Friday, 1 June 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Regulations and Ordinances: Availability of Publications and Video Material To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require 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 dissallow 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 38 citizens), Lajovic (from 46 citizens), Reid (from 30 citizens) and Robertson (from 17 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 the 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 Senators Chipp (from 90 citizens) and Primmer (from 67 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. The Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned teachers and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 542 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- That ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years, The signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70 km from Mackay and over 300 km from Townsville, The 4QN news programmes are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region, That while FM programmes are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100,000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 30 citizens) and Collard (from 89 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: Whereas Australia underwent an unprecedented expansion in riches (of wealth) post war and the economy is once again on the upsurge, the pensioners and the disadvantaged have slipped further behind the general standard. In this period of renewed expansion their position is being further eroded. Therefore, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray: (1) The proposed Assets Test be rejected completely. (2) That Government instead meet with pensioner, Union and Employer Organisations to work out the method of financing and a timetable for the introduction of a National Superannuation Scheme. (3) That the May 1984 adjustment include the CPI increases up to the end of March, and thereafter be increased quarterly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 38 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 all members of the Women's Services 1939-45 War qualify as 'Australian Soldier' under the Defence Service Homes Act for loans because on voluntarily joining the Australian Forces they took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies making themselves available for combat duty in War Zones, and according to Acts and Regulations of the period the Military women had enlisted for service anywhere, some Naval women to sail in any waters, with all servicewomen available for service in Papua New Guinea. As those members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force of 1939-45 War who were not sent to War Zones are granted loans, refusal to grant eligibility to all Ex-servicewomen of 1939- 45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you amend 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 33 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 programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands 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 Senators Hearn (from 27 citizens) and Zakharov (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Bass respectfully showeth: 1. That as loyal Australian citizens and residents, we strongly object to increased availability of pornographic material particularly through the Video medium. 2. That in particular we object to the ready availability of material under the X-rated classification. 3. That we believe such material is damaging to our society and is degrading to the dignity of man. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will not allow the introduction of an X-rating for Video Tapes/Discs for Sale/Hire in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 264 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensure that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 278 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —In accordance with the notice of intention given on 31 May to withdraw two notices of motion I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos. 1 and 2, standing in my name. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.05) —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- On 6 April, the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands made an Act of self- determination to integrate with Australia. The Government welcomes that historic decision. The act of self-determination was observed by a United Nations mission which visited Cocos at the invitation of the Government. The people could have chosen free association with Australia or independence. The Australian Government's policy with regard to Cocos has been to bring about conditions which would enable the people of the Territory to exercise freely their right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the principles of the United Nations Charter. To this end, the Australian Government has implemented a wide range of programs for the political, social, economic and educational advancement of the people in accordance with our obligations under Chapter XI of the Charter. The Government views the choice by the people of integration with Australia as a successful outcome of its policies for the Territory. All 261 eligible voters voted in the referendum and only two informal votes were recorded. The result was For integration with Australia 229 votes For free association with Australia 21 votes For independence 9 votes The visiting mission will prepare a report for the United Nations Secretary- General on the conduct and outcome of the act. We expect that this report will form the basis of a resolution to be placed before the next regular session of the General Assembly to remove the Cocos Islands from the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. This process should be completed by the end of December 1984. There were reports in the Press that the chairman of the United Nations mission was critical of the extent to which Australia had prepared the people for the act of self-determination, and educated and informed them of the consequences of the various options. It appeared that these reports have magnified a minor comment about the placement of election posters around the island into a major criticism. The chairman of the mission told the Minister for Territories and Local Government that these reports dramatized and overplayed his comments which had not been intended as a criticism of the Australian Government. The Cocos leaders have explained that the means by which political education had been conducted was consistent with Malay cultural practices. The Minister for Territories and Local Government informed the House on 28 March of the details of the three options from which the people would choose. He said that under integration, the Cocos people would have the full rights, privileges and obligations of other Australian citizens and outlined specific measures that would be taken by the Government to give effect to that promise. Amongst those measures were the measures now before the Senate. I will not take the time of the Senate in presenting in any detail other measures the Government has taken and will take to honour its commitments to the people of Cocos. Those are a matter of public record. I again draw the attention of the Senate to Australia's commitment to observe the relevant resolutions of the General- Assembly and the principles of the United Nations Charter in relation to the act of self-determination. Principle (viii) attached to UN resolution 1541 provides that integration with an independent state should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the territory in question and those of the independent country with which it is to be integrated. Equality should include opportunities for effective participation at all executive, legislative and judicial levels. There are four measures addressed in this Bill. Amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 The Government enthusiastically acknowledges its obligation to extend to the island community full voting rights in relation to the Australian Parliament. To meet that obligation, this legislation provides for the Commonwealth Electoral Act to be amended to incorporate the territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands as a district in the federal division of the Northern Territory. The right to vote is a precious right in a parliamentary democracy and marks the acceptance by the people of Cocos of their full responsibilities as Australian citizens. I emphasise that the inclusion of Cocos in the federal electorate of the Northern Territory will not affect access of the Cocos people to the Federal Government through the Minister or department responsible for the Territory. I also emphasise that the Government of the Northern Territory will have no role or responsibilities in relation to Cocos. The electors of Cocos will benefit from the additional representation in the Parliament. The financial implications of this action are minimal, and are restricted to those incurred in registering the names of eligible voters on the islands, freighting of ballot papers and other documentation on the occasion of elections and referendums, and the casual engagement of polling officials. Expenditure of only $2000-$3000 on each occasion of election is envisaged. Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 The legislation also amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act to provide for a reference to be given by the Minister to the Commission in relation to the Territory. The Government will be looking to the Grants Commission to determine methodologies and procedures which will enable it to recommend to the Government appropriate forms of assistance to the islands community to ensure that it enjoys a standard of living comparable to that on the mainland. Costs incurred by the Commission in pursuing this task are expected to be minimal, mainly involving travel expenses of the commissioners and associated staff to and from the islands. Health Insurance Act 1973 and National Health Act 1953 The effect of the extension of this legislation will be to place the people on Cocos in a similar position to mainland residents in respect of public medical and hospital services, provided that the Cocos hospital charging arrangements are brought into line with those of public hospitals on the mainland, that is, no charges being levied for public medical and hospital services. (This will require the consequential repeal of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Medical Charges Ordinance, 1963). The financial impact of the changes resulting from these amendments will be negligible. Social Security Act 1947 This measure is essential towards equality for the people of the Territory. It is estimated that the cost of payment of pensions, benefits and allowances to residents of Cocos (Keeling) Islands will amount to $240,000 in a full year. In accordance with the community's wishes, it is proposed to make arrangements for payment to be made to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council. This is to maximise the benefit to all members of the community. Further, this arrangement will ensure that local wage structures will not be disrupted following the extension of the legislation. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.06) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 The purpose of the Bill is to change the structure, functions, and powers of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. There are five Bills being introduced with the object of restructuring the administration of the live-stock and meat industry. These Bills constitute an integrated package of measures designed to produce an organisational structure that will improve the industry's ability to work cooperatively to develop policies to resolve its problems. This legislation will also clarify the functions and powers of the AMLC, with particular attention to increasing its accountability to the Parliament, and to those in the industry whose levy payments provide the source of its finance. In addition to the restructuring of the AMLC, these Bills provide for the establishment of a new Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council and an Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. There are also consequential changes to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 and the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977. This package does not include proposed arrangements for restructuring future administration of meat and live-stock research and development. The final details of this measure are the subject of further development and discussion with industry. A Bill on this matter will be brought before the Parliament during the 1984 Budget sittings. Honourable senators will be aware that the live-stock and meat industries have been through a prolonged economic recession, and the capacity of producers to respond to the economic changes that continually buffet them has been well demonstrated. However, there is no adequate mechanism to enable industry organisations representing processors, exporters, public abattoirs and other groups to join with producers to develop a coordinated approach to the analysis and discussion of industry problems, or to formulate new industry policies. For example the industry has been discussing over a number of years such important initiatives as single meat inspection, objective product description, AMLC sole trading and industry stabilisation or rationalisation measures. There has been slow, inconclusive and often divisive debate on such issues. The industry's poorly structured policy and decision making processes have prevented clear advice reaching Government on required actions that would have the full support of the industry. The AMLC-primarily a market development, promotion and export control body-has attempted to fill this void through its producer and processor consultative groups. This approach has tended to heighten industry divisions and draw the corporation unnecessarily into agro-political industry debates, although many of the industry's problems cover matters that lie totally outside the Corporation's charter. In its seach for an effective leadership structure the production sector of the industry has pressed for industry problems to be addressed by the Corporation. There has been a general lack of understanding that the Corporation's ability to exercise industry leadership is restricted not only by the State's constitutional responsibilities for the regulation of domestic meat marketing, but also because matters concerning, for example, animal health, welfare and hygiene, research, abattoir construction and legislation are the responsibilities of other bodies. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory. In presenting these Bills the Government is fulfilling its election commitment to introduce new administrative arrangements to reform the policy and operational arms of the Australian meat and live-stock industry. The details of these Bills have been developed from the continuous consultations the Minister for Primary Industry has had with leaders of the key industry organisations since the Government first came to office. The final package was negotiated with the industry last August. In October the Government endorsed the principles underlying the new arrangements, and empowered the Minister to establish an Industry Selection Committee and Industry Policy Council on an interim basis, pending the introduction of this legislation. In future the Industry Policy Council will be the body responsible for the examination of all broad industry policy issues. This will require a shift in the industry's present expectation for industry leadership on all issues to come from the Corporation. The proposed functions for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will remove its responsibility for general policy advice and require it to be more directly concerned with, and confined to, commercial activities associated with market development, the promotion of meat and live-stock sales, and finally the regulation of export trading. The more commercial role of the AMLC will require a different approach to the selection of its Board. The interim Industry Selection Committee is already at work to choose members of the new Board on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience in the fields of cattle production, sheep production, live-stock exporting, meatworks operation, meat exporting, product promotion, finance, international commodity marketing, business management and industrial relations. To select highly competent people in these specialised fields is a demanding exercise. Board members will, in future, be recruited from a wider spectrum of Australian business sources. They will not be selected, as in the past, on the basis of their industry 'representation' but for their expertise and direct ability to contribute to a professional team. Whilst this formula guarantees producers a place on the Board it recognises that a wider balance of commercial experience is essential if the Board is to effectively perform its commercial role. I now turn to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. Under Clause 4 of the Bill honourable Senators will note that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will no longer have a broad policy-advising function. The removal of this responsibility is a deliberate move on the part of the Government to ensure that the Industry Policy Council becomes the primary focus for overall industry policy development activity. Nevertheless, the Corporation will be expected to develop policies as required on areas concerned with its commercial functions, as well as contribute to policy development for the industry as a whole by means of the AMLC Chairman's membership of the Policy Council. In order to help foster better consultation, Clause 7 of the Bill gives the Corporation power to arrange consultations, as necessary with relevant industry groups, on matters concerned with its operational responsibilities, and to be responsible for the costs of meetings that it arranges. It is not intended to retain the present formal Consultative Groups which have not achieved as much as had been expected. Instead this operational Corporation is to be given the greater flexibility it requires to develop a more direct and meaningful consultative process with producer and processor/trader organisations , according to its actual operational needs. Such meetings can be expected to be irregular, possibly shorter and more directly concerned with technical matters. Industry organisations can be expected to give more attention in the future to the consultative and analytical needs of the Industry Policy Council, which is also expected to require considerable assistance from industry in its examination of industry problems. A number of other modifications to the powers of the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation are included in the Bill. They are designed to upgrade the Corporation's commercial powers, and place the day to day responsibility for commercial decisions within these heads of power more squarely on the Corporation Board. The Bill provides for the removal of the restriction that the Corporation can only trade in live-stock and meat that it owns. This will enhance the Corporation's flexibility and allow it, as an agent, to co-ordinate the trading activities of competing Australian exporters in the exercise of its overseas trading powers. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will now have increased power to engage in sole trading to a particular market where, in the opinion of the Corporation, such action would be beneficial in developing the market for Australian meat or live-stock. Honourable senators will note that, under the Bill, the Corporation is required to develop criteria for deciding to exercise this additional power. Such criteria will require Ministerial approval only as a part of the five year corporate plan, not for specific actions as a sole trader. Consistent with this principle it is proposed that the Corporation will no longer be required to secure specific Ministerial approval in exercising its power to act as a sole trader to a market where a monopoly import situation exists. Criteria for such action are well defined in the existing provisions of the legislation. It is hoped that the broadening of the Corporation's trading powers that has been outlined will move the focus of the industry debate away from the limits of those powers to a conscious examination of the trading policies that best serve the commercial interests of the industry. It is expected that the meat and live- stock industry would play a big part in setting the industry's policies in this area. The financial powers of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation have also been expanded under the Bill in line with the more commercial role expected of the Corporation. The scope for the raising of moneys by the Corporation, which will require the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, will be widened to the issuing of securities. A provision has been made in the Bill for the making of regulations to enable the Corporation to charge fees for the licensing of exporters and to recoup the costs of the services it provides to industry, in keeping with the user pays principle. Under clause 25 of the Bill the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation is to assume responsibility for meeting the costs associated with the Policy Council's industry conferences. The Corporation is also to be responsible for all costs and expenses of the Industry Selection Committee. The rationale for this is that the Corporation, funded as it is from industry levy and export charge contributions, is the convenient point from which these other industry endeavours can be funded and so avoid the need to establish separate industry funding arrangements. Honourable senators will recall that it was indicated earlier that Corporation members will be chosen on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience. Under the Bill, the Corporation is to consist of 11 members, namely a chairman, a government representative, the Managing Director of the Corporation and 8 other members. The part-time chairman and the Government representative are to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Managing Director is to be appointed by the Corporation and will become an ex- officio voting member of the Board. The 8 other members with the special professional skills and experience already outlined will be selected, for the Minister's appointment, by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. The Bill contains a number of requirements of the Corporation to increase its accountability to the industry and to Parliament through the Minister. The main provision to make the Corporation more accountable to industry members who are affected by its activities, and who contribute to its annual income through payment of slaughter and live-stock export levies, is the requirement for the Corporation to convene an annual general meeting of industry members who meet particular eligibility requirements. Voting entitlements of live-stock producers will be determined by live-stock ownership. The Bill allows wide ranging powers for the AGM. The AGM can comment on or query any aspect of the Corporation's annual report or general activities. The AGM can vote on resolutions, with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council to be notified of the outcome. Under the Bill the Corporation is required to put as a motion to the AGM any planned variation to levies or charges. The AGM will also have the power to decline any proposed increases in levies to fund the Corporation. Finally, the AGM under clause 22 will have the power to cause the removal of the Corporation's Chairman or Board. The Bill defines the actions required of the Minister for Primary Industry in the event that the AGM passes a vote of no confidence in the Chairman, or Board. Their appointments are to be terminated within one month of the AGM. Such a vote would only be carried if 75% of the votes of persons registered in each of the live-stock producer and processor/exporter categories are cast at the AGM in support of the motion, either in person or by proxy. Other arrangements to ensure the Corporation carries out its responsibilities in a business like manner are included in clause 22 of this Bill which also provides the basis for its relationship with the Minister. Thus under clause 22, the Corporation will be required to prepare a five year corporate plan to apply from a date no later than 1 July 1985. The corporate plan is to set out the objectives, key programs and priorities of the Corporation to provide the framework for the Corporation's administration of its functions and powers for the five year period. Complementary to the five year plan is the requirement under clause 22 for an annual operational plan to set out the Corporation's objectives and programs for the relevant 12 month period ahead. Honourable senators will note that the Bill requires both the five year corporate plan and the annual operational plan to be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry for approval. These obligations provide an accountability arrangement which focuses the Minister's and Corporation's attention on the strategies of the AMLC and the basic directions and policy approaches it will be following. Approval of both the corporate and the annual operational plan provides the Minister with overall supervision of the Corporation's activity, but enables the Corporation to get on with its functions without constant reference to the Minister for detailed approval of each major activity. The development of the annual operational plan and the five year corporate plan are of particular importance as they will provide an opportunity for better definition of the Corporation's functions and strategies within the broader functions allowed under the Bill. Hopefully, this will remove some of the confusion of the past. It is anticipated that the highlights of the Corporation's corporate plans would be made widely known within industry. However, the Corporation may wish to keep some elements confidential for trading purposes. With regard to the financial implications of this Bill and the four companion Bills, costs of the marketing corporation and the selection committee will be met by the industry. It is estimated that cash costs for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council will amount to $48,000 in the current financial year. This covers remuneration of the chairman, the meetings expenses of Council members and the provision of secretariat services by the Department of Primary Industry. Approval for an increase of two in the Department's average staffing levels is presently being sought. This is justified by the considerable value of the Council's advice to the Government, and provision of the secretariat will ensure that the Council's policy proposals are practicable and based upon full industry consultation and endorsement. It is expected that the Council's operating costs, including secretariat salaries, will amount to around $215,000 in a full financial year. In seeking this financial assistance, the industry has drawn comparisons with the manufacturing industry's advisory councils, and pressed strongly for equity in treatment. It is claimed that in each case, the councils provide similar assistance in the development of government policy. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984 The purpose of the Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live -stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, is to provide for the establishment of an Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council. Honourable senators will recall that the broad role of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council was outlined earlier in the second reading speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. The main object of establishing the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council is to facilitate the participation of the industry in the development and formulation of industry policies. It will provide a forum for consensus building between its different sectoral interests and provide opportunities, through its working groups, for all interested parties to work together on factual examination of industry problems, and to present practical proposals to government for their solution. A main task of this Council will be to provide a forum for resolving industry differences, and with the assistance of an independent chairman and a small professional secretariat, to develop industry consensus on the action necessary to deal with its problems. Its establishment with statutory status is necessary to provide a binding charter and to help the Minister to ensure its accountability. I now turn to the specific provisions of this Bill. Clause 9 states that the Policy Council will be established with a membership of 14, including an independent chairman. Eight of its members will be the leaders and other nominees of livestock and meat industry organisations. These 8 members will comprise 4 representatives of livestock producers drawn from the Cattle and Sheepmeat Councils of Australia, and 4 representatives of meat processors and exporters drawn from the major organisations in that sector of the industry. The other members of the Policy Council will include the chairmen of the main operational arms of the industry, namely, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, and the Australian Meat Research Committee pending the establishment of the proposed new Research and Development Corporation. Finally, there will be 3 members to represent respectively, the interim Inspection Policy Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and State meat authorities. There are a number of industry groups that are not included on the Council as it was considered essential to keep it to a manageable size if it is to operate effectively. However, if experience indicates the necessity for additional membership there is provision in the Bill for this development. It is expected, however, that the Council will ensure that specific industry interests will be given every opportunity to contribute to the Council's work, and indeed the Bill specifies this as an obligation of the Council. Clause 5 requires the Council to ensure that the views of all interested parties are taken into account. Clause 18 of the Bill allows for the establishment of working groups to provide advice to the Council. The working groups can play an important role in terms of developing concepts into practical propositions, and for advising Council on topics for which a wider viewpoint is desirable. Under clause 7 a report of the working group may be adopted as the report of the Council. Reports from the Council will be made to the Minister. The Bill requires that the Minister release such reports publicly unless he judges it is not in the public interest to do so. Clause 6 of the Bill requires the holding of an industry conference at intervals not exceeding 2 years. The purpose of the Conference is to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry, to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry and to foster a consensus on policy. The widest industry participation can be achieved at the Conference. It is envisaged that the Council will meet about 4 times per year depending upon needs, with the additional terminating working groups being established and reporting to the Council as necessary. The Council will have the resources required to exercise its responsibilities as provided under clauses 20 and 21. A small professional Secretariat, reporting directly to the Council and responsible to it is to be provided by the Department of Primary Industry. In addition the Council will have the ability to draw on the expertise and resources of member bodies and other organisations as required. Under Clause 22 of the Bill the Council is required to provide an annual report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Bill 1984 The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, is to provide for the establishment of an Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. Honourable senators will recall that I earlier outlined, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984, the broad role of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. Its task is to seek out highly competent people who can meet the demands and responsibilities for appointment to the Board of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Following the Government's decision to establish this Selection Committee on an interim basis, pending introduction of the legislation, the Minister for Primary Industry announced in February the appointment of Mr Frederick Millar, CBE, to the position of independent, part-time Chairman of the Interim Selection Committee, together with the names of three representatives of cattle and sheep producers and those of three representatives of meat processors/exporters. This Committee has already met a number of times. With the assistance of a consulting firm it is currently reviewing a wide range of candidates for recommendation to the Minister of 8 future members of the new Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I now refer to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live- stock Industry Selection Committee Bill 1984. Under clause 5 of the Bill the Committee is required to select and nominate persons to the Minister for Primary Industry for appointment to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that a person is not entitled to be nominated for appointment unless the person possesses qualifications or experience relevant to one or more of the following fields of activity: cattle production, sheep production, live-stock exporting, meatworks operation, meat exporting, product promotion, finance, international commodity marketing, business management and industrial relations. The Bill requires the Committee to make its selection to best ensure that the Corporation Board collectively possesses this full range of skills. The composition of the Selection Committee ensures that the meat and live-stock industry is closely involved in the selection of board members. The Bill provides for a Committee of 7 part-time members. A chairman selected and appointed by the Minister, 2 members appointed on the nomination of the Cattle Council of Australia, 1 member appointed on the nomination of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and 3 members appointed on the nomination of the Australian Meat Exporters' Federal Council. Unlike current arrangements where the Minister makes his own selections for appointment to the Board from a short list of two or three names provided by the consultative groups, under the new arrangements the Selection Committee's nominations will be the only names presented for appointment but the Minister may reject a nomination and call for another. Clause 22 of the Bill provides for the engagement of staff and consultants. Honourable members will recall that under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill the funds required for staff, consultants and the general operation of the Committee are to be met by the Corporation. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.08) —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 passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 heralded the most significant changes to our electoral legislation for fifty years. As part of the Government's continuing commitment to electoral reform, it now undertakes to bring referendum legislation into line with the new Electoral Act, to make provision for voting at referendums for electors in the Territories -including the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands-and to incorporate certain other necessary modifications to current procedures. The changes are largely of a machinery nature, and will simplify the administration of referendums, particularly when they are held concurrently with elections. The most appropriate approach, Mr President, is to repeal the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906 and subsequent amending Acts and to replace them with a new Act. The new Electoral Act has removed or brought up-to-date many outmoded provisions; it has removed certain anomalies; it has extended the right, and in the case of Aboriginals, the obligation to enrol and to vote; it has made it easier for electors to get on the rolls and stay on the rolls; it has altered polling procedures to make voting more accessible to previously disadvantaged groups. Hence overseas electors, itinerant workers and Antarctic electors may now register a vote. Electors may vote as ordinary voters at any polling booth within their Division instead of only within their Subdivision. Mobile polling facilities will be provided in the outback and for patients in hospitals and similar institutions. A register of postal voters will be established so that people in remote areas or people unable to attend polling booths can be sent an application for a postal vote immediately an election is announced. Mr President, this Bill ensures that the worthwhile reforms enshrined in the new Electoral Act will also streamline voting procedures at future referendums. In addition this Bill makes other changes to our referendum legislation. The current Act provides that 'Yes' and 'No' cases be submitted within 4 weeks after the passage through Parliament of the proposed law. Then, within 2 months of the 4 weeks and not later than 2 weeks after the issue of the writ, pamphlets must be printed and posted to each elector. These provisions can mean that the pamphlets may reach electors months in advance of voting day for the referendum. They should be replaced by a requirement that the Electoral Commissioner simply despatch the Yes/No pamphlets not later than 14 days before voting day. The requirement should also be extended to cases where a Bill is passed by one House only. At present, the Electoral Commissioner is not under legal duty under the Act to print and distribute the Yes/No pamphlets where the Government postpones or cancels a referendum. It is highly desirable, Mr President, that it be expressly stated in the new Act that this is the case. Mr President, the new provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to disclosure of electoral expenditure apply to parties, candidates and groups of candidates; persons acting without the written authority of parties, candidates and groups; and publishers, broadcasters and printers. The Government is of the view that for referendums there should be a provision requiring that returns of expenditure be lodged only by publishers, broadcasters and printers. These returns will indicate the major sources of referendum expenditure. It would be consistent with the electoral provisions for the referendum period for which returns must be lodged to be from the date of issue of the writ to voting day for the referendum. In addition, Mr President, the electoral provisions relating to disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates are not readily translatable to referendums. Referendum donations do not give rise to potential corruption in the way that undisclosed election donations might. Therefore there is little point in requiring their disclosure. Mr President, senators will be aware that in the last twelve months the Government has demonstrated its concern for and interest in electoral matters. The legislation which I am not putting before honourable senators should be considered against this background of concern. The Government believes that the changes proposed to the machinery for conducting referendums are timely and sensible, following the passage of the new electoral legislation, yet at the same time they preserve the basic elements and broad principles which are already at the heart of the current system. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.10) —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 proposes to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980 to extend the operation of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) subsidy scheme to 31 March 1987 in a modified form. During the extended period, eligibility for the subsidy will remain unaltered but the subsidy rate will be based upon a wholesale price for LPG as determined by the Minister for resources and energy. Proposed Section 6A (4) in Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the factors to be taken into account in the determination of this wholesale price. The use of LPG in automotive, petrochemical, mining of oil and gas or the refining of petroleum remains ineligible for the subsidy. Users who converted to LPG after 25 September 1981 will continue to have their eligibility for subsidised LPG restricted to a thousand tonnes per annum unless they have been issued with a determination under Section 7A of the Act. Under the new arrangements the subsidised wholesale price for LPG will be linked to movements in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index. From now on the rate of the subsidy will be calculated by subtracting from the determined wholesale price per tonne of LPG the amount that was the subsidised price for the preceding six monthly period adjusted in accordance with movements in the fuel and light component of the CPI. The related formula is set out in Clause 5 of the Bill. For the period from 29 March 1984 to 30 September 1984 the determined wholesale price will be $244.75 per tonne and the subsidised price per tonne will be $224. 44. This means that the rate of subsidy will be $20.31 per tonne. These new arrangements which have been determined as a result of a review of LPG pricing and subsidy should result in many consumers paying less and no consumers paying more for their LPG and reticulated gas requirements. Under the Government's pricing policy which determines the wholesale price of LPG the wholesale price was reduced from $304.44 per tonne to $244.75 per tonne on and from 29 March 1984. This is a reduction of about 20 per cent. In the course of the review some 200 submissions and representations were received from state and local governments, from industry and from consumers. The revised LPG pricing and subsidy arrangements decided upon by the Government are designed to meet the principal concern raised in many submissions-that the price of LPG should be stabilised and price movements made more predictable. It is intended that a further review of the subsidy be conducted early in 1987. A number of submissions proposed that the subsidy should be continued at $80 per tonne. Because future movements in LPG prices will be more in line with movements in prices of other forms of energy such as electricity and natural gas the government is of the view that it would be inequitable to subsidise LPG to this extent. Since the subsidy was introduced in 1980. The subsidised wholesale price has risen by 80 per cent compared with an increase in average retail electricity and natural gas prices of roughly equal magnitude. The cost of energy in all its forms has significantly increased in recent years and the government believes that it would be unreasonable to exempt one set of consumers from the general movements in prices by a large subsidy financed from government revenue. The continuation of the modified subsidy scheme for a further 3 years will alleviate future sharp increases in the price of LPG which would be faced by consumers if the subsidy were withdrawn. Administrative arrangements for payments of the subsidy will not vary to any great extent. Claimants will however be advised by the department of industry and commerce of any revised procedures. Financial Impact Statement The cost of extending the subsidy is expected to be $1.2 million for the 1983- 1984 financial year, and about $7.2. million for 1984-85. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984. Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, I just comment that, although I in no way blame Senator Giles, this information has now been received after we have debated the relevant part of the Appropriation Bills. Consideration resumed from 31 May 1984. Department of Education and Youth Affairs Proposed expenditure, $32,939,000. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.13) —When the Committee adjourned last night we were debating the estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. There was a small intervention by Senator Colston at the end of that debate. I think events have vindicated the views of the minority report. The simple fact is that the request for the recalling of Estimates Committee D arose out of suggestions that were made during the debate on 8 May. The Australian Labor Party used its numbers on that Committee to attempt to prevent a recalling of the Committee. The fact that Dr Taloni found it necessary to volunteer a personal statement, to which I referred last night, dated 22 May which was completely unsolicited and certainly pre-dated the request by the Senate that the Committee be recalled, I believe vindicates that action. In that statement Dr Taloni says that he wanted to volunteer information further to that given at the Estimates Committee. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) I shall be as brief as I can. I want to summarise my conclusions on the basis of the evidence given yesterday. In the debate on 8 May, Senator Macklin canvassed the possibility that Dr Taloni, in answering the questions on 3 May may not have known the answers. To a large extent that was borne out yesterday. When we put together Dr Taloni's statement, the evidence of 3 May and yesterday' s evidence, it is clear that Dr Taloni had some information. However, it was very limited. Under those circumstances, Dr Taloni actually should not have been answering questions as if he knew the answers. I will refer briefly to the relevant parts of the Hansard record of yesterday's evidence. There was a certain amount of leading of this witness. However, on this occasion he insisted on using his own words to answer questions. I refer his answer to the questions on page 131 of the Hansard record where Senator Baume said: Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey? Dr Taloni said: 'No'. In relation to that Dr Taloni said yesterday: That is clearly wrong. That is, his answer 'No' is clearly wrong. He continued: I did not know then and I do not know now-in fact, right now I do not know the answer to the question-but from what I have heard, obviously the answer is yes. I did not know then and I am not absolutely sure now. The Chairman then said: It seems to me from your response, Dr Taloni-correct me if I am wrong-that at that stage when you answered no, to the best of your belief that was the correct answer. Dr Taloni responded: What I have written next to my comment in Hansard is: Wrong, but I am not sure- Further on I, in part of a question, said: But I am still not sure from Dr Taloni's answer, when he said 'No' to Senator Baume's question, whether he was saying 'No' to the part about requesting some questions in the literal sense or he was indicating that the Department did not know anything about it. Dr Taloni said: I think what I should have said is: 'No, I do not know.' 'I do not know', I should have said. That indeed is what Dr Taloni should have said. He should not, of course, have answered the questions. It is unfortunate that he did. However, I think his situation was fully explained yesterday. Neverthless, it transpired that at least one other witness at that hearing on 3 May knew more than Dr Taloni and sat silently. I do not accept that questions necessarily were directed to Dr Taloni. We are all familiar with situations in which a question is asked by a senator, a witness gives an answer and other witnesses who are present in the room volunteer further information. Senators do not know when they ask a question whether one particular witness has some of the information, all of the information or whatever. When a question is asked, we depend on its being answered forthrightly. The reference to other people knowing is very long. I will give just a couple of excerpts. As recorded at page 17.2 of the Hansard page proofs, I made the statement: It appears from the evidence that Dr Taloni did not have the answer to the question but somebody else present did. Page 18.2 of the Hansard proofs contains this statement from Mr Wilson: In response to Senator Martin, I think her point is well taken and with hindsight I think I should have come forward and offered some further information to the Committee. I apologise for that. In these circumstances, Mr Wilson's apology is accepted. Nevertheless, I think it is a salutory point for Estimates committees and witnesses at Estimates committee hearings. Finally, I turn to the subject of the evidence given by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). The Minister, in debate here and in evidence yesterday, adverted to some confusion. I suggest that honourable senators, when they study the Hansard, will see that the questions were very straightforward and very clear. I said yesterday that as I sat in the Committee with no knowledge of this survey, and no knowledge of why Senator Baume was asking his particular questions, that I came to the very clear and simple conclusion that there was in fact no such survey on the subject of government and non-government schools. Senator Teague sought to clarify this yesterday. He was critical of the Minister for not volunteering information that she had in the same way that perhaps other witnesses from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs could have volunteered information and not put Dr Taloni in the unfortunate position he ended up in. Senator Teague asked the Minister: When Dr Taloni answered no-and it was the fourth or fifth no-to a series of questions seeking information about the officer, involvement in any kind of surveys, was not the Minister present? Did not the Minister have knowledge of these matters? Why did the Minister choose not to give answers that were of substance even though officers present were in the position that they did not know? Senator Ryan responded: I seem to recall that whenever I volunteered information about the youth attitudes survey insofar as I had knowledge of it, which was only very general knowledge, there was very little interest on behalf of the Committee. Senator Ryan's statement in relation to volunteering information and talking about the survey is just not relevant. At this stage, if she were to check the Hansard she would find that the questions to which Senator Teague was referring were a series of questions recorded at page 131 of the Hansard record of Estimates Committee D proceedings, which Dr Taloni answered and answered negatively. The Minister certainly was not volunteering information at that stage. The Minister made only a couple of interventions at that stage, one saying that the Government had not done any market research and another, to which I referred last night, in which she foreshadowed what Dr Taloni might have to say in response to some of the questions. The Minister's participation in questions in any substantial way came some time later during the hearing of the Estimates Committee. That participation is shown on pages 137 and 138 of the Hansard report. In pressing the question to the Minister, Senator Teague went on further yesterday to say: Senator Peter Baume asked the question: 'Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey?'. Why did not the Minister, knowing that Dr Taloni had such limited knowledge, and knowing that Mr Abrahart- he is the witness who eventually gave the Committee substantial information- was not present and knowing that the other officers present had more limited knowledge than she, give a substantial answer to the question asked by Senator Peter Baume . . . Senator Ryan said: I do not see that Dr Taloni's answer is, to use Senator Martin's term, literally wrong. Of course, that did not answer Senator Teague's question. However, he pressed it further. Eventually the Minister referred to confusion and took her own answers out of context. On page 11.1 of the Hansard proofs from yesterday, Senator Teague said repeating his previous question: My question is, why did not the Minister herself give information to the Committee? The Chairman intervened again and said: Before the Minister responds, could I point out that the question was, 'Did the Department request some questions to be included in the survey?'. I think it is important that we should be talking about actual questions; not issues, but the actual questions. Senator Ryan said: To my knowledge there was nothing to add to the answer that Dr Taloni gave, especially in the context of my having volunteered information about the youth attitude survey . . . I reiterate that the information by which Senator Ryan sets such store is to be found in the answers to questions on page 138 of the Hansard record. At that stage Senator Teague was pressing the issue, in questions that appear on page 131-some considerable time before Senator Ryan started to say things about the youth survey. There was no volunteering of information at that stage. In fact, the Minister sat silently while Dr Taloni, who had scant knowledge-a little knowledge, but scant knowledge-muddled through. The Minister has put some emphasis on her allegedly helpful attitude. I do not think the Hansard record bears that out. Certainly her behaviour at the Committee hearing did not. In fact, the Minister was very aggressive. I drew certain conclusions based on a similar experience of another Minister who appeared before another Committee. Let us look at the bald facts. Senator Baume asked a question in which he referred to information concerning the Department of the Special Minister of State. Senator Ryan then embarked on a very vigorous exercise of avoiding answering questions on the grounds that the information originated from the explanatory notes of the Department of the Special Minister of State. Senator Ryan said: Mr Chairman, is Senator Baume referring to the Special Minister of State estimates. Senator Baume said: I am only asking when the survey was carried out; I am only speaking of this Department- Senator Ryan interrupted and said: Mr Chairman, I ask whether you consider it appropriate for the estimates of another department to be the subject of questions at this stage. The Chairman had no confusion in his mind. He said: I think what Senator Baume is doing is quoting from those in order to ask the officer whether this report was under this Department. Senator Ryan said: I must point out that my officer cannot be expected to answer questions about estimates of another department. The Chairman very properly said: I do not think that was quite the line of questioning. Senator Baume said: Dr Taloni gave us a statement. I am not sure whether it is strictly accurate because if there was a survey on community attitudes regarding funding of government and non-government schools I want to know the role which this Department played in the advice on that survey. Dr Taloni said: I said to the Committee that I have had one meeting on a survey of youth attitudes, which is being tagged on to a survey being done by the Department of the Special Minister of State. Senator Baume then asked: Has this Department given any advice to any other department on survey questions to be added on the attitudes of Australians to the Government's policy on the funding of government and non-government schools? I would have thought that they were words of one syllable. Dr Taloni said: I am not aware of it. Indeed, he was not. Senator Baume then said: I ask the Minister: Did you have any input into that survey? Senator Ryan said: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The survey I am aware of is the survey to do with youth attitudes. So the Minister was denying that she had my knowledge of a survey on funding of government and non-government schools. She emphasised that the survey she knew about was one on youth attitudes. Subsequent information has not borne that out. There was no confusion in my mind. Senator Georges —Borne what out? Senator MARTIN —That the Minister knew about the survey on government and non- government schools. That is right through the evidence, Senator Georges. Senator Georges —It is not clear to me. Senator MARTIN —I suggest that the honorable senator read the Hansards. Senator Georges —I have been listening very carefully, last night and this morning. To her knowledge she was not aware of any survey. What are you trying to prove? Senator MARTIN —I could repeat all of the Hansards but I am trying to have some consideration for time. I am stating a case. The honourable senator should get the Hansards and he will find out very clearly. He should look also at the Hansard of the debate on 8 May and see what was said by the Minister in that debate. In fact, the Minister did not volunteer information in the kindly way that she says. It is clear from Dr Taloni's statement that initiatives were taken by departmental people. In fact, Dr Taloni said that he had contacted the permanent head of the Department at dinner time and said that the Committee should be informed of certain things. Dr Taloni's statement includes that. He also said in his statement. The Minister was advised by the permanent head and agreed to write a letter of clarification to the Chairman of the Committee. I do not think the Committee, or the Senate frankly has been very well served by the Minister in her attitude towards this. The questions were clear and simple. There was no confusion on the part of those present. Senator Georges —Is that what they were saying? Senator MARTIN —They certainly were. Officers of the Department were saying that there was no such survey. Senator Georges —Not to their knowledge. Senator MARTIN —I am sorry, Mr Deputy President, Senator Georges is not listening. That is why he does not know what is going on. Senator Ryan said, as recorded at page 138: There has been no such survey, to my knowledge. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.28) —I just want to make it clear that, as a member of Estimates Committee D, I dissociate myself from the outrageous exercise that has been going on for several weeks now over this matter. I suspect that it is just a witch hunt by members of the Opposition because of their obsession with non-government schools. It has been not only an outrageous exercise but also boring repetition. We have had repetitive quotation and requotation from Hansard over and again which is only wasting time and paper. To the extent that members of the Opposition wanted to make a point, they have made their point, but they are now continuing to try to advance their cause by reiterating their statements ad nauseum. Opposition members of the Committee yesterday were either naive or else just feigned surprise at some of us not wanting to accept the neutral report from the further sittings of the Committee. They feigned surprise that I should have moved that the Committee reject the offensive statements in the minority report as being without justification. I deplore the rudeness that was shown to public servants. I guess rudeness is something that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) can take, but rudeness to public servants is something that I deplore. I can only appeal to the Whip, when allocating senators to Estimates committees next year: Please do not ask me to sit on a committee with Senator Teague and Senator Baume. This morning Senator Martin said that the Australian Labor Party has used its numbers. There is never any mention of the Opposition using its numbers or any suggestion that people can make rational decisions without being told, and without having to take the legal advice of their colleagues during committee meetings, I might add. I believe there was nothing in yesterday's operation, during the two meetings which the Committee held, to justify these public servants being called, in spite of what I consider amounted to an interrogation of public servants, and of Dr Taloni in particular. It was not a seeking of information; it came nearer to the behaviour that one might see in a court of law rather than what I would expect in a Senate committee. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(9.29) —I wish to make it quite clear that I support the report of Estimates Committee D. I do not intend to go into the details. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) obviously is about to make allegations about the slaves of Caucus, et cetera, I will refer to that anyway. I point out that votes on party lines are mentioned on several occasions in the first minority report. This morning Senator Martin said that the Australian Labor Party has used its numbers. There is never any mention of the Opposition using its numbers or any suggestion that people can make rational decisions without being told, and without having to take the legal advice of their colleagues during committee meetings, I might add. I believe there was nothing in yesterday's operation, during the two meetings which the Committee held, to justify these public servants being called, in spite of what I consider amounted to an interrogation of public servants, and of Dr Taloni in particular. It was not a seeking of information; it came nearer to the behaviour that one might see in a court of law rather than what I would expect in a Senate committee. Senator Walters —When your Minister will not tell the truth, other action has to be taken. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator ZAKHAROV —That matter has already been debated at some length in this place on a previous occasion. I thought we were over with the censure motion. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walters will withdraw that remark. Senator Walters —I withdraw. Senator ZAKHAROV —Dr Taloni in particular had grave allegations made against him . I do not propose to read them out because I do not want to give them any further air. But those allegations were made in the original minority report. Nitpicking arguments are now being used and were used yesterday, to justify those allegations. There did not seem to me to be anything that came out of yesterday's line of questioning except that the behaviour of the questioners was , in my mind, reprehensible. As I said before, there were stages when I wondered whether I was in a Senate committee. I was told by Senator Peter Baume yesterday : 'You do not understand; you are new to this place'. I have been present at all the meetings of Estimates Committee D since I have been in the Senate and I think I have enough understanding of the committee system and of common decent behaviour towards public servants to reject what has been done on this occasion. Like Senator Coates, I hope that I will not have to be associated again with the same people on that Committee. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.32) —On the contrary, I look forward to being associated with the same senators again. I made the remark last night as we closed that a lot of the- Senator Chaney —You are a disgrace too; using your casting vote. Senator COLSTON —If Senator Chaney wants to keep on his birdseed, that is okay. If Senator Chaney wants to keep chattering like a budgerigar I guess he will be accepted like that in the community. I made the remark at the close last night that there was scurrilous muck in the minority report of the Committee and I do not resile from that statement. It was scurrilous muck and we have seen scurrilous muck for the few weeks since we started in the Estimates Committee. During the whole of the Estimates Committee D procedure, the Opposition behaved in a most appalling manner. I thought Opposition senators reached their very depths when they made some statements under privilege about one of the witnesses , without any real cause to make such statements. The depths go even lower, however, when we find out that a notice of motion came before the Senate that either one of the witnesses, or his evidence, is to be brought before the Privileges Committee. If we are to have that sort of thing happening on Estimates committees, they will fall into disrepute in this place. I heard Senator Georges last night say something that when a certain senator came before his Committee, all it was was a nitpicking exercise. We certainly had a whole lot of nitpicking in the course of the hearings of Estimates Committee D, not only in the second phase of what we had yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon, which is probably worth reading in Hansard, to see how the Opposition performed. But also, prior to that, there was a considerable amount of nitpicking-not looking for information, as one would normally do in an Estimates committee, not trying to find out information about the processes of government, but trying desperately to find something with which they could attack one of the Ministers of the Crown. I got the impression at one stage that Opposition senators thought they were on to something. They dived into the river in a canoe and paddled like mad because the tide was with them. At the moment I feel that, after yesterday, when they were desperately trying to find something, they now find that the tide is running against them and they are paddling like mad to try to keep in the same place. But there was absolutely no justification for the scurrilous attacks that were made in the Estimates Committee D minority report. There was disgraceful behaviour on behalf of some of the senators present to try to obtain information on behalf of the Senate. I am not going to speak at length because I do not think the remarks are worth speaking on at length but I do want to say something about Dr Taloni and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). Dr Taloni and the Minister were attacked vigorously and scurrilously in the minority Committee report. Now we have information from the other side that whoever made that remark will not resile from it. On behalf of the majority-that is the honourable senator's view. Senator Chaney —The majority. Senator COLSTON —On behalf of those in the Government, and I am sure any person who has any decency and reads the evidence with an unbiased eye-something that those opposite cannot do-would accept that Dr Taloni was denigrated without any justification. I suppose when one is in politics one expects to receive criticism some time, even when it is unwarranted. A public servant should not have to do that when the criticism is unwarranted. I emphasise that throughout the whole of the hearing, throughout all of the additional hearing and throughout anything that has been said here last night and today the Government members of the Committee have the utmost confidence in the Minister and the way she handled herself and got her officers to assist during the course of the Estimates Committee hearings. Senator CHANEY —(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) (9.37)-I would like to briefly intervene in this debate because it does touch on some important issues and I would like to make some comment on them. Towards the conclusion of his remarks the Chairman of Estimates Committee D, Senator Colston, talked about the rights of public servants and the business of attacking them. I hope that he makes the same vigorous speech next time his colleague Senator Primmer makes yet another one of his attacks on public servants in this place. I am sickened sometimes by the abosolute double standards which are adopted in debates so often in here. I have not heard Senator Colston get to his feet-not once-to complain about the succession of attacks on senior public servants which have been responded to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and by other people. I suggest that we do not have to take Senator Colston's remarks very seriously in this Committee because he has shown no signs of indignation, not the vaguest glimmer of crossness on his expressive face, during Senator Primmer's attacks on public servants in this place. I am sorry to have to mention that matter because I was going to suggest that Senator Colston might look to the example of Senator Primmer as a chairman of an Estimates committee. I think on this occasion Senator Primmer has shown some very considerable regard for his duties as a chairman and for his duties as a senator. I contrast the reports of the two Estimates committees to which Senator Primmer has drawn the Senate's attention to some very serious deficiencies. I thoroughly agree with the way Senator Primmer has conducted himself on this occasion and brought forward recommendations that were supported by the Opposition because it believes that that Estimates committee threw up some difficulties that the present Administration is causing to the proper operation of government and this Senate. I suggest that when Senator Colston comes in here and talks on behalf of the majority that we all remember that, of course, he has a majority. He is part of the majority because he has two votes. He is probably another person who goes around shouting 'One vote, one value'. He has two votes; that is why he is part of the majority. He is the Chairman. There are three senators on each side of this argument and it is a pity that unlike the usual tradition of Senate committees there is a division on party lines because it does not do a lot of good for the committee system of this place. However, I do not believe the fact that there is a majority has any relevance at all when one bears in mind that Senator Colston represents two of the majority of four. The simple fact of the matter is that the concerns of the Opposition members of that Estimates Committee, concerns which have been expressed in a number of reports and in speeches in this House which went to the conduct of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) about this matter- Senator Ryan —Oh! Senator CHANEY —Yes, oh! I regard that conduct of the Minister as thoroughly inadequate. The fact is that Dr Taloni himself has demonstrated that there was a proper basis for the concern of the Opposition members of that Committee. Senator Ryan —Absolute rubbish! Pull your head in. Senator CHANEY —I will not pull my head in. The Minister might like her public servants because she can tell them to pull their heads in and tell them what to do. One of the nice things about democracy is that she cannot tell me or the Opposition what to do so I suggest she sit and listen. I want to quote her public servant, Dr Taloni, who is subject to her authority. Senator Ryan —Why don't you leave the public servants alone and keep your attack to me? You are now attacking someone who can't answer back. Playground bully! Senator CHANEY —I am about to quote Dr Taloni's own words. Senator Ryan —Why don't you leave Dr Taloni out of it? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —Order! There are too many interjections . I suggest, Senator Chaney, that you address the Chair and that Senator Ryan cease interjecting. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman; both requests are very sensible. I am seeking only to quote the public servant involved. The public servant involved, on his own words, chose to make a further statement to the Committee before the question of a further hearing had been raised. The statement by Dr Taloni is dated 22 May and begins: 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. So the situation is that Dr Taloni himself has volunteered, and he tells the Committee in the statement that that is so. He says: 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. I do not like talking in this place about public servants. I have made my views known in response to Senator Primmer on a number of occasions and I stand by those views. I do no more than quote what Dr Taloni, according to this paper, volunteered to the Committee. Dr Taloni has said to the Committee that he is adding a statement to explain the circumstances pertaining at the time and the apparent inconsistency in information presented during the hearing. Senator Zakharov —'Apparent'. Senator Ryan —Apparent-because of the bullying tactics of your colleagues. Senator CHANEY —Again I have help, and not courtesy. In response to the honourable senators interjecting I am not one to use the expressions 'birds' and 'chirping'. I note their interjections-'apparent'. Of course we have to rely on words; what else do we have to rely on? Is the Committee supposed to make its judgment on the basis of demeanour? The fact is that the words used by Dr Taloni and the Minister did leave apparent inconsistencies and Dr Taloni felt moved to do something to clarify that. Again I quote Dr Taloni's words: 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. I will not go back over all the matters debated in the Senate in trying to censure Senator Ryan. Senator Ryan —Why not? It is all you ever do. Feel free. Senator CHANEY —I note her encouragement that I should continue. The fact of the matter is that the Minister herself found it necessary to write a letter of clarification and weeks after the Minister had written to clarify the situation the public servant involved felt it necessary to put in a statement adding his clarification. I would simply put to this Committee that in such an apparent situation of confusion, which both the Minister and the public servant involved felt it necessary to clarify, anyone who suggested that the evidence had been satisfactory would have been flying in the face of obvious and unassailable facts. It is a pity that the move initiated by the Chairman of this Committee in debate in the censure motion, to reconvene the Committee and recall the Department-that was raised by Senator Colston as a possibility-was then blocked by the majority of which Senator Colston is so proud but which of course is merely an equality of numbers with one person having two votes. That was blocked and the matter had to come back to this Senate for a majority to get the Department recalled and evidence heard. I believe that this is one of the lesser committee exercises that I have seen. I really do believe that the behaviour of the Committee majority in this case has been outside the traditions of this Senate and the way Senate committees operate; on both sides of politics there has been a readiness to get to the issues and to examine the facts to try to come to conclusions. I say that on the objective facts-forget all the shouting and abuse that has gone on in this place -clearly there is room for very considerable concern on the part of the minority of the Committee, which had only three votes instead of four. On Dr Taloni's own assessment apparently, weeks later-after the Minister had done her bit to clarify the position-he thought it necessary to make a personal statement. That is ample justification for the fact that the Opposition has shown such concern on this matter. I hope that we will not prolong debate on this matter because there are other things to deal with but I do want-- Senator Georges —Wild, hysterical laughter. Senator CHANEY —I do not mind if honourable senators opposite all have wild hysterical laughter; that is up to them. However, I say that if everything was as nice as the Chairman of the Estimates Committee claims it was over the succession of debates we have had in this place, I find it extraordinary that Dr Taloni should have volunteered the statement from which I quoted in part. If there is any objection on the part of Government senators that I have quoted only part of Dr Taloni's statement, I am more than happy to have the whole statement incorporated in Hansard. Senator Colston —It is in the record. Senator CHANEY —Fine. I do not want some honourable senator to stand up afterwards to accuse me of selective quotation, which of course was Senator Robert Ray's effort in a recent debate when he also admitted he had not actually read the material himself. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.47) —Because so many misrepresentations, false allegations and scurrilous comments have been put on the record I feel I have to take a short time in this debate to put a few other things on the record. What we have been involved in with Estimates Committee D and subsequent debates in this place, and last night and today, is a cheap political stunt aimed at me. It had nothing to do with the genuine desire to get information about expenditures of money on the Supplementary Estimates and everything to do with the hope of Senator Peter Baume of creating some little crisis of criticism against the Minister. As other senators have already commented this morning, we politicians expect this to happen. After all, Senator Baume has spent 12 months running around the countryside engaged in the grossest of misrepresentations about me and our Government's policies. That sort of thing is to be expected and, I guess, tolerated. What is not to be tolerated-here I express my appreciation for the comments of my colleagues this morning-is the manipulation and use of a public servant in one of these political stunts. We accept that the Opposition, particularly as it is at the nadir of its public support-perhaps not the nadir; perhaps it will go even lower-will use every trick in the book to try to attract some attention to itself and some criticism to us. We understand that that is what is going on. We on this side of the chamber understand that the cheap political stunt in which Senator Baume and his colleagues on the Estimates Committee D have been involved, was not only a stunt but a premeditated stunt. We understand that Senator Baume approached Senate Estimates Committee D with the intention of so bullying and confusing public servants and so creating confusion that he could rush off to persuade his colleagues to mount a censure motion-of course, unsuccessful-against me. We understand this; after all, we are experienced politicians. What we were shocked by and what we refuse to tolerate is the way in which public servants, in particular one public servant, were drawn in and abused in this process. Senator Chaney has just said that this is not one of the Senate's finest committee exercises. It is the first thing I have agreed with him about for a long time. It was a disgraceful episode. I just remind honourable senators of a few facts. It was the case that there was a long series of questions about certain matters at the first meeting of Senate Estimates Committee D. It was the case that Dr Taloni gave what information he had available, that he knew about, to the Committee. It was also the case that I gave the Committee the very limited information I had. It was not the case that either Dr Taloni or I had information that we were keeping from the Senate Committee. It was certainly the case that there existed more information to be had but neither Dr Taloni nor I had it at the time. Senator Peter Baume —I do not believe you. Senator RYAN —The playground bully has arrived fresh from his excesses of yesterday when, from a powerful position, he was able to behave like a playground bully against a public servant who was unable to answer back. Obviously, the adrenalin has gone up and we are going to see another bullying performance from the playground bully this morning. The fact of the matter is that I gave to the Committee what information-slight, I admit-I had about the matter with which it was concerned. Dr Taloni did likewise. To my knowledge there was no more information available at that point in time. Subsequently we discovered, being anxious to assist the Committee in its deliberations, that there was a little more information. That information was volunteered by me to the Committee. This is the telling point: I volunteered that extra information as soon as was humanly possible. As soon as the Committee adjourned that evening I met with my public servants and we discovered a little more information on the subject the Committee was interested in. We wrote to the Chairman. The Chairman gave that letter to the Committee when it met. At that moment, if the Opposition members of the Committee had been genuinely interested in pursuing the matter, in getting further information, they would have said: 'Thank you for this further information. We now wish to resume questioning on this matter'. What did they do ? Nothing. There was absolute silence because at that stage they already had their little political stunt planned and they certainly did not want any information or facts to get in the way of what they intended to do. The fact that there was no murmur from the Opposition members of the Committee, no desire to comment on or seek elaboration of what I had volunteered during the proceedings of the Committee, is ultimate and unarguable evidence that they were not interested in gaining information. They were interested in a political stunt which they proceeded with. They were not able to succeed in this chamber with the censure motion, which was obviously an absolutely ludicrous exercise. They then got the support of the Democrats, who had not been at the Committee meeting and had not even read the evidence, to force the Committee to sit again. At the two sittings of the Senate Committee yesterday there was the most appalling abuse of power and the most appalling treatment of a public servant I have ever seen. Senator Baume in particular, the great bush lawyer of this place, attempted to cross-examine and interrogate one of my public servants as if that public servant was on trial for murder or some major crime. Instead of the exercise being what it has traditionally been in this place, one of seeking information and of accepting that that information may be incomplete and can be supplemented on another occasion, all the conventions of Senate Estimates committees with which we are so familiar were overturned and we were subjected to the appalling sight of one of my senior public servants being treated as if he were a criminal in a court trial. It was a totally disgraceful exercise and one which I hope we will never see repeated in this place. I must express at this point too my appreciation of the efforts of my public servants over the last few weeks. Not only Dr Taloni but also the other officers involved in assisting the Estimates Committee have been under a most unjustified cloud and have been subjected to enormous strain. Every time they volunteered or tried to assist the Committee their attempts were treated by Opposition members in bad faith and those attempts used for further interrogation. Dr Taloni, desperately anxious to please and to assist the Committee, to clarify anything that may have been unclear, volunteered a statement. Now we have heard that being used, discussed and analysed this morning as if there were something wrong with it, as if it was some demonstration of guilt. Words such as guilt, inappropriate though they are for Senate committees, seem to be what the Opposition is engaged in. I recognise that this matter will not be resolved properly because, as I said, it is not essentially about the responsibility of public servants to give information. It is not about the conduct of an Estimates committee by the chairman or the extent to which a Minister is able to provide information. It is a matter of the Opposition having planned and premeditated a political stunt and deciding to go on with it, despite having no factual evidence to support it and despite the fact that, in the course of doing so, it has embarrassed and caused great difficulty to public servants. In conclusion, all I say is that I hope we never see such an exhibition again. My expectation, though, is that we will see it on the part of some Opposition members. I apologise to my public servants for what they have had to endure and express-I know I do so on behalf of Government members of the Senate-my appreciation of their co-operation, frankness and perseverance in this matter. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(9.57) —Mr Chairman, I have been endeavouring to get the call. While I have been so doing, Senator Withers came into the chamber smiling. It is not unusual for Senator Withers to be smiling, but it reminded me of the events leading up to the 1975 election and the performance of the Opposition at that time. What is happening at present is exactly the same. What the Opposition endeavoured to do was to make the system of the Senate unworkable . That is what it is doing at present. It is endeavouring to make the system of the Senate unworkable. It has succeeded as far as one committee is concerned. It has destroyed the consensus approach of the Estimates committees in examining the estimates by a deliberate campaign of delay and cross-examination of witnesses before an Estimates committee in such a way that it finally led to a vote before the committee which was, as Senator Chaney said, cast on party lines . Senator Chaney went to a lot of trouble to point out that the Chairman has a casting vote. Honourable senators will recall correctly that at the time we set up the Estimates committees we did so according to a ratio of 3:3. But, in order to continue the principle that the Government should have the majority on committees, a casting vote was given to the Chair. If Senator Chaney objects to that, we will reconstitute the committees in such a way that the government has the majority on the committees, as is the tradition. We could have a ratio of 4: 3. The situation should never get to that point, but it has reached that point because of people such as Senator Martin and, I regret, also the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Let me now point to the continual denigration and degradation of the procedures of the Senate. It is revealed in the behaviour and the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who uses the authority of his position as Leader of the Opposition to engage in petty interjection. Senator Walters —Look who is talking. Senator GEORGES —I am not the Leader of the Opposition. I am not the Leader of the Government. I hold a position in this place exactly the same as that held by Senator Walters. We have a certain latitude to misbehave which is not to be accepted as the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition, in anticipation of an election, is engaged now in a deliberate campaign of disruption. That was evident at the Estimates committee hearings. It was evident in my Committee that there was a campaign of delay and disruption. It has been evident in the debates in this chamber last evening and this morning. The tactic is to make the place rowdy and unworkable, to attack a particular Minister, no matter what the justification may be. The Opposition seeks out what it considers to be, shall we term it, the weakest point for the moment and to attack, attack and attack. Let me say that members of the Opposition have chosen the wrong person to attack. They have chosen the person who can give them as much back as they have endeavoured to hand out. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is quite capable of handling everything that they are prepared to dish out. But in so doing, the Opposition is bringing this place into disrepute. Honourable senators opposite have sought to delay and have engaged in unfair behaviour. I know what they are about to do. They intend to search out scandal. It does not satisfy them to engage in the type of attack which they are engaged in at present. I ask honourable senators to mark my words: The Opposition will search out scandal, if it has not already done so. The pattern that emerged in New South Wales prior to the New South Wales election will emerge here and it will be to the discredit of honourable senators opposite that they engaged in that sort of behaviour. Senator Withers —That is right, and I do not complain about it. I do not go round whingeing, do I? Senator GEORGES —It is always a sign of the times when Senator Withers starts to take an interest in this place. He played a very effective role in the past in the dismantling of democratic procedures. He is now about to engage in the same process. All I can say is that if members of the Opposition intend to continue engaging in the procedures and the methods that they have used before the Senate Estimates committees when only minor estimates were before the various committees, they will set up a confrontation in this place that will lead to acrimonious debate and delays. As far as I am concerned, they can delay as long as they like because on this occasion whatever they do will not be successful. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.03) —I have two matters of substance which I wish to raise in relation to the expenditure of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Before I do that I respond to the matter that has been the subject of discussion before the Committee. When the facts are against one, one shouts. What we have heard this morning is a lot of shouting which is not supported by the demonstrable facts. I am delighted that the Parliament produces a Hansard. I am delighted that a Hansard is produced of Estimates committees. I invite anyone who wants to have demonstrated to them the total falsity of what the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has asserted merely to read the Hansard. It is all there. The total falsity of Senator Ryan's assertions and case is contained in the Hansard record of Estimates Committee D. There was neither bullying nor hectoring. There was, in fact, a proper use of procedures. There was an attempt to extract information and the obtaining of that information was resisted, particularly by the Minister who did not want to let the Committee know what she should have let it know. There was a resistance for the release of information by some officers. Let us be quite clear: The matter under contention concerned some surveys. Let us say something about those surveys. They were initiated by Senator Ryan. She sent 'Dear Mick' letters to her colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to set up the add-on survey. Senator Ryan wrote these letters and sought the survey and the add-on survey. Her Department and her departmental officers advised her of the need for an add-on survey. There were officers present at the Estimates Committee hearing. We learnt yesterday that some of them knew, and one of them acknowledged-I refer all honourable senators to the Hansard-that he should have come forward on 3 May and given the information which he knew. He said in retrospect that he had made an error. Let us have no doubt about it. Senator Ryan had been involved in these surveys from the beginning. She had been a prime mover, yet she resisted the release of information which was within her knowledge to a committee which wanted that information for the proper discharge of its duties. When I asked her for information about the add-on survey, and I refer honourable senators to the Estimates Committee D Hansard of 3 May, at page 138, I believe Senator Ryan actually said: 'There is no such survey'. Of course, events subsequently have shown that that answer from the Minister, which is to be found in the Hansard, was on the best construction misleading the Estimates Committee, and on the worst construction was quite an adequate ground for us to move our censure motion. I will go through the absolutely clear facts on this matter. On 3 May a series of questions were asked in Estimates Committees D and they are recorded in the Hansard between pages 131 and 138. A series of answers were given to those questions. The Hansard will reveal that several attempts were made by the Minister to prevent answers being given. There was a refusal to release information of which we now know she was aware. A clear implication from a reading of the answers given on 3 May is that the Department had, at least at officer level, a limited role or no role in a youth attitude survey or in an add -on survey of attitudes to government and non-government schooling. That is what a reading of the Hansard will reveal. Subsequently, on 4 May a letter was received from the Minister which gave infomation not proffered the day before. We believe this information was in the possession of the Minister and she knew about it. It corrected some of the wrong answers given the day before. So we know that wrong information was given to this Estimates Committee. We know that three weeks later, on 24 May or thereabouts, material provided to the Committee included a personal explanation which gave further details from one of the officers present at the Estimates Committee hearing. On 31 May at a reconvened hearing questions were put again to the officers. On this occasion some of the questions were answered in the same way; for some questions the same answers were given, but on this occasion with additional information which clarified considerably what had been withheld before. To some of the questions which were asked again different answers were given and it was acknowledged that the answers given at the first hearing were wrong. On 31 May the officers agreed that more information could have been offered to the Estimates Committee when it first met. On several occasions the defence was offered that the questions may have been misunderstood. Well, I am willing to agree that some questions may have been misunderstood, but I point out that at least some of the questions were quite explicit. The questions meant what the words said. When the questions were re- asked and when the words were read, it was clear they had been answered incorrectly. Further, because we wanted to be quite sure of the answers, some of the questions were repeated and rephrased and pressed, and still wrong answers were given. In the end we have one point to make, and that is that when witnesses appear before Estimates committees or when Ministers come to present their estimates, we expect the answers to be accurate and to be comprehensive, and we expect them not to be answers which will mislead the Senate or the Parliament. If officers are uncertain or ignorant of the answers, the correct thing is for them to say so and to seek to get the information, which of course they do on a number of occasions. But on this occasion definitive answers were given which in fact proved to be incorrect. It is my expectation that this kind of event will not recur. As I have a little more time I will go on to mention some of the other matters which were raised. One of the questions which I asked of the Estimates Committee and on which information was provided to us, concerned the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I asked for information on allegations that students assessments at the Canberra College of Advanced Education were being affected by considerations other than academic merit so that the College had found it necessary to conduct an internal investigation into those allegations. I can think of no more serious charge in the conduct of higher education in Australia than to have a situation where students go in to obtain qualifications and where the assessments on which they live or die academically can be made on any grounds other than academic merit. I raised these allegations before the Committee, and quite properly the officers said: 'May we come back with information on this question?'. In fact an explanation has been provided, and it is contained in the additional information tabled from Senate Estimates Committee D. It is quite apparent from the tabled information that such an event did occur, that in fact a student of the Canberra College of Advanced Education had cause to complain about an assessment of his or her work based on other than academic merit. Senator Watson —What faculties? Senator PETER BAUME —I will try to see whether it is indicated. I will quote from part of the tabled information. It states that students may appeal if certain things happen, and then it goes on to say: Very few appeals have been received by the Academic Board against results but in 1983 there was one appeal from a student in the School of Education where an allegation was made by a student in the terms of this question. So it is quite clear that within the Canberra College a situation arose where a student believed that his or her assessments were being affected by considerations other than academic merit. This appeal was thoroughly investigated and was resolved to the student's satisfaction. The information goes on to indicate a number of procedures which were then instituted within the Canberra College, which seems to me to be appropriate and proper. I believe we should be concerned as a Parliament, that anywhere within higher education in Australia, for whatever reason, there should be any attempt to bring considerations other than academic merit into the assessment of students, whether they be political considerations, social considerations, or any other considerations. The particular allegation has been canvassed within the Canberra community in a number of publications, and I hope that the Canberra College, having instituted these new procedures, can prevent this kind of thing happening again. I must also say that I have been told by students directly-not as a matter of hearsay-of situations which have faced them in the higher education institutions in which they have been involved in my city of Sydney in some of the most- Senator Robert Ray —That did not happen when you were a Minister. Senator PETER BAUME —I invite Senator Robert Ray to consider that this is not a political complaint against the Government. It is a complaint about events which occur within the system about which I would have thought that Senator Robert Ray would have as much concern as I do. I have not put any political gloss on this. I am expressing it in terms of the educational rights of students. I believe it is not an isolated case. It is not isolated to the particular institution in Canberra. It is a situation which must not be allowed to develop on campuses in Australia. It is one we are going to watch very closely. I am very grateful to the Canberra College for having provided this information . I am grateful to the College for advising me of the procedures which are now in place to try to prevent this happening. We will be watching very closely to see whether there are any more complaints. I indicate that I do not believe that this is isolated. There is a problem on Australian campuses generally about which we must be very concerned. I will rise later to speak briefly about one other matter. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.16) —I want to add to the remarks that I made earlier this morning. I refer to General Business notice of motion No. 72 in today's Notice Paper, Senator Baume's motion to refer to the Committee of Privileges evidence given to Estimates Committee D by Dr Taloni. I think it is very unfair to Dr Taloni to have this threat of a Privileges Committee hearing hanging over his head. I suspect that this whole matter should now come to a close. Apparently, even if the Opposition was not satisfied before, it can now say that it is satisfied with the explanations that have been given. In all decency I appeal to Senator Baume to withdraw his notice of motion. I ask that, in all fairness to Dr Taloni, this matter should now be closed. Senator Peter Baume —Could I say, by way of interjection, that we are looking at our position on that matter. I note what the honourable senator has to say. Senator COATES —At least the Opposition is thinking about it. I think that this matter has been thoroughly thrashed out. I believe that the Opposition should rethink the decision, which was made as a result of the sudden rush of blood to the head, to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. I believe that the notice of motion should be withdrawn. There has been very little debate on the actual estimates. We have been dealing with this matter for about 2 1/2 hours. We have only just got to the point of considering what may or what may not be described as a substantial matter. I think we ought to get on with getting the Appropriation Bills passed and let the public servants who have been sitting in the gallery and witnessing the debate on these irrelevant matters get back to their desks. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.18) —I have not been involved in the discussions or the debate over the evidence that has been given to Estimates Committee D. However, I have noted some of the matters that have emerged therefrom. I believe that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) needs to accept certain responsibilities for the concerns that have been expressed on the question of surveys. She has not adequately responded to these concerns in the community which were alerted by an article by Margot O'Neill in the Melbourne Age of 13 March 1984. That article stated: The Government has decided against spending $50,000 to help head off criticism of this year's financial guidelines for non-Government schools, due in July. The article went on: The Education Minister, Senator Ryan, asked for the extra money in a letter to the finance Minister, Mr Dawkins, in January. In the letter, Senator Ryan said that the Government had experienced serious problems in putting its policies across and that this was of vital concern. The letter says: 'Because of controversy surrounding this area of policy, we need to try to ascertain why our message is not getting through.' Senator Ryan proposed that outside experts be commissioned to research public attitudes 'so that we can develop a better public relations strategy in time for the crucial 1984 guidelines decisions'. She told 'The Age' that the money would have been used to finance a survey which in part would have tried to identify how far some principals at non- Government schools and some Catholic parish priests had co-operated with those lobby groups which had spread misinformation about the Government's policies. My simple question to her today is this: Was this survey proposed by her Department? Once having obtained the information, what was its intended use? My third simple question is: Are any of the questions in that proposed survey included in the survey under question at the moment? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.22) —The survey which was never funded was proposed by the Department to me. After some discussion with departmental officers, I agreed to write in the terms in which I wrote to Mr Dawkins. As I recall, the concern of that part of the Department from which the suggestion came was that departmental officers knew, from the kind of correspondence that had been coming in from all sorts of people, that there had been a deliberate campaign of misinformation; people were writing in, say parents whose children attended schools that had got increased funding, complaining that their funding had been cut. I recall, having seen a great deal of this correspondence myself, though I cannot be precise, that sometimes they were referring to the fact that they had been told by the principal of the school or some other person in authority that the fees had to go up because the funds had been cut. Letters were coming from schools where funds had been increased, not cut. My departmental officers were concerned about this campaign of misinformation and therefore made this proposal that the Department should have available to it perhaps a different way of assessing the extent of misinformation and the sources of it than could be gained by an analysis of newspaper reports and correspondence to the Department. The use to which it would have been put I think would have been to assist the departmental officers who were responsible for such work to design factual information and distribute it so that everybody could be in possession of the facts. In fact, there was an exercise towards the end of last year where the Department produced a factual sheet and sent it to all non-government schools in Australia. I think, in order to improve that sort of information exercise, the Department sought a survey which would give it more information about how it was that, for example, parents whose children were at schools that had increased funding were under the impression that funding had been reduced. So it was about that kind of misinformation which the officers were seeking additional information in order to combat it, I think in order to plan the development of factual information and the distribution of it so that people would know factually what funding decisions had been made. That would have been the use to which the results would have been put. That survey was not proceeded with. That matter has been remarked upon on more than one occasion in the past few weeks. Subsequently it was decided to extend the youth attitudes survey to cover some of the same grounds. Senator Harradine was not present at the Estimates Committee meeting and may not be aware that a sum of $35,000 was appropriated under the Department of the Special Minister of State for expenditure on extending the youth attitudes survey to include some research into these matters . As the sum appropriated is $35,000, I suppose one cannot expect a very thorough investigation. But the departmental officers advised me, and I accepted their advice, that they would get some useful information. As to specific matters that will be covered in the extended survey, as has been said a number of times in the past few weeks, at the time of the Senate Estimates Committee meeting I had no knowledge of it. Yesterday at the Estimates Committee meeting one officer was able to go over the kinds of issues on which they hoped information would come forth from this extended survey, and they were matters such as- Senator Harradine —Have you got those questions? Senator RYAN —They are in the record of yesterday's Estimates Committee meeting, but I can repeat them from the officer's handwritten notes if the honourable senator would prefer me to do that. Senator Harradine —From the officer's handwritten notes. Senator RYAN —From the officer's handwritten notes, the sorts of areas which I now understand, particularly after the officer's explanation yesterday, would be covered would be the community attitudes to schools funding issues, the importance of schools funding issues, what they think the Government has done, their sources of information, their main priorities, and how they regarded the conflict that arose after the decision of last year. They are the general areas. As to what questions the research organisation actually designs to elicit this information, we do not have such detailed information. But it would design questions that test community attitudes on these matters. That information will be put, I presume, to the use that the other information would have been had it been got; that is, to assist officers to design and distribute accurate information so that people who are interested in this question can actually know accurately what decisions have been taken. When the report of the youth attitudes survey which has been extended to this year is available to the Government, we will make it publicly available. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.28) —Is the Minister saying that the survey which was to elicit information 'which in part would have tried to identify how far some principals at non-government schools and some Catholic parish priests had co-operated with those lobby groups which had spread misinformation'- 'sic' was the Minister's term-'about the Government's policies' was proposed by officers of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs? Is that what the Minister is saying? