profession were set by tribunals. This report looks at the activities of 11 professions and how they set their fees. It certainly helps fill in the information need that was apparent in Australia last year when the Government began to address these problems. It is very interesting that the arrangements for fee setting in the various professions range from being highly centralised in the areas of medicine, pharmacy and optometry, to being very decentralised in the case of dentists, whose fees are basically organised at the State level. The report puts on record the fact that fee setting arrangements of the legal profession are the most diverse in Australia. So the report details and puts on the record very useful information on professional fee setting in Australia. I am sure it can only improve the level of understanding on this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6, dated 30 May 1984. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —by leave-I present the official report of the visit of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus during October and November 1983, and I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Senator BOLKUS —The report I have just tabled is the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation, which in October and November 1983 visited the southern European and Mediterranean countries of Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus. Formal parliamentary exchanges between Italy, Greece and Cyprus had not taken place for at least 20 years and there had never been before the visit of this delegation a formal parliamentary exchange between Australia and Spain. Consequently, the visit provided the opportunity to establish or strengthen formally links with countries at a legislator to legislator basis. The delegation saw as the main purpose of its official visit the enhancing of Australia's understanding of the political, economic, social and cultural environment in these countries. It also hoped to present Australia's viewpoints on matters of mutual interest and, further, to exchange views frankly on areas such as trade, tourism, foreign affairs, as well as the interests of those Australians who were born in those countries. It was hoped to strengthen existing links of friendship and to further goodwill and understanding between the four countries visited, their parliaments and Australia. I believe that the visit was most successful in accomplishing its purpose. Delegations of this kind play an important role in strengthening and furthering links, as increased understanding flows from the frank exchange of views and personal contact. I believe that in this instance this eventuated. It was also heartening for the delegation to assist with plans for reciprocal visits to Australia at the elected representative level in each of the countries visited. As I said, the delegation found a willingness for a frank exchange of views on a number of areas, both of domestic and international interest, in all the countries we visited. We found there was a deep commitment to democracy in the four countries we visited. In fact, it was interesting to watch the different stages of the political systems in each of the four countries. We found that Spain, Greece and Italy-countries which had recently elected socialist governments-were adapting and responding to the changes their political systems were undergoing. The new governments were young and energetic. In Spain, for instance, Government members were working in a parliamentary system with those who in recent years had been their gaolers. They were adapting quite maturely to the new system of government . There were other areas of particular interest. One important one was the opening by the Committee of building projects in Italian towns which had been struck by a massive earthquake in 1980. These projects had been funded in part by people of Italian origin in the Australian community. In the four areas which the delegation visited the response of the Italian people to the donations and the buildings erected with the money from Australia was heartwarming. It should be noted also that there was an earthquake recently in Italy, but that was not in an area visited by the delegation. I am sure, however, that all honourable senators extend to the Italian people their sympathy in respect of the more recent earthquake. Other areas of interest were varied. In Spain the issue of foreign affairs was raised, and the independence of Spain in the international arena. Questions were raised about our immigration program and about cultural exchange programs. There was also keen interest in the question of a social security agreement with Australia. In Italy we had the opportunity to meet on different levels with local government and central government. We met the local administrations of Florence and Venice, and we also met with the Italian Foreign Minister, Mr Andreotti. There also we found deep interest in the negotiations towards a social security agreement between Australia and Italy. In Greece we met with the Minister for the Interior, Mr Yennimatas, and were able to raise matters of interest to Australians of Greek origin. We were in Cyprus at a difficult time, a week after the declaration of independence by the Turkish part of the island. It was a time of deep political interest, and I am sure all members of the delegation who were there will have come back with a greater awareness of the Cyprus problem. Some problems were experienced during the visit, and the delegation has made some comments and recommendations in the report in the hope that future delegations will benefit from our experience. These recommendations include many of a machinery kind, with more substantial recommendations relating to the standard of gifts the delegation presented to parliaments and officials. It has been mentioned in another place that the particular instance which caused embarrassment was in Spain, where the Parliament and the people of Spain overwhelmed the delegation with their hospitality and their keenness to show us the way the Spanish political system worked. We felt, however, that the gifts presented to the Spanish Presidents were unworthy of the Parliament and unrepresentative of Australia. In closing, I wish to thank a number of people for their assistance to the delegation. One must pay tribute to the co-operation of delegation members, but I should also pay tribute to the work done by other people involved with the delegation. The Secretary of the delegation, Miss Cynthia Balogh, spent many hours not only organising the trip while we were overseas and beforehand but also in preparing the report up to the stage where she left the Australian Parliament to move to another department. I also thank the Australian missions in the four countries we visited. They all assisted us to the best of their abilities. In fact, the assistance we obtained from some officers of those missions was far in excess of that which we would normally expect to be within the bounds of normal duty. I commend this report to the Senate. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the year 1983-84, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Sibraa: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.36) —I wish to speak to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on plant variety rights. The report contains 24 recommendations, the most important of which is that the Government consider the introduction of a plant variety rights scheme in Australia. Under this scheme all plant species will have the potential to be included. The Committee recommended that initially any PVR scheme have the potential to include horticultural, ornamental and fodder and pasture varieties only. However, the Committee recommended also that the Australian Agricultural Council examine the possible impact of PVR on field crop breeding in Australia before the Government makes a decision to include field crops under the scheme. If the Government acts on these recommendations, and I hope it will, Australia will join the great majority of developed nations which have had statutory rights for plant breeders for well over a decade. West Germany has operated a system of plant breeders' rights for more than a century. Given the number of countries which have had such rights for so many years, it remains a paradox as to why Australia, a leading agricultural nation, has been so tardy in adopting its own plant variety rights system. The reference to the Committee arose from the debate in August 1982 on the previous Government's plant variety rights Bill. I believe this Committee has addressed itself to the issues raised in that debate in a balanced and fair manner. Obviously I do not have the time on this occasion to canvass in detail the arguments that have been raised for and against the existence of such a scheme in Australia. However, a number of findings of the report tend to confirm the position I argued in that previous debate and upon which I wish to make comments today. The report correctly points out that without a system of plant variety rights Australian farmers, horticulturalists and orchardists will continue to be denied access to superior varieties of seed from overseas. The Committee received evidence from a number of interested groups which specified particular plant varieties currently unavailable in Australia because overseas owners of those varieties had no protection available through PVR. The continued denial of access to varieties of grapes, rapeseed, perennial rye grass, cherries, barley, garden beans, cotton, strawberries, pome fruits and peaches can only hinder Australian rural producers in their efforts to find and maintain domestic and international markets for their products. The horticultural industry, through its council, made it clear to the Committee that horticulturalists needed access to new and improved varieties in order to improve productivity, to compete for a place on overseas markets, to compete with produce entering Australia from overseas, and to improve the standard of plants used in amenity and environmental horticulture, both indoor and outdoor. Apart from benefits accruing to specific sections of the rural industry, the Committee concluded, and again I agree, that the introduction of PVR would also bring industry-wide and economy-wide benefits. The report concluded that the introduction of a plant variety rights system would stimulate private breeding research activity in Australia, would provide the impetus for plant breeding to improve varieties of native flora for export, and would place Australia in a favourable position to produce for export high quality seed for a range of crops. At the same time, the Committee rightly recognised and addressed the many concerns that have been raised in debates on this subject. Of particular importance is the question of the future role of public breeding programs and whether public research funding would suffer at the hands of increased private research activity under a PVR system. The Committee's report made clear that continued government support for public plant breeding research is essential. However, the Committee argued, correctly I believe, that the issue of government support for public plant breeding per se is an issue that should remain separate from the question of whether or not a system of plant variety rights should be introduced in Australia. In fact, there is no logical reason why the introduction of PVR should lead to a diminution of public research activity in plant breeding. Furthermore, while the Committee recognised that private research activity may flow from instituting PVR and subsequently provide the justification for such a diminution in government support, no such evidence exists in countries already operating PVR systems that such occurrences have taken place. In fact, the Committee suggested that Australia's interests would be best served by encouraging co-operation between public and private sector plant breeding activities, leading to a greater overall investment in plant breeding research. The question of public and private plant breeding research activity raises a wider issue of the need for greater research and development activity in Australia. There has been an increasing awareness in the community that for Australia to compete effectively for world markets our traditional reliance on publicly funded research efforts needs to be supplemented by greater private sector research activity. In addition, Australia's recognised capabilities in fundamental research must be able to be transfered into commercial opportunities . Australia's traditional reliance on publicly funded research activity has been no more apparent than in the agricultural sector. State departments of agriculture, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and tertiary institutions have been Australia's principal agricultural research generators. Through the Minister for Science and Technology, the Government has made clear its desire to see greater involvement of the private sector in research and development, which I support. The introduction of plant variety rights in Australia would provide the impetus for greater private research activity in the rural sector, with long term benefits for Australia as that research is utilised for commercial exploitation. In fact, the Committee report argues that under a PVR system public and private research efforts could be complementary. I draw the attention of honourable senators to paragraph 3.42 of the report: PVR might in fact encourage private breeders to take an even greater interest in research conducted at public institutions, and a greater interest by public breeders concerning the practical applications of their research results. Another concern addressed by the report, which has been referred to in previous debates, relates to the alleged danger of oligopoly control. I remind the Senate that although obviously in any expanding industry the possibility of take-overs would be high-the Australian seed industry is no exception-it should be remembered that an oligopoly market structure eventuating from PVR in Australia would include also public breeding institutions which would be able to benefit as participants in a PVR scheme. Therefore, whilst it cannot be doubted that there may be some dangers, sufficient checks and balances can be built into a plant variety rights system to ensure that consumer interests are not damaged by oligopoly control. It may be that under PVR there would be some increase in the cost of plant and seeds. Whilst I do not think that that would necessarily follow, again this consideration must be balanced by the opportunities that will arise under PVR for Australian producers to utilise better quality seeds and plants, thereby decreasing the overall cost of producing a particular crop. Concern has also been expressed by some groups that PVR will lead to foreign take-overs. I believe this matter was adequately dealt with by the submission of the Department of Primary Industry, which argued that take-overs not judged to be in the community interests can be dealt with through separate government policies and initiatives; it is not a sufficient argument against the introduction of a PVR system in Australia. Additionally, the Committee dealt with the question of the possible detrimental repercussion that PVR would have in Third World countries, in particular South East Asia. It has been asserted, for example, that PVR would lead to undue influence and restrict the flow of genetic resources and information between the Third World and Australia. I think the important thing to note is the importance of Australia continuing to contribute to the international agricultural research institutions in that regard. Australia has been disadvantaged by not having a plant variety rights system. Our inability to have access to high yielding strains developed overseas has disadvantaged our industry. It is important that we continue to get significant export earnings in this particularly critical field. Therefore, the arguments for PVR in Australia remain sound. I commend the report and I trust that the Government will act upon it in the not too distant future. Questions resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Senator Macklin: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.46) —I wish to speak on the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts following its inquiry concerning HMAS Tobruk. I, together with Senator Georges and Senator Watson, was heavily involved in this inquiry, which took up a great deal of time during 1983. I think it resulted in the presentation of a major report that is of great significance to this country. The origins of the exercise go back to March 1982 when the Auditor -General brought down a critical report on the HMAS Tobruk project. Originally the Public Accounts Committee planned an ordinary response to the Auditor- General's report. However, as certain factors unfolded, the Public Accounts Committee decided to undertake a full inquiry and to present a separate report on the project involving HMAS Tobruk. As the inquiry unfolded, the Committee found that many highly significant events and highly significant documents were not brought to its attention by the Department of Defence. It took prolonged investigation and probing inquiries to reveal the existence of these documents and to discover a number of events that had occurred. I should say that the Public Accounts Committee is definitely not satisfied with the approach taken by that Department. All members of the Public Accounts Committee believe that the Committee should have been given a full and frank account of what had happened in respect of the HMAS Tobruk project. It must be stated again that the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of the national Parliament. Departmental officers, of whatever department, should not believe that parliamentary committees are to be given information only if that information can be provided on a need-to-know basis. That is just not good enough; it is a completely unsatisfactory approach. Departmental officers should be reminded that it is the function of Parliament to scrutinise public administration and that Parliament, through its committees, should, be given the information necessary to perform that function. Some of the items that were omitted by the Department of Defence in the information supplied originally to the Public Accounts Committee were and include: Problems with the inadequate air conditioning on HMAS Tobruk; the underdesign of the footings for the deck cranes; excessive vibration; a contaminated hydraulic system; an inoperable and dangerous sewerage system; the tragic death of naval reserve cadet Kenneth Dax in 1981, the board of inquiry into that fatality; and the review of the board of inquiry into the original inquiry. These matters were not drawn to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee during its initial inquiries. That is a list of major matters and major omissions of information. Briefly, HMAS Tobruk is based on a British design, a logistic landing ship operated by the Royal Navy fleet auxiliary. It specifically updates the Sir Bedevere Class. It is a roll-on roll-off vessel with a tank deck and top deck for lighter vehicles and it carries helicopters. In 1977 a contract was signed by the then Government for the purchase of HMAS Tobruk. It was launched in March 1980 and commissioned in April 1981. Some of the major problems identified during the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee are quite shocking. For example, the vessel had been constructed 9 per cent overweight. The Navy has a ship which is almost 300 tonnes too heavy. This matter was commented on by the Auditor-General. As a member of parliament I am surprised and shocked that a naval vessel could be built so much overweight. Of course, that factor affects the speed of the vessel and its energy consumption. The Australian taxpayer will have to pay for that design inadequacy in the form of the consumption of excess fuel over the many years of the life of the vessel. The excess weight is linked with another major problem of the HMAS Tobruk, and that is the fact that the vessel has restricted beaching ability. It was designed to be able to beach itself at a number of beaches around the Australian coastline so that troops could be off-loaded and deployed quickly through the bow doors. However, during the Committee's investigations it was found that, because of excess weight, the vessel could beach itself at very few Australian beaches; yet that was one of its key design specifications. It was supposed to be able to deploy troops rapidly around the Australian coastline by beaching. It is not satisfactory for the Department of Defence to argue, as it did, that that was merely one way of getting troops ashore from the vessel. During the course of the Committee's investigation it was found that other ways of getting troops to shore did not prove satisfactory either. For example, small vehicular and personnel landing craft, designed to beach and deploy troops on shore, were not fully operational because of problems in obtaining spare parts from overseas . The capacity of those landing craft was thus limited greatly. They are two major obstacles to HMAS Tobruk meeting its principal design specifications. HMAS Tobruk also had a problem with its engine control system. During public hearings in Brisbane last year a bombshell was dropped when it was revealed in evidence to the Committee that the vessel lost engine control when it was proceeding along the Brisbane River. This had the potential of a very dangerous situation; a major vessel of the Royal Australian Navy was proceeding along a major Australian waterway without engine power. Then we come to the faulty sewerage system. There had been several large sewerage spills in Australian ports. It was found that modifications made to a vent pipe allowed gas pressure to build up in various sewage tanks. That is believed to have been the main factor that led to the tragic death in 1981 of Kenneth Dax. The Public Accounts Committee concluded that design changes and lack of understanding on the part of the contractor and the Department about the sewerage system were most significant contributory factors in the death of Kenneth Dax, a 14-year old naval reserve cadet, in December 1981. The original board of inquiry into Kenneth Dax's death left a number of questions unanswered. That inquiry was followed by a review of the board of inquiry. I must pay tribute to the Department for convening that review of the board of inquiry. The Department is to be highly commended for doing so. It is to be commended also for the quality of the work put into that review. It was certainly impressive work by those involved. The review virtually overturned the findings of the original board of inquiry. It established the facts and showed what could be done by a diligent approach and the application of expert skills. I wish to pay tribute to the family of Kenneth Dax, particularly Mrs Dax for her perseverence over many years in a long fight for recognition of the facts and for justice. Mrs Dax fought the bureaucracy an was able to have established the facts about the tragic death of her son. All citizens of this country can learn from the perseverence of Mrs Dax in taking on the bureaucracy and having the facts recorded. I commend also the ratings and cadets who were on HMAS Tobruk and attempted to rescue Kenneth Dax when he was trapped in one of the heads. In recent times the secretariat of the Public Accounts Committee has had put to it further allegations about the aftermath of the fatality on board HMAS Tobruk. The Committee has now been informed that a number of the cadets who were on board the vessel at the time of the fatality are receiving psychiatric treatment . Several of them who had attempted to rescue Kenneth Dax are receiving treatment because of the trauma of that dreadful event. With so many problems evident HMAS Tobruk should never have been commissioned. However, the Public Accounts Committee acknowledges that broader factors were involved in the Tobruk project. For instance, there had been a loss of shipbuilding skills over the years as a number of yards were closed; and there was the lapse of a number of years between the construction of the previous naval vessel in Australia and the construction of HMAS Tobruk. We believe that those factors contributed to the problems of the project. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.59) —in reply-The National Gallery, Archives, Library, War Memorial, and the proposed Australian Museum, form the heart of Australia's national heritage. The Senate may recall that in the Public Accounts Committee's earlier report, No. 196, to which the Finance minute in report No. 221 responds, is the finding that the national collection was at a crisis stage as a result of years of neglect and a lack of recognition of its value. Parliamentarians and governments must make sure that resources are available to preserve artifacts, works of art, historical works, and memorabilia for future generations. Although we are a young country we have a great deal to preserve. The role of education authorities in training people in preservation and restoration work through the course of conservation techniques at the Canberra College of Advanced Education is an important one; but from personal experience, through my role as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, it is not surprising that conservation bodies have problems in keeping good staff. There is still an inadequate appreciation of both the reward and the supply of adequate resources. A recent problem in document preservation is the poor keeping quality of papers that are used. Today's paper decays after a short period compared with the material used some 25 years ago and this quality problem causes particular difficulties for the archives section. The interest that has followed these reports is certainly not before time because the Committee found abundant evidence of the pressing needs facing many items in the national collection. For example, the national ethnographic collection, which is to form part of the Museum of Australia, was found to be held in the basement of the Institute of Anatomy-a non-airconditioned environment with 10,000 items stacked and piled in limited space. However, I believe this is the appropriate opportunity to congratulate particularly the Australian War Memorial on improving its facilities and its corporate strategy and also the Department of Home Affairs and Environment on the co-ordinating measures adopted for Australia 's collection. This morning I referred to the close working relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General. The origin of this report and its successor was critical comments of the Auditor-General. I believe that the appointment of a non-professional accountant in the form of an economist as the new Auditor-General could well result in future Auditor-General's reports becoming more bland, less incisive and less informative. We could even find in circumstances in which a non-qualified professional person occupied this sort of area that there was a decrease in the morale of the Auditor-General's Office. In fact, I think serious consequences could confront the Auditor-General's Office with the appointment of an economist and not a professional qualified accountant to this office. For example, the Auditor-General is required to give opinions involving technical accounting judgments on some of the largest business undertakings in Australia, opinions which, if they were in respect of private sector concerns, could be given only by a qualified auditor. There is a strong case under the Audit Act for requiring the Auditor-General to be a person qualified for membership of the Australian Society of Accountants or the Australian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The Auditor-General should be the best available person for the job, having regard to his professional training, experience and personal qualities. Because of the close relationship between the Auditor-General and the Parliament, there is a case for the party leaders to be consulted before a nominee for the appointment is decided upon. A panel of names could be submitted to them and, if they thought it desirable, the leaders could meet each candidate and assess his claims on the basis of a personal discussion. The incisiveness and hence the value of the Auditor-General's reports to this Parliament depend very much on the skills and expertise of the person who is the Auditor-General. With those reservations, I commend the report to the Senate. 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. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill before this House seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 and the Representation Act 1983. The amendments proposed result from a further review of electoral legislation. The amendments are in the main of a minor or machinery nature. There are, however, a number of proposed changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which honourable members might note. The Bill provides for the consecutive renumbering of provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. A reprint of the Act incorporating the renumbering will be published as soon as possible after this Bill comes into effect. The franchise of service personnel on overseas service at the commencement of the 1983 Amendments is also preserved. Under Section 39A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it stood prior to the 1983 Amendments, service personnel overseas and persons accompanying defence force units in an official capacity were eligible to vote even if unenrolled. Consistently with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 repealed this section and substituted a new provision (new section 39A) which broadly speaking allows persons going overseas to retain their enrolments if they notify their divisional returning officer in the months prior to their departure. However, the 1983 Amendments did not preserve the franchise of those service personnel and persons accompanying them in an official capacity who were already overseas. To avoid a situation where some 1500 servicemen are disenfranchised, clause 6 of the Bill provides that they have until the issue of the writ for the next general election to apply for registration as eligible overseas electors as if they were about to depart for their postings. Once the service personnel are registered, their spouses and dependents will also be able to register as overseas electors. Clause 6 does not cover service personnel who have been posted since the commencement of the 1983 Amendments. Still on the question of overseas electors, doubts have been expressed whether the provisions of section 39A enable an enrolled person who is going overseas to register as an eligible overseas elector if, at the time of his departure, he is intending to return to the place of living for which he is enrolled. The proposed amendment will remedy this situation. The format of the Senate Ballot-Paper is also to be changed. Currently the Act provides that in the printing of Senate Ballot-Papers the letters ''A'', ''B'', etc. be printed before the squares opposite the names of grouped candidates. This requirement is reflected in the Senate Ballot-Paper which appears as Form E in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Government has accepted an interim recommendation from the Joint Select Committee on electoral reform that the present statutory requirement of printing letters before the squares should be repealed. If in the committee's final report some form of lettering to identify groups is recommended for Senate Ballot-Papers, this and any other recommendations regarding format can be given effect to by regulations made under the Act. Mr President, Section 42 of the Act provides for a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment to be lodged with any divisional returning officer, but does not provide for such claims to be lodged at the central office or state head offices of the Electoral Commission. This may disadvantage some electors in a close of Roll situation. The proposed amendments will enable a claim to be lodged with an Australian Electoral officer in additional to the divisional returning officer. A new section 58W is proposed to provide for separate registers of candidates for each Senate election, general election for the House of Representatives, and for each By-Election. New provisions are also to be inserted requiring candidates seeking registration to do so before the close of nominations. Similarly, parties and candidates desiring to receive public funding in respect of their campaign expenditure will have to register for that purpose respectively by the issue of the writ and by the close of nominations. Mr President, there are a number of proposed amendments which deal with the preliminary scrutiny of postal votes. The amendments will expressly permit divisional returning officers to do this in stages as the votes are received and to this extent they will reflect current practice. Divisional returning officers will be required to give notice of any such scrutiny on the day before. This will enable scrutineers to attend. In the past the substantive provisions regulating absent voting have been contained in the electoral and referendum regulations. The government has decided that it is more appropriate that they should be dealt with in the Commonwealth Electoral Act itself. The Bill contains a number of amendments to this end. Mr President, the Bill amends the act in a number of respects to allow the scrutiny of Senate ballot-papers to be conducted at a central point in each state or territory rather than in divisional offices. The introduction of the ' fractional transfer' senate scrutiny system last year will greatly increase the number of counts required at a typical Senate election. If a centralised scrutiny is not adopted, the need for communication between divisional offices and state head offices of the Electoral Commission as part of every count, would greatly lengthen the time required to conduct a Senate scrutiny. The proposed amendment of section 135 (26) is intended to make it clear that the transfer of all the surplus votes of an elected candidate constitutes a single, separate transfer of votes. This clarification becomes important where the transfer of a particular elected candidate's surplus elects two candidates. If the distribution of a surplus were regarded as a series of separate transfers , the order of election, in the case of two candidates, would be dependent on which of them first received his share of the surplus. However, if the distribution of all of the elected candidates' surplus is regarded as a single transfer, the order of election of the two candidates depends on which of them has the larger surplus over quota. This latter process of determining the order of election is not as arbitrary as the former process. Section 135 also provides that at a Senate scrutiny where, in a transfer of votes, the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of remaining unfilled vacancies, those continuing candidates shall be elected. The section, however, requires an unnecessary transfer of votes to be carried out before these continuing candidates can be elected. The amendment of sub-section 135 (16 ) is designed to remedy this situation. Mr President, the current legislative requirement in respect of disclosure of gifts also requires amendment. The effect of the existing provisions is that candidates are required to disclose gifts, even of an entirely personal nature. The proposed new paragraph 153J (5) (B) excludes such gifts from the disclosure requirements. The final Commonwealth Electoral Act amendment to which I would draw the attention of honourable senators is new section 216B. Over the years the electoral administration has had a real administrative burden arising from the need to retain original claim cards in respect of new enrolments and transfer of enrolment. The new section will enable these claim cards to be destroyed where a record of their particulars is kept on microfilm, microfiche or another approved permanent form. The section further provides for these records to be admissible in evidence in any proceeding and to be prima facie evidence of any such particulars. Mr President, as I have already said, the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act are of a minor nature. They are designed to correct a number of drafting anomalies which have been detected since its passage, and will have no substantive effect on its operation. The two amendments proposed to the Representation Act are in the same category. The amendment to sub-section 5 (7) is designed to correct an anomaly. At present , the formula for determining which of the successful candidates at the next Senate election will take their places on 1 July 1985 and which will take their places on the date of the first meeting of the next House of Representatives would be incapable of operation if the date of the first meeting were to fall after 1 July 1985. The amendment resolves this problem. Mr President, the introduction of this Bill demonstrates the government's on- going commitment to sensible reform of our electoral laws. The changes involved here are not controversial and deserve the support of all honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.05) —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- This Bill introduces a range of significant amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966. One group of amendments is consequent upon a review of the operation of the Act. This review, of a detailed and technical nature, commenced under the previous Government and has been completed by this Government. Secondly, the Bill contains a number of amendments flowing from the Government's policy decision to reverse the previous Government's legislative implementation of the Review of Commonwealth Functions in this area. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable senators, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and some of the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill appears in the Explanatory Memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. Review of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 In the past two decades a number of countries which have insolvency legislation of similar derivation to our own Bankruptcy Act have embarked upon a review of their legislation. In Australia there have been two major reports, the Clyne Committee Report (''Report of the Committee appointed by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on 23 February 1956 to Review the Bankruptcy Law of the Commonwealth'') in 1962 and the sixth Report of the Law Reform Commission (''Insolvency: The Regular Payment of Debts''). The former report eventually led to the passage of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The Government has approved the preparation of draft legislation, along the lines of that recommended by the Law Reform Commission, for exposure for public comment. I shall be making a statement on that matter in the next few days. However the need for a thorough review of insolvency law in this country has been apparent for some time. Accordingly, in 1983, I issued a reference to the Law Reform Commission to report generally on insolvency law. Other countries have carried out similar, in-depth reviews. In England, the Report of the Insolvency Law Review Committee (the Cork Committee) was delivered in 1981. In the Republic of Ireland, the Report of the Bankruptcy Law Committee (the Budd Committee) reported in 1972. Other reports on company insolvency or bankruptcy have been submitted in New Zealand, Scotland, Canada and Ghana in the last two decades. Consequently, it can be seen that we are experiencing a time of transition in this field of law. The amendments proposed in the Bill presently before the Senate are intended to address some of the problem areas in this field. A more thoroughgoing review of the law must await the report of the Law Reform Commission. Obviously this is some years in the future. The amendments proposed in the Bill may be grouped into the following categories: removal of Anomalies; enhancement of the special protection accorded to Maintenance creditors; improving the administration of the Act; achieving greater uniformity with corresponding provisions of the Companies Act 1981; and reversal of the Review of Commonwealth Functions (RCF) decision in this area. Removal of Anomalies The Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1980 (Act No. 12 of 1980) created the Common Investment Fund. Essentially, this fund comprises the proceeds of the realisation of assets by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. At any point in time it is a large sum of money, usually of the order of $12 million to $13 million. This money is invested and, subject to the provisions of sec 20J, interest earned by the Fund is paid to Consolidated Revenue. Sec 20J provides for interest to be paid to a bankrupt estate or some other person entitled to moneys in the Fund, in certain circumstances. This Fund was a new initiative. Experience has revealed some shortcomings in two of the sections of the Act dealing with the Fund, sec 20B and sec 20H. Amendments to these sections are proposed by cl. 9 and cl. 10 respectively of the Bill before honourable senators. Similarly, time and judicial decisions have exposed flaws in other provisions of the Act. Thus, cl. 26 proposes an amendment to sec. 125 of the Act to ensure that the control which can be exercised by the trustee over bank accounts of an undischarged bankrupt can also be exercised over accounts with other financial institutions. Cl. 20 of the Bill proposes an amendment to sec 64 (First Meeting of Creditors) which will defer the need for a first meeting until after a Statement of Affairs has been filed. In most cases it is futile to convene a meeting before a Statement of Affairs has been lodged as the Statement details the creditors and the moneys owed to them. Enhancement of the Special Protection Accorded to Maintenance Creditors For various reasons default under maintenance orders is rampant in Australia. Earlier this year I released a report prepared by my Department on this matter ( 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia, The Report of the National Maintenance Inquiry'). At paragraph 1.53 of the Report the following statement appears: 'If a respondent is sufficiently determined the payment of maintenance can be made a voluntary act'. In 1980 the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act ['Family Law in Australia: A Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act'] made a specific recommendation, at para. 5-83, relating to changes to the Bankruptcy Act to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders. This recommendation is the genesis of the amendment to sub-sec 40 (3) which is proposed by cl. 11 of the Bill. A further amendment, relating to maintenance is proposed by clause 3. This will clarify the definition of ''maintenance order'' by removing any doubt that the term includes an order for arrears of maintenance. It is realised that the problem of enforcement of maintenance orders is an enormous one in our community. Action in this area, for example along the lines of the recommendations in the Report of the National Maintenance Inquiry referred to earlier, will require some time. However the changes proposed in this Bill will alleviate in part the difficulties confronting a maintenance creditor endeavouring to recover arrears of maintenance. Improving the Administration of the Act As the Bankruptcy Act presently stands, appointments to statutory offices are made by the Governor-General (section 16 of the Act). This procedure involves a not inconsiderable amount of time and paperwork. It imposes a relatively routine task on Executive Council. It is, therefore, considered more suitable that such appointments should be made by the Permanent Head of the Ministry of State responsible for the administration of this Division of the Act. At present this would be the Secretary of Attorney-General's Department. This is a task with which the Secretary of my Department is quite familiar. A significant number of appointments to similar offices are already made by him pursuant to powers delegated under sub-section 17 (2) of the Law Officers Act 1964. Another change in this category involves the functions and powers of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. For example, clause 4 proposes to amend section 12 of the Act to enable the Inspector-General to obtain from registered trustees such reports as he may presently obtain from Registrars and Official Receivers. One way in which this power will be useful is in obtaining information for inclusion in the Annual Report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act. Honourable Senators will recall that earlier in this sitting I tabled the most recent Annual Report, covering the financial year 1982/83. Some of the statistical information in that Report, particularly in relation to amounts of money received and disbursed by registered trustees, is known to be understated as it is not presently possible to obtain relevant information from every registered trustee. It is also proposed, by clause 36, to amend section 179 to permit the Inspector -General to make application to the Court for an inquiry into the conduct of a trustee. This removes a shortcoming in the powers of the Inspector-General. Section 12 of the Act charges the Inspector-General with the function of conducting inquiries and investigations. However, in the event that these inquiries or investigations disclose some irregularity, the Inspector-General has no power to act upon his findings. The amendment proposed to section 179 will rectify this shortcoming. Achieving Greater Uniformity with Companies Act 1981 There are of course significant differences in the role of the Bankruptcy Act and that of the winding up provisions of the Companies Act. In winding up, as the expressive term ''liquidation'' indicates, the corporate entity is extinguished. Needless to say, the Bankruptcy Act cannot adopt such a facile solution. Bankruptcy must involve a significant rehabilitative content as the debtor will re-enter the commercial community. Certainly however both enactments deal with insolvency, one with the insolvency of individuals or natural persons, the other with the insolvency of corporate bodies. To that extent it is desirable that creditors should receive similar treatment irrespective of whether the debtor is an individual or a corporate body. Consequently clause 24 and 25 propose amendments to those sections of the Act which regulate the rights of the creditors inter se. The changes will achieve a greater degree of uniformity with the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore quite significant changes are proposed to section 109 and a new section 109A is inserted. As a result creditors will be able to expect largely similar treatment in a winding up and in a bankruptcy. Very significant changes are proposed by clause 30 to 37 of the Bill to Part VIII of the Act, which relates to trustees. The amendments will entrench in the Act the qualifications which are necessary for a person to obtain registration as a trustee. They will also permit a greater degree of supervision of the continuing suitability for registration of trustees. There is at present no requirement for regular reporting or updating of bonds by registered trustees in bankruptcy. Once again many of these changes are modelled upon the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act relating to the registration of liquidators. For example clause 29 amends section 155 which deals with the registration of persons as trustees. The new provisions largely reflect sub-sections 20 (2) and (4) of the Companies Act, combined with section 227 of that Act. Reversal of the RCF decision In 1981 the previous Government amended the Bankruptcy Act in order to channel a large proportion of administrations of bankrupt estates to the private sector. Most of those changes, which were implemented by the Commonwealth Functions ( Statutes Review) Act 1981, are reversed by this Bill. Experience has shown that the changes were implemented in such haste that no thought was given to the need for new measures to ensure that the newly expanded role of private trustees was subjected to proper scrutiny and regulation. The number of new estates handled by private trustees grew from 13 out of 5,154 in 1980/81, or 0.25%, to 1063 out of 5,156 in 1982/83, or 20.62%. 1980/81 was the last complete financial year under the old arrangement, and 1982/83 is the first complete financial year under the new arrangement. It is not the policy of the Government to exclude registered trustees from the administration of bankrupt estates. However it is apparent that the majority of registered trustees perceive their role as administrators, and not as investigators. Thus the registered trustees have realised assets and distributed dividends, but have largely disregarded the discretionary duty to investigate and report upon the conduct, dealings and affairs of the bankrupt. Consequently this Bill proposes, by cl. 8, an amendment to sec. 19 of the Act. The result will be that in all bankruptcies, whether administered by the Official Trustee or by a registered trustee, the investigatory role will be performed by the Official Receiver. Honourable senators will note that a number of the amendments proposed in this Bill relate to the control over or regulation of private trustees. For example, as mentioned earlier, Cl. 4 amends sec 12 to permit the Inspector-General to obtain reports from registered trustees, cl. 30 amends sec. 155 to strengthen the requirements for registration, cl. 35 inserts a new sec 161A to require registered trustees to lodge triennial statements, and cl. 36 amends sec. 179 to empower the Inspector-General to apply to the Court under that section. All of these changes have become necessary as a result of inadequacies in the Act exposed during the time of an expanded role for private trustees. Some trustees have engaged in distinctly unprofessional conduct; statistics indicate that many trustees, even most trustees, do not take seriously the investigative and reporting duties which the Act imposes on the trustee of a bankrupt estate. The thrust of the RCF changes was to oblige the appointment of a registered trustee wherever the divisible assets exceed $10,000 in value. By reversing the RCF decision it will now be up to the creditors to meet together and pass a resolution appointing a registered trustee as trustee of the estate, pursuant to section 157 of the Act. The reversal of the RCF decision will not, therefore, preclude registered trustees from playing a role under the Act. It will ensure that, for a registered trustee to obtain appointment, he or she must command the support of a majority in value of the creditors present and voting at the meeting. The changes proposed by this Bill represent a blend of the experience before the RCF changes and the experience subsequent to those changes. Prior to Act No. 74 of 1981, as the figure cited earlier for the participation of registered trustees indicates, registered trustees played an insignificant role in the administration of bankrupt estates. Partly this may have been due to the then section 166 of the Act which prohibited a trustee from solicitation in obtaining proxies or in procuring the trusteeship. Act No. 74 of 1981, repealed section 166 and made a number of changes which greatly increased the role of registered trustees. As mentioned earlier, that Act failed to consider the need for new measures which would ensure high standards of conduct by registered trustees. However, in deciding to reverse the changes effected by Act No. 74 of 1981, the Government has decided not to reintroduce the earlier prohibition of solicitation. It may well be that, in the future, steps can be taken once more to expand the role of registered trustees. This however will need to be coupled with adequate measures to ensure that the public interest, as well as the interests of bankrupts and creditors, are protected. Experience in the last 2 1/2 years has shown this to be essential. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will result in an increase in the number of new estates administered by the Bankruptcy Branch of my Department. The impact of this increase is not expected to be felt until late in 1985 (it is not expected that the changes will commence operation until early next year). The increased workload will require some extra resources, estimated at 42 extra staff. The resources required will be reviewed in the 1985-86 Budget context. This demand for extra resources will, however, be offset by other savings in expenditure. At present a task force of 47 temporary employees is working in the Branch to reduce backlogs in work. The engagement of the estimated 42 staff will permit the Branch to administer the level of new estates, and to prevent the recurrence of backlogs. The need for the extra staff will coincide with the conclusion of the task of the Task Force. Consequently there will be no nett increase in staff levels, and a nett reduction in expenditure will be possible. Also, the increased costs will be partly offset by expected increased revenue from the Common Investment Fund and from fees. On the assumption that 42 extra staff will be required, the anticipated nett cost of the proposal is $869,088. This will be offset by savings resulting from the conclusion of the work of the Task Force. The savings resulting from this amount to $1,646,384. Consequently it will be possible to achieve a saving of $ 777,296 over current levels of expenditure. More detail of the costings are contained in a table attached to the copies of this speech. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the following table in Hansard: Estimated Annual Costs Resulting From Reversal of the RCF Decision It is estimated that the additional work to be transferred to the Official Trustee will be able to be performed by 42 officers. Estimated costs associated with these officers are as follows: $ -Salaries 797,260 -Standard Salary Overhead Costs (60% of Salary) 478,356 Estimated Costs 1,275,616 Additional revenue will be derived from the Common Investment Fund and from official fees and changes. Details are as follows: $ Additional Fees & charges 282,528 Revenue from the CIF 124,000 406,528 Consequently, the nett cost is $869,088. COMMENT: It would not be expected that the level of fees, charges and CIF interest would be achieved to 100% during the first year of operation. Savings resulting from the conclusion of the work of the Task Force are as follows: $ -Salaries 1,028,990 -Standard Overhead Costs 617,394 1,646,384 These figures relate to the expected costs and additional revenue once the changes have become fully operational. It is expected that the amendments will be proclaimed to come into effect in early 1985. This will result in an increased intake of new estates by Bankruptcy Branch which will increase gradually through the year. The full impact will be felt around the end of 1985. There will therefore be no financial impact in the current fiscal year, or the fiscal year 1984-85. The financial impact will be felt only in the second half of the year 1985-86. I commend the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84 SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1984-85 SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1984-85 AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.07) —I rise to address myself to the estimates of the Department of Social Security. Over recent years, and particularly in the last 12 months, there has been very considerable debate and concern within the community about the rising level of welfare payments. This has led to certain actions on the part of the Government to do things which in its opinion are aimed at trying to stem the greatly increasing cost of social security in this country. In the last 12 or 15 months we have seen the introduction of a new tax on lump sum superannuation payments and we have seen the reintroduction of the incomes test in respect of pensioners aged over 70 years. Of course, in last year's Budget we saw the introduction of the infamous assets test, which has yet to be resolved but which will apply not only to age pensioners but also to widows, invalids and people such as those working in sheltered workshops who are in receipt of handicapped person's benefits. The point has been consistently made that the cost of social security will be an unbearable burden on the community. I think that one of the great benefits of the recent report of Professor Gruen and his panel which I tabled in the Senate yesterday and to which the Government has not yet responded is that the analyses undertaken by members of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel have put to rest a lot of the arguments and myths in this area. Indeed, I think it is highly significant that they have adopted positions which the Opposition has been putting forward publicly in the last 12 months. Of course, they substantially support the Opposition's position on the various moves that the Government has been undertaking in this whole area in the last 12 months. First of all, let me try, by using the Gruen panel's report, to put into perspective the question of the future burden that the aging in the community will be on the social security budget. I draw the Senate's attention to paragraph 2.13 on page 9 of the report which, in part, states: However, it may be relevant to point out that the aging of the Australian population has been a relatively minor factor in the growth of Commonwealth income support expenditures. Over the last 14 years (i.e. from 1968-69 to 1982- 83) the average growth rate of Commonwealth income support expenditures (in constant dollar terms) was 10 per cent per annum; over this period the aged population grew by around 2.8 per cent per annum. In other words less than 30 per cent of the growth of real Commonwealth income support expenditure could be directly attributed to the aging of the population. I know that that fact, while being highly relevant, is historical and therefore does not take account of future trends. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! I hope the honourable senator will be connecting these remarks to the Bills being debated. At the moment it seems that the honourable senator is discussing the Committee's report rather than the Bills. Senator MESSNER —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am addressing myself to the expenditure of the Department of Social Security which is claimed by the Government to be rising. It has undertaken measures which are aimed at trying to reduce the impact of that increase. I am referring to the Gruen Committee's recommendations and the report in that context. I hope you will allow me to continue along that line. I think the point is made quite clearly that, over the last several years, the increased amount of expenditure in the Department of Social Security's budget does not stem from the problem of the rising numbers of the aged persons. Indeed, we have seen rather more expenditure being attributed to increases in payments to unemployment beneficiaries. The other factor which is highly relevant is the increase in the rate of inflation that has been afflicting our economy over the past 10 years or so. It might be salutary to remind ourselves that, of the increase of some $2,700m in the Budget expenditure in the current financial year, roughly $1,000m is directly attributable to the cost of indexing benefits to pensioners and other social welfare beneficiaries. Another $1,000m is attributable to the increased number of unemployment recipients. The point is obvious. Clearly, the fastest growing part of the increase in social security expenditure does not stem from the aged, but stems from the two most difficult and intractable problems in this community and in this economy; largely, the questions of the number of unemployed and the rate of inflation. About 70 per cent of the total increase in expenditure is attributable to those two factors. The point has to be drawn then that the cure for increased welfare expenditure, the burden that that will create for the future and the solution for that lies very greatly in our finding solutions to the problems of unemployment and inflation. In other words, we need to attack the two key problems which we have been facing for the last 10 years. They are the basic causes of rising welfare expenditure, not the mythical so- called rise in the number of aged which the Government sees fit to blame and in relation to which it has taken such draconian action in the last 12 months. Turning now to the question of population and the anticipated level of increase over the next few years, the Gruen Committee provided us with information covering the years 1984 to 2001. The figures show that, compared with the rate of growth for the total population of 1.13 per cent per annum, the aged portion of that population, that is, those women over 60 and those men over 65, will rise by 1.84 per cent. The difference there is a mere 0.71 per cent per annum. I remind honourable senators that this will occur over the next 20 years. It is claimed that that will be a period of great concern to us all. Quoting again from the Gruen Committee report where this matter is discussed, the conclusion is drawn as follows: In this perspective a 0.71 per cent relative increase per annum is not particularly alarming and, supposing that long term productivity growth rates average at least 1 per cent per annum, sustainable with an unchanged tax burden. I think, whatever else the Gruen report has done in the course of its very detailed information, it has done the country a service by drawing our attention to the fact. In the face of all the arguments that the Government has been putting and in the face of the somewhat hysterical approach by some of the newspapers and segments of the Press about dealing with the problems of the aged in the future, that myth has been put to rest by Professor Gruen's panel. Another element, as evidenced by those population figures, is the demographic changes that we need to consider as regards the aged as a proportion of the total population and, in particular, relating that as a ratio to the numbers of working people in the community who will need to be paying the taxes in order to pay those increased benefits. The Gruen report has quoted from the Department of Social Security's 'Population Projections and Social Security' dated November 1981. Under the title 'The Impact of Population Changes on Social Expenditure: Projections from 1980-81 to 2021', it states: . . . suggests that, while the proportion of the aged will rise, the proportion of youth will decline. This means that although per capita government expenditure on the two groups is different, the overall effect on public expenditure of the increase in the aged is much reduced. At the same time, the number of people of workforce age will increase by 55 per cent (by 2021). The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat has thus concluded that the average cumulative increase in expenditure would be only 0.24 per cent each year. This work, although by no means conclusive, strongly suggests that the demographic changes of the next 30-40 years will not produce the overall expenditure changes that are apparent when one factor, such as ageing, is considered in isolation. I think that is a highly relevant quotation from that document. It draws together the strings of the argument put in the newspapers and by the Government about the huge impact upon future expenditures of the cost of securing the future of the aged. This is very consistent with the argument that the Opposition has been putting in public in recent times because, as has been all too common, the figures that have been extrapolated from time to time about the growth in the number of old people in the community have been misrepresented in terms of what is also happening at the other end of the age spectrum. The falling number of younger people as a proportion of the whole population will result in significant savings in the total budgets of governments. Therefore, we should not single out the aging as the scapegoat for all our criticisms of welfare expenditure as the Government has seen fit to do over the last 12 months in the course of its attack on the aged through the introduction of the three measures which I mentioned earlier. One very significant point that must be remembered too in regard to the whole question of welfare for the aged is the relative difference between the period ahead for people who are approaching retiring age now and the problems faced by people who lived through retirement over the last 40 years. I draw the attention of the Senate to the very severe impact of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and of course of the two world wars, on the financial situation of families and of retiring people. In the last 20 years or so we have been fortunate not to have had the impact of those kinds of major cataclysms in our society that produced major groups of poverty stricken people in earlier times. As a result, because people have been able to live in relatively more affluent times, they have had the opportunity to accumulate more assets and thus have put themselves in a stronger position to look after their own retirement. That again shows the difference between the approach of the Opposition compared with that of the Government in this area. Right from day one of the Government's accession to power and its attack upon the elderly as a result, we have been making the point that Liberal government policies encourage people to look after themselves in their retirement, and we will aim to provide tax and social security incentives for people to do so. I remind the Senate that that remains a very strong part of Liberal Party policy. Another aspect of this problem in the area I have just mentioned is the rising utilisation of occupational superannuation, that is, the way in which employers provide private insurance and superannuation cover for employees through private schemes. In addition, with the growing number of people in the public sector in the last 15 years or so, and particularly under this present Government, an increasing number of people will become subject to public sector superannuation arrangements. While it is true that still only 50 per cent of the work force is covered by occupational superannuation schemes, it is fair to say that that has substantially increased from a figure of around 25 per cent about 10 or 12 years ago. In other words, the trend is very strongly towards occupational superannuation schemes. We on this side of the Senate believe that we should encourage more and more Australians to join occupational superannuation schemes sponsored by employers in order to secure their retirement. I do not wish to go on for very much longer, but I want to draw the Senate's attention to one other aspect of occupational superannuation. I refer to the issue of lump sum superannuation payments. It is interesting that the Government has seen fit to attack lump sum superannuation payments by the introduction of a punitive tax, the legislation for which I understand will be introduced into the House of Representatives today. There can be no misunderstanding on the part of the Government about the degree of concern in the community at this measure, which is aimed at reducing the capacity of people to look after themselves in retirement. Of course, it leads to the obvious conclusion that more and more people will become dependent upon the Government for their age pension. The Gruen report has some useful information for us on this matter. Page 12 of the report shows that, while the number of people receiving lump sums in 1978 and 1979 was around 268,000 and in 1982 the number was only about 270,000, there having been some fluctuations in between, the total amounts received were respectively $1.1 billion and $3.1 billion. In other words, people receiving benefits from lump sum superannuation schemes have received relatively higher amounts over the last several years. That means that those people are therefore more able to look after themselves in their retirement and, as a result, will not become a burden on the social security budget to the extent that the Government claims might happen in the future. All these factors taken together demonstrate that the Government's path in looking after the aged and the provision of retirement income security is way off track. It has missed the point entirely in examining the question since it came to power. With some confused idea about what is and is not equitable in terms of the taxation system, it has sought to introduce new measures which have been most damaging to the people of Australia. Those matters are yet to receive attention in the Parliament. The two important matters are; firstly, the assets test on pensions, which I reiterate does not apply only to the aged but also to widows, invalids and other people and, secondly, taxation on lump sum superannuation payments. I do not have time now to go into that argument and probably you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would stop me from developing an argument about that, as you drew my attention to other remarks earlier. For that reason, I will conclude by pointing out that the Gruen document has been an extremely valuable contribution to the whole debate about the rising cost of social security for the aged. It points up quite clearly that the problems do not lie so much with securing retirement income for the aged but with looking after other very much more serious problems in the economy, such as inflation and unemployment. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.27) —During this debate on the Appropriation Bills I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to some of the problems concerned with Australia's coastal surveillance. In the Additional Estimates being considered by the Senate a figure of some $4m, an increase of 3 per cent, is sought for the Australian Federal Police. During the hearings of Estimates Committee E, Senator Boswell raised a question about this additional sum. Mr J. Ireland, the Executive Officer, Administration, of the Australian Federal Police, said: As you are aware, Senator, we have recently assumed responsibility for coastal surveillance. The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance has been meeting to consider the resources that will be required by the Federal Police to perform its role, particularly with the establishment of the Coastal Protection Unit. So the situation is that a coastal protection unit is to be established within the Australian Federal Police to perform the role of coastal surveillance for this nation. I ask the Senate: How does that stand with the Australian Labor Party's 1982 platform, under the section relating to defence, paragraph C, point 14, which states in relation to the Labor Party in government: Establish a Coastal Protection Force within the Defence Force, equipped and organised with air and sea capability to police in peacetime Australia's maritime zone against activities such as drug smuggling and illegal fishing. So when members of the Labor Party were in opposition and that platform was being prepared in the years before we got ad Hawkery, they were promoting the view that coastal protection and surveillance arrangements should come under the defence forces and, now they are in government, this will be established in some way or other under the Australian Federal Police. How does that happen? It all arises out of the volume entitled 'A Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements', by Mr K . C. Beazley, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. It is this review which the Government has used-perhaps I should say misused-in order to come up with these arrangements. I suggest to the Senate that on any proper analysis of this review one would have to agree that it is a sloppy document. It is shallow and it appears to me to have been written to meet a performed conclusion. It fails to provide any meaningful cost benefit analysis. There is no financial impact statement or manpower audit of the intended arrangements under the Australian Federal Police. For example, it fails to explain how the Royal Australian Air Force will provide 1,500 hours per year of P3 Orion surveillance when the RAAF has stated that, given its new commitments to the Royal Australian Navy following the disbandment of the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing element, it can provide a maximum of 1,200 hours. The Minister has just ignored that statement and has said it will provide 1,500 hours surveillance. The report fails to examine in any detail the user pays and Defence Force core arrangements which were adopted by the Canadians or the 1976 Norwegian Government decision to form a coast guard within the Royal Norwegian Navy as the most economic method of undertaking surveillance of the 200-mile Norwegian economic zone and continental shelf. In fact, the Norwegian solution does not even rate a mention in this document. Yet, like Norway, Australia is a relatively small country in regard to population, with a large coastline, a 200 nautical mile economic zone and off-shore oil field. Coastal surveillance of this nation is a matter of grave concern, and should be a matter of grave concern to this Government. I have my doubts as to whether it is a matter of grave concern to this Government but it is a matter of grave concern to the people of Australia. This document fails to examine the possibility of a separate budget for coastal surveillance using defence equipment and while the review states the 1977 costs of a separate coastal protection force as being between $365m and $450m, it fails to detail the sort of force that was envisaged in that 1977 review. I suggest that that review was probably based on the big power US Coastguard concept-the usual Rolls Royce solution which is frequently offered to this nation and which this nation cannot afford. This review does not cost for comparative purposes the Canadian concept. However, it does note: . . . there may be a need to equip the Coastal Protection Unit with additional inshore patrol craft or aircraft for operations in particular areas. So the Minister is talking about providing additional inshore patrol craft and aircraft. The Minister considers: . . . these operational matters be addressed after the new unit is established. Is that not just typical of the sort of thing that goes on with members of the Labor Party in government? They have made up their minds what they will do, then they will implement their program and after that they will find out what it will cost the nation. Do we have some sort of blank cheque? Probably, once they get down the track and find out the cost and compare the cost of providing these sorts of facilities with the other costs of governing this nation, the Australian coastal protection unit will find itself frozen of funds. Coastal surveillance, a matter of grave importance and absolutely essential for the security of this nation with regard to the importation of drugs, illegal immigrants and perhaps diseases which might affect our animals, will go by the by because this Government has failed to give it any proper consideration in the preliminary stages. Parliament in fact is being presented with these new arrangements as a fait accompli, without knowing the financial implications, and the Government is unable to give any indication of the future size and shape of the coastal protection unit either centrally or regionally. As Mr Ireland said in answer to Senator Boswell, we have already started; we are already down the track. So it is a fait accompli. There has been no debate in the Parliament, no legislation introduced and no opportunity to question the Minister at any length about what is going on, but somewhere down the track hundreds of millions of dollars will be needed, and properly needed, to provide this service. However, there will be arguments about whether or not the funds will be provided. In introducing this review the Special Minister of State (Mr Young)-I might say that at the time he had the only copy of the review in the Parliament so no one else could have a look at it-said: There is a high cost in using defence equipment and manpower, which has been selected and trained for tasks that have little in common with civil coastal surveillance. They were his words. I put it to the Senate that that is not a very convincing argument given the Norwegian solution or indeed the Canadian solution for surveillance of their economic zones. No mention was made in his statement of the possibility of a need to equip the coastal protection unit with additional patrol craft or aircraft for operations in particular areas. That is hidden in the review, in the Minister's recommendations at the bottom of page 6. One fact that does emerge is that the Government has written into the report an attempted justification for the disposal of the Navy's Tracker aircraft. It states the obvious, that Tracker aircraft are more costly to operate than unsophisticated civil aircraft. But are they really? It does not mention the fact that the Tracker aircraft have been paid for but the civil aircraft will have to be bought. It does not mention that these Tracker aircraft are being manned by highly skilled pilots and aircrew who have already been trained and who need flying hours to make sure that their training is kept up. They are a valuable defence asset. I quote what the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, said: The task of policing Australia's new maritime zone is an enormous and continuing one. It should be handled by the defence forces, thereby utilising effectively for peacetime purposes the resources we are compelled to devote to our preparations for war . . . We will establish within the Defence Force a coastal protection force. I suggest to the Senate that that proposition had much merit. That statement was made by Mr Hayden when he addressed the Australian Institute of International Affairs on 9 November 1981 when he was leading the Labor Party. Now, with this typical ad Hawkery that we get under this Government, that proposition has been relegated to the scrap-heap and we are now going down the track of establishing a coastal protection unit not knowing what the ultimate cost will be, and indeed not knowing very much at all about where it will take us. I just wonder whether Mr Hawke cannot bear the idea of adopting any initiatives made by Mr Hayden. It may be that the Australian Federal Police has a proper capability, or should be given a proper capability, to control coastal surveillance in peace time but I do not believe that we can afford the sort of separate organisation that must be envisaged under this proposal. With the limited funds available, the utilisation of existing resources and the development of resources that have a dual peacetime and war capability appear to be essential. Are we to have yet another burgeoning bureaucracy? Will this concept lead to the purchase of ships and aircraft designed specifically for the peacetime surveillance role, ships and aircraft that are incapable of rapid conversion to a useful military role? Much is made in the report of existing police networks and communications, but are they compatible with defence communications in wartime? I think not. I ask whether this proposal will lead to separate logistic, administrative, communications, repair and other support facilities and, if so, at what cost? Will they train their own mariners and aviators? That would be a waste in duplication. We really need a coastguard service within the Defence Force along the Norwegian lines, one which is separately funded but which utilises both Navy and Air Force logistic, communications and administrative facilities and equipments that have a wartime role. The manpower could be auxiliary to the regular forces being drawn from Navy and Air Force trained personnel who have completed at least one engagement in the defence forces. Such a service would provide significant economies in scale. The coastguard service would be an effective active reserve to the defence forces with specific dedicated wartime roles. We simply cannot afford the luxury of specifically designed ships and aircraft for the peacetime surveillance role; nor can we afford the cost of training mariners and aviators solely for that role. For example, is there any reason why the new catamaran hull which is being developed for Navy minesweepers should not also be developed as the hull for surveillance patrol craft? It could be fitted for, but not with, a minesweeping capability. In war we would need a huge minesweeping force for this nation. That would be one of the roles of the coastguard service in war. Why do we not give consideration to the new generation of airships being developed overseas? Why are they not being developed in this nation? These airships are economic, have long endurance and could be fitted with dunking sonars in time of war. It is natural that the Defence Force chiefs do not want their funds for equipment essential to their primary role diluted by involvement in peacetime coastal surveillance, but it should not be beyond their wit to evolve a strategy that would provide them with an active and cost-effective reserve within a coastguard service which would have an important and vital wartime role. Such a coastguard service would need to compete separately for budgetary funding of its surveillance role and the provision of services by the defence forces in support . Some of the charges might, however, properly be offset against the 'for but not with wartime capability' in their ships and aircraft. The review by Mr Beazley does not provide persuasive argument in favour of the Government's conclusions and recommendations. The disposal of a valuable and existing asset such as the Fleet Air Arm's Tracker aircraft, on the ground that their operating costs are greater than those of civil aircraft, is specious. The conclusions are clearly written to a specific brief which has little in common with good government or the effective use of existing assets. In my view it is yet another example of the dictatorial pressure exerted by the Prime Minister on his Cabinet colleagues. It is simply another case of ad Hawkery. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.44) —In speaking to Appropriation Bill ( No. 3) 1983-84 I wish to address my remarks to divisions 270 to 284 which cover the appropriations for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and money provided by the Government for the various programs it conducts in relation to education generally. I wish to outline in that context the clear differences in approach to education between the coalition parties and the Government. I can do that in light of the recent policy which we have announced, which goes to many of the matters covered by these particular estimates, and also by drawing upon the Government's claims in a glossy booklet it has produced entitled 'Record of Government', which, of course, fails entirely to take into account the many broken promises it has made in the various areas covered by and relevant to these estimates. The Opposition has recently put down a policy, which I wish to discuss, to make clear some of the things we have proposed in the area of education. This policy has involved extensive consultations with education groups and individuals at many levels. The policy of the Liberal-National Party coalition outlines important philosophical tenets which we hold to be fundamental to education purpose and relevance. It recognises the growing importance of education both for vocational and for non-vocational purposes. The world is becoming increasingly competitive and technological. Not only will the possession of skills and the capacity to get skills be more important; so also will be the need for education for personal fulfulment and enrichment in a society where increased leisure time is likely to become a probable scenario. People are entitled to want to have the very best kind of lifestyle. If that involves more leisure they will not be able to take educational options for that kind of non- vocational reason. The policy of the Liberal-National parties is a forward looking one. It is based upon a number of underlying principles-principles of fairness, choice, opportunity, involvement and, quite unashamedly, excellence in education. It is a policy which makes it quite clear that a Peacock government would view education as an investment in young Australia, in Australia generally and in the Australian people. The document we have before us, the Appropriation Bill, outlines many of the programs of the present Government. We would depart from these in a number of significant areas. In secondary education we would seek a return to fairness. In the past year under the Labor Government, through its guidelines and appropriations, we have seen the resurrection of the State aid debate with the Hawke Government introducing a series of discriminatory and divisive measures to our non- government school system. The Labor Government has sought to limit freedom of choice for parents in the schooling of their children and to penalise parents who wish to exercise that choice. The coalition has reaffirmed its support for all children in non-government schools. We have reaffirmed our support for an additional component of funding for all those schools which we can classify as needy. We have pledged our support for the restoration of the percentage link; that is, the link which allows for increases in cash as inflation erodes the value of the educational dollar. This is a measure which provides certainty and predictability in funding. At the same time and for almost the first time in public policy-I think my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle may have made reference to this previously when she produced a document-we have recognised that a true assessment of parental need cannot be assumed from the bricks and mortar that house schoolchildren. Consequently, we will work towards producing a Green Paper on the alternative methods of funding education using a family based assistance approach. We will ask the Commonwealth Schools Commission to prepare such a Green Paper; to examine and to evaluate those options which could achieve a shift from funding based on institutional need alone to funding based on the needs of families and the capacity of families. Of course, our long term goal is to arrive at a system that provides maximum opportunity and choice for all Australian schoolchildren. As far as the family based funding proposal is concerned, we are proposing to put the matter under public examination, rather in the way that this Government has sought to put other education matters under public examination, by producing a Green Paper and putting it out for honest discussions and seeing what the family based approach has to offer for Australia . We have promised more than that. We have promised a program which we have called the basic competencies program, a program designed to redress the problem of illiteracy and innumeracy and the various other problems of learning which children have, not just in our schools but in the community as a whole. There are estimates that there are one million functionally illiterate adults in Australia. If that figure is correct, one million people are locked out today and will be locked out increasingly as we move to a society depending more and more on skill. It is disturbing to see how many of the tertiary campuses around Australia have had to add remedial English to their offerings. Certainly, a concern is being expressed within the community about the level of achievement in basic competencies. I have no good evidence that things are better or worse than they were a generation ago. It really does not matter; the fact is that there is a problem. It does not matter whether in quantum it is greater or smaller. My view is that a program directed towards basic competencies, to mounting support through the Commonwealth Schools Commission for those in need of help, will help Australia and Australians. This program has been promised in response to the concerns of the community. It is a desire to ensure that every Australian, of whatever age, will have an opportunity to participate not only in basic education but also in further education-in continuing education, in lifelong recurrent education-and in all that Australia has to offer by way of social and cultural opportunity. To participate fully in those a capacity in basic competencies is necessary. I would hope that a program such as this would receive universal support from the community. The coalition would expand the computer education program, which is mentioned specifically in some of the Appropriation Bills each year. The Commonwealth Schools Commission was quite specific about the amount of money that would be required to make a computer education program realistic and successful in Australia. That amount of money is more than five times what the Australian Labor Party promised and perhaps six or seven times what it ended up giving. Let us be clear: The amount of money that appeared in the Budget Papers and in the Appropriation Bills is far short of the pre-election promises which the Labor Party gave so readily. In line with the commitment we gave in 1983, we have undertaken to raise to $20m a year the amount that we are willing to offer, through the Commonwealth Schools Commission, towards a national Australian computer education program. We see that money going into the training of teachers-pre-service training and in-service training. We see that money going into the production of courseware and software. We see it going, finally, into the provision of hardware, machines , which may be required for the schools. Of course, one cannot approach computer education merely by providing machines and assuming one is providing an educational program. One is not. Anyone who read the dissenting reports by my friend Paul Jeremy and, I think, an officer from the New South Wales Department of Education which were tabled in this place recently, will understand their concern about the emphasis needing to be put on a comprehensive program of computer education. The Government's approach so far has been inadequate. As part of our policy we have proposed a teacher exchange program. We have an old fashioned view about the cross-fertilisation of ideas between schools in different systems. It does not matter whether it is between the Catholic education system and the government system or the Catholic education system and the Lutheran education system. It does not matter whether it is between a non- government independent school and a government school. The exchange of ideas and the cross-fertilisation within and between sectors will help people to get to know each other and will help to reduce tensions, build bridges and cross- fertilise the ideas that can be spread with benefit from one system to the other . What is in our minds is that any such arrangements would be local and advantageous to each party. If someone in a school felt that it was desirable to try to offer a position for a semester or half a year to someone from another system and could effect an exchange, we would like to see such a program work. There is a small program under the Schools Commission now which is called the school travel and exchange program. The program does virtually none of this. It does a little but it could do a lot more. We would like to see a teacher exchange program become a significant factor in improving the amity and the sharing in Australian education. In relation to higher education, our policy also promises new hope for Australians while maintaining excellence. We emphasise in higher education excellence and participation, and they are not incompatible if they are properly pursued. This year alone tens of thousands of enthusiastic Australians were turned away from the gates of our universities, our colleges of advanced education and our technical colleges. I have heard the figure put at 100,000 in some of the additional material which has been tabled today. The Department of Education and Youth Affairs has indicated by way of answers to questions that the figures are smaller than that. But they are still too large. Between 10,000 and 20,000 students have been turned away from higher education alone. Some 40, 000 students have been turned away from technical and further education in New South Wales alone. Another 30,000 have been turned away in Victoria. We cannot have those kinds of figures if we are to produce the right kind of opportunity for all Australians in the years to come. Our policy seeks to redress a situation in which students are anxious to enrol, where institutions are anxious to take them and where the providers and the consumers do not seem to be able to get together because governments have been unable to provide the conditions under which this can be achieved. I do not believe the position has become any better in the first 18 months or so of the Hawke Government. One of our very exciting proposals, and one that has been widely received with acclaim in the community, is our proposal for an open university. It would really be an open tertiary institution. The idea is to provide off-campus opportunities for many Australians. It would be flexible in respect of what it would offer-whether it would offer degrees, diplomas, certificates or non-award courses. I am quite relaxed about that. I want to use the opportunities presented by off-campus education to open up participation in Australia to many more Australians. I am well aware of the 1974 report and the recent report of the present head of the Commonwealth Department. Those reports emphasised the possibilities of building upon the present off-campus offerings across Australia , perhaps networking them. We would like to go further. We would like to allow them to get greater involvement with the electronic media, with modern communication. There is no educational offering going on in any systematic way through television in Australia. We should be into television. We should be looking at using the communications satellite to help us in this task of providing higher education. Of course, when cable television and radiated subscription television become realities they will be ideal for the open university concept. I am eclectic in the way I would like to see it operate. I would like to take skills from everywhere. I would like to plug in to the existing people who have expertise in offering it and make them into winners, but the many thousands of Australians who could enrol under this program would be the real winners, because we could open up access across Australia. We would want the standards on campus and the standards of the offerings to be maintained. We would see no reduction at all in the excellence on campus. We believe that with this mixture of a much more open entry and the maintenance of high standards it would be possible to provide real opportunity and real extra hope for Australians. Let me just identify some of the people who would be able to participate. I refer to those Australians at present denied access because they have full time parental responsibilities and take them seriously. I refer also the people with physical handicaps and people with full time employment responsibilities. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Isolated people. Senator PETER BAUME —People who are isolated in remote Australia, as my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle says; I also include those isolated in the outer suburbs of our large conurbations, where the cost and the inconvenience of travel put most campuses out of their reach. For all these people an Australian kind of open tertiary institution-not a copy of what has been done overseas but an Australian model-will offer real hope and real help. One of the serious inequities we would hope to fix would be the present gap between the allowance paid under the tertiary education assistance scheme and the unemployment benefit. The TEAS allowance is paid to tertiary education students. We will close that gap. It is interesting that in opposition the Labor Party made such a promise. Its performance in its first year in government has been to widen that gap between the TEAS allowance and the unemployment benefit. Nothing in the Appropriation Bills goes any way towards closing it. The Labor Party in its 'Record of Government' at page 17 under the heading 'Student allowances' says that it has increased TEAS by 5 per cent. But in a nation where inflation went up by 8 per cent or 9 per cent, the Labor Party is telling us that the TEAS allowance has in fact dropped in real terms. The value of educational support has dropped in real terms this year under the Labor Government. The gap between the TEAS allowance and the unemployment benefit has widened. We will work progressively to close the gap and to make the TEAS allowance equal to the unemployment benefit. The final part of our policy which I would like to mention this afternoon is our other proposal in relation to higher education. We will initiate a review of the structural and funding arrangements for higher education. Looking back from 1984 to the 1970s, we can see that the binary system, which privileged universities and colleges of advanced education having a different function, has served us quite well over a decade. It is a system which has had real advantages . If we look at the future and where we are going in the 1990s and the 2000s, it is far from certain not only to me but also to the Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, to the former Chairman of the Schools Commission and to many people who have articulated their concerns, that the binary system will be appropriate or that it will deliver all that is needed. In that respect, it is a pity that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its report recently tabled in this place has been so timid or has taken such a status quo approach that it seems to want to preserve and to continue the binary system. The Liberal and National Parties in government will review the whole structure. We believe that the whole structure may need re-jigging or shaking. At present universities and colleges of advanced education are funded on different bases. They are subject to the directions of different planning bodies . Originally it was intended that the role of the colleges would remain distinct from but complementary to that of universities. But as they have evolved, their roles have come to overlap markedly. We can find courses of study-vocational courses-offered in a university in one city and in a college in another city, with the market outside sometimes preferring the university qualification and at other times preferring the college qualification. It does not seem right that colleges should by definition still be restricted, for example, in their access to research funding or in the granting of certain post-graduate awards. I wish to highlight some of the differences between the approach contained in these Appropriation Bills, containing as they do the expression of the Government's policy, and what we are proposing. There is a clear choice between Liberal-National Party policy and what Labor is doing. The current Labor Government has put the lid on education, and we seek to lift that lid and to open up opportunity. Labor has sought to level down educational standards. It has sought to deny the legitimacy of the pursuit of excellence. We, unashamedly, support the pursuit of excellence; excellence for every Australian; excellence in every school room; excellence in every technical college. We do not see it as something that has elitist overtones, which is something the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) would sneer about, but as a means by which every individual can achieve to the maximum of his or her capability. Labor policy emphasises and asserts the rights of the central planners over the rights of individuals, but we recognise the rights of parents and students to have a say and to be heard on the subject of choosing the type of education best suited to them at the school or higher institution of their choice. We will back the voice of the consumers. Labor presents education as part of a class struggle . If we look at some of the Minister's speeches, much of the rhetoric is based upon pejorative assertions about certain so-called advantaged institutions and parents. The Minister sees education as a way of enabling people 'to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism'. Those are the Minister' s words. I do not know what they mean. She does not also seek to be able to resist the manipulations by the massive institutions of labour or the massive institutions of socialism. That kind of ideological statement on education is something which we will not have a bar of. We will not allow the Labor Government or its Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan, to use the education system for the achievement of socialist objectives. I turn back to the papers and analyse what is and is not offered, what is contained and what is missing. Quite apart from the clear differences, to the electorate and quite apart from what the education community needs, there is one other aspect we must mention. I refer to the extent to which the Labor Party has failed to deliver on specific promises which it made in regard to education to the education community and to the consumers of education. Before the election the school community was promised that government schools would have $222m over three years. It was promised that the first instalment in year one of a Labor Government would have been $37m. I ask every president of every parents and citizens group across Australia: 'Where is your share of that $37m?'. I can tell them that not one cent of that promised $37m promised by the Labor Party for Australia's government schools has been delivered in the first year. I do not believe the second instalment will be delivered, and I do not believe that government schools will be receiving what was promised to them. This money is still owing and is likely to be owing for some time. Before the election Labor promised to give $9m to primary schools. That money has still to be delivered. None of it has appeared, not even $3m as the first instalment-nothing! I again ask every mother with a child in infant school: ' Where is your share of that money for your child today?'. That is another Labor promise which has been dishonoured. Labor promised $16m for non-government needy schools. Where is that money? It was promised as an election bait and not a cent of it has been delivered-not a penny! Again, I ask every parent with a child in an under-resourced Catholic parochial school: 'Would that money help you and your child?'. It was promised as election bait by the Labor Party. As we look at the Appropriation Bills we can ask: 'Where is it? Where is any mention of it?'. None of it has been delivered and none of it will be delivered this year. The Labor Party said it would give an additional $10m every year to assist with retention in schools or the technical college equivalent. We cannot identify that money. Labor promised $24m a year for the computer education program. It has reduced that now to $18m a year for three years. I refer parents again to the Commonwealth Schools Commission recommendation, which shows that that is far below what would be effective in making their children computer literate. This is a very important document for the education community. It is looking to the Government to start to honour some of the promises it made to the people. So far, too many of those promises have been broken. I remind Australians that there is now an alternative policy which is based upon the principles of fairness, involvement, choice and excellence. That policy of the Liberal and National parties offers new hope to tertiary students, new fairness for children in schools, and new opportunities for many who need it at present. I will come back during the Committee stage to raise specific criticisms of certain line items in the appropriations. Meanwhile, I hope that as many people as possible will look at the Liberal and National parties new policy on education and support it for what it promises Australian education. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.11) —It was heartening to see the report that was tabled in the Senate yesterday relating to the development of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal in the Northern Territory. The defence of our northern coastline has been going ahead in leaps and bounds in the last few years, and Tindal is part of this forward defence. I expect to see in the next few years another substantial base at Derby, which will be a bare base associated with Tindal. Tindal has been found to be a most suitable site for the development of a home base for the FA18 fighters in the north of Australia, and the first stage will cost some $167m. There is to be a further stage 2, which will pick up some of the elements of the RAAF which are at present stationed in Darwin. There has been some feeling in the Northern Territory that perhaps the Federal Government will not go ahead with the Tindal base, despite the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. I suggest, now that this report has been tabled, that the Government come forward with a clear statement of intention regarding this base. I believe that the Government needs to give a firm understanding that the project will proceed according to the timetable, by announcing that development funds will be allocated in the coming Commonwealth Budget. It is also to be noted that in association with the development of this base the Northern Territory Government has identified some $100m for supporting projects to build up the facilities of the town of Katherine on a long term basis. Due to the huge outlay on the FA18 fighters, which will run into some billions of dollars, and the development of the defence facilities in the north, such as the patrol boat bases, the various airstrips, and now Tindal, an enormous demand is being placed on the defence vote. One aspect of the defence vote about which I should like to speak further relates to defence housing. It is all very well to have this huge outlay in bases, modern equipment and so on, but what is needed is balance, and I am talking now of the necessity to upgrade defence housing. This issue came to my mind in the last few days after I had approaches from the people at the RAAF base at Darwin. The situation there is extremely difficult. It has been indicated that if Tindal is to go ahead there will be no funds for repairs and maintenance-R and M-for the houses at the RAAF base in Darwin. I will come back to that a little later. Looking briefly at the background of defence housing, in the early to mid-1970s increased attention was given to defence housing because of the growing shortages and declining standards relative to community housing standards and the expectations of Service personnel. The problems were really identified then. A 1972 report from the Committee of Inquiry into Financial and Conditions of Service for Male and Female Members of the Armed Forces, the Kerr-Woodward inquiry, concluded that the availability, location and overall standard of defence housing were giving cause of considerable concern. In September 1976, the Garland Committee-the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-initiated an inquiry into accommodation for married Service personnel. Part of that report which was issued in 1977, states: At the . . . time it was recognised that special defence needs would require some on-base housing and that some housing would be needed in remote areas and where the private rental market could not meet requirements fully. Current policies were then developed for defence housing. Significant amongst the decisions taken in the aftermath of the Garland Committee report were a continuation of the policy of providing housing for Service personnel; the waiving of the previous reliance on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement as the prime method of provision, as it did not meet the requirements; provision of housing to be on the basis of the most economic means; and housing classified as unsuitable on grounds of size, quality or environment to be disposed of. As I see it, a listing of the stock shows that some 14,300 dwellings are below the 1972 standard, some 2,300 could be upgraded, leaving 12,000 which should be replaced. The replacement of 12,000 houses will be an enormous cost to the defence budget. There has to be a balance. If we are to have increased expenditure on equipment and new bases, which I support most strongly, at the same time we have to make sure that sufficient moneys are available within the defence vote to ensure that defence housing is equal to the task required of it. The housing has to be of sufficient standard to encourage defence personnel to go into these northern areas and give service there. The shortage has increased by some 1,600 houses in the past five years, due largely to a reduction of some 1,200 in the stock level over the same period. The 1,200 reduction has been due to an accelerated rate of disposal of unsuitable stock in recent years. At any one time over the last decade 7,000 to 10,000 married Service personnel have accommodated themselves outside defence arrangements, that is, neither occupying defence housing nor being paid allowances for their accommodation costs. At present it is estimated that some 6,700 Service personnel own their own homes. About half of these are thought to be occupying homes in areas which coincide with their postings. So that is having the effect of easing the demand. In 1978-79, as I said, $22m was spent to complete some 478 houses; in 1979-80, $7m was spent to complete 116 houses; in 1980-81, $8m was expended for the completion of 90 houses; in 1981-82, $16m was spent to complete some 246 houses; and in 1982-83, $21m was spent to complete 443 houses. As I understand it, it was indicated during the hearings of the Estimates committees some two weeks ago that some $30m to $40m a year will be spent on defence housing. So, in 1983-84 the projected figure is $34m to be spent on the completion of 500 houses. Of course, these new houses are not replacing those houses that are no longer used because of old age. Current defence housing planning is aimed at using the funds available as effectively and equitably as possible throughout Australia by providing additional housing where there is a shortfall and where suitable rental accommodation is not readily available, replacing as quickly as possible the worst of the 12,000 below standard houses that I have mentioned, and improving older houses which, because of limited funds, cannot be replaced for at least 15 years. I note in a report that I have been studying that there is a five-year forward program. The current planning for the five-year period 1984-85 to 1988-89 provides for the following: Some 1,270 additional houses at an estimated cost of $94m; 1,640 replacement houses at an estimated cost of $118m; and improvements to some 2,700 houses at an estimated cost of $36m. This all sounds well and good , but when one takes note of the original stock of houses available and the number of houses that have to be removed from that stock because of age, one realises that a very big problem exists in relation to defence housing in Australia. I come closer to home-as a senator representing the Northern Territory-and refer to the situation in Darwin. Darwin has been a very important Royal Australian Air Force base over the years. It has been given more prominence over the period of its existence. Of course, quite a large number of RAAF personnel are stationed in Darwin. Honourable senators will remember that Darwin was struck by a very serious cyclone, Cyclone Tracy, at Christmas 1974. A most difficult situation has developed there. Very strict building codes, based on a cyclone code, have been introduced to apply to houses built for the civilian community, if I can put it that way, in the Darwin area. However, in the centre of Darwin where the RAAF is stationed, there are something like 250 houses that are not built to cyclone standards. I believe this to be a very serious omission . If in future a cyclone of the intensity of Tracy should strike-of course, that will happen because there is a serious and intense cyclone in the area about once every 30 years-the RAAF personnel, their wives and children will be in the dangerous situation of living in these houses that are not built to cyclone standards. It will be remembered that when Cyclone Tracy struck most of the damage was caused and people were injured and killed-60-odd people were killed in that cyclone-by flying debris. If a cyclone of the intensity of Cyclone Kathy which struck Borroloola a few weeks ago-it had an intensity similar to that of Cyclone Tracy-were to strike in the Darwin area, extreme damage would be caused to Darwin once again, and such damage would occur because so many houses in the Darwin RAAF base have not been constructed to cyclone standards. Just as debris flew over such a wide area of Darwin during Cyclone Tracy in 1974, the same thing could happen in Darwin again, but this time the debris would come from the RAAF base in Darwin. Apart from the people living on that base being at risk, the civilian population living in the vicinity of the RAAF base would be equally at risk. Repairs and maintenance work on those houses at the base is overdue. Such repair and maintenance work has been curtailed because of the uncertainty of the future of the RAAF base in Darwin. As I said, now that firm plans are being made for the development of a major RAAF base at Tindal, it should be possible to set in train a management plan to upgrade for interim use the older RAAF houses at Darwin. However, it has been said that no funds are available to carry out repairs and maintenance work on these houses because of the possibility that moneys will be required to establish the Tindal base. It has been said that no money will be available to carry out repairs and maintenance on these houses in Darwin for the next five to 10 years. That is an incredible situation. I come back to what I was saying in the first place, that a balance is required in the development of our defence system in the north of Australia. It is worth noting a description I have read of the situation at the Darwin RAAF base: Of the 300 houses on that base, 247 are in various stages of disrepair because of the lack of funds. Of these 247 houses, 36 were built during the period 1939-45, during the Second World War. All are seriously deficient in scales and standards. Most are not weatherproof and have significant electrical, water supply, drainage and sewerage problems. It has been reported to me that at times serious problems are encountered with the sewerage system on the base in Darwin. However, no money is available to carry out repairs and maintenance work on that system. I remind the authorities at this stage that they could have a very serious outbreak of disease on their hands, and I refer to typhoid. Most of the balance of these houses were built between the end of World War II and the late 1950s. These, too, are showing signs of the lack of repair and maintenance work and are classified as being below the minimum standard for the lowest rank. The number of members and dependants affected in varying degrees by poor housing standards is estimated at 950. This gives some indication of the immensity of the problem. Those people are seriously disadvantaged by continual electrical or plumbing problems, and they have no privacy in their houses. In some 150 houses bedrooms are only partially partitioned; that is, the partition does not go right to the floor or to the ceiling. Honourable senators can imagine the lack of privacy that that creates. According to the local manager of defence services in the area, the problem is simply a lack of funds to carry out repairs and maintenance in the period 1983- 84. While recognising the problems that the Government has with the huge capital expenditure required for the purchase of new equipment, FA18 fighters and the construction of new bases-all of which are most necessary for the defence of the north-at the same time I ask it to make available the funds necessary to upgrade Defence Force houses in the north. Many thousands of Defence Force houses in Australia need repair and maintenance; they are not up to standard. But I point out that in the north houses are prone to cyclone damage, as happened during Cyclone Tracy in 1974, and efforts must be made-and made soon-to remedy the situation. One cannot expect RAAF personnel and others in the Defence Force to move from the south to northern bases if houses there are not up to standard. I say emphatically that the housing standard in the north is not what it should be . There are difficulties in encouraging people to move voluntarily to those bases. Morale is not good in the RAAF base at Darwin or, for that matter, at other bases that suffer from the same problems. So I request the appropriate authorities to look into this matter and I do so for two reasons. The cyclone period for Darwin for this wet season has passed but the next wet will come along in November-December 1984. Perhaps there will be another cyclone . A cyclone of the intensity of Cyclone Kathy, which devastated Borroloola some weeks ago, makes one realise what could happen in Darwin in the wet at the end of this year. One could expect extreme damage to houses on RAAF bases and in the vicinity of Darwin. There could be more deaths and injuries. I leave those matters for the authorities to consider and look forward to balanced development of the various defence bases in the north. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.34) —I rise to speak on the acquisition of some five million acres of land in the Cobar Shire by the Army. I guess that that will involve the expenditure of a not inconsiderable sum of money by the Army this coming financial year. It is rather unusual that a Queensland senator should raise a matter concerning the people of New South Wales. However, I was approached by a group who called themselves the Fighters for Survival. They are women from the Cobar area of New South Wales concerned that good land in that area is to be acquired by the Army. In a quite lengthy letter sent to me after I had been interviewed by them the women pointed out that, because of Western Lands Commission price controls, the money landholders will receive will prevent them forever from buying other property. Apparently the sale price of land in the Western Division is about $6 an acre compared with a buying price of $50 an acre in the central region of New South Wales. The ladies who came to see me said that widows and retired persons in the Cobar area have a real problem because, as the Army proposes to acquire land in that area, they cannot sell at reasonable prices. In fact, I suppose they would be unable to sell at all because of the threat that the Army will take over their land. They may have to wait for the Army to resume it. That is not a prospect that anyone living in the Cobar district is happy about. I suppose that the Army must acquire land somewhere for its operations but the people of Cobar feel that it should conduct them on land that is not so good and not so well developed. On the five million acres there are to be four impact areas which will be uninhabited. All year round only 20 men will be there. The area will be used for manoeuvres only two or three times a year, perhaps amounting to 120 days out of 365. It seems to me to be a waste of good land. I understand from the women who came to see me that the Cobar area is a picture at present. At different times I have thought that Cobar is in a rather dry part of New South Wales. However, the women assure me that they have had good rains and it is very nice at the moment. But everyone is upset about the proposed acquisition by the Army. The women feel there will be quite a backlash when the Army takes over their land; there will certainly be an economic downturn for small businesses in the town due to the fact that rural landholders will not occupy those five million acres. Also, there will be the loss of small schools and the bus runs to those schools, as well as the uncertainty of the future of young people on the land. Some young people like life on the land. My son is one. I sometimes wonder, when considering the problems faced in developing a new property and living long distances from townships, just why young men and women would want to continue to live on the land. I suppose if they were not willing to set up homes in the outback, the economy of rural Australia would smartly fade away. I read an interesting editorial in the Australian recently. It related these rather sad facts about the concerns of farmers: Farmers are in reality slowly going bankrupt-while costs are rising by 10 per cent a year, real prices are declining. But what incentive is there for farmers with an average income of $11,500, earned from average capital of $450,000, when the national average income is about $13,500? Thus the national average income is some $2,000 more than the farm income, despite a lot of hard work. The editorial continued: As it is, thousands of Australia's 170,000 wheat, beef, sugar, pig, poultry and dairy farmers face the real prospect of being forced off the land in the next five years. That is a rather sad state of affairs. Perhaps a few people in Australia will be hungry if that does happen. The Government ought to take cognisance of those facts. Those on the land realise that costs are increasing while prices of commodities seem to be decreasing. I remember that when the Labor Government came to office it promised lower petrol prices. That did not happen. The man on the land and everyone else paid increased prices for their petrol although, admittedly, one can get a 2c rebate on diesel fuel. However, I know that every so often I have to submit a claim for the excess amount that we pay on diesel fuel. I am sure that there must be many farmers or farmers' wives who are very annoyed from time to time about the fact that they have to pay more for diesel fuel than they used to and have to submit a claim to get a refund. We all know that life can be hard for the man on the land if it does not rain at the right time. This is the case if one lives in the far outback. Plenty of places in Queensland are suffering from a lack of air services. This can be a real problem. It is very difficult to get television reception in many places in the far outback. So life out there is not as lovely as people sometimes seem to think it is. It seems to me that the requisition by the Army of 5 million acres of the Cobar area will create an unemployment problem. There are enough problems in regard to unemployment in Australia now without creating any more, as will happen in the Cobar area when the acquisition takes place. I think that the Government needs to tackle many problems for rural Australia-not only the rural area of Cobar in New South Wales but also rural Queensland, the State for which I am glad to be a senator. I think the Government has to tackle the problems of high inflation, steep interest rates, high government charges and, in some cases, generous wages . The women representatives of Fighters for Survival instanced the case of Mrs McInerney, a shearing contractor in the Cobar area. I have always said that women should be allowed to do what they want to if they have the ability. Apparently she must have the ability to do this work. I am not too sure whether she does the shearing herself. Maybe she is just a good organiser. Maybe she organises the men. Having watched sheep being shorn, I do not think I would like to be a shearer. Senator Boswell —Did we need the sex discrimination legislation? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That was not explained to me. Apparently she has been able to organise this gang to carry out its shearing work. She is very worried that her shearing team will lose work in the Cobar area if this land is acquired . Apparently, at present she has 20 weeks work. As I see it, all of these problems will result from this acquisition of land by the Army in this part of New South Wales. Another point the Fighters for Survival raised with me was the fact that a pipeline runs through the defined area for approximately 200 kilometres. I could not imagine that the Army would not know about a fact like that. These people wish that the Army would look somewhere else for the land that it needs for training purposes. We all know that the Army needs areas to train its troops. Actually, I also feel that Australia badly needs cadet forces. Young men should be given the opportunity to train at their schools. Many Queensland schools which have been in touch with me are very concerned that the cadet corps is gradually being phased out of schools. I should point out that the affected landholders, comprising 140 families, are very concerned about the proposed acquisition of land in the Cobar area. I do not know whether the Army has considered other areas where the land is not so good. However, the women of Cobar-the Fighters for Survival-say: 'No, this is it '. I wanted to take this opportunity during the debate on the appropriation legislation to raise this matter which is causing so many headaches. I presume also that the money made available through the appropriations will be used in this coming year gradually to take over the land. I certainly feel sorry for the people in this area. I ask the Army and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) to look at the possibility of acquiring for Army manoeuvres land which may not be quite so valuable. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.45) —We have the opportunity in debating the legislation before the Senate tonight to give a general summation of where we are at politically in Australia and to make an assessment of the Government's record up to this time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Senator Teague, you can do that within the constraints of the appropriations package, but I will not provide you with an opportunity simply to use the appropriations package to go outside the bounds of the Bills before the Senate. Senator TEAGUE —We have the opportunity to range widely in a general way over those matters of government spending which are the Appropriation Bills, whether it be in the areas of social welfare, education or unemployment. We have the opportunity to speak about the impact of the Government's decisions upon families and the scope of the Government's spending as a result of Budget decisions. It is now more than 14 months since the Australian Labor Party Government was elected. In the initial months following Mr Hawke's success and the change of government the Australian people were prepared to give a fair go to the new Government. One of the strategies of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which has been very successful-at least this was the case last year-has been to try to keep the honeymoon atmosphere going, to try to get the Australian public to hold its breath and give this Government a chance. Of course, there was a setback in that hardly any of the promises that had been made during the election campaign were going to be honoured by the new Government. A certain amount of toleration had to be won from the Australian people as they saw so many of the promises that had excited them and influenced them to vote for the new Hawke Government would not be fulfilled. Despite the lack of fulfilment of the promises, the Prime Minister and other members of the Government were out to keep the honeymoon going, to keep up the popularity of the Government. During that time the Prime Minister sought to be associated with every major sporting event that was held. During 1983 Australia had some marvellous sporting successes. As part of the Government's aim of keeping up the honeymoon period, keeping up the concept of a fair go and keeping the Australian public on side, this association with sporting victories has proved to be a successful strategy by the Prime Minister. Meanwhile members of the public have been holding their breath, wondering when they will be given an opportunity to make a judgment on the Government's decisions. I am afraid that the Government has not been making very many decisions. I think it was realised even as early as last year that an election probably would be called early for political purposes. It was realised that an attempt would be made to get the present Government re-elected as early as November or December 1984. So I believe that at a very early stage-this is quite evident when we look at the Government's record over the last 14 months- there was a clear decision not to make any hard decisions, certainly not to make any decisions that would lead to the Government being unpopular. The commitments reflected in the Budget which really showed a socialist Government building foundations for the future were hidden and covered up. Those actions which contrast strongly with the former Fraser Government's restraint and approach to achieving small government, deregulation and less intrusion into people's lives were hidden and covered up where this pattern was broken by the Hawke Government. The public hardly realised that despite a 2 per cent real increase in the size of government spending in seven Fraser Government Budgets- that is over seven years-there has already been a 7.2 per cent real increase in the first Budget of the Hawke Government. Often the Australian public hears Liberal politicians saying that the Liberal Party's approach is to achieve small government but the socialist government will achieve big government which means big bureaucracy, big taxes and big spending. Here we have evidence of this straight away. There has been a 7.2 per cent increase in real terms in the first Budget of the Hawke Government compared with only a 2 per cent increase in real terms over the whole seven years of the Fraser Government. Another comparison can be made about the size of the bureaucracy, the size of Public Service. Over the first two years of the Hawke Labor Government, average staff levels in the Federal Public Service were budgeted to increase by almost 10 per cent. That is about 10 times as much as the total rise in the size of the Public Service over the whole seven years of the Fraser Government. There has been a 10 per cent increase in just two years under the Hawke Government compared with a one per cent increase in the seven years of the Fraser Government. However, these stark comparisons between the record of the socialist Government and the record of the Liberal-National Party coalition Government have been hushed up and hidden so that the foundations being built by the Hawke Government for a socialist future are not being fully realised by the Australian public. Let us consider one other comparison. It relates to the promise that was given during the election campaign to overcome unemployment in Australia. I am sad to say that over the last 14 months, there has been hardly any change at all in the unemployment figures in Australia. At the time of the last election, in March 1983, 10 per cent of Australians were unemployed. That is an Australian Bureau of Statistics figure on unemployment in Australia. Tragically, 10 per cent of Australians were unemployed. That unemployment came about as a result of the drought and the international recession which reflected very badly upon the former Government in the eyes of many voters. They were the principal reasons for the Australian public's trying to find hope in the brave promises of the Hawke Government at election time which allowed it to form a Government in March 1983. What has happened since then? Just 12 months later the unemployment rate was 9.3 per cent. That was a marginal improvement and reflected the ending of the drought and the enormous turnaround in the international economy. Happily, that has been reflected in some small improvement in unemployment in that time. Where will we be in March 1985? What is the unemployment figure now? It is back to 10 per cent. I fear that by March 1985, two years after the election of the Hawke Government, the figure will be considerably more than 10 per cent. That will not be an accident. It will be a direct outcome of the approach to wages that the Hawke Government has determined in compact with the trade union movement. Because there has not been sufficient wage restraint wages have gone beyond the level which Australia can afford; so companies have not experienced profits and have not been able to take on new employment. Also, because the high wages are beyond the amount that Australia can genuinely afford, we are not competing internationally and so Australia has suffered. We have dropped behind like-structured economies in the world, in the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We are now performing considerably worse than the other Western economies. That fact has been covered up and hidden so that the apparent honeymoon, the apparent fair-go period, of the new Government might be eked out a little longer. Another matter that has been covered up is the way the Labor tax decisions have hit the ordinary families of Australia. The great majority of families are now paying, in real terms, higher taxes as a result of decisions taken by the Hawke Labor Government. It has been calculated that the average Australian family, that is, a family consisting of a husband, wife and two children, with average weekly earnings, is $17 a week worse off as a result of the Hawke Labor Government's election even at this time, 14 months after the election. The average family will have $900 a year less to spend as a result of the tax decisions already made by the Hawke Government. This is partly explained by the increased taxes taken by way of the Medicare levy and partly by the increases in wages in money terms because of inflation but with no corresponding adjustments being made to the tax thresholds of 30c in the dollar to 46c in the dollar. As a result of the Labor Government's decisions about taxes the average family is now $900 a year worse off or $17 a week worse off. Whether it is the Labor Government's big spending-the 7.2 per cent increase in real terms in the first Budget; the big bureaucracy-the 10 per cent increase in the number of Federal public servants in the first two years of the Labor Government; the non-answer but, rather, aggravation that has been brought to the unemployment statistics of Australia; or the tax hike that is hitting Australian families, the Government has tried to cover up so that the honeymoon period of the Hawke Government, begun in 1983, might be eked out just a little longer. There is other evidence which is very clear in the structure of these Bills that are before us and in the decisions about spending and the related policies which demonstrate again the decision of the Hawke Government to become popular at all costs. I believe that, not only in this Parliament, but also in Australia at large we should be very wary of a Prime Minister who wants to be popular at all costs and we should be very wary of a government that wants to be popular at all costs. Some tough decisions need to be made whether they relate to industrial relations, wages policy or to limiting government spending. Those tough decisions need to be made for the good of Australia. However, if a government is so convinced that it must remain popular, it will be reluctant to make tough decisions and see its support wither away. Let us look at three or four more examples of this constant goal of popularity. Let us consider the assets test. It was announced last August in the Budget. The assets test was to be loaded upon the pensioners of Australia. Two million Australians are directly involved. These two million Australians were all to have their assets valued to see what amount the Hawke Government could take from them in terms of their fortnightly pensions. When the overwhelming response was against such an assets test-it was taken up by us as clearly and coherently as we could in opposition in the Parliament-what happened? The formula for popularity was being broken. Hawke stepped in on 22 February and made an announcement, without even telling his Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) or his colleagues in the Government. He just stepped in and said: 'The whole assets test is too unpopular. It has to be suspended and we will try to achieve this policy by referring it to a community panel of experts'. The Assets Test Review Panel, chaired by Professor Gruen, was set up from that day to investigate the assets test and, hopefully in the mind of the Hawke Government, to come back with a fairly tough policy, a set of recommendations, that would still put the burden upon pensioners that was intended in the Budget decision but which could be pinned upon some apparently neutral and expert community committee. It was an attempt just to push a difficult decision on to some other independent body and to use that as a device then to explain to the Australian public why these two million pensioners would all receive some valuation form, some prying document, that would ask about their assets and upon which it would be decided whether their pensions would be decreased as a result. The Prime Minister knew that all of these difficult things would come but he would be able to say that the Government could not do otherwise because it was relying on the clear advice of a community committee of experts. The same was done with the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. People in the Northern Territory in particular will recall that there was a very clear promise by the Labor Party in the last election campaign to build that railway line. It said that it would build the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. The Liberal and National parties were already committed to do that. When it was seen that the cost might be $600m and when it was seen that there was only one seat in the Northern Territory that the Labor Party had won only narrowly, the Hawke Government made a decision that the $600m could be forgone. But how would the Government explain it to all the people who were expecting the promise to be fulfilled? It said: 'Let us refer it to a committee', and it was referred to the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, which investigated the possibility of an Alice to Darwin railway. Surprise, surprise, despite all the submissions that came in to say how much it would benefit Australia, the Hill inquiry came down with a report that it was not sufficiently viable and that the Prime Minister had better not go ahead with it. Here was something that the Prime Minister could put his feet on. He could stand up and say to the Australian public that it could not go ahead. He had a golden excuse for reneging on that promise. The people of the Northern Territory are not fooled. As a Liberal senator from South Australia, I know that the South Australian people are not fooled. The South Australian people knew that the railway would bring great benefit to the State and to the people of the Northern Territory. The South Australian Chamber of Commerce was unanimous about the importance of it and about its viability. I am not just saying this. Detailed careful analysis was given to all parliamentarians and to the Government in South Australia. Mr Bannon, the Labor Premier, believed that it was not only an important project for South Australia and the Northern Territory, but also a viable project. So, as is well known, he sought to change the mind of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to him, as he said to the public: 'I had an expert committee, and Mr Hill tells me that it is not viable, and of course we should not be spending money in this way'. We have seen exactly the same procedure followed with the assets test but I warn the Government that it will not be able on Friday of this week just to make some decision to place a great burden upon the pensioners of Australia and get away with blaming it on some independent expert committee, even if it is chaired by Professor Gruen. The decisions made within a government are made by the Ministers of that government, by the Prime Minister, by the Cabinet, by the politicians, on the basis of their being elected by the people of Australia. They cannot run away from the responsibility to make decisions which must be worn at the coming election. So, with regard to the assets test, we see again an example of something appearing to be unpopular with the people in a serious way and so the Government puts it off and sends it to a committee. It does not want to disturb the waters. It says: 'Let us keep the honeymoon going. Let us eke out a few more months. We will have our early election, perhaps by Christmas, and see if then we can get on with a clear run of three or four years to implement the socialist program'. Another example of this was the enormous fight that went on over the Medicare arrangements. In the few months leading up to 1 February, the Australian public became more and more concerned at the anomalies, costs and difficulties associated with the introduction of Medicare. One of the problems concerned the doctors themselves. The doctors were so put off by the Government's implementation of Medicare and were so distanced by not being consulted that they found themselves almost trapped into contracts that were unilaterally decided by the Government without proper input by or consultation with the medical profession. Medicare was to demand of doctors that they participate on grounds of contracts written autocratically by the Government. As is well known, there was notice of a strike, an unprecedented action for Australia. The medical profession proposed to take industrial action to oppose these unilaterally determined contracts being laid upon them. Of course, the public began to be used by the Government as part of the weapon in the fight against the doctors. The threat was made that ordinary members of the public would not receive a Medicare benefit if the medical practitioners had not signed the contracts that were offensive to them. There was such dismay felt then by the public and the medical profession that eventually the level of unpopularity got so high that the Prime Minister said to his Minister for Health, Dr Blewett: 'You must give in. You must cave in to the doctors. Let us pass it off to another committee. We will give it to the Penington inquiry and so save ourselves. We can eke out a few more months of popularity and maybe the Penington inquiry will report even after the Parliament has got up in June. It will all get lost in the Budget decisions of August and we may be able to keep our popularity long enough for an early election in November or December'. It is the same formula that we saw in the earlier examples. So whether it is the assets test in social security or the doctors' contracts and Medicare arrangements, we see the same formula-an obsession with popularity, an inability to take tough decisions and an appeal to a so-called expert independent community committee as an excuse to make decisions that are unpopular. The same is happening in the field of education, particularly with regard to government and non-government schools. I note that there is not one Government senator in the chamber. There are Liberal and National Party senators but not one Minister. Of course Senator Harradine, from Tasmania, is here but there is not one Labor Minister or back bencher; they have arranged meetings in the corridors and in their rooms to try to be popular. 'How can we save ourselves from all these difficult decisions before us?', they are saying. They are not here to hear the wisdom of the Opposition; they are not here to be a part of this debate on these important Appropriation Bills. I think it is the first time, at least in recent weeks-it has never happened in my time here-that a Government member has not been present . Senator Martin —It has happened to me since this Government has been in. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Martin says it has happened to her but it is still the case that there is not one Government senator in the chamber. Yet another example of this mania for popularity relates to government and non-government schools. Such were the decisions last year of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and of the Hawke Government that they alienated the 25 per cent of Australian families who have children in independent schools. Not only was there the 41 school hit list and the complete blocking of capital grants for any new independent schools but also the percentage link which had been the stable foundation for years was abolished and the principle of a recurrent grant for every child was put at risk by the decisions of the Government. During the Budget session of Parliament last year, the Opposition took up the cry of the Australian public and brought the abandonment of these principles very much to the fore in debate in the Parliament. As a result, there were meetings of hundreds of thousands about the country and education became an enormous issue. Of course it was an issue which created some unpopularity for Senator Susan Ryan, the Minister, as well as for the Hawke Government. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, stepped in; he saw that the level of unpopularity had risen to such an extent that it was putting in jeopardy the continuing honeymoon and tolerance amongst Australians to give the Government a fair go. He said: 'I must rein in my Minister and make sure that she is quiet; we must have an inquiry'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Senator Teague, you are speaking on the appropriation package and I cannot find your current remarks relating to the Appropriation Bills. I ask you to bring your debate back to the Bills. Senator TEAGUE —I will bring them back very carefully, by saying that such were the unpopular decisions in the education field, in the area of direct financial spending by the Government, that the Prime Minister had to step in, call for a Commonwealth Schools Commission inquiry and ask the experts to give some advice. The experts have now given that advice, which reinforces everything that the Opposition has been saying; that is, to bring about a percentage link, to bring back a basic grant for all students and to make sure that there is fair support for every child in Australia. So we have seen the same pattern emerge. The present Government is seeking to be popular at the expense of being fair dinkum with the Australian people. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.15) —I wish to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 3 ) 1983-84 insofar as it relates to the Additional Estimates concerning the Departments of Social Security, Trade, Industry and Commerce, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Administrative Services and the Treasury. In so doing I will be dealing with questions of unemployment and the unemployment benefit, family support and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations-not the matter we recently dealt with but prohibited imports insofar as they have been produced by slave labour-and I will raise questions concerning the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I think we would all agree that one of the greatest issues confronting Australia today is unemployment. The figure in the Estimates and Additional Estimates for the unemployment benefit is too high-I am not saying that the unemployment benefit rate is too high; I am saying that the amount set aside for payment by way of unemployment benefit is too high-and the amount set aside for family support schemes, including the family allowance, is too low. They are somewhat interlinked. One of the problems that we have faced recently in respect of unemployment is that we have been side-tracked by certain things. I do not discount the fact that the unemployment debate last month was centred on the stint of a member of the other chamber on the dole for a week. Whilst no doubt that stint was well intentioned, in my view his experiment was detrimental to the unemployed and also to those parliamentarians, both State and Federal, with long-standing concern for the unemployment problem. In fact, the surrounding publicity diverted attention from the causes of unemployment and therefore from its solution. The unemployment debate too often ignores the fact there are in Australia more people in or seeking paid work than there are jobs available at the same time as new job opportunities are being slashed by the haphazard introduction of automation and technological change. Literally hundreds of thousands of people now in the paid work force would, if given a true freedom of choice, leave it to pursue the important socially creative work which they desire to carry out. This bears very directly on the request that has been made in the Additional Estimates in respect of unemployment. Everyone concerned with the unemployment problem should be now pressing the Government to make sure that the August Budget provides the economic basis required for this freedom of choice. The major priorities are justice for the family, particularly the one income family, and sensible retirement measures enabling those who wish to opt for early retirement to do so without a dramatic loss in living standards. For many years I have been warning that unless we realise that the unemployment problem has a social as well as an economic aspect we will not get near solving it. For too long the unemployment question has been treated like a political football. On the one side all the blame has been put on the unions and wage rates and so forth and on the other side it has been put on the Government or on the previous Government's policies. But we must realise that the problem has a social as well as an economic aspect. I was very pleased to see that the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke), in his John Curtin Memorial lecture in Perth in December 1983, as quoted by the Women's Action Alliance in its submission sent to all members of parliament, said in respect of unemployment: The plain fact is that no Government in Australia will now, or in the foreseeable future, solve the problem of unemployment solely through the available methods of increasing the supply of jobs. At least equal attention must be paid to the question of reducing the demand for jobs by helping to provide socially constructive alternatives. That statement does not wear well with the statement that was made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and reported yesterday in the Canberra Times. She indicated that it was possible to have 100 per cent employment. She is right, of course, but only if we accept that the problem has a social as well as an economic aspect. As the Prime Minister said: The plain fact is that no Government in Australia will now, or in the foreseeable future, solve the problem of unemployment solely through the available methods of increasing the supply of jobs. At least equal attention must be paid to the question of reducing the demand for jobs by helping to provide socially constructive alternatives. What more socially constructive alternative work is there in Australia than the nurturing, care and development of one's own children? The fact is that so many mothers with dependent children are forced by economic pressures to keep down another outside job. It is unfair to them, to the young unemployed and to the whole of the community for this situation to be allowed to continue. Nothing that I say ought to be latched onto by anybody as questioning the right of any person to enter the paid work force, be they married, unmarried, male, female or whatever else. But the fact remains that we are faced with dramatic consequences if we do not understand the true structure of the unemployment with which we are faced today. We all know, some of us from the experiences of our families, of the unemployment facing young people. The unemployment rate for young people in Australia is 25.9 per cent for girls aged 15 to 19 years seeking full time paid work and 24.3 per cent for youths. In Canberra, as I understand it, in a report this morning the figure was put at 30 per cent. In my State-I stand to be corrected in relation to the April figures because I do not have them at my fingertips-according to the last figure that I saw the unemployment rate for girls 15 to 19 years seeking full time work was 32.3 per cent. Those figures are devastating and they cry out for correction. All types of affirmative action will not create another job. I believe there is discrimination in certain areas and that has to be rectified, but let us face the fact that affirmative action and even the sex discrimination legislation will not help that situation. Let us clear that up very carefully. In fact, it might slightly exacerbate it because of the fact that an employer cannot discriminate against a person because of marital status. I do not want to argue that aspect, but a fact of life is that affirmative action and the sex discrimination legislation may exacerbate the problem for young girls 15 to 19 years of age. The point I am making is that there are so many people in the paid work force who, given a true freedom of choice, would opt out of the paid work force and leave jobs available for the young unemployed. I have indicated that such people include mothers with dependent children who are forced by economic pressures to keep down another job and the large number of persons who desire to retire early. Given the opportunity, without an attendant dramatic loss in the standard of living, these people may choose to retire. Of course, I understand those questions are being addressed by the Minister who is in the chamber at present, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I only hope that something can be done about that aspect. Mothers are forced into the paid work force not only because of the cost of housing and of keeping the second mortgage going. The cost of living is rising despite the negative increase in the consumer price index. In addition to those factors, the tax system at present disadvantages one income families. Those with children are being denied their rights to indexation of family allowances. The Institute of Family Studies on page 2 of its annual report supports what I have said. It states: There is no doubt that many families are finding the task of providing for their members' needs more and more difficult . . . The tax treatment of families has favoured those without children and has particularly disadvantaged large families. A number of other very interesting comments are made in the report which I will not go into. The report makes an important point about the family. It says: . . . the family acts as an economic unit in influencing production, it affects the transfer of wealth or disadvantage from generation to generation, it is an agent of socialisation, it is the main unit of economic consumption, and it is the primary context for development of interpersonal relationships, a context that can be destructive as well as enabling and supportive. A very good document has been submitted to the Government by the Women's Action Alliance. I think it would be recognised that that document was prepared after a great deal of thought and is based on factual evidence. It is not a ranting or raving document. Nobody can say that this group is an extreme group. It has put the case quite clearly. It has detailed the reasons for married female work force participation. It has attempted to pull together some of the references on measuring unpaid work. The group talked about the spouse rebate. While I am on that subject I must say that it worries me that there has been no real impact at the Economic Planning Advisory Council level in support of the family. The only document that was publicly available from EPAC relating to the family was a document which suggested the abolition of the spouse rebate. I know that the Government would not agree with that. Not only would it be unjust but also it would torpedo the accord. Everybody knows that that is a scatterbrained idea. The document dealt with the family allowance. This matter, as I said before, has not received the attention that it should have. I have here a document which was prepared by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library's statistics group setting out the family allowance for the first child to the fifth child and the amount of loss that has been incurred over the period that the family allowance has not been indexed, and the loss has been quite substantial. For example, in respect of fifth and subsequent children the loss is $20.35 a month. For the first child the loss is $10.20 a month. For the second child the loss is $14.60 a month. For the third child it is $17.50 a month. For the fourth child it is $ 17.50 a month and for fifth and subsequent children it is $20.35 a month. Cumulatively that is a very substantial loss. Therefore, a very substantial additional burden is being borne by those families with children, as the Institute of Family Studies mentioned. I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY STATISTICS GROUP FAMILY ALLOWANCE ($ per month) Existing Estimated at Loss May 1976 (a) May 1984 (b) (b)-(a) First Child 15.20 22.80 33.00 10.20 Second Child 21.70 32.55 47.15 14.60 Third Child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fourth Child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fifth and Subsequent Children 30.35 45.55 65.90 20.35 (a) Actual rates as at May 1984. (b) Rate from May 1984 if May 1976 rates had been indexed by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service . Senator HARRADINE —Because of the time factor and because I would possibly be offending the Standing Orders if I ranged too far, I should like very briefly to summarise what I have said. Honourable senators will know now why I said that the estimates for the unemployment pay-out are too high and the estimates for family support schemes are too low. If one were increased the other inevitably would be decreased. I wish to refer to the subject of immigration and ethnic affairs. Much has been said on this question. I am pleased that at least the heat of the debate is diminishing. However, I am concerned for the refugees who have suffered and are still suffering the loss of their loved ones. I hope that the Government will not diminish its expenditure in respect of the families of those refugees. I believe the Prime Minister has stated in a most humanitarian way that the Government intends to pursue that policy. I note that there has been a substantial drop in the number of Asian immigrants this year compared with last year. I am concerned about that. I will say it now and I will say it through the length and breadth of Australia. I do not care who calls me a friend. Other people can have their views. I am concerned on humanitarian grounds that the Government does not diminish the expenditure in this regard. I want to flag two other matters. The first concerns a question that I asked relating to the activities of the Australian Federal Police. I asked whether members of the Federal Police were involved in the searches of Vietnamese migrants who expressed their protest in relation to the Vietnamese Foreign Affairs Minister when he was here. I was concerned about the possible involvement of the Federal Police in those searches. Certainly, I was concerned about the Victorian police being involved in those searches and the way in which they were undertaken. Secondly, some time ago I raised my concern about the introduction into Australia of a Soviet-built runabout, a jeep-type vehicle. At that time I expressed concern that, by all accounts, certain component parts had been manufactured for that vehicle by slave labour in the Soviet Union. I said that if that were the case the vehicle was a prohibited import in accordance with the regulations made under the Customs Act. I just flag those two points and thank the Senate for the opportunity of doing so. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.38) —It is in the nature of debates on Appropriation Bills that we range far and wide. The matter that I rise on this evening is not the subject of considerable gravity, as was the matter raised by Senator Harradine. If I do not approach the debate in the same spirit as he did, it is not because I have any lack of respect for the views that he put and the subjects he raised. I shall raise an item which, in the end, will relate to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I will take a little while to get there, but everything I have to say will lead to it. Judging by some Press reports today in the newspapers and on the radio, it seems that we are in for a new silly season sickness in Australia. I refer to reports in relation to the Australian Bicentennial Authority and a decision that has been taken by it. I have no intention of canvassing that decision-that is, a decision not to support a project to re-enact the sailing of the First Fleet from Portsmouth to Sydney Harbour so that that fleet would arrive by 26 January 1988. As I said, I do not intend to canvass the Bicentennial Authority's ruling. However, in an interview on the subject the General Manager of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Dr David Armstrong, made certain statements on radio this morning. To some extent they were mirrored in an article in the Australian on the same subject today. I am concerned that we seem to be getting into a bit of a silly area. My main concern is that, good though the intentions of the people who have promoted this may be, it will inevitably backfire on the people whose interests they claim to have at heart. We are told that 'Aboriginal tensions could torpedo the second First Fleet'. In the report in the Australian Dr Armstrong is quoted as saying that the re-enactment voyage could 'provide a flash point to Aboriginal protest'. This very properly raises the issue of the nature of Australia's bicentenary, which I shall be pointing out shortly. In straining after a pose on this matter the Hawke Government has led itself into some extraordinary inconsistencies. I come back to the rationale. I raise the subject of Dr Armstrong's words in the radio interview this morning because it seems to me that they derived from some evidence given by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) at an Estimates committee last year but I shall come to that. The interviewer on this radio program asked Dr Armstrong: . . . surely the fact that we are celebrating in 1988- That is celebrating a bicentenary- Does in fact highlight the Anglo Saxon landing in Australia 200 years ago. Dr Armstrong replied: We are using 1988 which is the only significant national date we have this century, for a celebration of Australia by all Australians whether their ancestors came here fifty thousand years ago or 200 years ago on the First Fleet or during the gold rushes, or off a refugee boat from Kampuchea a fortnight ago. My ancestors came here 100 years ago. I am not aware of the details of the circumstances. I do not think that gives me any superior claim to celebrating the bicentenary over someone who came here very recently as a refugee. I do not think it gives me any claim which is inferior to that of anyone else in this country. I would have thought that there was no doubt about what we will be celebrating in 1988. We will be celebrating 200 years of modern settlement and civilisation in Australia. On 26 January 1788, the First Fleet arrived. This is a date I shall come to later. As far as I have understood the matter, that date was decided on for our bicentennial celebration. I know that the Bicentennial Authority has always been anxious that all Australians, whatever their origins or colour, feel involved in this celebration , but I think it is showing some pretty muddle-headed thinking at the moment to suggest that an Australian Government lit on 1988 as a date that had some significance, in the absence of any other date that might have had significance. It has a very particular significance. One could well ask Dr Armstrong why he thinks we did not have a bicentenary in 1976. In 1976 the United States of America celebrated its bicentenary. The Americans celebrated 200 years of independence from the British. It was this war of independence that led to our planning to celebrate the bicentenary in 1988 in what is now known as Australia. If we just wanted a date that had some sort of significance when we could all have this national party, as it has been referred to on occasions, this would have been a valid one. Why are we starting to cringe from what 1988 is about? Without a doubt, in 1988 Aborigines and others will be able to say that some terrible things happened to Aborigines in Australia in the last 200 years. But I hope that 1988 will not be a year which will see us all sitting around looking at our navels. I would have thought that part of its significance would be to assess ourselves honestly in relation to Aborigines and others and determine to go forward. Many good things have happened in the last 200 years. If we are going to start cringing away from 1988 and what it stands for, why have a celebration at all? Why do we not just scrap the whole thing and put all that good planning towards the year 2001? In the year 2001 Australia will celebrate a centenary of self-government. That will be a very significant celebration. But I have no doubt at all that if the decision were made to celebrate that date, people would be saying: 'Ah, but we really cannot celebrate it because, let's face it, it was not a democracy. Women could not vote in 1901 in Australia. So really it is a date of some shame. We ought to celebrate the date when women got the vote', and so on. One could go on with such rationalisation. We should recognise what is bad in a country's history and go forward from there. The year 1988 is not just the only significant national date that we have had this century. It will be the deliberate celebration of where we have come from in the last 200 years. The interviewer in this morning's interview asked the following question of Dr Armstrong: Dr Armstrong, is it true that you said that the voyage could provide a flash point to aboriginal protest. Dr Armstrong said: Well, there's no doubt about that. The arrival of the first fleet in Australia dramatically changed life for aboriginal Australians, why would aboriginal Australians want to become involved constructively in a re-enactment of the voyage of the First Fleet. I did not know their involvement was an issue. I was not aware of that. Perhaps they will or will not become involved. The criticisms and misgivings that I am aware of in the Aboriginal community in relation to the bicentenary relate to the choice of the year 1988. There are some Aborigines who object to the celebration at all, who cannot see the positive side for them that some people are trying to promote. But what a fatuous statement! Dr Armstrong said: The arrival of the first fleet in Australia dramatically changed life for aboriginal Australians- It also changed life pretty dramatically for a few first fleeters and a few other people. It was a dramatic turning point for many people, including Aborigines, and that is what the bicentenary is about. Certainly, if the First Fleet had sunk on its way around the Cape of Good Hope we would not be on about the year 1988. We would not be talking in 1988 about the arrival of the First Fleet. The interviewer asked Dr Armstrong: Has this attitude been indicated to you by any aboriginal group? Dr Armstrong said: Of course. We spend part of every week talking to aboriginal Australians. And the approach we've taken in that respect is that we should use the lead up to the bicentennial, the years remaining, as an opportunity to redress some of the reasonable grievances that aboriginal Australians have. I am in 100 per cent agreement with that. Dr Armstrong went on: The Bicentennial Authority is on about serious things rather than spectacular events that are going to literally fritter away millions of dollars. My heart sank when I heard that. I am not sanctioning the frittering away of millions of dollars. I have indicated I make no judgment on the re-enactment of the arrival of the First Fleet. The Bicentennial Authority is on about serious things, but I think it might just be getting a little too self-important, unless , of course, it is saying what it has been told to say and that is entirely a possibility. The interviewer then asked: Why would the aboriginal groups have any more objection to a mock up of the First Fleet, than they would to celebrating the bicentenary anyway. The very fact that it's a bicentenary says Europeans have been here two hundred years. Speaking on behalf of the Bicentennial Authority, Dr Armstrong's response to that question was: We're approaching the bicentenary in such a way and using 1988 as a pretext to celebrate the contributions of all Australians to the making of modern Australia . And that of course includes aboriginal Australians. I have not heard the word 'pretext' used before. Expletives deleted, it is a jolly expensive pretext. I thought we were using the celebration as a focus for national development. If it is a pretext why did someone not pick some date after 1988 and celebrate something like the first harvesting of a wheat crop in Australia? That was a cause for celebration amongst the first fleeters. The last question that Dr Armstrong was asked was: Could it be said then that you're trying not to recognise the contribution that the British have made? I nearly fell off my chair when I heard this. Dr Armstrong said: Oh no, I think you are putting words into my mouth there. The contribution of the Anglo Celtic groups to Australia has been most significant and that will be duly recognised during the bicentennial year-- I see that Senator McIntosh, still with a very broad Anglo-Celtic accent, agrees with me. The contribution has been more than significant. I would have said it was pivotal, critical, and a lot of other things. Some people may well be feeling a little bemused by this sort of approach to the bicentenary. Let us not talk about what it is really all about. Let us not talk about why the year 1988 was chosen. Any old date will do except that this is a bit better than the other dates. Let us bury that and put words such as 'pretext' and that sort of thing into some context. Last year in Estimates Committee D some evidence was being taken from the Australian Bicentennial Authority. After a witness had given a statement on the Bicentennial Authority's program, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, added a statement to the Committee in which she said: . . . some matters are under review and it is my recollection that there was a Government decision not to support activities which would celebrate the re- enactment of the colonisation of Aboriginal Australia by the British. Now, if that is not a mouthful of innuendo and prejudice I do not know what is. I do not think anyone expects to celebrate colonial government in 1988 or to celebrate the excesses of some colonialisers in 1988, and I do not think we are totally celebrating British Colonialism. I think we are celebrating the fact that we have a country and a society of which we are basically proud. We are proud of what it has achieved, what we have achieved, and what our forebears have achieved if they happen to live here. We are proud and glad to have the privilege of living in this country. We regret mistakes of the past and we are determined to learn by them. But if we are going to put blank pages in the history books for the benefit of some people's feelings, we will lead ourselves into terrible error. One of the things that intrigued me about that news report today was that Senator Ryan had said in September that there was 'already a government decision not to support activities which would', et cetera'. I was a little bemused by the General Manager of the Bicentennial Authority indicating that there was some new aspect to this attitude towards the First Fleet. It does raise the issue of whether the Bicentennial Authority was ever actually informed of this Government's decision. If it was, why has it been talking to, entertaining applications from, people who wanted some government support as well as contributing a lot of money to their own, which it has apparently ruled out? Why was not Michael Edgley aware of this before? Why was not Mr Dick Tanner and people overseas, who are putting money into supporting this re-enactment, told that it is to be shunned by the Government? If it happens, it will be officially a non-event. It might be because there are some differences of opinion within the Government. The significant difference of opinion that is on the record comes from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which is where I started my speech. The newspapers today carried some news reports not only about the Bicentennial Authority and its attitude towards Aboriginal sensitivities on the date 1988, but they also carried some reports on the Prime Minister's very gung-ho views and the date of 26 January. Now I learnt that those two dates went together. Australia was colonised by Britain on 26 January 1788. One would have thought that a re-enactment of the First Fleet landing would happen on 26 January 1988, but that is the date that was the beginning of colonisation, the raising of the Union flag, I think it was called in those days, not the Union Jack. Mr Lloyd asked the Prime Minister a question about the Australia Day holiday. The Prime Minister provided an answer to that question on notice yesterday, and his answer was reported in the newspapers today. I would like to inform the Senate of the full answer, not just the little bit that appeared in the newspapers. Mr Hawke said: The Government firmly believes that the present arrangements for the observance of Australia Day should be changed so that our National Day-- I am not sure it is the Aborigines national day- is officially celebrated on 26 January each year with a public holiday declared on that day or on the following Monday when 26 January falls on a weekend. The Government considers this arrangement would enhance the importance of Australia Day and the symbolic significance which it should have for all Australians. One assumes he includes Aboriginal Australians- The Commonwealth's direct powers, however, in declaring such public holidays are limited to the Territories it administers. The question of the date of observance of Australia Day was listed, following preparations under both the present and the previous Government, for discussion at the June 1983 Premiers' Conference. Because of constraints on time, the item was not reached and I therefore followed it by correspondence. As New South Wales had already agreed in principle to such a change with effect from-- goodness me- 1988 and the Northern Territory had decided to celebrate Australia Day with a public holiday on 26 January as from this year, I sought the views of the remaining Premiers . . . He goes on: In view of the significance of this matter, I have written again to the Premiers of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania seeking reconsideration of their position. I have been informed of the contents of the letter to the Premier of Queensland, dated 4 May 1984. The Prime Minister said to the Premier of Queensland: You will recall my approach last August seeking your views on the observance of Australia Day. The Commonwealth is seeking agreement to change the present arrangements so that Australia Day is officially celebrated on 26 January each year. With a public holiday declared on that day or on the following Monday when 26th January falls on a weekend. I note recent Press reports that the Queensland Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs is seeking the views of community groups and the general public in your State on the observance of Australia Day. If these reports are correct, I should hope that your Government would be prepared to join the Commonwealth, New South Wales and the Northern Territory in celebrating Australia Day on 26 January each year. There is a little more there. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Letter to Premier of Queensland from Prime Minister dated 4 May, 1984. You will recall my approach last August seeking your views on the observance of Australia Day. The Commonwealth is seeking agreement to change the present arrangements so that Australia Day is officially celebrated on 26 January each year with a public holiday declared on that day or on the following Monday when 26th January falls on a weekend. I note recent press reports that the Queensland Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs is seeking the views of community groups and the general public in your State on the observance of Australia Day. If these reports are correct, I should hope that your government would be prepared to join the Commonwealth, New South Wales and the Northern Territory in celebrating Australia Day on 26 January each year. In this context I note that a public opinion survey conducted early 1983 indicated that 58 per cent of Australians preferred celebration of our national day on 26 January. Recent press publicity and increasing public awareness has indicated in letters to the Government and in the press suggest that this figure would now be significantly higher. As I should hope that we can reach agreement on this matter I propose listing it again for consideration at the next Premiers Conference, although I trust some progress towards revised arrangements can be made by correspondence before then. In summary, what we have here is people posing, striking poses instead of finding solutions to the vexed area of Aboriginal affairs. Self-conscious posing will hinder the possibility of any solution. We would all welcome constructive moves towards the solution of Aboriginal problems in Australia. I suggest the sort of nonsense that is being put out through the mouthpiece of the Bicentennial Authority at the moment-apparently on behalf of the Government, even though there is a substantial conflict in view between the Government view expressed by Senator Ryan last September and the view now being expressed by the Prime Minister on the significance of certain dates-will get us nowhere. It will antagonise a lot of people and in the end it is foolish because it is only ourselves we will be kidding. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 7 p.m., in order to enable the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast its 7 p.m. news bulletin, pursuant to sessional order I now put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.59) —As I was unable to ask a question at Question Time today I would like to take the time of the Senate for a couple of minutes. The Senate would be aware that in the last few days there has been a further incident in the Northern Territory where an international film expedition has been unable to carry out its filming. This incident occurred at Kakadu; the previous one occurred at Yulara. It seems to me that there is a most peculiar situation in the Northern Territory these days, for one reason or another. The Territory is so dependent on the tourist industry. There is a great deal of tourist promotion and many people are coming from many parts of the globe to Australia and to the Northern Territory to see the wonders of Kakadu, Ayers Rock and so on. The tourist industry is so dependent on promotion, particularly by film units and such, but there seems to be a flood of incidents where the film crews are unable to get permission to carry out their filming. As I understand the situation, in this last week this particular film unit, headed by Richard Ryall of International Expeditions, the American operators who produced the Queensland-Northern Territory brochure, has been banned from further filming in the Kakadu National Park. I received that advice from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. It was yesterday or this morning that I heard a brief report on the radio program AM about this matter. I think the matter needs to be cleared up. Very clear guidelines have to be laid down on how film units are to operate if it is necessary for them to get permission to film. At times I wonder why it is that people have to get permission to take photographs or to film in a national park. I do not wish to engage in a long debate at this time. I simply wish to ask the Government to look into the matter and report back to the Senate. I direct some questions to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who represents in this chamber the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). I refer to the decision yesterday by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to ban a film crew from filming from the air Deaf Adder Gorge in Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. I ask: First, why is it necessary for a film crew to obtain permission to film in a national park when such parks are said to be for the benefit and use of the general public? Secondly, given that it is necessary to obtain permission, what is the procedure for obtaining a permit to film in a national park, and who is required to obtain a permit? Thirdly, who is responsible for the issue of such permits? Fourthly, if traditional Aboriginal owners-I am talking about land that is owned by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and leased back to the National Parks and Wildlife Service-give their approval to film land in a national park, what role does the National Parks and Wildlife Service then play? Is it still necessary to obtain a permit from the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Fifthly, is there a requirement that a permit be obtained to carry out aerial filming? If so, can the Minister expound on that requirement, particularly in regard to aerial filming. It seems to me that the situation is getting a little ridiculous if it is necessary to obtain a permit to carry out aerial filming. I suppose it would be ludicrous to ask whether there is a requirement as to the altitude at which aerial filming should take place before permission is granted. Anyway, can the Minister expound on this requirement? Sixthly, does the Minister anticipate that at some stage in the future it will be necessary to obtain a permit also to take aerial photographs of national parks or Aboriginal lands. It all seems so strange to me. Seventhly, will the Minister explain the Government' s views on filming in national parks, taking into account the problems that have recently occurred in regard to filming initially in Uluru National Park and now in Kakadu National Park? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(7.04) —I rise tonight to speak on a matter of grave concern. It is related to the treatment of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland. Tonight at midnight the Queensland community services legislation, which affects Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines in that State, will come into effect. Today there was a major confrontation with Queensland Police. That confrontation, which resulted in several arrests, occurred because the Aboriginal and Islander people of Queensland have totally rejected the legislation that was introduced and passed by the Queensland Government. It may be recalled that the legislation was rushed through the Queensland Parliament in the dying hours of that Parliament. In fact, it gained its passage during an all -night sitting. I think that gives some indication of the regard with which Aborigines and Islanders are held in that State. This evening I do not wish to talk about my views or the views of other white Australians on the community services legislation; I wish to talk about the reaction of Aborigines and Islanders to that legislation. I know full well that tomorrow's Press will carry headlines such as 'Demonstrations', 'Aborigines take to the streets over land rights', and 'Steve Mam and Anne Warner arrested'. I know also that the Queensland Premier will do his utmost to attempt to discredit the Aboriginal and Islander people of Queensland and indeed of Australia, because that is the kind of approach that the Queensland Premier uses consistently in trying to justify the backward legislation in that State and in trying to discredit the very genuine and responsible attitudes that Aborigines, Islanders and their supporters in Queensland have taken over many years. This evening I wish to put on the public record an example of just how responsible Queensland Aborigines and Islanders have been in regard to this legislation which vitally affects them. In doing so I shall quote from a document, which I shall table subsequently, entitled 'Statement of concern from delegates from Palm Island Workshop May 1984'. As you can see, Mr President, it is a document of considerable length and obviously I will not have time to quote its complete contents. However, I think it is important to place on the public record that Aborigines and Islanders have met on this issue. Some 29 communities were represented at the Palm Island workshop. Those communities have met with legal advisers to consider in a responsible fashion the legislation that was passed by the Queensland Parliament. This is the response of that workshop: On Friday, 11th May, 1984, the participants of the Palm Island Workshop unanimously passed the following resolutions: 1. That the Community Services (Aborigines/Torres Strait) Bills be rejected. I emphasise that these resolutions came out of an Aboriginal and Islander workshop representative of 29 communities. It goes completely against what the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in that State, Mr Katter, is claiming as he tours around Queensland. He claims that he has the support of Aborigines and Islanders. That is not what came out of the workshop. The resolutions continue: 2. That we ask NAC to organise Court challenges to the validity of these Bills as soon as possible. 3. That we ask the Federal Government to pass over-riding legislation granting land rights and self determination to the Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. If the Queensland Government chooses to ignore the above resolutions and proceeds with the Act as is- 4. That we ask the State government that before regulations are made law they be shown to communities and time be allowed for communities to make an input. Under the heading 'Call for Action' the document recommended as follows: That because of the grave concerns and fears held about the Bills, a statement of concern be prepared for widespread circulation by Queensland Branch of the National Aboriginal Conference. That a statement of concern be circulated to all conference delegates all major Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island organisations and communities Government Ministers and politicians relevant Minister and politicians relevant Government Departments Church Heads and Commissions any other interested parties and friends. The statement of concern indicates quite clearly that the workshop unanimously rejected the legislation that comes into effect at midnight tonight. It did so on the following eight grounds: I. Consultation prior to the passing of the legislation and where it existed was ineffective and misleading. II. Consultation did not take place with respect to a wide range of other important issues. III. The two Bills frustrate the policies of self-management in a number of significant areas. IV. The two Bills perpetuate a number of injustices in which Aborigines and Islanders, living on communities, are to be treated in a discriminatory manner compared to that of other Australians. V. The two Bills endorse discriminatory practices that are not deemed necessary for any other State of the Commonwealth. VI. There is ambiguity or a serious lack of clarity in a number of key areas so that the real intention of the legislation is still unknown. VII. The Bills make no reference to a number of matters of very special concern to Aborigines and Islanders. VIII. The Bills contain a number of obvious errors. It has been claimed that the consultation was ineffective or at best misleading. Here, somewhat surprisingly, I should like to pay some tribute to Mr Bob Katter, Jnr, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. I believe he made a genuine attempt to consult Aborigines and Islanders in that State. In fact, it has been claimed that he is the best Aboriginal and Island Affairs Minister that Queensland has ever had. Of course, that is possibly a backhanded compliment, given the quality of Ministers handling Aboriginal affairs in that State. However, I give Mr Katter due respect; I think he is, and was, genuine in his desire to consult the Aboriginal people. He even consulted Steve Mam, which is totally against the philosophy of the Queensland Premier who does not recognise Steve Mam's position or the National Aboriginal Conference. To his credit, Bob Katter, Jnr, stood up to his Premier and Mr Killoran, the head of the Department , and intimated that he was going to consult as widely as possible. However, it appears that while the Minister had made every effort to consult and to try to implement the wishes of the Aboriginal and Islander people with whom he had consulted, Mr Killoran went over the head of the Minister in negotiations with the Queensland Premier. So, in actual fact, the Minister has not been given due regard in consultation on this matter. Delegates to the Palm Island workshop voiced serious concern at the nature of the consultation that had taken place. A number of the delegates were insistent that: What Mr Katter discussed with us about the new legislation was only a few things-not everything and now we find that even with those things we discussed, the Act is different from what he told us. Why is the Act different from what Mr Katter told the Aboriginal and Islander people? The reason is that Mr Killoran, the head of the Department, has had his way with this legislation, so it is the same old paternalistic policy that Queensland has had for many, many years. Frank Brennan provided the workshop with a brief history of the consultation process and various undertakings of the Queensland Government. In this statement he highlighted broken promises and the total absence of consultation with the Aboriginal Advisory Council. He said: In October 1980 the Premier announced that the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act would be repealed. On 18 March 1981, he told Parliament, 'It will be done in the near future; during the year; perhaps not this session but next session. I can promise that . . . ' The consultation process that has continued since that time obviously indicates that Mr Killoran has had his way in determining the direction of the new legislation rather than the more enlightened young Minister, Bob Katter. Because of what has happened in Queensland, Aborigines and Islanders and their supporters have taken to the streets today in protest. That indicates the level of their frustration in regard to policies of self-management. Apparently both State and Federal governments are committed to the policy of self-management for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reserves. However, the legislation in its present form denies reserves a number of customary rights, expected by Australians, to manage their own economic, political and social affairs. For example, the Aboriginal Industries Board, chaired by the Under-Secretary of the Department of Community Services, can run all sorts of businesses on behalf of communities and, together with the Minister, has the power to make decisions about the handing over of business to local control. However, profit from the Board's activities in the community does not necessarily go to the community itself; rather it goes to the general welfare of Aborigines as the Board determines. In those areas of control the Board or the Minister, or both, have the authority to set back dramatically the process of self-management should they so desire. In regard to local government, each local community council will be required to submit its annual budget to the Under-Secretary for approval by the Minister. Furthermore, the council's chairman must send to the Minister a monthly statement as well as an annual financial statement, and the council's accounts are to be audited as if the council were a department of the Queensland Government. The demands placed on a community council will therefore be far more excessive than those required of ordinary local government bodies in that State. Other injustices demonstrated in the Bills have led to street protests today. They contain a number of elements where the situation for the residents of reserves is more limiting and less advantageous than that for the general Australian population. I shall list a few of the more obvious examples. The first is timber and quarry rights. Councils do not have rights over the timber and quarry products on reserves. In Australia land ownership usually guarantees this. Another is mineral rights. Councils will not have the rights to any mineral or to any share in profits or royalties from mining on their reserves. A further example is leases. Community councils will be able to recommend the leasing of land to community residents. However, each lease will have to be approved by the Minister for Lands. The Minister will have the power to terminate leases and also reverse a council's decision to terminate a lease. Apparently the Minister will exercise those rights if people are not acting in accordance with Government policy. Those powers are regarded as very discriminatory and scarcely indicate self-management. I should like to conclude by highlighting some differences between Queensland and other States. During the past decade there has been a steady move towards removing discriminatory laws from State and Commonwealth statutes. However, these two Bills, which will come into effect as of midnight tonight, will perpetuate several discriminatory practices that are not found in any other State. Those practices relate to financial controls of community councils; controls by the Under-Secretary of the Department of Community Services over community councils; and administration of Aborigines' estates by the Under- Secretary where an Aborigine has died without appointing an executor; also, regulations made by the Governor-in-Council will effectively be a statute as so much is left to that. This legislation is basically a sketchy outline. Rights and interests will not be known until the regulations are seen. A further discriminatory practice relates to the fact that the Minister may make regulations with respect to assimilation and integration. Even further discriminatory practices relate to visiting justice systems known only in prisons and the fact that the Department of Community Services administers estates, not the Public Trustee. I think it would be agreed from that very brief outline of community services under the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders legislation that what will be law tomorrow is certainly unacceptable to the majority of Australians. I hope that when the media reports the demonstrations in Brisbane today there will be a real understanding of the genuine frustration of Aboriginal and Islander people who really believed that this time, with Bob Katter Jnr, they would receive self -management. It is that frustration that led to the demonstrations today. Frankly, I believe there will be on-going demonstrations in Queensland. The Aboriginal and Islander people have taken so much for so many years in that State that they will not stand by without reacting when they see that their hopes and dreams will not come to fruition. In conclusion, I believe there are serious divisions in the minority Queensland Government in regard to its management of Aboriginal and Islander issues because it is quite apparent that the Queensland Premier and the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs have very different views. It is certainly evident within the Department itself that younger and more progressive members of the Department have very different views from the paternalistic views held by Mr Killoran. I only hope that in the near future Mr Killoran will step down so that the younger and more progressive views of departmental officers in that State can come to the fore and Mr Katter can work with more appropriate people. Furthermore, hopefully we may also see a time in the near future when the Queensland Premier will also step down as his views are totally out of step with modern thinking in regard to Aboriginal self-management and land rights. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(7.22) —By coincidence, the two honourable senators who have spoken in the adjournment debate tonight raised matters relating to Aboriginal communities. Senator Kilgariff spoke about Kakadu in the Northern Territory and Senator Reynolds spoke about Aboriginal and island affairs in Queensland. I wish to speak for a few minutes about the National Aboriginal Day Observance Committee, National Aboriginal Day and National Aborigines Week which will be held in July or September of this year. On 9 May I asked a question in the Senate of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). I drew attention to the flood of 4,000 complaints which the National Aboriginal Conference had received from Aboriginal people about the action of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, in arranging for the National Aborigines Day Observance Committee to postpone National Aborigines Week from July to September apparently chiefly to avoid a clash with the Australian Labor Party National Conference. The issue that arises is the method by which that decision to change the date was foisted upon the Aboriginal communities of Australia. I have enormous sympathy for what Senator Reynolds had to say in support of the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Katter who, like Senator Reynolds, me and many of us in the Senate, has a genuine commitment to Aboriginal self-determination. But the Federal Government has made a gigantic blunder in respect of National Aborigines Week. In my question I went on to ask: . . . did the Minister consult any Aboriginal communities before urging the change and, if so, which communities? Senator Ryan had a brief in her hands which was given to her by the responsible Minister, Mr Holding. The brief, which was very carefully worded and mostly accurate, indicated that the decision had been announced by the National Aboriginal Day Observance Committee itself in mid-April. It was announced as its decision that National Aborigines Week would be celebrated this year, for the first time in 30 years, in September and that there had been growing discussion amongst Aboriginal communities for a change of date because of the weather. It was argued that it would be too cold to bring, for example, Aboriginal dancers from the north to the southern cities if the National Aborigines Week activities were held in July. I was not convinced by the answer that Senator Ryan gave. She even said directly that the extension from July to September of this year rather than in 1985 may well have been because the Australian Labor Party National Conference was to be held in July and that this arrangement would avoid a clash. Her answer was crisp and very carefully worded, but I was not convinced. A few weeks have gone by since that answer was given. Yesterday I received a copy of a letter written by the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory NADOC Committee to the Minister, Mr Holding. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the letter of yesterday's date which was given to me personally by the Chairman and which is addressed to the Minister. I have shown the letter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table. I also seek leave to incorporate an attachment to the letter which is a telegram sent by John Moriarty, the National Chairman of NADOC on 30 March to the ACT Chairman and other NADOC State representatives. Finally, I seek leave to incorporate a letter dated 11 May written by the Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins, to an Aboriginal community group in the Australian Capital Territory and to many other Aboriginal communities. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- The ACT National Aboriginal Day Observance Committee 1984 P.O. Box 619 Woden, ACT 2606 The Honourable Mr A. C. Holding, M.H.R. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 My dear Minister, re: NATIONAL ABORIGINES DAY CELEBRATIONS 1984 The ACT NADOC Committee requests that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs asks the National NADOC Committee to retain the July NADOC program of 1984. A telex sent to State Co-ordinators on the 30 March 1984 states that a request to change the date was made by you to Mr Moriarty. (Copy attached). This request must have influenced Mr Moriarty, National NADOC Chairman, in his decision to support the change of date from July to September 1984, not 1985, as was decided at the Perth National NADOC Committee meeting in March. We believe that NADOC is for Aboriginal people. The decision to change the date has caused a strong backlash from the Aboriginal people and a considerable amount of conflict and confusion. On Wednesday 16 May 1984 a meeting was held in Canberra with Mr John Moriarty, the general feeling of the people was to retain the July date. A further meeting with the Canberra community was called for Monday 21 May 1984. Twenty five people attended, a vote was taken at that meeting by a show of hands- 19 voted in favour of July 3 voted in favour of a change of date There were 3 abstentions. A letter from your Department was sent to Aboriginal organisations stating that NADOC functions held in July will not be funded, but that ''the Commonwealth Government is committed to fully supporting National Aborigines' Week in September and has agreed to provide additional funds and resources to assist Aboriginals in organising the celebrations''. This is seen as an ultimatum issued to the Aboriginal people. Many committees are relying on funds to celebrate NADOC. The National NADOC Committee should not rely on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs approval for the allocation of funds. If the Commonwealth Government believes in self-determination and is committed to fully supporting National Aborigines' Week, and to providing funds and resources to assist Aboriginals in organising their celebrations, it should be done without fear or favour. To ensure a successful NADOC 1984 the July date should be supported by your Department. Funds should be released immediately to enable Aboriginal communities to finalise their arrangements. Furthermore, access to the Department's Public Awareness program should be available to all local NADOC committees to publicise July NADOC 1984. NADOC was developed by Aboriginal people, for Aboriginal people, therefore any proposed changes should be made in consultation with the people before implementing any decision. Enclosed is a copy of the telegram sent to State National Co-ordinators and the letter from your Department to Aboriginal organisations. Yours sincerely, FLO GRANT Chairman, ACT NADOC Committee Tel: 89 3427 (W) 31 4504 (H) 29 May 1984. URGENT MISS S GRANT INFORMATION SECTION DEPT SOCIAL SECURITY POBOX1 WODEN 34 I HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE MINISTER (CLYDE HOLDING) TO HAVE THE DATES FOR NADOC CELEBRATION THIS YEAR PUT BACK FROM JULY TO SEPTEMBER STOP AS YOU ARE AWARE, WE HAVE AGREED TO MOVE TO THE SEPTEMBER DATE NEXT YEAR STOP THE MINISTERS REASONS FOR REQUESTING THE CHANGE ARE 1. NADOC WILL BE CLASHING WITH THE BI- ANNUAL LABOR CONFERENCE, WHICH INCIDENTLY WILL BE HELD FROM 9TH TO 13TH JULY IN CANBERRA STOP THIS WILL EFFECTIVELY TIE MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENT POLITICIANS TO CANBERRA FOR THE WHOLE WEEK STOP 2. PUBLICITY WOULD BE GREATLY REDUCED AS EMPHASIS WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE LABOR CONFERENCE, 3. THE MINISTER CLAIMS THE EXTRA TIME WILL ENABLE NADOC TO HAVE GREATER EMPHASIS ON PUBLICITY AND FUNDING AS IT WILL INVOLVE A NEW FINANCIAL YEAR STOP I AM IN FAVOUR OF THE MOVE THIS YEAR, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME SHORT TERM DIFFICULTIES IN OUR COMMUNITY ALTERING ACTIVITIES FOR THE NEW DATES STOP I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR URGENT RESPONSE ON THIS ISSUE, AS I WOULD NEED TO INFORM THE MINISTER QUICKLY STOP DO NOT HESITATE TO PHONE ME IF YOU WISH STOP J MORIARTY NATIONAL CHAIRMAN NADOC COL URGENT S POBOX1 NADOC JULY SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 1. NADOC 9TH 13TH JULY 2. 3. NADOC NADOC SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS M.L.C. TOWER, PHILLIP, A.C.T. 2606 78 /2241 11 MAY 1984 Dear Sir I am writing to you and your organisation concerning arrangements for celebrating National Aborigines' week in 1984. The decision to change the date was made by the National Committee of NADOC and not by anybody else. The National chairman of the National Aborigines' Day Observance Committee, Mr John Moriarty, announced recently in a press release that the National Aborigines' Week would be celebrated this year around Australia from Monday 10 September to Sunday 16 September with National Aborigines' Day on Friday 14 September. As Mr Moriarty said in the attached press release, there had been growing pressure from the Aboriginal community to change the date from the depths of winter to a time when the weather in the southern parts of Australia is milder to ensure wider community participation. There was a lot of discussion on this point over a number of years, and many felt that September was an appropriate time to hold National Aborigines' Week. I can well understand that some Aboriginal people may be concerned at this new change of date, especially as some arrangements may have already been made, and some events scheduled for July may not be able to be deferred. I would suggest you carry on with commitments already made but unfortunately the Government cannot provide funds for such events. However, I can assure you that activities held in September of this year promise to have the widest support and coverage yet at national, state and community levels through the network of NADOC committees. The Commonwealth Government is committed to fully supporting National Aborigines' Week in September and has agreed to provide additional funds and resources to assist Aboriginals in organising the celebrations. The resources of all Aboriginal Affairs portfolio organisations will also be available throughout Australia. The Government recognises National Aborigines' Week as a special opportunity for the community to better understand and appreciate Aboriginal culture. This year provides the best opportunity yet for Aboriginal people to highlight activities which can act as a bridge between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities to help build understanding and awareness of the lives of Aboriginal people, and the role played by Aboriginals in Australia's past, present and future. I seek your understanding and support for the change of date for National Aborigines' Week as September is really a better date for outdoor celebrations as well as indoor activities. Your participation in activities to make this a truly meaningful and successful occasion would be appreciated. Yours sincerely CHARLES PERKINS Aboriginal Welfare Unit, Social Welfare Division, Department of Social Security, 22nd Floor Tower, WODEN A.C.T. 2606. Senator TEAGUE —The information contained in these documents has already been supplemented by my own direct conversations following receipt of the letters. The upshot of the matter is this: the Australian Capital Territory NADOC Committee is overwhelmingly still in favour of holding National Aborigines Week activities in July as it had originally determined. The situation is exactly the same in respect of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. The NADOC committees in those three States and in the Australian Capital Territory have said: 'Whatever the Minister may have sought to manipulate and whatever has been subsequently issued by the Chairman acting alone in terms of the change of date, we are sticking with the decision of the National Aboriginal Day Observance Committee meeting in Perth in March of this year, which was that in 1984 the observance would be as usual in July but that in 1985 the date could be changed to September.' There is more to this matter than that. The first signal of the change was the telegram that was sent by John Moriarty. As I said in my question in the Senate on 9 May, and I repeat it now, I am not directly critical of John Moriarty or of any Aboriginal person but rather of the Minister. John Moriarty sent his telegram of 30 March 1984, only a matter of days after his Committee had resolved that July would be the continuing date-the same date as had been determined by, amongst others, Pastor Sir Douglas Nicholls back in the mid-1950s . For 30 years it had been held in July. The Perth meeting resolved to hold it in July. Then, on the last day of March, the following telegram was sent: I have been requested by the Minister (Clyde Holding) to have the dates for the NADOC celebration this year put back from July to September. It goes on: The Ministers reasons for requesting the change are 1. NADOC will be clashing with the bi-annual Labor conference, which incidentally will be held from 9th to 13th July in Canberra. This will effectively tie Ministers and Government politicians to Canberra for the whole week. 2. Publicity would be greatly reduced as emphasis would be given to the Labor conference. 3. The Minister claims the extra time will enable NADOC to have greater emphasis on publicity and funding as it will involve a new financial year. So it goes on. That telegram has been incorporated in Hansard and can be read in full. The answer given by Senator Ryan, the answer that has been made available to the public, is that the decision was made by the NADOC committees. But it was not. It was made behind the scenes by the Labor Minister. He manipulated one leader to make a decision for them all and poor John Moriarty was the meat in the sandwich. What has happened since then is that the offence has been added to with financial threats being made. The Government said: 'If you do not have National Aborigines' week in July, but have it in September, you will have ample financial support and all the Aboriginal portfolio organisations such as statutory authorities and government agencies will be fully available to help you. If you persist with having it in July, there will be not a razoo, not a cent. You will not get any financial support at all'. That was spelt out in a letter that has been incorporated under the hand of the secretary of the Department. I quote one relevant part: I can well understand that some Aboriginal people may be concerned at this new change of date, especially as some arrangements may have already been made, and some events scheduled for July may not be able to be deferred. I would suggest you carry on with commitments already made but unfortunately- I stress 'unfortunately'- the Government cannot provide funds for such events. However, I can assure you that activities held in September of this year promise to have the widest support and coverage yet at national, State and community levels through the network of NADOC committees. The Commonwealth Government is committed to fully supporting National Aborigines' Week in September and has agreed to provide additional funds and resources to assist Aboriginals in organising the celebrations. The resources of all Aboriginal Affairs portfolio organisations will also be available throughout Australia. That letter from Mr Perkins was dated 11 May 1984, when it had become known throughout Australia that the Aboriginal communities would not go along with a unilaterally determined date for that important event. They were not going to be taken away from a 30-year tradition of national Aborigines' weeks and hold it in September at the whim of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Even if poor John Moriarty had been caught like the meat in the sandwich, they would say: 'We have our own integrity and our own right of self-determination and we have already decided that we will not change the date this year'. So NADOC in New South Wales , Queensland, Victoria and in the Australian Capital Territory said to the Minister that they would go ahead even if he denied them the money. They said: ' We are individuals. We have our integrity. We believe in self-determination which is your rhetoric and we are going to make sure our integrity is not compromised'. I fully support the Aboriginal community's right of self- determination and not to be manipulated by a Minister of this Government or a Minister of any other government. In conclusion I make a request that has been made already by the Aborigines. I ask the Government to show some good faith and to say that, if NADOC has responsibly endorsed sticking with the date which was agreed to at the national meeting in March in Perth, that it receives the same financial support that it would have received anyway and that it not be threatened or bullied by the Government saying that the money would only be available if it swapped to September. It is obvious that, if that money were not available, then upon the celebrations being held in July, the Aboriginal spokesmen would be giving the thumbs-down to the Government every time they spoke. In every speech and in every media outlet there would be reports as to the degree of help that was given in Australia to assist in the celebration of Aborigines' Week in the three major States and in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not know what is happening in South Australia and Western Australia. It may well be that the NADOC State committees have not given in to the bullying and have decided to stick with their original decision as well. The second request I make is that the Government genuinely allow self- determination for Aborigines in deciding when and in what way National Aborigines' Week will be observed. Finally, I make the request that the Government apologise for the lack of consultation by the Minister. There was no consultation whatsoever with Aboriginal communities on this matter. Rather, one individual was manipulated to do what the Minister decided. I ask, too, that the Government apologise for the fact that there has been this background of manipulation of responsible Aboriginal leaders and luring them to be out of step with their communities. I ask also that the Government apologise for applying threats to withdraw financial support which is a blatant carrot and stick approach to try to coerce these communities to accept the decision of the Minister. Just as Senator Reynolds has rightly asked these questions that we value so much in respect of Queensland, we now ask them of this present Government. Let there be actual professions of self-determination, and let us see the Government come to terms with the requests that I have made. I believe that we will then see full support for the Aboriginal communities in Australia from both sides of this chamber and from all parts of Australia as they choose to determine their own celebrations for National Aborigines' Week. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.36) —With a degree of concern and with a relatively heavy heart I rise tonight to refer back to what is to many of us, an all too recent history of Europe, of the 1930s and the rise of national socialism. One of the questions that a lot of people have debated for a long time is the difference between national socialism or Nazism and democratic socialism. I believe that tonight we can consider very clearly a demonstration, within the past 24 hours, of what the difference may not be. Within the past 24 hours there has been a Press release by the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) dealing with a policy relating to the Australian motor industry which I described in a Press release yesterday as an extremely troubled industry . I would not have thought that there was a person in Australia who would question my use of those words 'an extremely troubled industry'. In speaking in the Senate I did not even use those words, but I referred to the fact that the previous Government had recognised that there were problems in relation to the Australian motor industry and that the Opposition welcomed the fact that the Government and this Minister had at last produced a plan in relation to the Australian motor industry. We welcomed that. I said that the Opposition acknowledged that many beneficial proposals are involved in the total program. I said a number of other things and obviously I am not here tonight to repeat the whole of the speech. However, what has happened today, reminiscent of the Goebbels philosophy, is that a Dorothy Dix question was asked of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to which he responded in these terms: . . . I think it is very important that those who comment on this matter, particularly in view of the fact that it involves substantial restructuring of an industry, should get their information right. That includes, for example, the Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce, Senator Peter Rae, who yesterday in the Senate said that the motor industry was a wildly irresponsible industry- I pause in that quotation to repeat the words that the Minister used this morning in answer to a question. He said that I had said that the motor industry was a wildly irresponsible industry. I challenge the Minister to find any words in Hansard which justify that wildly irresponsible statement. He continued: . . . and that car sales had dropped by 19 per cent in the month of April compared with sales for the previous month. Car sales in April in fact were down 13 per cent on the previous month, a result that did not surprise the Government in view of the fact that there were only 18 selling days in April compared with some 24 in March. Senator Rae went on to say that he had consulted with the industry. If he had been doing that on a regular basis he would know that the number of car sales has improved in May. I will quote from an Australian Bureau of Statistics document, embargoed 11.30 a .m. on 29 May 1984-today is 30 May; in other words it was yesterday morning- dealing with the main features in relation to registration of new motor vehicles in Australia. It states, and I will leave out a few irrelevant words: Registrations of new motor vehicles . . . during April 1984 . . . fell 19.1 per cent when compared with March 1984. It also states: Seasonally adjusted, the April 1984 figure . . . is 6.0 per cent lower than March 1984. I will read what I said yesterday, which is recorded on page 2019 of Hansard: Car sales in April this year, the month just passed, were 19 per cent down on the previous month; that is, 6 per cent down in seasonally adjusted terms on the previous month. This Dr Goebbels of the Australian Parliament accuses me of giving the wrong figures. He misquotes the figures. I seek leave to table the document from the Australian Bureau of Statistics setting out the figures I cited. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —The Minister not only falsely attacked me and misrepresented me but also then wrongly cited the actual figures. Is this to be the standard of behaviour from this Minister in his portfolio? So often when he is attacked he engages in personal venom, personal attack-- Senator Robert Ray —You have had a good go tonight as well. Senator PETER RAE —Perhaps there has been a little bit of retribution. Perhaps there has been a little balancing out. I simply say: Does it not remind my namesake Senator Robert Ray and other honourable senators of something which happened in the 1930s when I read from the statement of the Minister which he made yesterday? He said: The Government expects co-operation from the industry, and if it is not forthcoming, has methods at its disposal . . . to ensure that the intent of the plan is carried out. Senator Robert Ray —What are you suggesting? Torture? Senator PETER RAE —I am suggesting that the Minister is neither a democrat nor a socialist. There is another word which describes his behaviour in the past 24 hours. I ask the Minister for a withdrawal and an apology for the total misstatements he made this morning, accusing me of making the statement that the industry was a wildly irresponsible one, which I most certainly did not do. In a Press release I used the words 'an extremely troubled industry'. In the Senate I did not use any words which in any way described the industry as irresponsible or any extension of that. Further, I did not say that the sales had dropped by 19 per cent in the month of April. I gave the full figures as shown in the Bureau of Statistics report, with the comparison both in direct and seasonally adjusted terms. The Minister wrongly purported to claim that the facts I had stated were wrong. The Minister yet again has failed rather dismally to carry out his function, failed rather dismally to grasp the nettle, failed rather dismally to do one thing or another. He has simply carried on a sort of half-way house policy. He has struck out at anyone who dares to criticise him. He has struck out at the unions that have criticised him and he has struck out at the very mild comments I made yesterday. I ask the Minister for an apology. I do not expect to get it because I do not think he is big enough to be able to give it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(7.45) —Senator Kilgariff, Senator Reynolds and Senator Teague all raised questions relating to Aboriginal matters. A series of important points was made in the context of those speeches. I will ensure that their views are conveyed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). In relation to the comments made by Senator Peter Rae, I certainly apologise for the suggestion I made at Question Time today. I did not choose my words very well. I took it, when I heard Senator Rae' s speech, that he was giving figures for April car registrations in order to illustrate some point. On reading his speech in Hansard I am not sure what point he was trying to illustrate, but I thought the point he might have been trying to make was that the pattern of this industry was very much up and down. I certainly chose the wrong words in commenting on what I thought to be his point, and I apologise to him for that. As to his personal comments about me tonight, I say about him as Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce only that, when he first chose to launch a matter of public importance against the Government on its industry policy, five or six members of the Liberal Party of Australia came and apologised to me in my room for his conduct. They said that they thought the level of personal attack he made against me was disgraceful. If he wants to continue that, he is welcome. I note his comments. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet this evening at approximately this time in Committee Room 6. Tomorrow Estimates Committee D will meet at 8.30 a.m. in Committee Room 6. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.48 p.m. The following paper was presented: Public Service Act-Determinations-1984-No. 11. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATION-COMMENCEMENT OF ACT: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections and sub-sections of an Act to come into operation on the date specified: Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983-Sections 34, sub-sections 35 (3), (9), (10) and (11), 36 (2) and 38 (2), section 48, sub-sections 50 (2); 54 (2) and 55 (2), section 60, sub-sections 61 (3), (8), (9) and (10), 62 (2), 66 (2), 69 (2) and (3) and 72 (2) and section 74-23 May 1984 (Gazette No. S 183, 22 May 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 382) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Has the Government decided to manufacture and circulate a $1 coin. (2) Did the time scale specifications and tender supply period preclude Austral Bronze Crane Copper Pty Ltd and other likely Australian metal manufacturers from tendering for the approximately $5m job. (3) Has the contract been let to an overseas manufacturer. (4) Will the Government reconsider the decision with a view to letting Australian manufacturers tender and thus provide an opportunity for a significant push in employment, or is the date of supply the essence of the contract; if so, why is time vital. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. On 8 July 1983 the Treasurer announced that a $1 coin would be introduced into general circulation in the first half of 1984. The coin has been minted in Australia at the Royal Australian Mint and was introduced into circulation on 14 May 1984. (2) Although opportunities were of course made available, no Australian company submitted a tender for the supply of blanks for the $1 coin. Austral Bronze Crane Copper Pty Ltd (ABCC), a producer of blanks for the Mint, advised that it did not tender for the particular contract in question because of the volume and delivery schedule required and because the metal composition of the coin was outside its production capabilities. (3) Yes. (4) No. However, Australian companies will be given every opportunity to pursue follow-up orders for $1 coin blank supplies under normal preferential arrangements to Australian suppliers. Contracts for other coin blanks have recently been awarded to Austral Bronze Crane Copper Pty Ltd. (Question No. 386) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Has the Treasurer instructed or approved the Reserve Bank's policy on the valuation of torn banknotes upon a diminishing remnant-diminishing value bases; if so, which and why; if not, will the Treasurer take urgent steps to investigate upon what basis the bank is taking this high handed action. (2) Will such action diminish the confidence of people in paper money and create a tendency for a return to less convenient forms of monetary exchange. (3) Does this constitute an illegal charge or breach of statutory duty. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Section 34 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959-1973 authorises the Reserve Bank, through the Bank's Note Issue Department, to issue, re-issue or cancel Australian notes. As the responsible authority, the Reserve Bank has established certain procedures concerning its obligations in relation to the note issue. These procedures are designed to ensure that the currency is freely available and may be used in the marketplace with confidence. Apart from the matter of giving value against torn or mutilated currency notes, there are other elements that need to be borne in mind in setting rules for the handling of the currency, including the possibility of fraud and the need for all to be careful in their currency dealings. The basis of payment on claims in respect of mutilated notes submitted to the Reserve Bank is: (a) full face value is paid if the portion of note presented for payment is two -thirds or more of the note; (b) half face value is paid if the portion of note presented for payment is about half, but less than two-thirds of the note; (c) in some circumstances, payment of up to full value will be made against smaller fragments of notes where there is clear evidence of the number of notes involved and where supporting material, for example, ash in the case of claims arising from fire damage, is provided. The bank expends considerable effort in establishing the value of torn or mutilated currency notes and payments are made on a wide variety of identifiable residue. (2) No. The methods followed in processing such claims should provide reasonable equity where separate portions of a note that has been accidently segmented may be held by different parties. As well, these procedures seek to prevent over-payment that might occur if full face value were paid against fragments of a note that may have been segmented accidentally, or at times, with fraudulent intent. The procedures should satisfy, in a practical way, claims against accidental damage, without leaving the Bank open to loss, possibly substantial, on fraudulent claims. However, any set of rules may leave the occasional claimant dissatisfied. It is particularly difficult, for instance, to satisfy a claimant where note remnants have been mutilated beyond recognition, burned or subject to severe corrosive substances. It is common practice around the world for the amount paid to depend on the identifiable proportion of the note. Under the present system relatively few complaints are received from claimants. It might be of interest that during the year ended 30 June 1983, some 2,400 claims were processed by the Bank. (3) No. (Question No. 522) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The only relevant body within the Treasurer's portfolio is the Prices Surveillance Authority, which came into existence on 19 March 1984. To the extent that the honourable senator's question might relate to interdepartmental committees, I refer him to the Treasurer's reply to Mr McLeay's Question on Notice No. 838 of 29 November 1983 concerning interdepartmental committees within the Treasurer's portfolio, which appeared in Hansard of 7 May 1984 (pages 1987-8). (1) (b) Nil. (2) (a) and (b) The Prices Surveillance Authority consists of the Chairman and three part-time members who are statutory appointees. The Authority's secretariat, when fully staffed, will comprise 32 employees. Fourteen staff were transfered from the former Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and applications have been invited for the remaining 18 positions. (Question No. 639) Senator Reynolds asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Will the Attorney-General extend his discussions with Queensland authorities on possible breaches of the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners at the Brisbane prison to include an investigation of prison conditions at Kowanyama on Cape York Peninsula, where media reports have quoted the National Aboriginal Conference member, Harry Daphney, as saying that totally inadequate food and facilities are being provided to prisoners in this community. (2) Will the Attorney-General seek assurances from the Queensland Government that all prisons in that State operate in accordance with the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) following a question asked of me in this place by the honourable senator on 15 December 1983 I made representations to the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attorney-General concerning compliance with the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners in the Brisbane prison complex. I have now made further representations to the Queensland authorities drawing to their attention the matters raised in the honourable senator's question. (2) In his reply to my original representations the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General advised me that 'the Queensland Government supports the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, with Queensland conditions generally being superior to those recommended.' If he adds anything of substance in his reply to my further representations I will pass it on to the honourable senator. (Question No. 772) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Is the Treasurer aware that the 1983 report of the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) omitted a previously included table showing foreign investment as a proportion of net private investment expenditure. (2) Can the Treasurer provide this information for the 1982-83 financial year. (3) Can the Treasurer give an assurance that this important information will be included in the next report of the FIRB. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes (2) On the same basis as that underlying Table 3.7 in the 1982 report, foreign investment inflow as a proportion of net private investment expenditure was estimated at 58 per cent in 1982-83. It should be noted that foreign investment inflow includes borrowings by public non-monetary enterprises (that is, government owned or controlled authorities) while the denominator is net private investment expenditure. When borrowings by public non-monetary enterprises are excluded, foreign investment inflow as a proportion of net private investment expenditure is estimated at 47 per cent in 1982-83, compared with 40 per cent in 1981-82, 34 per cent in 1980-81, 18 per cent in 1979-80 and 15 per cent in 1978- 79. (3) The information concerned was excluded from the 1983 report for two main reasons. First, the measure is subject to considerable qualification regarding the ultimate purpose and destination of foreign investment inflow. Some of the inflow will be used, for example, to purchase existing assets or add to working capital, rather than to fund new capital investment, while some may be on-lent to Australian enterprises. Secondly, in recent times, there have been large short term capital flows across the exchanges reflecting exchange rate expectations and movements in relative interest rates which have detracted from the value of the measure as an indicator of the extent to which foreign capital has funded net private investment in Australia. At this time it is not possible to provide a satisfactory measure of the proportion of net private investment expenditure in Australia attributable to foreign investors, given the difficulties in isolating the ultimate purpose of foreign investment inflow. However, following the resumption of foreign participation studies by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in late 1982, it is expected that foreign participation statistics will be compiled for new fixed capital expenditure by private enterprises and published in late 1984 (for 1982- 83) and late 1986 (for 1984-85). (Question No. 891) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: Can the Treasurer indicate when answers to question Nos 382 and 386, which were placed on notice on 22 September 1983, will be provided. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to the answers appearing in today's Hansard.