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.29) —I gave Senator Harradine as full as possible an account of what the officers believed would be useful information. The particular words Senator Harradine quoted-I notice he included the description 'sic'-came from the Age. I do no recall that they were precisely my words. I was giving some examples of the kinds of areas of misinformation which had come to the attention of the Department and to me. There are obviously others that we know about because they are here with us daily. I can only repeat what I have said: The Department wanted to know how it was that people whose children were in schools which had received increased funding believed that they had had reduced funding. In some cases they wrote and said they had been told by their principals that school fees would have to go up because funding had been cut, when the situation was the reverse. In other cases there were other figures in authority who had spoken of cuts in areas where there had only been increases. That was part of the misinformation which the officers were naturally concerned about. I think we are all concerned about misinformation. The original survey would have tried to test, I suppose, where the misinformation was coming from so that it could be more effectively corrected. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.30) —I preface my remarks by saying that I know of no misinformation that has been put out by any principal or Catholic parish priest in respect of education, none whatsoever. Senator McIntosh —Are you implying that there was none? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I am quite prepared to state that there was none in respect of the parish priests or principals of schools that I know. They were most meticulous because they had studied the documentation. The comment by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs appeared to me to be irrelevant. She said that a fact sheet or factual sheets had been prepared by her Department last year for distribution. Under those circumstances, the information presumably is still being sought under the survey for which the 35 grand is provided. There is still attempting to zero in, in a big sister way, on the activities that may be undertaken quite legitimately or are undertaken quite legitimately by those who have the responsibilities in the educational area. Honourable senators should bear in mind that we are talking about groups such as parent groups and the like which are spending an enormous amount of money on education in this country and, perhaps in most of the cases that I know of, are making extraordinary sacrifices to do so. It is offputting to say the least, that Department of Education and Youth Affairs officials should propose such a survey to the Minister. It is extraordinary to see that the integrity of the Public Service has been reduced to such a low level. I intend to pursue this in another way that is available to me. So I ask officers of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to keep their files intact because I intend to proceed with this in another way. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.33) —This really seems to be the season for attacking public servants. I am advised by a senior public servant here that it is a common thing for Public Service departments to conduct surveys to find out how policies are being understood and received. I do not think it is something that was instituted by our Government. I think it has been quite a common occurrence over the years. Policies are mounted and implemented. Officers who have to handle correspondence concerning them become aware that policies are not being understood. Investigations into why the policies are not being understood are not unusual. I do not think any suggestion that there is anything unusual about that is justified in any way. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.34) — The Minister told the Age that the money would be used to finance a survey which, in part, would have tried to identify how some principals at non-government schools and some Catholic parish priests had co-operated with lobby groups which had spread misinformation about the Government's policy. The Minister said that that survey proposal had been put forward by her Department. In my view that is a gross miscalculation of what a senior public servant should be about. I ask the Minister either to reaffirm or deny that statement in the Age. Senator Peter Baume —What date is the Age? Senator HARRADINE —It is the Age of 13 March 1984. If the Minister and the public servant are saying that that is an appropriate exercise of Public Service authority and the integrity of the Public Service then, of course, the Public Service has been politicised. I take the view that the Minister is wrong. However, I intend to find out the position. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.35) —It is the nature of debates in Committee of the Whole that when dealing with the reports of Estimates committees we deal with more than one committee report at a time. We have had two debates so far. Earlier, Senator Georges made some statements and opened up a subject. I have not interfered to date because there were certain education issues flowing. However, I want to refer back to his statements very briefly. He made some criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and of members of the Opposition and their attitudes and conduct towards Estimates committees. Senator Georges made some comments last night. Last night I said that it was my intention to refer to certain aspects of the conduct of Estimates committees, probably when dealing with Estimates Committee F. However, Senator Georges persisted today and has linked together the earlier matter that was debated in relation to Estimates Committee D with the other matter which arose in Estimates Committee F. Senator Georges, harking back to 1975, has apparently not yet recovered from the conspiracy theory. He suggested that Opposition members were deliberately misusing Estimates committees as well as misconducting themselves in this chamber for a particular purpose. He took exception to the fact that honourable senators could attend meetings of Estimates committees of which they were not official members. I caution-- Senator Colston —He did not say that at all. He was talking about questions- Senator MARTIN —Senator Colston does not have the faintest idea about this subject. Senator Colston —You have not got a clue. You are back in the gutter where you were in Estimates Comittee D. Senator MARTIN —I will refer Senator Colston to the Hansard in a minute. I think Senator Colston ought to go and lie down or something and calm down a bit. Senator Colston —You should get out of the gutter. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I ask Senator Colston to withdraw. Senator Colston —You should get out of the the gutter, too. Senator Walters —I ask him to withdraw that one, too. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Colston will withdraw those remarks about the gutter. Senator Colston —I withdraw the remarks about the gutter in deference to gutters . Senator MARTIN —I hope Hansard will not show the full reply that Senator Colston made to you, Mr Chairman. I refer Senator Georges back to a few speeches-I will not quote them here-made by his colleagues, in opposition, over the last few years. I have in my mind, particuarly, some speeches made by former Senator Cavanagh on the subject of senators' rights at Estimates committees. Senator Georges —I have never seen greater misuse of the rights of the Senate. Senator MARTIN —I have and I am about to tell the honourable senator about it. I will shortly ask Senator Georges to have a conversation with his present Leader on the subject. I will make some futher reference to that in a minute. Senators have a right to go to any Estimates committee. It is not common for very many to do so because we usually have three Estimates committees meetings at the one time. I am one of the senators about whom Senator Georges made allegations this morning. Senator Georges —They are not allegations, they are straight accusations. Senator MARTIN —They are the same thing. Senator Georges alleged that I did certain things. He is putting that in the form of an accusation. I went to the Estimates committee which Senator Georges chairs. As a shadow Minister, I had a clear responsibility to attend that Committee. Senator Georges —You did not have to show your ignorance. Senator MARTIN —Senator Georges showed some ignorance by not knowing what came under certain items. Unfortunately, there was another Estimates committee meeting at the same time in which I also had shadow ministerial responsibilities . One cannot be in two places at the same time. I attend one committee for a while and had asked to be informed when the estimates of a certain department would arise on Senator Georges's committee and was so informed. That is a normal courtesy. I attended it, asked my questions and left. I came away from the Committee rather disturbed because of certain statements that were made. The Chairman took exception to the senators who were visiting the Committee asking questions. Obviously I had to ask my questions at the time the relevant item was called on. On page 284 of the Hansard record the Chairman said: It places other senators in difficulty because you will complete your questioning and you will then leave us having to go back over these other matters. It may well be that a senator attends a Committee meeting, but that senator asks questions only after the members of the Committee have had an opportunity to indicate whether they wish to ask questions on the item under consideration. That is the normal courtesy. It is then open to other senators to ask questions. That is the procedure I followed. I have no control over whether the items concerned appear at the beginning or the end of the estimates. However, I asked my questions properly. I refer Senator Georges to a time when his leader, Senator Button, who was not a member of the Estimates committee that considered the estimates for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, asked questions for two hours under one particular item of the ABC's estimates. His questions take up pages and pages of the Hansard record. Nobody objected to his asking those questions. Some of the questions he asked were marginal. In fact, he was inviting ABC witnesses to repeat their Budget estimates, particularly the unsuccessful ones. The questions he asked fell just within the rules. Nobody objected to Senator Button asking those questions. The members of that Estimates committee sat for two hours while he did so. Senator Georges —He asked them under the item. Senator MARTIN —Yes, he asked them under the one line item that appears in the Estimates for the ABC. A minute ago I was saying how Senator Georges objected to the fact-I quoted his words from the record-that I should ask questions and, having completed those questions, leave the Committee hearing. The thing that really disturbs me is the statement made by the Minister. We really do need to address ourselves to this matter. Some honourable senators had better do their homework about the nature of Estimates committees, in particular private meetings of Estimates committees. My understanding is that any senator can attend a private meeting of an Estimates committee. Indeed, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, attended a private meeting of Estimates Committee D. Nobody objected to that; as a senator she had a right to be there. The only restriction of which I am aware is that senators who are not members of a Committee cannot vote on the report the Committee prepares. The information that I was given when I was Chairman of a Committee is that that is the only restriction. That is the way in which I proceeded as Chairman. Apparently the Estimates Committee of which Senator Georges is Chairman decided at some sort of private meeting how questions would be taken. I was not invited to that private meeting; that is not the usual practice. I suppose I could say that I should have been invited, but I am not complaining about that. I was unaware of that decision. Senator Georges —What private meeting was that? Senator MARTIN —Senator Gietzelt, the Minister, who attended that Estimates Committee, referred to it. On page 285 of the Hansard record, he said: Mr Chairman, I must draw Senator Martin's attention to the fact that we had our private meeting; we decided on a form of action by which we would relate questions to particular items of the departmental estimates under consideration. Senator Peter Baume —Who had a meeting? Senator MARTIN —Senator Gietzelt used the words 'we had our private meeting'. Senator Georges —That is what the Minister said. Senator MARTIN —Is Senator Georges now saying that the Minister was not telling the truth when he tried to prevent me from asking a question? The Minister went on to say: We should now proceed as agreed. We have applied that principle in all of the other committees. From what happened at the Committee hearing that I had just attended, I took it that the Government had decided at some sort of meeting the principles that would be employed at the hearings of estimates committees. I could be wrong in that. Senator Colston —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. It is my understanding that the Committee is considering the estimates of the departments that were examined by Estimates Committee D. It seems to me that all of the Estimates committees are being discussed. I suggest that you ask the honourable senator to confine her remarks to those matters dealt with by Estimates Committee D. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I have been concerned about that aspect. The Committee is dealing with Estimates Committee D, but Senator Georges in his remarks raised the more general issue of the handling of Estimates committees. Although I ask Senator Martin as far as possible to speak to matters that affect the group of departments considered by Estimates Committee D in particular, I cannot constrain her to directing her remarks just to that subject. I ask the honourable senator-of course, it is up to her-to ensure that we do not have a repetition of this debate when the Committee considers the group of departments dealt with by Estimates Committee F. However, that may well be inevitable. Senator MARTIN —I respect your request, Mr Chairman. I indicated that I said last night to Senator Georges that I thought it would have been preferable to discuss these matters when the Committee was considering the group of departments dealt with by Estimates Committee F, but he has made them relevant to those department dealt with by Estimates Committee D. I come back to the point of discussion, and the point was that Senator Georges made allegations about the behaviour of senators who attended the hearings of Estimates Committee D and that the matter of substance that was being discussed earlier was of a piece with this other issue. I therefore put the remarks of Senator Georges about the alleged behaviour of senators into the context of senators pursuing their perfectly proper right to attend Estimates committee hearings and to ask questions, and I questioned Senator Georges about whether his attitude towards Estimates committees, or whatever attitude his Committee adopted to inspire the remark I quoted from the Minister, is a healthy one. When I was speaking earlier, Senator Georges agreed that he had made certain assertions or allegations about me. I cannot remember who used which term now. I was responding to those assertions or allegations. I am really sorry that Senator Colston did not raise his point of order when Senator Georges was speaking so that this discussion would have been confined to the estimates considered by Estimates Committee F and would not have spread to consideration of the estimates examined by Estimates Committee D. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.46) —For the sake of the record I need to respond to Senator Martin now rather than when the estimates examined by Estimates Committee F are being considered. It is normal for an Estimates committee to establish the procedures that that committee will follow in relation to the asking of questions. I put to one side what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) said because the Minister did not have quite clear in his mind what went on. Senator Martin —You disowned him at the time. Senator GEORGES —I disowned him at the time. Senator Martin —You said he should not have said it. Senator GEORGES —I disowned him because he was not correct in what he was saying . The Committee held a brief meeting in order to establish how it would proceed. It decided to put the estimates line by line and not to return to a line once that line had been considered. It is normal practice for a Committee to discuss these matters before the witnesses are called before it. The Committee secretariat provided Committee members with a number of prepared questions. I indicated to the members of the Committee that they could ask those questions orally or the questions could be put on notice. The meeting lasted for about three minutes, and that is the only matter that was discussed. It was not a private meeting as such in collaboration with the Minister to establish certain procedures. As to senators who were not members of the Committee attending Committee hearings, my view is that they are entitled to attend such hearings. My view goes even further: They are entitled to ask questions when they get the call. As far as I am concerned, they do not have to wait until the members of the Committee have asked their questions to seek the call. That was the courtesy I extended to Senator Martin. Following that courtesy being extended to her, she tried to ask all of her questions under the heading 'Salaries and Payments in the Nature of Salary', on the basis that the payment of those salaries was for the purpose of the effective and efficient administration of the Department and therefore it was relevant that she ask her questions under that item. I argued that if she, having received the call, asked all of her questions under that heading, she would pre-empt the questions of the members of the Committee. When she finished asking her questions after an hour or so, she packed up her papers and left. I might say at this stage that she exposed her ignorance because the answers to many of the questions she asked were within the knowledge of honourable senators if they do their work in this place properly. Some of the questions the honourable senator asked were of a fishing nature, merely trying to establish whether there was something upon which she could seize to use in this place. In spite of the courtesy the Committee extended to you, you-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. However, I think you are about to intervene. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Georges, you must address your remarks through the Chair. Senator Chaney —It was not in relation to that matter that I sought to take a point of order. It seems to me that Senator Georges is addressing himself to the estimates dealt with by an Estimates committee for the purpose of vilifying an honourable senator. I would have thought that he was totally out of order. Senator GEORGES —Mr Chairman, I wish to speak to the point of order. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Georges, I do not think you need to. I will rule on it and I think you will find the ruling satisfactory. Senator Chaney, I have been in some difficulty for some time on this matter because, although we are discussing Group D, and specifically the motion before the Chair is that the vote for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs be now passed without requests, questions were raised by Senator Georges and Senator Martin and I have allowed reply. I was going to ask the Committee, when Senator Georges had finished, to come back to the matter before the Chair which is the vote for the Department. I ask Senator Georges to direct his remarks through the Chair and as far as possible not to stir up further debate on the subject which is irrelevant to the matter before the Chair. Senator GEORGES —I accept that and I will come back to the matter. It seems to me that what is being debated before you, Mr Chairman, is the conduct of Opposition senators at all Estimates Committees. That is what has been raised during debate on Estimates Committee D and one cannot address oneself to that subject without moving across to what happened on other committees. But I accept that the matter can be raised again, and possibly will be, under consideration of Estimates Committee F. If I have sounded excited, I am excited by the fact that, as Chairman, having extended courtesies to members of the Senate who were not members of the Committee, that courtesy was abused. There is no getting away from that fact. On the occasion with which I am familiar it was abused not only by Senator Martin but also almost by Senator Chaney, who at least had the decency to place his whole host of questions on notice. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Before you speak, Senator Martin, I understand the problem. This whole debate on the handling of Estimates committee is really not appropriate to debate on the actual appropriations in Committee. I have allowed it to go on because of the issues that were raised about how questions were asked. But I really think that the Committee should come back to the matter before the Chair. Every allegation gets a response and so it goes on forever if we are not careful. If Senator Martin feels she has been misrepresented, I will allow her to speak again. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.52) —I think there has been some misrepresentation. I shall be very brief. I refer honourable senators to the Estimates Committee in question, to look at the questions I asked and draw their own conclusions. The reasons I asked certain questions under a certain line item are outlined there. But the Committee will find that in fact I stayed right throughout the questioning of that Department and asked questions about capital works at the end. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.53) —I have a couple of queries I wish to direct to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). They are of a fairly mundane nature after the debate has ranged so widely. I wonder whether the Minister could give me some information on Deakin University which provides education to people in rural areas and in transient occupations. Concern has been expressed to me that the Budget will cut out some courses, particularly those offered at the Master's level. The other item I want to bring to the Minister's attention is that of unemployed people moving from unemployment benefit to the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance. I believe this procedure is taking up to eight or nine weeks. Can the Minister please give me answers to those two queries? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.54) —The Commonwealth's responsibility to universities is to provide them with capital and recurrent funding, which we do exclusively. All such funds come from the Commonwealth. Decisions about which courses are offered within universities are taken basically by the councils of those universities although, for students to be eligible for the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance for courses offered within universities, those courses have to be accredited. There are various accreditation committees administered by the Tertiary Education Commission. They make recommendations, ultimately to me, about which courses are to be accredited, but it is a routine matter that those accreditation recommendations are accepted. I am not aware of any intention of Deakin University to cut out courses. But, if the honourable senator has heard suggestions of this in the light of the forthcoming Budget, I can only suggest that Deakin University, like all institutions, will have to wait until I issue the funding guidelines for tertiary institutions. I expect that to be in early July and at that time institutions will have a general idea of their recurrent funding for the following year and beyond. They will not have a specific idea of the capital funds that they will receive until a little later than that, until the Tertiary Education Commission distributes among the various institutions what capital funds are made available. The specific information that would help Senator Boswell to understand what Deakin's position will be will have to wait until then. I will ask my offices to see if there is any further information that I can make available to him. On the question of the transfer time from unemployment benefit to TEAS, certainly there has been a great improvement in the administration of TEAS benefits this year. The waiting time that students have had to endure before getting TEAS has been shorter this year than any previous year. This is mainly to do with the overhauling and improvement of the computer system from which TEAS payments are made. I say in passing that Dr Taloni's efforts have caused the improvement in this area. There have been significant improvements. The waiting time for students generally, not just those who are coming off unemployment benefit, is about four weeks. I will take on notice the honourable senator's request for specific information about the time involved for students coming off unemployment benefit. I do not know of any reason why it should be any longer than for students applying freshly from school. If there is further information about, I will make it available to the honourable senator. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.57) —I indicated earlier that there was another matter I wanted to raise. In view of the time I will hold it over until the education debate and raise it then. I wish to follow up a question asked by Senator Boswell. Was the Minister saying that Deakin University need have no fears about its capacity to offer a part time Master in Business Administration course, if that is its decision? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.57) —I am not saying anything as specific as that. Senator Boswell's question seemed to be much more general. Specific matters about the rationalisation of Master in Business Administration courses are still with the Tertiary Education Commission. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.58) —I then ask the Minister: Would one not have to interfere with the autonomy of these institutions if one wanted to limit their capacity to offer MBA courses? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.59) —Senator Baume would know from his experience as Minister for Education that the Tertiary Education Commission had recommended rationalisations of business studies. The Ralph Committee of Inquiry into Management Education, set up by the previous Government, made a number of recommendations which in general terms was endorsed by the Tertiary Education Commission. We are still in discussion with the Tertiary Education Commission about those recommendations. In general we accept the advice of the Tertiary Education Commission that there needs to be some rationalisation, but the details of that have not yet been settled. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $2,457,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Science and Technology Proposed expenditure, $16,585,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I table the report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. I would like to inform the Senate of the Government's policy on the asset testing of pensions in the light of its consideration of the report. The Government is firmly committed to the principle that pensions be directed to those reliant upon such expenditure and not dissipated upon those who, by any reasonable standard, do not require such assistance. In current circumstances, where many Australians with little or no income or assets are in need of additional assistance, and where there are severe limits on the resources available to meet those needs, there is no escaping the necessity to apply means tests to social security type pensions. A means test has always been applied to pensions in Australia. In a world of unlimited resources, a Government might prefer to avoid such tests. But we do not live in such a world, and do not expect to do so for the foreseeable future. These realities were faced squarely by Australians in Parliament House a little over one year ago, at the National Economic Summit Conference. Then, in the depths of Australia's greatest economic crisis for half a century, Australians recognised that the restoration of the greatness of our country would require each of us to moderate our pursuit of narrow individual self interest. The Summit communique acknowledged the overwhelming desire of the nation to ensure that those in genuine need were adequately supported, whether they were the rich, the aged, the disabled, the unemployed or the impoverished. The spirit of the Summit has served Australia well over the past year, in ways that are reflected more widely in greater social cohesion and more effective economic performance. We must continue in that spirit, because a great deal remains to be done. Within this spirit, there must be effective means testing of welfare payments to ensure that we are able to provide effectively for Australians in genuine need. The challenge for the Government is to structure such tests to ensure that they produce genuinely equitable results. Until eight years ago the Australian means test was based on both incomes and assets. Since 1976, there has been widespread concern about wealthy people receiving a pension because their wealth has been in assets which have been structured to avoid earning current income. This basic inequity has worried many Australians, including many on both sides of this Parliament, and will do so for as long as our means test fails to bring assets as well as income to account. Inevitably the absence of an assets test has invited the emergence of income test avoidance schemes. Standard avoidance packages are now readily available and widely used and are proliferating. In last year's Budget we moved to reintroduce assessment of assets as well as income in the means test, along the lines of the arrangements which had been in force prior to 1976. We made it clear then that there would be widespread consultation with the community before the final form of the test was settled. These consultations led to a number of modifications being incorporated into the draft Bill which was introduced into the Parliament late last year. This draft legislation sought to reduce important inequities in the means test, to address the increasingly important problem of test avoidance, and to strengthen our capacity to provide adequately for Australians in need through the long period ahead when the ratio of aged to working Australians was going to be rising. But it became clear early this year that there was continuing uncertainty about whether the Government had found the fairest and most equitable way to implement an assets test. We became concerned that many ordinary pensioners had been caused unnecessary worry by those who, for shortsighted political purposes, encouraged groundless fears about our intentions. But, as a Government which acknowledges that it is not the repository of all wisdom, we also recognised that there was justifiable concern that we might not have found the best way to test assets. Accordingly, on 23 February, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to the principle of an assets test and moved to establish a broadly-based panel of relevant community representatives to advise on how this principle could best be reflected in legislation. Senator Peter Baume —And then put aside the Panel's findings. Senator GRIMES —We were fortunate to secure the services of high calibre representatives of a wide range of interested community groups. I assume that means Senator Baume supports their findings. The Panel has worked hard and well and consulted widely since early March. It has produced a report of high quality in a short space of time. The report contributes significantly to our understanding of the issues. On behalf of the Government, I would like to thank Professor Gruen and the members of the Panel for their thorough, analytical work . The weight of the report is increased by the Panel having adopted a unanimous approach on most matters. The report has made a large number of specific recommendations, all of which have been carefully considered by the Government. The report as a whole has influenced the Government to change its approach to the assets test. But as the Government, we must be the final arbiter of the national interest, and on one central matter we have chosen a different course from that preferred by the Panel. The Panel responsibly acknowledges the fiscal realities within which any Australian Government must operate. It recognises that it is simply not feasible in the foreseeable future to move towards a system of universal pensions, while maintaining and increasing the provision for Australians in need. Thus, recognising that a needs-based system must be retained at least for some time, the Panel concludes that a test must take account of both income and assets if it is to be both a fair measure of need and equitable to all. This is a strong conclusion from a group that includes a range of pensioner and service organisations. It is a conclusion that is in line with responsible economic opinion in Australia. It is a view which we are accustomed to hear from businessmen, bureaucrats, economists and the financial Press. For example, a recent statement from the Business Council of Australia had this to say: Over recent years business leaders have urged that welfare payments be means tested and we have said that the Government deserves support for attempting to tackle this politically difficult problem now . . . It is important that issues of longer term income security and retirement are addressed, and in the context of the taxation system, as a major priority for public policy development in the coming years. However, without commenting on the specific recommendations of the Gruen Committee, it is important that the Government gets community support for tackling the hard and thankless task of expenditure restraint through means testing welfare. It would be disappointing if any sector of the community, through vested interest or for short-term political advantage, were to make the task of reform more difficult. But the Panel's statement on means testing has special significance as a statement from a group that, collectively, can claim close association with and understanding of the particular groups who would be affected by an assets test. This alone makes the report an important development in Australian discussion of social security matters. I hope that the members of this Parliament can at least find common ground here on the need for assets as well as income to be considered in any test of need. Our Government is firmly of this view. I think that honest members of the Opposition acknowledge that they share this view. In October 1981, the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, was reported as admitting that there was a belief in the Liberal Party that an assets-based test was the only way to stop the artificial lowering of incomes in order to get the pension. The same Liberal Minister for Social Security said in May of that year: I think we cannot escape the fact that there are some genuinely needy pensioners in this country who do not receive enough help, while some other people by the advantageous arrangement of their assets, are able to draw on the system to a greater extent than their real degree of need would seem to justify. The Government and the Panel can agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also seems to favour an assets test, although he expressed doubts about the particular shape of the income and assets test proposed in the last Budget. On 27 November 1983, Mr Howard said: I'm personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare . . . I think the method of the asset test now proposed and originally in operation is not the best way of doing it, because, for example, why is it that you can have an unlimited amount of antiques or jewellery but you can only have a very small amount in the bank or in a building society deposit. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is clearly suggesting that he would support reintroduction of an assets test if anomalies of the type he outlined were removed. It is time for us all to recognise that the real issue is not whether we should have an assets test, but what is the fairest and best form of assets test. On this, the Government recognises that honest and reasonable people can hold different views. Following its consideration of the Panel's report, the Government has adopted a policy which differs from that which is incorporated in the draft legislation that is currently before the Parliament. The Panel concludes that while the then proposed income and assets test generally directs assistance to those most in need, it creates several anomalies and disadvantages in doing so. The extensive exemptions create inequities, as Mr Howard said. The test favours those who are able to invest their assets at a rate greater than 10 per cent. In these and other ways, the Panel is of the view that it is inferior to two other possible forms of assets test which it describes as the 'tall poppies test' and the ' modified tall poppies test'. The Government acknowledges the force of the Panel's argument and has decided to put aside the previously proposed test. While the Panel is clearly of the view that the previously proposed legislation is the least satisfactory of the three possibilities that it considered, it is less clear cut in its judgment between the other two. The Panel's tall poppies test provides for the gradual phasing out of the pension when the total value of assets, without any exemption , exceeds a high figure for a single pensioner, and a separate, higher sum for a couple. The Panel's modified tall poppies test exempts the house of residence up to a value of $150,000, and provides for the gradual phasing out of the pension when the total value of other assets exceeds thresholds that are lower than those applied in the tall poppies test. In the final conclusions and recommendations, the report prefers the tall poppies test. However, in comparing the options in detail, it sees relative strengths and weaknesses in each of the two options. The report says that there would be no general community view on whether the tall poppies test was fairer than the modified tall poppies test. It is clear from the argument in the body of the report that the tall poppies test without any exemption is preferred mainly because the exemption of the home is inequitable between people who reside in their own homes, and other pensioners. If it were possible to correct the imbalance between these two groups in other ways, the report's strongest arguments for avoiding the exemption of the home would be met. The Panel notes two reasons why some Australians would think it fairer to exempt the house: The strong Australian belief that there is a special attachment to home ownership; and the difference between levels of other assets that could be held by people occupying similar housing in different locations and with different values, if the home were not exempt. Moreover, the Panel notes several advantages of the modified tall poppies test over its preferred option. These include reduced opportunities for artificial avoidance schemes to operate, given that many other assets are easier to manipulate for these purposes than a residence, and somewhat easier administration. Like the Panel, the Government believes that fairness is of fundamental importance to the operation of a means test, and that fairness, like beauty, is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. The Government believes that in Australia, it is fairer to allow exemption of the home, so long as the inequity that this introduces in relation to people who do not own their own homes is addressed in other ways. We will implement the Panel's modified tall poppies test, with some variations. The key features of the new assets test are as follows: The principal residence is completely excluded from the test. We believe that needless anxiety would be created amongst pensioners who would never actually be affected by the test if the exemption were allowed only up to a specified limit. For pensioners on farms , the exemption relates to the home and curtilage. Pensioner couples resident in their own homes receive the full pension unless the market value of their other assets exceeds $100,000. If this threshold is exceeded, the pension is reduced by $20 per week for each $10,000 of other assets above $100,000. Eligibility for the pension is not eliminated, at the current rate of pension, until other assets exceed about $175,000. A home-owning pensioner couple with other assets of about $137,000 receives a half-pension. Single pensioners who are resident in their own homes, receive the full pension unless the market value of their other assets exceeds $70,000. If this threshold is exceeded, the pension is similarly reduced. Eligibility for the pension is not eliminated until other assets exceed about $115,000. A home-owning single pensioner with other assets of about $92, 000 receives a half-pension. The exemption levels are $50,000 higher for all pensioners who are not resident in their own homes, such as renters, people living with relatives, and people living permanently in nursing homes. Thus a single pensioner who is not resident in his or her own home can hold $165,000 in other assets before losing all entitlement to the pension, while a pensioner couple in the same circumstances can hold $225,000. The assets test applies only if the resulting pension entitlement is lower than that produced by the current income test alone. The two tests apply separately, so that one or the other, but not both, operates. In practice, this means that the assets test affects only those with substantial assets and little income. These are a small proportion of pensioners with large assets. The system of administration depends heavily on self-declaration, especially in relation to normal personal effects. This makes the administration less costly and less intrusive than would otherwise be the case. To minimise intrusion into the personal affairs of pensioners, a net market value of $10,000 is set on normal household contents and personal effects, with a provision for people to claim a lower amount if they consider $10,000 to be in excess of the actual value of the relevant assets. There is also a requirement that people declare the value of household contents and personal effects if that value exceeds $10, 000. The thresholds of $70,000 for a single pensioner and $100,000 for a pensioner couple, as well as the addition of $50,000 for people who do not own their own homes, are to be indexed yearly in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. Several other details of the arrangements follow directly the Panel's recommendations. From today, any gifts or other forms of divestment without adequate financial consideration in excess of $2,000 a year for a single pensioner, and $4,000 a year for a pensioner couple, are to be considered as assets of the pensioner for purposes of the test. Special aids for disabled people are exempted from the assets test. Legislation will be drafted for introduction on Budget night with a view to its early passage. The assets test applies to all social security and repatriation service pensions that are currently subject to the income test. Thus it does not apply to blind pensions, to unemployment and sickness benefits, or to war widow pensions and repatriation disability pensions. There are special provisions to ease problems that arise in conditions of hardship. These will be along the lines of provisions in the previous Bill, although one additional facility is available to alleviate hardship should the pensioner wish to use it. People may have assets large enough to diminish eligibility for the pension, but hold these in a form which is difficult to convert into cash to cover the ordinary expenses of living. Alternatively, they may prefer not to sell particular assets for these purposes. In these circumstances, people who hold three-quarters of their assets in these illiquid forms have the right, on their own choosing, to be paid an income equivalent to the pension as a loan to be recovered from their estate. Interest would accumulate on the loans at a market related rate. I stress that no one is obliged to use this facility. It is available to eligible Australians affected by the assets test who choose to use it. The lien on the estate is similar to facilities made available by many local authorities in Australia, which allow pensioners to postpone payment of rates. Since last August's Budget Speech, we have seen a continuing attempt by honourable senators and members opposite us, with Mr Peacock to the fore, to distort, to exaggerate and to misrepresent matters related to the assets test, for their own short-sighted political purposes. The Opposition has deliberately played on the anxieties of elderly Australians. It has attempted to create fear amongst pensioners in genuine need who would never have been affected by an assets test. In the whole sorry history of discussion of these matters over the past nine months, there is no more sorry episode than the misrepresentation of the Panel's recommendation on the provision of loans to people affected by the assets test, at their own election, in the case of hardship. The Opposition has sought to misrepresent a humane suggestion as a penalty. In response, I can only ask a simple question: Is an eligible person who chooses to use this facility better or worse off than if access to the facility had never been available? The Opposition's distortion will be recognised for the dishonest, self-seeking, opportunistic fearmongering that it is. The Government believes that the new assets test is fair and generous by the values of most Australians. It removes the inequity that has existed in the pension system since 1976, that assets rich people are able to maintain pension eligibility when less wealthy people who, on any reasonable criteria, are in greater need, lose entitlement under the income test. But eligibility for the pension is not in any way affected by the value of the family home. The new assets test makes special provision for people who do not own their own homes. It greatly diminishes opportunities for using artificial schemes to avoid the income test. It does not affect most pensioners at all. It is as unintrusive as possible into the personal affairs of pensioners who are affected by it. When it is in full effect in 1985-86, it is expected to save about $45m after allowing for the costs of administration. Net savings rise steadily in subsequent years with the number of pensioners, and increasing wealth of potential pensioners. The pensioner population can be expected to continue to grow much more rapidly than the remainder of the population. The savings in later years will be greater to the extent that Australians in future take more assets to retirement, through the growth of entitlement to superannuation lump sums, and through the coming to retirement of a generation whose lifetime accumulation of assets, unlike that of their parents, has not been affected by the Depression and the Second World War. The savings in later years will be greater to the extent that artificial schemes to avoid the income test would have proliferated in the absence of an assets test. Establishment costs are higher than ongoing administrative costs. This, together with the commencement of the operation costs, means that there will be a net cost of about $30m in the coming financial year. The report argues that any savings from the assets test should be applied to improve conditions of pensioners in greatest need. The report emphasises the special plight of pensioners who do not own their own homes. The Government is committed in the coming Budget to some general increase in the pension rate above the amounts that follow from the automatic adjustments for increases in the consumer price index. The Government will make additional assistance available to pensioner renters through an increase in the rate of supplementary assistance. Final decisions on these matters will be taken in the Budget context. Our fiscal circumstances will not allow us to do all that we would like to improve the lot of Australians in need, but we will do what we can within the limits of fiscal responsibility. Today's announcement should also be seen in the context of ongoing discussion of wider questions of retirement incomes. The reintroduction of an assets test is one of several measures that we have taken to increase our capacity to assist Australians in need within severe fiscal constraints. We are continuing to examine the implications of various alternative forms of national superannuation schemes, as well as alternative approaches to the extension of occupational superannuation. It would be possible, and in current circumstances even attractive from a narrow political point of view, to follow the course that Mr Peacock sometimes seems to be suggesting, and to put off all hard decisions until there is widespread community support for some utopian final solution to Australia's retirment incomes problems. But a Government that cares about the long term future of Australia must act with greater courage. There is no avoiding the reality that the long term evolution of the Australian retirement incomes system must, as a matter of social, demographic and economic necessity, be based on the allocation of public assistance on the basis of need. The assets test, together with our initiatives on the taxation of lump sum superannuation and on income testing the over-70 pension, represent a necessary focus on needs. Mr Peacock once understood these things. On 9 September 1981, when a Government back bencher, he told the Parliament: 'The Government needs to reassess its approach to spending, concentrating on the areas of genuine need, cutting out expenditure to those who do not need assistance'. In the same speech, he acknowledged that the 'needed decisions will demand a good deal of courage from government leaders'. He was right. I suggest, as well, that the needed decisions demand some courage and commitment to principle from Opposition leaders. This has been a difficult issue for the Government and the Australian people. It raises such fundamental questions of equity that it is bound to be difficult, as well as controversial. I regret the confusion, and anxiety, that many pensioners have experienced through the uncertainty of recent months. I have previously acknowledged our part in the responsibility for part of that uncertainty, in the shortcomings contained in last August's income and assets test. I readily make that acknowledgment again. But the Australian people are better for our having started again and got it right, than they would have been if we had remained rigid and wrong. I greatly regret the exaggeration, distortion, and misrepresentation that has characterised the Opposition's contribution to the debate on this complex issue. Today I have defined a simple and fair system of assets testing. We will move promptly to implement this approach. The majority of pensioners-those who genuinely need the pension-will be better off as a result of the series of decisions on pensions that we will announce this year. This Government will never undervalue the contribution of older Australians-the Australians who during their working lives contributed to building Australia into the great country it is today, and who laid the foundations for the greater country it will be tomorrow. Australians in need can rest assured that their interests are enhanced and in no way threatened by the decisions the Government has taken following its consideration of the report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.23) —The statement which has just been brought down by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) must really stick in his throat. It is the sort of statement over which he must have really suffered terribly in approving in the course of the Cabinet discussions. These are the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), not the words of the Minister for Social Security. This is an unctuous, self-righteous statement, trying desperately to set the scene for an election at the end of the year and trying to avoid all the hard questions that the Government has claimed in recent months to be the issues which it was addressing in the course of the introduction of this outrageous test. It was outrageous when it was proposed last August. It has now turned into an absolute farce. The Prime Minister, in the course of his remarks, has done much to try to satisfy and smooth over all the concerns of the people with his oily words, his unctuousness and self-righteousness. He donned even the sackcloth of the penitent to claim how he had been misrepresented. This statement is outrageous in its failure to acknowledge the real concerns of the pensioner community and of the whole community about the long term propositions which this Government has in mind. I will return to that theme a little later, but first and foremost let us note a few of the objectives of this statement. Its first purpose is obvious; that is , to present us with some kind of soothing sermon which will set the scene for an election at the end of the year. That is very clever, but it is no more clever than the Prime Minister is in setting such a scene. We see the prospects of an election right in front of us. With the kind of language that is used in this statement, obviously it is coming sooner rather than later. If it comes, clearly the Government can expect a huge kick in the ballot box, which is where it deserves it. The general purpose of this statement is to smooth things over until the election. I note that the Press has already picked up this item. A headline entitled 'Assets test back-off means post-election hard options' appears in today's National Times. Where the newspaper is wrong is that this Government will not have the opportunity to put that into practice because there will be a new government in power after December. Bearing in mind the courage that this Government does not have, and for the benefit of some of my colleagues on the other side who are so interested in the needy and who are members of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare which is investigating the question of retirement income security, I think I should quote the last sentence of Geoff Kitney's article in the National Times today. It sums up the whole statement that the Minister read today quite perfectly: If it is intimidated- that is the Government- by the noise into abandoning its commitment to greater equity, then it will be justly condemned. The Government is justly condemned by its own statement; not by the Minister's statement. It is condemned by the Prime Minister's statement, by Mr Hawke's oily words. Let us look at some of the other outrageous premises upon which this statement is built. First and foremost, the Government seeks to blame the Opposition for all the confusion in the pensioner community over the last several months. Yet that does not stand up to analysis, as we will look at in a moment. Even if one looks at this silly statement from Mr Hawke one will see the following statement which completely denies that point altogether. It is stated on page 23: I regret the confusion, and anxiety, that many pensioners have experienced through the uncertainty of recent months. I have previously acknowledged our part in the responsibility for part of that uncertainty, in the shortcomings contained in last August's incomes and assets test. 'Shortcomings'! What an outrageous word to use in these circumstances for such a disastrous scheme that was introduced by this Government. The statement continues: I readily make that acknowledgment again. 'I am telling you from the Mount', says the Prime Minister, 'that you are better for our having started again and got it right, than you would have been if we had remained rigid and wrong'. If there is any admission of the validity of the Opposition's activity over the last several months it is that statement. It is a firm acknowledgment of this Government's error or mistake-I should say that it is an absolute farce-in the way it has behaved over developing now five different marks of this assets test. We should not forget that this matter is merely a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. The statement is aimed to cover over the waves of the political fortune of the Australian Labor Party over the next few months in order to create during this period a data bank from which information will be collated about the affairs not only of pensioners but also of a whole group of people-invalids, supporting parents, sheltered workshop allowance recipients and those who receive the handicapped children's allowance- in order to get a very clear impression of the assets of that group of people in the community. Should the Government win the election, which of course it will not after this disastrous performance, it is clearly its objective to use that information as the basis for a more reprehensible assets test. The article in the National Times has drawn our attention to that fact. The point is that the Government has already admitted in this statement put down today that it has other measures to raise more revenue. We do not see those things being admitted in the statement. We do not see what other things will be introduced. Surely, in the light of the information the Government will be collecting, those things entail capital gains tax, wealth tax, death duties and gift duties. In one way, the Government has already introduced a gift duty on pensioners, although it fails to do so in respect of other people. That is set out in the statement and, to the Prime Minister's credit, he has at least admitted that much. Given all the smears aimed at the Opposition and given that it is being blamed for what it has done over the last several months, the fact remains that had the Opposition not taken the line that it did, had it not done the things it did, had it not prevented the passage of the legislation last December, which the Government wanted to ram through this House without any debate, the assets test announced last August would now be law. Yet the Opposition is smeared for saving the people from what is now admitted by the Prime Minister as being a terrible mistake. That is clearly the justification for the Opposition's actions over the last several months. The Opposition does not resile in any way from its stand on this matter, and we will use every means at our disposal to bring before the people of Australia the real issues tied up with this proposal. These issues still remain in question because it is obvious that the Government is using this proposal only as a means to an end towards the introduction of other measures later on, if it sees before it an election possibility. Let us just look at one or two items of real interest in this statement. First and foremost, we see that the Government will index the amount of assets over and above the family home and it is going to use the consumer price index to measure that. That suggestion was specifically cast out as being inappropriate in the report of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. I notice that that suggestion is supported by the Australian Democrats, yet it was completely denied by Professor Gruen in his report. He indicated it was inappropriate because it in no way measured the rate of increase of assets such as stocks and shares. The two are totally irrelevant. They do not connect at all . So in what way can that be an efficient or effective measure of the rate of increase of assets? It is a total and absolute farce, as well as flying directly in the face of the Gruen report. I believe that the Government stands condemned particularly in its statement on the question of how much revenue will be raised. Do honourable senators remember those statements made last August, when it was claimed that in 1984-85 $310m would be brought in by way of the assets test? What will the figure be now? Not in 1984-85, but in 1985-86, it will be $45m. That is $45m, compared with the original estimate of $310m. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —That is not net saving, is it? Senator MESSNER —As my colleague has pointed out, that is after taking into account some, but not all, factors. The most significant point is that in the next financial year there will actually be a net cost to the revenue due to the establishment of the assets test machinery. Senator Chaney —They will take that from the poor. Senator MESSNER —Of course it will come directly from the poor because no machinery will be in place to take it from anybody else. So it will cost $30m next year. This comes directly on top of the $11m that has been admitted by the Government in Estimates committee hearings as having been spent already on the installation of the necessary machinery. That is $11m down the drain already, quite apart from what will occur when another $30m is spent next year. This is an absolutely disastrous proposition. That is not the most important concern to which we should address ourselves. Again, the Prime Minister, in his oily words, is saying in his statement: 'Oh, really, we are not going to intrude into your lives by obtaining this information'. Senator Elstob —Oh! Senator MESSNER —I am giving as good a representation of the messiah as I can. Senator Elstob may pray to him; we certainly do not. The point is that, given that some $30m will be spent on the establishment of the system, how many people will be required in the Public Service to police it? The original estimate last August was nearly 3,000, and I take it that is still an accurate number that will be required in the Public Service. Senator Grimes —No. Senator MESSNER —Senator Grimes grimaces in his usual way and says no, but where will the Government spend the $30m if that is not the correct number of people? I would like him to explain that, but he cannot because the Prime Minister has written the statement and has avoided these hard questions. If an extra 3,000 public servants are needed in the departments administering the tests and policing the system, we have to count that against the number of people who will actually lose their pensions or will be affected by the test in some way. The Government's last estimate, as put down in the Gruen report was just under 30, 000 people. So we will have the enormous spectacle of 3,000 public servants policing the recovery of pensioners under the assets test from 30,000 pensioners . Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —So you can be a modified tall poppy. Senator MESSNER —One has to be a modified tall poppy, but what about the modified public servants who will have to do all this work? The point is that we will have a policing ratio of one policeman in the Social Security Department to look after 10 pensioners. In what way would that not intrude into the affairs of the pensioners? It is obviously aimed at driving hard into the affairs of the pensioners partly to obtain the information which the Prime Minister would have us believe he wants. Clearly, the Government has other objectives in mind, and I return to my original theme. This statement is a delaying tactic to camouflage the Prime Minister's electoral ambitions, with the object of ensuring that if the Government is re-elected it will have the opportunity to impose other taxes thereafter. Senator Grimes —Ha, ha! Senator MESSNER —Senator Grimes laughs again. He will laugh next January when he is sitting on this side of the House as Opposition spokesman for social security . We have seen emerge in this statement, another canard which we have been seeking to put down for some weeks now, and that is, that the business community somehow supports the Government in its activities in this area. There is a direct quote here from the Prime Minister in regard to the support of his actions in this by the Business Council of Australia. He says: 'Look, really this must be a very good test because we are going to hit only the people who are supporting the Business Council. Therefore, if they are prepared to put up with it, so should the rest of the community'. Of course, what this Government totally ignores-this is the major point that we have been seeking to make all along-is that the way in which we should be approaching the question of the control of social security expenditure in the future is by encouraging people to look after themselves and to provide themselves with opportunities and incentives to do that in both the tax system and the social security system. The great mass of those who will be caught by this proposal are not the really rich, not the really wealthy in the community and not those who are engaged in tax avoidance or evasion schemes, they are those who have sought to build up their assets in a modest way during their working lives to set aside something for their old age so they will not become a burden on the community. That is the group that will be affected by this proposal. The Prime Minister should not lie by trying to draw attention to the Business Council of Australia supporting that group. If the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, were here he would probably say that the sort of statement that the Prime Minister has been making in this paper is tendentious, and I would have to agree with him. I believe the whole paper is tendentious and stands condemned on that basis. Let us look at one other aspect of this wonderful statement that has come from the Prime Minister today; wonderful in the sense that it ignores all the realities of the problems that have been created through this Government's actions in the last 12 months and it deals with the dreams of Prime Ministerial ambition. That is what this paper is about. The thing that has emerged of most concern to this community is the introduction of death duties by stealth through the introduction of the pay as you die scheme. Much has been said and written about this proposal, but I would like to draw your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the circumstances of the people who may be caught in such a situation where they have to 'borrow'-as it is termed in this statement-their pensions from the Department of Social Security, and which will be taken from their estates upon their death. Consider the case of a person aged 65. Assuming a current long term bond rate of 14 per cent for the moneys which he would need to borrow in order to keep himself alive for the rest of his life, in just five years he would owe the Hawke Labor Government $35,000. He would be mortgaged to the Hawke Labor Government for $35,000. At the age of 75-10 years further on- that figure would rise to $102,000 to which he would be mortgaged to the Hawke Labor Government. Should that person reach the age of 80, which, of course, is a common occurrence today with rising standards of medical treatment, that figure would be over $232,000. Mr Acting Deputy President, if we took the matter to the extreme-I am sure there will be some people caught in these circumstances-and if we take the age up to 95, that figure becomes $1.97m, to which people would be mortgaged to the Hawke Labor Government not only in their own lifetime but also into the lifetime of their children and their children. That is a concept which this Government has not in any way made clear in its remarks and it adds to the farcical nature of this statement that has been brought before us today. There is only one other item that I would like to mention, and that is the reference in the paper to the re-introduction of a gift duty on pensioners. Senator Walters —Just for pensioners. Senator MESSNER —Yes. It is typical of this Government's approach to the whole question of the assets test in the last 12 months-and, of course, in some of its other ways with the introduction of the over-70s income test and the lump sum superannuation tax-that it has hit in its taxing measures only one group in the community, and that is the aging and those who are dependent upon welfare. I remind the Senate that it is not merely the aging who are caught in these circumstances, but also it is the invalids, it is those on the sickness benefit, it is those who are receiving the handicapped children's allowance, it is those who are working in sheltered workshops and it is widows. All of those people will be caught in these circumstances. I make the point very clearly that this Government has obviously not thought through its proposals, to the point where it is prepared to impose a taxation measure against all in that group-widows, invalids and the aging-but it is not prepared to take action against tax avoiders and tax evaders. It is well chronicled in this place how little action this Government has taken on tax avoidance in the last 12 months, and yet it proclaimed its credentials in this area before the election last year as being so great and this was going to be one of its first areas of concern, priority and action. But of course we have seen no legislation whatsoever since 1983, except some piddling bits of retrospective legislation which have absolutely had to be thrown out by the Senate on the very grounds of objection to major principle, which was obviously introduced into this chamber tendentiously by the Prime Minister with the purpose of ensuring that he would be provided with a double dissolution issue for the election that he wants by December 1984. That is what that was all about . It was nothing to do with tax avoidance or evasion; it was just political camouflage to set the Opposition up for an election later this year. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, say that this Government has attacked tax avoidance, except in the case of the elderly, the infirm, the widows and those who are in sheltered employment. It is those people that this Government sees fit to attack, and it is that group of people which Mr McKenzie, from the Australian Council of Social Service, reported to the Press a few weeks ago following the meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which were regarded by this Prime Minister as totally irrelevant to the issues before EPAC, to the point that the Prime Minister said that that group of people was not part of the economy. If anything destroys this Goverment's argument in this unctuous piece of nonsense that is now before us, it is that statement because the Government is not concerned with the needy, it is not concerned with the poor and it is not within its purview as part of the economy because it is concerned only with two groups. This corporate view of government which this Prime Minister has-'We will do what the Australian Council of Trade Unions tells us to do, what the unions tell us to do'-is at the core of this Government's policy. It is that which is in this Government's craw. It is implementing, in a craven way, the unions' policies. It is this corporate view which is causing so much concern in this community. That is what the Hawke Labor Government is about. That is what it stands for and that is why this paper does not deserve any kind of debate except the absolute condemnation of the Senate. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.50) —Having listened to Senator Messner for the last 25 minutes I can only assume that the Opposition is relying on Senator Chaney to come forward with some intelligent contribution to the debate and some sort of rational, relevant, competent analysis of not only the Gruen report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test but also of the Government's proposal. Senator Messner concentrated on calling the proposal outrageous and he described the comments as unctuous and oily. He concentrated, too, on pointing out what was likely to happen to the Australian Labor Party, the present Government, after the next election, which probably says a great deal about Senator Messner's and probably the Opposition's priorities since they are far more concerned in stirring up problems in the community in order that they can get re-elected than in making sure that money goes to the needy. I can say to Senator Messner, Senator Walters and anybody else in here who wants to carry on that they might just as well go out into the community and attack us as well, as I am sure they intend to anyway, because we are intending to support this move which is at least an attempt to get over the anomalies of the current system, just as we would have supported Senator Chaney's attempt a year or two ago when he was proposing ways of getting around the anomalies in the current system. Senator Chaney, at least, of all the Liberals, had some courage, as a Sydney Morning Herald editorial pointed out, in at least focusing on the fact that there were problems in the current system. I think we made it perfectly clear at the time that had he come up with some sort of system that confronted those problems, that insisted that the wealthy-the Liberal's natural constituency-did not get hold of money that should be going to the needy, we would have assisted him. We made it quite clear that we saw a lot of problems-we still see a lot of problems-in the present system rather than one which is incomes-only based under which people who receive very large lump sum superannuation payments can make excursions into double-dipping and know that people in the Liberal Party will sit back and let them continue in that way. That, of course, is what the Liberals are more concerned about, not in making sure that those people are stopped so that the money can be spent on people who are in need, who have never had any opportunity to acquire vast assets, liquid or non-liquid. Through the whole of Senator Messner's speech, through the whole 25-minute tirade, we heard no suggestions at all about what-- Senator Button —Senator Messner is full of liquid assets. Senator HAINES —No, the bar is closed, Senator Button. We heard no comments, proposals or suggestions at all about what the Liberal Party was going to do if it gets re-elected at some time in the future. Senator Messner —We are not trying to help them do their job. Senator HAINES —Well, Senator Messner says they are not going to do the Government's job for it. I would have suggested that one of the responsible roles of an opposition party in this place is to make sure that every amount of talent, although there is a limited amount of that in the Liberal Party, that can be brought to bear to improve legislation is, indeed, brought to bear. Members of the Opposition should not sit back unctuously and sanctimoniously and say: 'We will allow this sort of thing to go on until we get into power, if we ever get into power, and then repeal it'. Senator Messner —What is your policy? Senator HAINES —I am coming to that. Senator Messner —Do you have a policy? Senator HAINES —Calm down, calm down. Senator Button —What did they say about shadow Minister Hodgman-'crawl up a sewer to get a vote'? Senator Walters —I ask that that interjection be withdrawn. Senator Button —I was not casting any personal aspersions on anybody in the Opposition. I said that the Sydney Morning Herald said that Mr Hodgman would crawl up a sewer to get a vote. That is merely reporting what was in the Sydney Morning Herald. I think that would be allowable in this Parliament. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Senator Button is a lawyer-I do not know of what level of ability-and I am sure he knows that it is no defence to plead that somebody else said it when one uses unparliamentary or defamatory terms. That is a legalistic but invalid defence. I suggest that the point of order should be upheld and that he should be asked to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Senator Button, the words are unparliamentary even if they are quoted from a newspaper. I suggest, therefore, that you withdraw. Senator Button —I withdraw. Mr Hodgman would not crawl up a sewer to get a vote. Senator Chaney —That, again, is the oldest story in the book. I again take a point of order. The withdrawal should be unconditional and not be a repetition of the insult in a slightly different form. Senator Button —I withdraw. Senator HAINES —Senator Messner asked what the Australian Democrats would do. In an ideal situation I would suggest that we would do what Senator Messner would do and what the Government would do, and that is make available the pension to everybody at a certain age regardless of need, make it taxable and so on. In an ideal world that is what we would do. Unfortunately, we are stuck with something that is not an ideal world, largely, I suspect, due to the fact that, in the seven years of the previous Government's existence, although Senator Chaney bothered to come to terms with it, the issue apparently got stuck somewhere, probably in the Party room. The Liberals seem to have this wonderful idea that those people who have it should keep it and those people who do not have it do not deserve it in the first place. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —It was Senator Chipp who wrote the policy. Senator HAINES —It may well have been applicable back then. However, let us at least return to the Government's proposal and see what it does, and this is something to which Senator Messner did not pay a great deal of attention. The Government's current proposal is not only a distinct improvement on the present system since it obviates a number of the anomalies that exist under the present incomes-test only scheme, but also it is a vast improvement on the policy that it brought forward last year, the one which we, with the support of the Opposition, criticised trenchantly because of the loopholes it contained, because of the exemptions it included and, hence, because of the anomalies that were bound to occur. This side of the Senate succeeded in having that proposal delayed until the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with his nose on a good thing as usual, decided in February to send it off to the Gruen committee. The upshot of that was the proposals that were included by Professor Gruen and his committee in the report that was issued to the Prime Minister last week. The committee issued a report which contained three options. The committee objected entirely to the first option, which was the Government's previous proposal. The second was what they called the 'tall poppies' test and third was the modified test. We acknowledge that the Government has chosen the soft option in going for the exclusion of the house. But in doing that it has at least made some attempt to grapple with a problem that would have existed had the earlier proposal come to fruition, and that is the problem of people who do not own a home, who do not have an appreciating capital asset, and those people who have to sell their home and go into a nursing home. The Government, through the Gruen report, has at least made some attempt to look at that and it is to be commended in that respect. Senator Messner alleged that Professor Gruen is not happy with indexation, particularly indexation based on the consumer price index. I do not know how recently Senator Messner has spoken to Professor Gruen but I talked to him about this last Monday night because to us indexation is the major problem with any form of assets testing. Professor Gruen agreed on Monday night that in a political context the suggestion of a regular review, however appealing it might be to an economist, did not really mean very much, knowing politicians to be what they are. He therefore was quite happy to support either the use of the CPI as an indexation factor or the building index if the house was included in the threshold limits. The house has not been included. The CPI is being used to index pensions. It might just as well be used, for want of any other more relevant one, as an indexation factor for the threshold now that it will not include the house. The Democrats would have preferred to see both the threshold and the pensions indexed twice-yearly. The pension will continue to be indexed twice-yearly. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to index the threshold also twice-yearly. The major problem left for the Democrats is fringe benefits. This problem has been with us for a number of years. I do not believe the Government has bitten the political bullet, so to speak, in any way at all in confronting this issue. So far it has hidden behind the fact that the States have to be consulted. Quite frankly, I think it is about time that the States formed their own criteria on which they would provide rate, electricity and other benefits to people who currently hold a pensioner health benefits card. In the past many people have distorted their incomes considerably, often to their own financial detriment, because they have believed access to the pensioner health benefit card to be something of tremendous value to them, if not at that time then at least some time in the future. So many people on a pension or part pension saw the health benefit card as a sort of security blanket. As a consequence of re-arranging their incomes and assets, they were depriving the Government of a significant amount of money. Had the Government done what Professor Gruen intimated could well be done and extended the accessibility of fringe benefits to all people on pensions or part pensions, there would certainly have been an end to that practice. I suggest that the Federal Government, if not the State governments, would have picked up, very likely, as much on the swings as it lost on the roundabout and eased the emotional stress for a large number of people. Of course there are those who would argue that fringe benefits should be made available to people of a certain age or on certain incomes. However, the Government could have looked at least at extending the benefits to those who are on pensions of some sort or another. There have been complaints about the fact that the introduction of an assets test is likely to cause vast invasions of people's privacy, infringements of their civil liberties, and so on. I believe that the Government has made a pretty good effort to overcome this problem by inserting into the proposal a $10 ,000 limit; so that unless someone believes that his assets are worth more than $10,000, nobody will come wandering into his home counting sheets and pillowcases and checking whether there is a spare Van Gogh in the basement. This is certainly an improvement on the old size 10 thong and bed sniffing brigade that used to operate under the previous Government when it came to checking out peoples' eligibility for pensions of one sort and another. The reasons therefore that we are prepared to accept the Government's proposal is that it is an improvement on the existing system and a vast improvement on its proposal last year-it is not an ideal answer to the problems because we are not living in an ideal world-and that the proposal does eliminate the double- dipping and income distortion problem that has existed. The proposal does have simplicity on its side and avoids complexities. Administratively, it should be easy to operate. It is certainly easy for those in the community to understand. It was one of the options, if not the absolute preferred option, of Professor Gruen and his Panel. I think we have to respect a group of people who are widely talented and from as wide a range of organisations in the community as those who served on that Panel. The proposal confronts the problem that most concerned the Democrats, and that is the problem of indexation. Also, it will avoid any unnecessary invasion of people's privacy. It copes, or attempts to cope, with the problem of people who do not own their own home, who are renting or living with others, or who are, or one day will be, in a nursing home. The fact that the proposal does not front up to the problem of fringe benefits is something I would like looked at later in the Government's long term planning. It is certainly not of sufficient concern to make the Democrats oppose the legislation, particularly given the fact that in his 25-minute tirade Senator Messner, who, presumably, will be Minister for Social Security should the Liberals ever get back into power, did not offer one alternative suggestion. All he did was complain about this proposal and, by implication, say that the current income only system is working well, that it has no problems, that no one is being damaged, that money goes to those who need it, and that the system does not need changing in any way at all. Had he not believed that, it would have been incumbent on him to make those points. I can only assume that if the Liberal Party of Australia does have some alternative proposals, Senator Chaney, whom the Sydney Morning Herald labelled 'intelligent Senator Chaney', will no doubt put them forward in a moment. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.06) —This debate is on an issue that is of great public interest. It is an issue which, in a sense, was an issue which we did not expect to face in the life of the Hawke Government. It is interesting to go back to Mr Hawke's policy speech on 16 February 1983, which is not long ago and find that Mr Hawke, when talking about the sorts of difficulties the Minister for Social Security (Mr Grimes) says lie behind the test, and the central difficulty of restoring growth to the economy, said: Recovery can only be achieved and sustained by a change to national economic policies which lift and sustain demand. There can be no lift in profits or a lift in growth unless there is a lift in demand. He went on to say: And that cannot be done by taking money out of the weekly pay packet or the pensioner's cheque. So the furore of the last year about the prospect of pension entitlements being changed by Labor, with some people losing entitlements, is a furore we were entitled not to expect given the words of Mr Hawke. But, of course, most of the words Mr Hawke uttered in the 1983 policy speech have been recanted by him, not the least those. The Australian Democrats' contributor to this debate spent some time lambasting the Liberals. I want to make some brief response to her comments. I do not have our 1975 policy in front of me, but my recollection is that that policy said that we would do away with the assets test and move to an incomes test. That is a policy which in fact we carried out very early in the life of the Fraser Government, in 1976. It is a policy which, as I recall, was written by none other than Senator Don Chipp; and Senator Chipp was, in that pre-election period , the spokesman for the Opposition parties on social security matters. Indeed, I am afraid the antecedents of that policy do not lie in some secret discussion in the Liberal Party or National Party rooms; the antecedents of that 1976 change can be found in the report by Professor Henderson on poverty. Professor Henderson pointed out that there were anomalies and difficulties in the assets test. He pointed out that the assets test had deficiencies and recommended an income only test. So, one of the antecedents of the policy that was adopted by the Fraser Government in abolishing the assets test was in fact that authority, which I am sure is regarded as a very good one by the present Government. So all of the points that were raised by the Democrats' spokesman, Senator Haines, are really points I would answer by saying that we inherited a social security system that had deficiencies; we made changes to it that we hoped and believed would improve it, substantial changes such as indexation of pensions, for example, quite apart from the removal of the assets test; and in our period in office we gradually and continually effected improvements in the system of social security. No one would deny that the enormous income maintenance system administered by the Department of Social Security has defects. It is quite clear that the Minister set out to try to remedy some of those defects by the re-imposition of an assets test. It was the Minister's intention to transfer resources from the better off to the less well off. He set off to do that by this mechanism. What an extraordinary, farcical situation we have reached when the Minister, in his statement here today, told us that the effect of the imposition of the assets test in the current period will be a $30m deficit. In other words, the test is not going to transfer, in the short term in any event, any assets which can be used for the benefit of the less well off in the community. In fact, it will cost the taxpayer more. Quite apart from the burdens which are being placed on pensioners, both in terms of the intrusion into their affairs and the loss of the income of some, the fact is that the Australian taxpayer, in the immediate future, will be worse off because of what the Government is proposing. I know this subject reasonably well. I am touched by the fact that the Government consistently quotes me as an authority on the subject. I have been quoted often and with approval both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. That is one reason why I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I note the respect that the Government seems to have for my views. I welcome the fact that it pays me the respect that it does. However, I think it is time that I pointed out to the Government that, when I was concerned about the very real difficulty of ensuring that there are sufficient resources to help the needy in this community, when I set out to try to ensure that the system delivered, according to that specification, as well as possible, I examined many alternatives. One of the alternatives that I examined was the reimposition of the assets test. I once said to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that one of the distressing things about holding that Ministry was that every track I went down I found footprints, and the footprints had high heels. I suppose every Minister casts about and looks for ways in which to find an improvement in the system which will enable him or her to help the needy in Australia better. I examined the reimposition of the assets test. I knew that some savings could be achieved by reimposing an assets test. But the advice I got and the advice that I accepted was that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. I never came to the view that the reimposition of the assets test would, by itself, as something which could simply be undertaken in the way this Government has undertaken it, be something that I would put to the Government. To the extent that the Australian Labor Party adopts my views as being authoritative, and it does seem to rely on them continuously in debate, let me say that my considered view was that that was not a proposition that I would put to the Government. I arrived at that view because of the great weight of advice which I got to that effect. It was not a decision taken in the party room; it was a decision taken in my mind because I was convinced that there were not the advantages that I had hoped when I set out to look at it that might accrue to the system. That is the fact of the matter. It is no good running me as an authority for what the Government is doing. I had the opportunity to bring this matter forward and believed it should not be done. The position is that the savings that were held out, even by the original proposition, would doubtfully have been commensurate with the sort of cost, inconvenience and penalties which the Government seemed prepared to inflict upon the aged in Australia. We have now reached the stage where the savings are derisory. We seem to have a situation in which the Government is doing one of two things. It is saving its face because Senator Grimes stood up and said in a confident way what one does in the first few months of government: 'Senator Chaney would have liked to succeed in what he set out to do. If he had the Fraser Government would still be in office'. That is what Senator Grimes said. I am not quoting him exactly, but that is the drift of his words. Senator Grimes has backed off a great deal. He is saving his face by bringing in this ridiculous proposition that he has now presented to the Parliament and he has really achieved the situation where there will be no large savings on the present proposition. Instead we have a heavy bureaucratic intervention into the lives of Australia's aged for very marginal advantage and for complete disadvantage in this current period. The second possibility is, of course, that this is just the foot in the door. If the Government really believes what Senator Grimes and the Prime Minister have been saying and, indeed, what the Business Council of Australia has been saying in the quote that we have so far, this is just the foot in the door. The Government is not going to be satisfied with an assets test that raises $45m. It will have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore, we face the prospect of a totally different post-election assets test. That is something which the Opposition will be raising over the days and weeks of this debate. The fact is that the Government made a decision without having thought it through and imposed great penalties and great distress on many people. The Government has tried to gloss over a good deal of this matter. At page 4 of the statement the Minister said: But it became clear . . . that there was continuing uncertainty about whether the Government had found the fairest and most equitable way to implement an assets test. We became concerned that many ordinary pensioners had been caused unnecessary worry by those who, for shortsighted political purposes, encouraged groundless fears about our intentions. That statement is cant. It is absolute cant because the fact is that the Government has admitted that it got the assets test wrong. Much to the surprise of the Minister for Social Security, Mr Hawke got up at the National Press Club in February this year and said: . . . it is clear that there is a considerable degree of misunderstanding . . . and also, let me say, that there is some justifiable concern within what we have suggested, there are some intrinsic anomalies. So the Prime Minister was admitting that what the Government put forward in August in the Budget had anomalies. On the Mike Walsh Show the Prime Minister said: . . . there was confusion about the extent of who might be adversely affected and there were some anomalies. So I just decided then that what needed to be done is that we ought to get a . . . committee in the community to look at what we were talking about-- I might say that this quote from the Mike Walsh Show comes from the Prime Minister's musings, if I may use his own words, when he said: . . . I was coming back from this recent trip overseas, I was sitting on the plane there by myself and just thinking-- Can we not imagine the silver-haired saviour sitting on the plane just thinking: 'Oh dear, there are some intrinsic anomalies. I will have to send this off to a committee to rescue me'. The thought is so ludicrous: Mr Hawke making the great decision as he flew back on a plane from the United States of America. There is no way that this Government can say that the pensioners of Australia have been caused unnecessary worries by the Opposition. This Government has caused the pensioners of Australia worry by bringing forward a test which it now admits was full of anomalies and which has had to be absolutely changed in quite fundamental ways. It is a joke and a farce. The fact is that this Government is now hung by the fact that it has caused this difficulty to the community. Both Mr Hawke and Mr Wran have made it quite clear what they think. Back in November, within a few months of being introduced, Mr Wran said: . . . the new test would discriminate against NSW pensioners because of the higher property values in the State. Mr Wran is quoted as saying: There are too many inequalities and anomalies in the assets test . . . I think they've got to start all over again, frankly. That is what Mr Wran said. The Government messed this up. It has caused some political pain. It has now come before us with what I call the pre-election assets test. It is designed to minimise the short term impact of the assets test . The NSW right wing has had a stance that it has advocated adopted because it is so concerned at the electoral impact. I repeat that the Government has its foot in the door with its assets test. Honourable senators should look at the other issues that the Government has postponed until after the election. There is Senator Button's little favourite of the capital gains tax. We will not hear about that until after the election. There is Senator Evans's little favourite of the human rights Bill. We will not hear about that until after the election. There is Mr Holding's little favourite of Aboriginal land rights. We will not hear about a national Aboriginal land rights Bill until after the election. There is no way of knowing what the Government's real intentions in any of these matters are because its members are not prepared to expose them; they are a government of lies. This Government went before the Australian people as an opposition and made a series of quite specific policy promises which have now been dishonoured. I do not have time to go through the list. It is almost endless. The fact is that the Government said it would not tax lump sum superannuation payments, it would allow the continuation of the interest rate deduction and it would allow the continuation of the health insurance rebate. All of those promises were dishonoured within a matter of days. It promised that virtually every Australian taxpayer would get a tax cut last year instead of the 22 per cent tax increase which the Government administered. We find the same Government, when in opposition, promising cheaper health care for nine out of ten Australians when two out of ten Australians were already getting free health care. How pathetic! The Government does not even care if its lies are obvious. The lie about health care was a lie that was obvious on the face of it. Two out of 10 Australians received free health care, and the then Opposition, now the Hawke Government, said that it would give nine out of 10 Australians cheaper health care. There could be no more obvious demonstration of the Government's lack of regard for the truth of what it says to the Australian people. I suppose the most pathetic aspect of the statement before us is the fact that it has been described as a test of the Government's courage. The Government has moved away from a test that was going to save several hundred million dollars-a test that lit the flame in the breast of the Business Council of Australia, which said: 'At last we have a government of courage, a government that will tackle this intractable, endless problem'. What do we have today? The Government 's proposals will result in it being $30m worse off. It was said that this was a test of the Government's courage. Honourable senators should look at the government benches. They are made up of people who are full of fight and full of the spirit that at last they have solved this intractable problem. I really feel sorry for Senator Grimes-the laid back senator who looks as though he is a bottle of valium. Senator Grimes shows his courage by bringing in an assets test that will save pensioners from receiving an extra $30m, because an extra $30m will have to be found from the taxpayers. The test proposed by the Government will cost money. I hope that the good senator can maintain his laid back image. I make a small tribute: I think this Government understands cars better than it understands social welfare. The Government has brought down two major statements in the last week. I have to say that the car industry statement shows some kind of courage. In that statement the Government faces up to the fact that tens of thousands of Australians will be out of work. Senator Button said with courage, 'That's it, kids. In the interests of economic growth, tens of thousands of Australians will be out of work.' Quite frankly, I think he has faced up to the problems with a sense of realism that is totally absent from Senator Grimes's approach. Senator Grimes has failed his test. If he were right in saying that the Fraser Government would have survived had it tackled this problem, I can only say he has put the mockers on the Government of which he is part. There is much in the paper about which I would like to talk. I think that the Labor Party abuses language, a subject on which I hope people such as Senator Withers will speak in the near future. I believe that the abuse of language in politics is a serious problem. The love of the Labor Party for branding people with expressions such as 'tall poppies' and 'modified tall poppies' is a splendid example of how Australia should be brought together. What a splendid idea! Let us bring Australia together by branding people. The Labor Party would say: 'I bet that fellow sitting in the gallery is a modified tall poppy. We ought to have a bloody good go at him, ladies and gentlemen, because he is much better off than some of us.' That is the sort of thinking in the Labor Party. I see that Senator Scott is in the chamber. The Labor Party would say: 'He has a farm. We do not know whether he is a modified tall poppy or a real tall poppy, but by gosh we will lop him. He had better not have much land on the curtilage of his house, for if he does he will lose his pension because he is one of those modified tall poppies.' I regard with contempt much of the language used by this Government. Instead of bringing Australia together, it talks in the politics of envy, malice and acrimony. I think Government supporters ought to go home and examine their consciences. Another marvellous thing about this statement-I am so glad to see Senator Walsh in the chamber-is that the Government cites as an authority the Business Council of Australia. The Senate should remember that only last night I chose to cite the same authority. I happen to have some regard for the Business Council of Australia. I think many fine Australians who have achieved a great deal for themselves, for Australia and for their corporations are represented on that Council. Its members have shown themselves very ready to give their time and some resources to broader national questions. The Government chose to embrace that Council at the time of the National Economic Summit Conference and the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It uses that body as an authority when it suits it. Last night when I cited a view expressed by the Business Council of Australia that was contrary to the view of this Government, and when that Council said that Senator Walsh was being destructive of this country in what he was doing, he used the word 'neanderthal'. That is another good Labor word used about someone who dares to disagree with the Government's views, someone who can be classified and put in a nice paddock and abused by the unthinking. I just hope that the people of Australia notice this wonderful duplicity in the Government: You are a great Australian bringing Australia together when you are co-operating with the Government, but do not dare have an opinion that is different from that of the Government. If you are a journalist and you do so, you will get the sack. We know the bullyboy tactics that this Government is developing. It is a Government of bullyboys. The Government's attitude is that a person is a great chap if he co-operates with the Government but he is a neanderthal if he puts a view different from that of the Government. I just hope that the people of Australia are waking up to that reality, which underlies the smooth, pomaded image of this Government. There are many things wrong with this statement, both in what it includes and what it omits; for example, it omits any indication of what the Government will be doing about the problem that it says I identified. I talked about the problem -the Minister quoted my words-of all these arrangements which evade the income test. The income test still applies. Those arrangements will still be relevant. The Government has done nothing in 14 months to attack those arrangements. Senator Grimes talked about it; he has done nothing. I ask: What is the position of rural people? This statement is nice; it is full of concessions to the people of Sydney and Melbourne. It has specifically been redrawn by people such as Senator Richardson and others who have been alive to the political difficulties that the Government faces. Poor rural Australia does not have enough smart people with telephones representing them in the Labor Party. The Government's proposal will penalise many rural people. I hope that the Government will look at the inconsistent way in which it has treated city and country interests. I ask also whether this wonderful revision of the assets test still includes the Keating exceptions. The Keating exceptions were so called because under the old test proposed by the Government a person could have furniture, antiques and items of that sort to any value. It protected the interests of those people who had an ability to accrue that sort of asset. The statement contains at page 15 these very unclear words: To minimise intrusion into the personal affairs of pensioners, a net market value of $10,000 is set on normal household contents and personal effects . . . So a net market value is set for household contents and personal effects. I hope that the Government will clarify the situation and tell us whether that will mean that antiques, paintings and all those other things that were part of the Keating exemption in the Government's original proposal will still be exempt from the assets test. I think we should know that. Senator Richardson —Read the next paragraph. Senator CHANEY —All right. It reads: There is also a requirement that people declare the value of household contents and personal effects if that value exceeds $10,000. I thank Senator Richardson. He made a very good interjection, for which I am grateful. I have had this statement for only a very brief time, but it would appear therefore that pensioners will have to be prepared to have inquiries and examinations made in relation to their household contents and personal effects. Senator Elstob —Rubbish! Senator CHANEY —If that is rubbish, the statement means nothing. No inquiry will be carried out, and therefore the statement means nothing. I think we will have to probe the Government on this issue. I believe that the Government will spend on the administration of this scheme $30m more than it will collect under this wonderful assets test. Apparently it will undertake no intrusions or inquiries. It must be intending to spend the money by sending public servants on holidays overseas. I do not believe that is likely. Quite clearly the Government is simply trying to paper over the cracks in its original proposal. I note also that the Government proposes to reintroduce gift duty, but only in relation to pensioners. I would like to know whether it is the policy of the Labor Party to reintroduce gift duty generally or whether only pensioners will be subject to gift duty. That is a very fair question and I hope it is one the Government will clear up in the near future. I do not have time to go through all the issues that arise from this statement. However, I must say that I am puzzled about why it is that the assets test applies to the aged and not to some other people such as unemployment and sickness beneficiaries. I find it strange that the Government is denying social welfare payments to the aged but that other people may claim unemployment benefit and sickness benefit whatever assets they may have. There is no assets test on those people so the unemployed are to be in a significantly advantaged position vis-a-vis the aged. I find that very strange as a matter of social policy and I wonder what the Government really believes about that. Senator Townley —Widows. Senator CHANEY —I am afraid that widows are in the same unhappy situation. I really am sick of the accusations which have been made against the Opposition in this matter. The fact is that the Opposition, when in government, as a matter of conscious choice as far as the responsible Minister, namely me, was concerned, believed that this was not the way to go about achieving the objectives which I talked about and which I tried to promote. I did other things to try to promote them. I brought in a family income supplement, for example, for low income working families. That to me was a manifestation of needs based welfare. Our basic embracing of indexation of pensions was said by Professor Henderson to be the most fundamental thing that could be done to help those a the bottom of the heap. Many things were done by the Fraser Government consistent with the views that I expressed strongly and indeed sometimes with passion and heat. I stand by those views. But I say that the Government has erred very sadly in believing that views that I have expressed support what it has done. I wish to close my remarks at this stage-I will have a chance to speak later because by arrangement I will seek leave to continue my remarks-by saying that I think the Government has described perfectly in this statement what it has achieved. I refer honourable senators to page 23 where the Minister says: I regret the confusion, and anxiety, that many pensioners have experienced through the uncertaintly of recent months. I have previously acknowledged our part in the responsibility for part of that uncertainty, in the shortcomings contained in last August's income and assets test. I think that is an accurate summary of what the Government has achieved to date. The sad fact of the matter is that the Government has guaranteed the continuity of those defects into the future, to the detriment of Australia's aged. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed. Department of Home Affairs and Environment Proposed expenditure, $2,298,000. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.32) —I notice that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is not here and neither are any officers. They are coming in now. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Senator Walsh is here. Senator MARTIN —Senator Walsh is here, yes, but I had indicated to the Minister' s office that I would ask some questions and asked that the replies be here. In one case I gave several days notice of a question. I am not sure whether answers to questions I asked yesterday would be here today. During the hearing of the Committee I asked a question about the number of feature films in production in Australia and asked for a breakdown of films being produced under the taxation concessions that have applied since the 1983 Budget. That information was supplied and it states: The Australian Film Commission has advised that, based on its contacts with the industry, it estimates that the number of feature films and mini-series currently in production including pre and post production including pre and post production, to be:- Feature films 13 Mini-series of television drama 5 A further breakdown was given showing that of those, eight feature films and three mini-series of television dramas came under the 1983 provisions, namely the 133 per cent taxation deduction. My question was: Could I have the names of those feature films and mini-series of television drama? That was the question on which I gave several days notice. I wonder whether the officers can provide the answer to Senator Walsh. I did suggest to the Minister's office that it may be in a form that could be incorporated in Hansard. Senator Walsh —I am advised that Senator Ryan has it and I will see whether she, or failing that, the list, can be got down here. Senator MARTIN —Thank you. I did ask some other questions yesterday and perhaps Senator Walsh can indicate whether this information is also available and, if not, whether it is yet to come and when we will get it. The answer also contained this statement: Reliable figures on films of a like nature (to a feature film) produced for exhibition on television and documentaries are not available to the Commission. As an indication of current production levels for these, the number of active Australian Film Industry Trust Fund Accounts established with the Department of Home Affairs and Environment as at 1 May 1984 was:- Films of a like nature (to a feature film) 8 Documentaries 79 The question that arises out of that that I direct to the Minister now is: Why are the figures for films of a like nature not available to the Commission? I would have thought that those films all come under the provisions of Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act and therefore that there would be records available on these sorts of productions. I would like an explanation of just what the term 'films of a like nature to a feature film' is. I take it that they may well be films made for television. But is that their limit? I had also asked how much had been raised for the financing of the making of films under the 1983 provisions. In other words, how much money is in the trust account under the 1983 provisions? I also asked for a breakdown of the amounts, that is, how much is deposited for feature films versus other types of productions, and what are the names of those feature films. I note that Senator Ryan has just arrived in the chamber and may be able to extract the information I have sought. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(12.37) —I did have prior notice of Senator Martin's interest in the names of films. The information that the officers have here is not what Senator Martin is seeking. What Senator Martin is seeking is available but I cannot put my hand on it at the moment. I will make sure that it is presented to Senator Martin in the course of this debate. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.37) —May I request that, in relation to all those questions that I have asked-the Minister may not have heard all of them while she was on her way to the chamber; there were questions of which I had not given notice and which related to why reliable figures are not available to the Australian Film Commission on these other categories-when that information is available, whichever Minister is on duty has it incorporated in Hansard so that it is in the record. There are many people outside this place who are interested in the answers and they will refer to the Hansard for that information. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(12.38) —Either by way of incorporating available information into Hansard today, or by way of additional information given through questions on notice, Senator Martin's questions will be answered. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(12.39) —In earlier debate on these Estimates some problems that have arisen with regard to written answers were mentioned and Senator Colston moved motions on the subject which I think will help a great deal in overcoming these problems. But there is still one remaining problem about written answers. That is this: if one asks questions and gets oral answers , frequently the answer is incomplete or leads to further questions, whereas if written answers are given the only place one can raise matters of detail arising out of the answer is in this debate on the Estimates in the Committee of the Whole. Senator Martin asked, on my behalf, a number of questions about the National Film and Sound Archive. In some areas written answers are incomplete and therefore I now have to raise again a couple of matters arising out of those answers. I do it with regret but I can see no other way, under the existing procedures, that these matters can be dealt with. In due course we will have to look at our whole handling of Estimates in committees and in the Committee of the Whole. With that preamble. I draw attention to a question I had asked on my behalf, which was: How many members of the National Library's task force were engaged in tasks in the film and sound sections of the Library? And how many of these will be reallocated to the new Archive which has been established? The written answer says that on 11 May-the date when the official transfer of positions from the National Library to the Department of Home Affairs and Environment took place-16 members of the Library's part time task force were engaged on tasks relating to the film archive and sound collection. The answer also said that the Library had been asked to make these officers available until 30 June to enable the Department to recruit staff for the new Film and Sound Archive. What I need to know is this: Since there are only 15 positions transferred from the National Library to the new Film and Sound Archive and since these 16 extra part time people have been lent until only 30 June-which is very close at hand-what happens now? Have advertisements been placed for additional staff? If not, when will the advertisements be placed and how soon does the Department expect to have these 16 part time people replaced? I mention this because I wish at this stage to congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) for what I believe was a courageous and far-sighted decision to set up this new National Film and Sound Archive. It is the most important step made in the history of film archiving in Australia since the establishment of the National Film Archive in the National Library in the first place. I am also delighted that the sound archive section of the National Library was also included in the new institution. Honourable senators may remember that the Australian Film Institute held a film archive conference in Sydney in September last year. That conference of all interested parties made a number of recommendations, in particular for the separation of the National Film Archive and the National Library of Australia. Further, the conference resolved that as a transitional measure to full autonomy, the Film Archive should begin to function immediately as a self-contained unit within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. All this the Minister has done and I am delighted. However, I would like to remind the Minister's representative that the conference also resolved that the Archive must be established as an independent authority with its own board of directors and budget no later than 1986. The conference also resolved that closer relations between the sound recording section of the National Library and the National Film Archive be explored. That has also been done and they are now combined within the new National Film and Sound Archive. Again I congratulate the Minister. But now this new body has been established the question of staffing is extremely important. It is important that there be no long term hiatus before more staff can be recruited to replace the 16 members of the task force, which will cease to operate on 30 June-that is, in less than a month. It is essential that new staff be recruited as soon as possible. I have asked these questions of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and I hope she will be able to answer them. Before I sit down I will also ask questions about the budget for the new Archive. I was told that $150,000 had been allocated for the remainder of this financial year but at this stage a final budget has not been drawn up. I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication-I understand the problems of budgeting-of how this new National Film and Sound Archive will be financed. Progess reported. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Following today's confirmation that Senator Graham Richardson and his colleagues in New South Wales constitute the real government of Australia, can the Minister provide some factual information which he refused to give earlier in the week, namely: How many extra staff will be employed by the Commonwealth Government, both in the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to administer the pensions assets test? Is it intended to regroup the new staff taken on for the last version of the test or have these people been irretrievably dispersed to other corners of the Public Service? Senator GRIMES —I will ignore the first part of the question. I am afraid that I cannot see its relevance to the question asked or to anything else. I assume that the implication of the first part of the question is that Senator Messner would have preferred the second option of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. The number of people to be employed in the Department of Social Security is not 3,000 as Senator Messner said in his speech this morning. In the establishment phases it will be about 1,500. Once the test is established , after the first year the figure will be 340, considerably below the 3,000 that Senator Messner mentioned this morning. The answer to the second part of his question is both. Some of the people who were hired for the assets test are obviously still in the Department doing other tasks and will be able to be used for the assets test at that time; others will need to be recruited on a part time basis. That is a matter for the administrative functions of my Department. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not refer to the Department of Veterans' Affairs in any way. Is he giving us total figures or only part of them? Senator GRIMES —I gave the figures for the Department of Social Security. I would have thought that, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is in this place, he would have been asked that question. Senator McINTOSH —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and concerns the report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System, known as the Toose report. In view of the fact that this inquiry ran for five years and cost a small fortune of taxpayers' money, could the Minister give an indication of the extent to which its proposals were implemented? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that a previous government commissioned Mr Justice Toose to inquire into the repatriation system. Senator McIntosh —Who was the Minister? Senator GIETZELT —I leave that for the honourable senator's judgment, but it was not Senator Messner. The purpose of the inquiry was to look at the deficiencies and inadequacies of the Repatriation Commission and the repatriation legislation . It was a very costly inquiry and took quite a number of years. From my recollection it took at least five years to hear evidence and to prepare and present its report to government. Some of the recommendations of the Toose report were adopted by the government of the day, but the major recommendations were not. It was not until my predecessor commissioned a special advisory committee to consider the Repatriation Act in 1982 that the Government was able to examine some of the substantive proposals of the Toose report. The administrative review council that dealt with the terms of reference given to it by the previous Minister took into consideration the conclusions that had been reached by Mr Justice Toose. As a consequence of that, those recommendations have been largely adopted by the Government, particularly as that inquiry had the support of the major ex-service organisations. That represented the basis of the legislation which I introduced into the Senate last Tuesday evening. That legislation has the purpose of completely restructuring the repatriation determining system. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. It refers also to the Government's inability to match rhetoric with action over the pensions assets test. How many pensioners are expected to be affected by the test? Senator GRIMES —The figures of the Department of Social Security vary from those given in the report of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. The Gruen report expected that 28,000 people would be affected. It is our estimate-it is only an estimate because of the lack of statistics collected over the last six years about assets-that the figure is closer to 40,000 but they will each be affected to a lesser extent than that estimated by Professor Gruen. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In what way will those pensioners be affected? Senator GRIMES —They will be affected in regard to their pension payments if they have assets which at the moment are not counted because of the removal of the assets test by the previous Government in 1976. If the honourable senator is asking me by how much each individual pensioner will be affected, my answer is that it depends on how many assets that pensioner has. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that under the assets test arrangements announced today a person who would not qualify for a pension because of an adequacy of assets can elect to receive a pension repayable to the Australian community from his or her estate? Can the Minister give an indication of what effect this option will have on, for example, a farmer who elects to exercise his option to take up that facility? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Tate says, there is an option. I emphasise that it is an option; it is the choice of the pensioner or person involved as to whether they take out a lien on the estate or a loan from the public. Senator Chaney —It is a sort of money or your life choice, is it? Senator GRIMES —I have never heard Senator Chaney comment on the fact that throughout Australia local government uses this very method to enable people not to pay their rates. Farmers in particular will be able to have two means of coping with the various problems which we accept that they have. The first means is that of the hardship provisions which were in the previous legislation. There are times when rural prices are depressed because of drought, other climatic conditions or downturns in the world market. At such times it would be unreasonable to expect the farmer to sell that land. There are other similar hardship provisions which I have spoken about before. As to the loan, I think the most extraordinary statement made this morning was made by Senator Messner, and also by Mr Peacock. I presume that as Senator Messner is the accountant, Mr Peacock got the figures from him. He said that if someone took out a loan of this type and lived to be 85 he would owe the government something like $285,000 or $295,000. As Senator Messner carefully did not mention, probably because it did not occur to him, if someone takes out such a loan the amount he has borrowed comes off the calculation of his assets so that in a very short time his assets would be such that he would qualify for the pension without having to take out a loan. I can only advise Mr Peacock and others that if they get Senator Messner to do their tax returns they had better knock it off. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . Is the Minister aware of claims that as many as 400 people carried out earth works on the Maralinga atomic bomb test range following the 1956 series of bomb explosions and that the use of machinery in these works created heavy clouds of dust? Does a map published by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council show that these earthworks, in preparation for the ensuing 1957 tests, were only one kilometre from the site of the immediately preceding explosion? Was the final 1956 test a one kiloton ground burst which must have created heavy fallout around its ground zero positions? Hence, is it not a fact that Australian workers worked in an area in dusty conditions which must have contained fallout and alpha radiation emitters? Since plutonium 239 is a toxic and highly dangerous alpha emitter, will the Government ask the British Government to confirm or deny that the breakaway test for any of the Buffalo series of 1956 involved plutonium based bombs? Since it is known that alpha emitters in dust inhaled or ingested into the human body-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is too long. Government senators interjecting- Senator MASON —It is delightful for me to know that members of the Government want to duck out on this issue. From their reaction, they do not want these facts to emerge. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to restrict himself to the question. Senator MASON —My final point, which I suggest Government senators ought to listen to, since it involves their constituents-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask his question. Senator MASON —Since it is known that alpha emitters in dust inhaled or ingested into the human body can cause cancers which develop some 30 years later, what steps is the Government taking on behalf of those Australians likely to have been affected? Senator WALSH —I am mystified at the cause of that petulant outburst just before the end of an extremely long question. On the information currently available, I am not able to confirm whether roads were constructed during the time frame which was suggested by Senator Mason and which has had some publicity in the Press. That matter, along with a number of others, is being investigated. Senator Mason made a couple of other points. He said that following the possibly relevant one kiloton explosion there would have been heavy fallout in the area. This will be subject to far more detailed checking later on. I was advised last week that although there was probably heavy fallout of shorter lived radioactive material, even with a relatively weak atomic explosion of that size-one kiloton- there would be negligible plutonium contamination of the area, and it is plutonium with which Senator Mason is clearly primarily concerned. As I have indicated to the Senate before, Professor Kerr and his committee have now completed their report. I propose to table that in the Senate next week. In that report-I have read most of it-the Committee addresses the question of fallout of the United Kingdom tests, weapons tests and others, held in Australia . The Committee has made recommendations which I intend to consider or put to the Government for possible action at the earliest possible time. Regarding the aspect of the question on information from the British, I have already asked the British High Commissioner for detailed information as to the amounts of radioactive material which were contained in all of the tests-again, weapons and other tests-between 1952 and 1963. Senator MASON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister asked the British Government whether the bomb was a plutonium bomb? Senator WALSH —I do not have a copy of the information requested with me, but as I recall it I asked the British to supply details of the amount of plutonium, if any, which was in all of the bombs and other devices which were tested and the amount which they believe would have been deposited nearby. Obviously, of course , the rest would have been either fissioned or blasted into the upper atmosphere . Senator COATES —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the Government's assets test and the fact that the income threshold for a single person is not merely half that for a couple. I have seen some criticism of this and suggestions that a married couple who divorce but continue to live together can qualify for two single thresholds. Will the Minister make it clear why the income thresholds are set in this way and why the threshold for a couple applies whether or not they are formally married? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Coates says, the sort of relationship between the $100 ,000 amount and the $70,000 amount which exists in the assets test is the same sort of relationship which has existed between married and single rates of pensions and the cut-off points for income tests for a long time. The rationale behind this is that there are economies of scale for people living together. The present restrictions in the Social Security Act will apply to the assets test as they do to existing pension requirements-that is, people living in a de facto relationship or a bona fide domestic relationship, as they are described in the Act, will be considered the same as a married couple. That has been the case under the legislation for a great deal of time. We have no intention of changing it. Therefore, there will be no advantage to anyone taking the action that Senator Coates suggests. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, follows the answers given by Senator Grimes to the questions asked of him earlier in Question Time. Can the Minister tell us the number of people who will be employed in his Department on the development and subsequent administration of the assets test? Can he tell us the number of pensioners covered by his Department whom it is estimated the test will affect? Senator GIETZELT —In the initial period it is anticipated that the maximum number of people employed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in respect of analysing the service pension component of the assets test will be around 300-I think precisely 310. However, it is anticipated that most of the basic information is still available to the Department. When the previous Government abolished the assets test, for some reason which I cannot explain, the Department did not alter the form and so the basic information is available. Consequently, the Secretary to my Department advises that it will not require a large workload once the initial work is completed. In those circumstances we do not anticipate a great deal of overheads in the administration of the test after the initial work is done in compiling the information to see who will be affected by the assets test proposal. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply, but he did not mention the continuing number of people affected, except to say that it will not be a very heavy burden. He did not mention the number of service pensioners whom his Department estimates will be affected. Senator GIETZELT —At this stage it is anticipated that anything up to about 5 per cent of the service pensioners will be affected by the assets test announced by the Government today. That can only be an estimate at this stage. I am inclined to the view that this will probably be a fairly realistic analysis of the number of people who will either possibly lose the pension-that is, wealthy people-or those who will be affected by the assets test to the extent that they will have reduced pensions. Senator ELSTOB —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Has the Government yet made an assessment of the first home owners scheme? If so, can the Minister convey to the Senate any results of this assessment? For instance, is the Government satisfied with the participation rate in the scheme by lower income groups? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Elstob says, we have been monitoring the first home owners scheme and we believe the results have been very satisfactory. There were 522,900-odd inquiries and 80,000 applications for assistance from 1 October to 25 May. In the three weeks up to the end of May there were about 2,800 applications a week, compared with 950 applications a week in 1982-83 under the home deposit assistance scheme. Our scheme has been strongly supported by the housing industry and has been seen as a major contributor to the recovery in that industry, which has had an important part to play in increasing employment in this country. I think it is fair to say that the high application rates reflect the effectiveness of the first home owners scheme. The improvements in the economy and the lower interest rates have assisted, but there is also an improvement in consumer confidence and a high level of home loan lending. Senator Messner —But the grant has not met the increase in the prices of houses. Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner again demonstrates that he opposes something. He opposes the first home owners scheme, which has obviously been so successful, not only for those who want to buy homes but also for those in the building industry. So I think someday, Mr President, we will have to get Messner up to tell us something he is in favour of. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister should not refer to the honourable senator by his surname but should refer to him as Senator Messner. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry, Mr President, I should say the honourable Senator Messner. There has been a backlog of unprocessed claims, but these claims have been delayed largely because of applicants providing insufficient documentation in their initial application. The situation is being closely monitored. Staff levels have been upgraded to cope with the high level of applications, and 69 staff members, who were taken on to work on the previous assets test, have actually been seconded from the Department of Social Security. The Department will continue to review the matter. As a result of a review of the first six months, changes have been made in the administrative structure to make sure that the scheme is more efficient. I think everyone in the community, and probably every member of the Parliament, except Senator Messner, will accept that it has been a very successful scheme. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs concerns the recent granting of a pay increase for academics by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Was the claim within the guidelines of the wages and prices accord? Why is the Government now proposing to rat on its side of the bargain by not agreeing to abide immediately by the umpire's decision? Does the Minister agree that the Government's approach to the Tribunal next week to delay the rise will mean that academic staff are being treated differently from other members of the work force? Did not the Government promise explicitly in its 1983 election policy not only to accept but also to fund determinations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal? Senator RYAN —It is the case that the question of implementation of the Ludeke decision, as it has been called, which is a decision for a 5 per cent across the board increase for all academics working in colleges of advanced education and universities, is under consideration by the Government. The report has not yet been tabled, as the honourable senator would be aware. The Government is giving consideration to how it can best combine its responsibilities and commitments in the higher education field generally with a response to the decision taken by Mr Justice Ludeke. The matter is under consideration and when the Government tables that report its decision will be made known. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. I asked the Minister: Did not the Government's pre-election policy state explicitly that not only would it accept but also fund determinations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal? That is a simple matter. Is it not a fact that the Government at the moment is going back to the Tribunal to try to have the Tribunal's determination varied? Senator RYAN —As I have said, the matter is under consideration. The question of the method and timing of the implementation of the decision is under consideration. When the Government has made a decision it will table the report and inform the Senate. Senator CHILDS —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he is aware of comments by Senator Baume, as reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald, which state: . . . the pursuit of profit by cigarette and alcohol companies represented the ''unacceptable face of capitalism''. The article continues: . . . the corporations ''stand condemned of the most cynical, reprehensible, irresponsible and blatant disregard for the public interest where this conflicts with their corporate goals of profitable consumption''. What are the health ramifications of the consumption of tobacco- Senator Elstob —That's a lot of rubbish. Senator CHILDS —And alcohol, and what is the Government's response to this major social problem? Senator GRIMES —Senator Childs is right; I did note the remarks of Senator Baume. There are not many things that Senator Baume, Laurie Carmichael and I would agree on, but this is one. I borrowed that statement from Senator Sibraa. Senator Baume and I, and everyone in this chamber with the exception of Senator Elstob, realise that both tobacco and alcohol are damaging to health, particularly the latter when used in excess. This Government is committed to further action to inhibit the promotion of cigarette smoking and to increase community awareness of safe patterns of alcohol consumption. Certainly I and I am sure the Minister for Health welcome Senator Baume's support in this area. Senator Baume realises, of course, that social reforms of this type are not easy to achieve. For instance, every doctor in the country realises the danger of cigarette smoking and almost every doctor in the country, except Senator Crowley and me, stopped smoking. Senator Baume and I, in writing some years ago the report 'Drug problems in Australia-an intoxicated society?', recognised the great difficulty involved in overcoming this problem. The latest available estimates are that in 1981 tobacco was responsible for 16,500 deaths and alcohol was responsible for 3,500 deaths. To that figure must be added the substantial proportion of health expenditure which goes on those who suffer from excessive tobacco and alcohol consumption, and the very real social problems which result from alcohol abuse. Following the April 1984 conference in Melbourne of the Australian Health Ministers, draft instructions for legislation to establish a tobacco advertising production code were released for public comment. The proposed legislation covers all tobacco products, not only cigarettes, and provides for tighter controls on tobacco advertising. This was thought necessary because of the failure of the tobacco industry to act to set up a satisfactory voluntary code, demonstrating what Senator Baume quite correctly described as, I think, the ugly face of capitalism . A sub-committee of Liberal and Labor Health Ministers has been formed to consider these submissions. The Committee comprised Mr Mulock from New South Wales, Mr Roper from Victoria, Dr Blewett from the Commonwealth, and Mr Cleary from Tasmania. The Committee will consider submissions, consult with interested groups, and report back to a special conference to be held later this year. Senator Baume's concern regarding tobacco sponsorship for sport is also shared by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and options for alternative avenues of sponsorship which will accommodate health concerns without jeopardising the viability of sporting groups in Australia are being looked at. The Government's concern with alcohol is with its misuse. Accordingly, the Health Department is working with the alcoholic beverage industry to develop a code which promotes awareness of responsible attitudes towards drinking. I am pleased to be able to place on record that at the moment the co-operation of the alcohol production industry has been considerable in this area, something which I think in the long term will be of great benefit to us all. Senator ARCHER —I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and refer her to her answer to Senator Durack on 10 May when she said she shared the concern of a wide range of women's organisations about the increasing accessibility of Australians to hard core pornography in the form of videos. Did she hear the Attorney-General say on Wednesday that he had received specific endorsement for the Government's new regulations, which considerably relaxed controls on pornographic videos, from the women's advisers to every government in Australia? Is the Minister satisfied that these advisers fairly reflect overall women's views on this issue? Does she believe Senator Evans should have consulted women's groups outside what he described as the mainstream of feminist thought before deciding on the new video regulations? Senator RYAN —It is certainly true that in reply to a question from Senator Durack I said that I shared the general concern being voiced by women and women' s organisations throughout Australia about the increased availability of hard core pornography, particularly through videos that can be played in the home. It is also true that Senator Evans later on informed the Senate that when he made his decisions regarding the recategorisation of some of these videos for import reasons he did so after consultation with women's advisers for every State government. Those two answers of course are not in conflict. Senator Evans also had some consultation with me about this matter-with the Office of the Status of Women. I believe that it is the role of special women's units or advisers, which most governments in Australia now have, to represent the views of a wide variety of women. In my experience-and I have considerable experience in dealing with women's advisers in State governments and with the Office of the Status of Women -they do that very effectively. The decisions which Senator Evans has announced on the part of the Government were the result of these discussions. It is the case that certain categories of pornographic videos have now been excluded from legal entry into this country and that the Attorney-General, in his decisions, has gone a very considerable way towards meeting the concerns which were widely represented. I think I recall also saying in my answer to Senator Durack that I would be interested in a continued monitoring of how the new category system works. I am sure that is something on which the Attorney- General will agree with me. Obviously now that there is a new system the Attorney and I certainly hope that the most offensive material-the material that was giving most concern to women and women's organisations-will be excluded from Australia. But should it be revealed, after the system has had a fair amount of time to operate, that there are still areas of concern, I am sure the Attorney will address himself to those matters. I would say finally, in case I did not make it quite clear, that yes, I do accept the views put forward by advisers to State governments when they are consulted as representing a very wide range of views indeed. Senator ARCHER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether she is satisfied that the story that she put up about this material not being allowed in is the story that was put to the Party as a whole, because a reading of the legislation makes it adequately clear that the material can come in. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is not entitled to argue his question. He is asking a supplementary question. Senator ARCHER —I ask the Minister whether she is satisfied that the legislation in fact prevents this material coming in, or whether it is the purpose that it should be identified and dealt with once it has come in? Senator RYAN —I am satisfied that the legislation which has now been enacted will be effective in preventing some kinds of material from coming into Australia. Senator Archer had a lot of difficulty in formulating his question. I think that is the best I can do under the circumstances. The PRESIDENT —I do not make this statement by way of complaint, I merely mention it for my own protection because people complain to me subsequently that they cannot ask questions. There have been six questions from my left and six supplementary questions as well. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the Attorney-General to the incredible diatribe which Senator Sir John Carrick dressed up as a question yesterday. I ask the Minister whether he has any information about what Mr Hayden said in Hungary and the Government's stance on deployment of new generation missiles by both North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact countries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been able to secure some further and better particulars as to the matter raised yesterday by Senator Sir John Carrick, in particular in the form of a transcript of the relevant passage of Mr Hayden's remarks when addressing the media following his talks with the Hungarian Foreign Minister. What he said in relevant part was this: The cost of the escalating arms race is a very severe burden upon them. But for all that they are not going to enter into negotiations in an atmosphere where they feel constantly threatened, where they are not treated with equality, where they do not believe there is a guarantee of equal security. Now all of these things are a reflection of what he says-- This is the bit that Senator Sir John Carrick left out of his question yesterday - not what we believe or necessarily what we accept. But they are a clear indication of the very serious nature of the problems which are impeding the flow of exchanges which are necessary if we're going to get any dialogue under way between East and West. I indicate that that selective quotation and selective indignation is yet another demonstration of the kind of meretricious approach to Question Time which Senator Sir John Carrick has made peculiarly his own. As to Australia's policy on this issue, I refer Senator Sir John Carrick to my reply on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Senator Chipp's question on notice No. 388, which was published in the Senate Hansard of 15 November 1983 . It is a long reply and I will not repeat it all, but it is a reply which makes absolutely and unequivocally clear that the Government's commitment is to disarmament generally, not selectively, applicable to the weapons stockpiles of both East and West. More particularly, in the context of Senator Sir John Carrick's question, we fully understand and accept the concerns of the non- communist NATO countries in this respect as, for example, I made clear in the answer I referred to on 15 November when writing on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I said this, and I quote one final passage: It was the Soviet Union's deployment of the SS20 that provoked NATO's response in the form of its decision to modernise intermediate-range nuclear forces through the deployment of Cruise and Pershing II missiles in the event that negotiations to limit this class of weapons proved fruitless. So the notion that there is some selectivity or blinkered approach on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Minister to these matters of acute concern, not only to Australia but to the world, is a total falsehood and a total fabrication, and one that ought to demand an apology from the honourable senator concerned. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer her to the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which canvasses the possibility of reintroducing tertiary fees as a means of financing growth in higher education. Has the Minister asked her Department for any information on the cost of collecting fees and their likely impact on students? If so, has she received a response and does the Government plan to bring back general tertiary fees which were abolished in 1973? Senator RYAN —The answer to the last part of Senator Lajovic's question is no. The answer to the first part is yes, the Tertiary Education Commission very briefly flagged fees as one form of revenue from private sources. It may recommend at some time in the future that institutions pursue this. If Senator Lajovic has read the Tertiary Education Commission report he will know that the report does not recommend it, but in a section dealing with the capacity of institutions to increase their support from private sources it does mention the possibility of fees. However, there is no recommendation to that effect in this triennial report. Because I have been asked not only by Senator Lajovic here today but also by a number of other people about this passing reference in the Tertiary Education Commission report, I have sought some information. I think the information I sought was to do with that proportion of the running costs of institutions provided by the payment of private fees during the period the fees were charged and some additional information along those lines. Of course it is important, if there is going to be some sort of discussion on this topic, that the facts about the contribution, which I know to have been a minor one, to the cost of funding colleges and universities which was made by fees when they were charged be known so there can be a proper debate, if indeed there is going to be a debate about this matter. I have not received the information yet, but when I do, if Senator Lajovic is interested in it, I would be pleased to make it available to him. Senator ZAKHAROV —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have been made anxious by rumours that the war widows pension will be more difficult to obtain after the passage of the Veterans Entitlement Bill later this year. Can the Minister inform the Senate of any changes proposed in that Bill which relate to war widows benefits and whether there is any reason for war widows and their families to be concerned? Senator GIETZELT —There have been a number of rumours about the Government's intention in respect of both the Repatriation Amendment Bill, which relates to changes in the determining system, and the Veterans Entitlement Bill, which is scheduled for consideration in the next session of Parliament. A number of those rumours are without foundation. I find particularly galling one that has been circulated which suggests that there is going to be some change to the status of war widows and the capacity to qualify for the war widows pension. I can categorically refute the rumour that unfortunately has been circulated within some sections of the veterans' community that the Veterans Entitlement Bill will be to the detriment of the war widow. In fact, the Veterans Entitlement Bill will remove a long-standing discrimination in the Repatriation Act. The main area of concern, naturally, to war widows is that their entitlements are going to be placed under any threat. These rumours create unnecessary anxiety and concern. The current legislation provides that the war widows pension of a widow who remarries-and that happens on quite a number of occasions-is, after a short period, cancelled. The Government has taken the view-and I think there will be all-party support for this view-that the war widows pension is a compensation arrangement similar to that paid to spouses under most compensation schemes. Nobody has suggested that compensation should be taken from people when they remarry. So, in the light of that approach, I think it is appropriate that the war widows benefit be brought into line with benefits provided under other schemes. That is why we will provide in the Veterans Entitlement Bill that a war widow who remarries will in no way be discriminated against in respect of her capacity to receive a war widow pension. Senator REID —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Did the Minister or her Department ask the Public Service Board for $35 ,000 to pay for 10 questions on schools funding to be included in the public opinion survey planned for the Department of the Special Minister of State by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd? Did the Board approve that request? If not, what reasons did it give for withholding its approval and who ultimately approved the project? Senator RYAN —The matter that Senator Reid raises in her question was raised at a supplementary meeting of Senate Estimates Committee D last night and was answered. I suggest that Senator Reid refer to that answer. If she is seeking additional information, she could let me know. Senator ROBERT RAY —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation outline Government plans to give Qantas Airways Ltd more autonomy in the conduct of its commercial affairs? Senator GIETZELT —The question of autonomy for the Qantas organisation is on the public record. The Government agreed last year not only to give substantial capital assistance to Qantas but also to give it the opportunity to operate on a proper commercial basis by allowing it greater flexibility and the capacity to manage its own affairs free, as far as possible, from government interference. Coupled with the $60m capital that was given to Qantas, this has had a remarkable effect on the capacity of that organisation to fulfil its statutory function. There has been a streamlining of the workforce and the organisation has sold some of its major property investments. This has enabled Qantas to establish a much better break-even seat factor. This factor had been acting to the detriment of the organisation's commercial viability. As a result of the commercial initiatives taken by the Government, the position has now been reached where the break-even seat factor has dropped from 70 per cent to 56 per cent. Of course, that affects not only the efficient operation of the airline but also its capacity to increase its rate of profitability. I might say that in the four years prior to the election of the Labor Government Qantas suffered overall losses in excess of $120m because of the general problems of the economy and loss of fare support. However, it is pleasing to note that in the first year of operation following this Government's decision Qantas has turned in a $58.5m profit of which already it has been able to pay back $25m to the Government. It has turned an operating loss into a profit. If the rate of profitability continues, the decision to pump $60m into Qantas, which relieved that organisation of a crippling interest liability, will prove the effectiveness of the Government's proposal to put the company on a sound economic footing. The fact that the company is operating very satisfactorily is further proof that this Government operates on the principle of sound economic management. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs whether Margaret Gibbs of Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd, which carries out political market research for the Australian Labor Party, is known personally to the Minister? Did she have any discussions with Margaret Gibbs about a survey of attitudes towards the funding of government and non-government schools before or after finance for such a survey had been rejected by Mr Dawkins? Was Finance for the survey ultimately obtained on the approval of the Special Minister of State, the Minister who had to resign from Cabinet because of indiscretions with Mr Rod Cameron, the head of ANOP? Senator RYAN —The first part of the honourable senator's question was whether Margaret Gibbs of Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd is known to me. Yes, she is known to me. It would be known to the Senate that the Australian Labor Party, as distinct from the Government, has employed the services of ANOP from time to time, mainly during election campaigns. I have met Margaret Gibbs on a number of occasions in that capacity and, indeed, found her to be an extremely competent person to deal with. As to a meeting I had with Margaret Gibbs, I certainly had a meeting with Margaret Gibbs to discuss the scope of the youth attitudes survey and to discuss the possibility of extending that survey to make some sort of investigation into community attitudes to schools funding. I do not recall the date of that meeting but it certainly took place. As to the approval for the expenditure of $35,000 for an extension of the youth attitudes survey to cover community attitudes to schools funding, that was, indeed, properly approved by the Special Minister of State since the appropriation for that survey was within the portfolio of the Special Minister of State. Senator RICHARDSON —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. As the Minister is no doubt aware, the Craig report on occupational safety and health standards in Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation laboratories was recently handed down. The report was commissioned after an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of a CSIRO scientist in Victoria, Dr Ron Bermagasco, had found that while the doctor's death could not be directly related to his work, there were severe defects in the working conditions of the CSIRO's Fishermans Bend site. The report, the first of its type-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator RICHARDSON —Considering the serious nature of the report and the fact that the cost to the CSIRO of occupational accidents and disease approaches several million dollars annually, can the Minister tell me what action the Government has taken to implement the report's recommendations? Senator RYAN —A number of steps have been taken following the publication of the Craig report on occupational safety and health standards in the CSIRO. The CSIRO executive has accepted the general thrust of the Craig report's 45 recommendations. The Central Occupational Health and Safety Unit has been established. The anticipated number of five and a manager and engineer have been appointed and an administrative officer selected. Advertisements for an hygienist have been placed and the CSIRO staff are negotiating with the Public Service Board for approval to engage a medical officer. Arrangements for safety committee establishment and operation are being overhauled. A new ADP-based accident statistics system is under development in the CSIRO. Systems for carrying out safety audits at each of the CSIRO's sites are being designed. Staff access to information on potential hazards is being increased. Efforts are being made to achieve heightened awareness of occupational health and safety throughout the CSIRO. In the context of the 1984- 85 Budget, various essential capital works proposals have been developed to upgrade occupational safety and health standards in several CSIRO laboratories. Other recommendations of the Craig committee will be implemented progressively. Senator Chaney —I ask that the Minister table the paper from which she quoted. Senator RYAN —I table the paper. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to inform the Senate of the up to date position regarding the claim of the Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia for an $11.90 allowance. What action is being taken to avoid a flow- on to Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia members? Are reports that the Minister plans partial deregistration of the Federated Furnishing Trades Society accurate? If so, when will the submission be made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Senator BUTTON —I qualify what I shall say by stating that my information is probably two or three days old and I should like to seek a more up to date answer for the honourable senator from the Minister. But certainly, as at two or three days ago, what I can perhaps call negotiations were going on between the Minister, the relevant union and the employing companies involved in separate sets of negotiations, as I understand it. With regard to the possible question of deregistration of the Federated Furnishing Trades Society, that is certainly an option which has received consideration. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to Senator Button in his capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to information provided this week showing that Budget sales tax collections from motor vehicle sales more than doubled under the Fraser Government in the three years to 1982-83 and that motor vehicles contributed at least one-fifth of all sales tax revenue in the Budget, and possibly one-third. Does the Minister consider that, in addition to the effective car industry plans involving tariffs and quotas, general financial measures, such as the level of sales tax, can have an impact on the level of activity in the car industry? Does the Minister take the view that the recent large sales tax rises have held back the car industry at a time of difficult economic circumstances? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator is right in saying that sales tax on motor vehicles was increased in the 1981 and 1982 Budgets from 15 per cent to 20 per cent in two progressive steps. Sales tax, as I have indicated, is currently levied on passenger motor vehicles at about 20 per cent. I make the point that historically that is not a high rate; it has been 40 per cent in the past. The rise in receipts in recent years is probably due to the rise in passenger motor vehicle prices and the tax base. It is not surprising, I suppose, that sales tax from passenger motor vehicles is a big proportion of the total receipts of sales tax, as passenger motor vehicles are big capital items among the relatively few goods purchased by consumers which are subject to sales tax. I recognise that it is a significant impost on the passenger motor vehicle industry, but I would also make the point that if one looks at the fluctuations in demand for passenger motor vehicles, and indeed the registrations of passenger motor vehicles, over the past two years one will see enormous fluctuations which are more related, I think, to the general economic situation than to the existence or otherwise of sales tax. For example, 1982 and 1983 were very bad years for the industry; 1984 has shown considerable improvement with probably the highest registrations for some years now. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Three recent reports-namely, the Bailey, Meredith and Williams reports- have emphasised the importance of small business education in Australia. Recent Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission advice to the Minister for Education deals with small business education in the technical and further education sector but does not touch on the role of higher education in small business education. Will the Minister investigate this matter with a view to providing a definite role for universities and colleges of advanced education in small business education? Senator RYAN —Obviously the Government will take advice from the Tertiary Education Commission about the most appropriate sector within which to develop different kinds of studies. Volume I of the Tertiary Education Commission's report for the next triennium is currently being considered by the Government. It does address the question of business education, both small business education and management education. When the Government responds to that report in the form of the funding guidelines for higher education which will be brought down some time in July, the Government's views on these matters will be made known. Senator COLEMAN —I ask the Minister for Social Security to comment on the statement by Sir William McMahon on lunchtime radio today in relation to the assets test. Given that Sir William could be considered 'a tall poppy', in name only, perhaps the Minister will give the Senate an example of how Sir William will be affected by the test to which he has now given approval. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did hear Sir William's comments on lunchtime radio. I am sure Sir William will be pleased to be described for the first time in his life as a tall poppy. Sir William McMahon, of course, is a very responsible and respected politician in this country. He is a man of great judgment, both political and economic. I remember that he once said there had been only one better Treasurer than him, and that was Bill Hayden. He now says there have been two, Paul Keating and Bill Hayden. I suppose Sir William would be Australia's number one pensioner, and of course he would be affected by the assets test. But , like most reasonable people, he accepts the fact-as he said today-that we need a needs-based social security system and that to have a needs-based social security system without consideration of assets is a nonsense. As he said, the government is right in principle and right in practice. I am sure there are many other Liberals and ex-Liberals who support Sir William's words. That will be demonstrated in the next few days. Senator CHANEY —I address a question to the Minister for Social Security following the question he was just asked by Senator Coleman. I ask: Has the Minister heard reports of Professor Gruen's attitude to what the Government has done and in particular reports of Professor Gruen's view that the Government has been inept? I ask the Minister whether he accepts those views with the same enthusiasm as he accepts the endorsements of a former Liberal Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon? Senator GRIMES —Indeed I do. I have read Professor Gruen's Press statement and I heard Professor Gruen make that statement. He said in essence that he would have preferred his number one option and he thought the Government should have adopted it. Because it did not do so, he said the Government was inept. The next words he said were that the Liberal Party is even more inept and less principled . He said: The position of the Liberals is even less defensible. Those who argue for smaller government and needs based welfare while rejecting concrete administrative moves in that direction deserve to be regarded as supremely opportunistic cynics. I find those words of Professor Gruen even more appropriate than the words he used about the present Government. Senator BOLKUS —Has the Minister who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence seen the reports in today's National Times which state that the facilities at Nurrungar and Pine Gap support the United States strategic policy of limited or controlled nuclear war fighting? Is this information accurately based on advice given to the United States Congress by the Pentagon? Does this information contradict the official Australian Government position that the joint facilities are purely defensive, as is evidenced by the advice from the Department of Defence to Prime Minister Whitlam in March 1973? Will the Minister investigate this matter to ascertain who is misleading whom and so that the Australian people can be fully and accurately advised of the functions of these facilities? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honourable senator takes at face value anything he reads in the National Times he has got more confidence in human nature than I am able to muster on these occasions. However, there are matters in Senator Bolkus' s question which deserve a reply. I will ensure that they are investigated and that an appropriate reply is supplied as soon as possible. The PRESIDENT —During consideration of the appropriations last night Senator Martin requested that I examine the delay in the printing of the additional information supplied to Estimates Committee D. Senator Martin commented that whilst the members of the Committee had received copies of the additional information, other senators had not done so. Whilst not criticising the Senate reproduction section, Senator Martin suggested some rescheduling of priorities might be appropriate. The Usher of the Black Rod has advised me that, as well as its normal work on sitting days, the Estimates committees impose an additional burden on the reproduction section. The 140 pages of committee reports and more than 730 pages of additional information together require 48 man-hours to print and staple. The reproduction section endeavours at all times to provide a speedy service to the Senate and to honourable senators. So far this week, the section has printed 312 reams of paper-or 156,000 pages. The 281 pages of additional information for Estimates Committee D by itself required 15 1/2 man-hours to print and staple. Together with other urgent work for committees and senators, there has thus been an inevitable delay in meeting printing requirements of Estimates Committee D. Black Rod has assured me that the Estimates committees have been given priority in meeting requests for printing. I am sure all honourable senators appreciate the service provided by the reproduction section. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —In the parliamentary page of the Age this morning, in the course of a short piece on the Parliament House telephones affair, the following paragraph appeared: The Attorney-General, Senator Evans, who is responsible for ASIO, said it seemed ASIO was determined to perpetuate its stumblebum image. In fact I said nothing of the kind. The words were apparently those of an Age reporter and were mistakenly attributed to me as a result of a fault in the sub- editing process. I have not been averse to giving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation a caning when I think it deserves it but I have no reason whatever for believing that the Organisation does deserve a caning on this occasion. With that in mind I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a letter which I wrote to you, Mr President, yesterday following your statement in the House on the subject of suggested ASIO responsibility for telephone malfunctions in this place. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, Q.C. Attorney-General Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 31 May 1984 GE: CMAM Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland, President of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr President, I refer to my letter of 14 May, 1984 in which I indicated that I had sought comment from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) on the report received by you from the Parliament House Security Controller of complaints from the Telecom technician in Parliament House of damage to Telecom switching equipment in the building allegedly caused by ASIO technicians checking the equipment for surveillance devices. I have now received a report from the senior ASIO officer in Canberra responsible for the security checks carried out on telephones at Parliament House. In relation to the requirement for prior approval by the Presiding Officer before such tests are carried out by ASIO officers, I am advised that since November 1983, ASIO technical officers required to conduct tests for surveillance or listening devices at Parliament House have as a matter of course sought the prior approval of the relevant Presiding Officer through the Security Controller or his deputy. There was a recent exception when, as has been publicly reported, I requested a check of my own office. Attempts were made to obtain prior clearance from the Security Controller or his deputy but neither could be contacted. The Deputy Security Controller was ultimately contacted on the day after the tests had been carried out and advised accordingly. With regard to the allegations of damage having been caused by ASIO technical officers, I am advised that the allegation is without foundation. I quote the relevant passages of the ASIO report to me: ''The officers who carry out the ACM (Audio Counter-Measure) tests are most competent and highly qualified. They have undertaken specialist training with Telecom on the telephone system in use at Parliament House and I believe the level of their expertise to be higher than that of most Telecom technicians. ''Following receipt of your letter, the Security Controller, Parliament House, was contacted to try to determine the exact nature of the complaint. He was not able to specify the damage alleged to have been caused, but said that following the visits by ASIO technical officers to carry out ACM tests, a large number of complaints of equipment malfunction had been received. Pressed for details, the Security Controller said the malfunctions ranged from ''boards'' (presumably printed circuit boards) being inoperative to integrated circuits being ''blown up''. ''The Security Controller is aware of the dates of the visits by ASIO technical officers and I am at a loss to understand why he has made no effort to consult or report these matters to ASIO. ''I am satisfied that ASIO technical officers were not responsible for damage to, or malfunction of, the telephone system at Parliament House. If such damage and equipment malfunction has occurred, there may be an urgent need to investigate the telephone systems within Parliament House. This, of course, is a matter for Telecom, not ASIO.'' There is nothing which I can usefully add to the ASIO report. I trust that this satisfactorily answers the matters you raised. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Senator COATES(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief explanation in response to a misreporting in a newspaper. Leave granted. Senator COATES —In today's Australian Financial Review there is a report on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the cherry-picker superannuation funds which commences by stating: A powerful Senate Committee has told the Tax Office to go back to the courts and test its tax avoidance powers before it will recommend acceptance of a measure aimed at stamping out tax avoidance in the superannuation industry. Later the article refers to the recommendation having the unanimous support of the Committee. I point out, Mr President, that the Committee recommended first of all by a majority recommendation, although there were dissenting reports, that the Bill providing for retrospectivity be passed and then, if that recommendation were rejected, the Australian Taxation office should go back to the courts. I am disappointed, to say the least, that the Australian Financial Review report does not make clear. Consideration resumed. Department of Home Affairs and Environment Proposed Expenditure, $2,298,000. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.06) —Shortly before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, Senator Martin asked a number of questions concerning films which had been eligible for various tax concessions. After consultation with the officers of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, I have answers to the series of questions requested by Senator Martin. Senator Martin is not in the chamber at the moment. Before I seek leave to have those answers incorporated in Hansard, I point out that the answers are not in the form that Senator Martin wished to have them. Senator Martin wanted the names of certain films to be made available to her. Advice given to me by the officers of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and included in the printed answers which I will seek leave to have incorporated draws attention to the possible problems of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Asessment Act should that information be made available at this stage. Clearly, it would be foolish to risk any problems with those secrecy provisions at this stage. I will therefore seek leave to incorporate the answers insofar as we have them. If it becomes possible for us to give the precise information on further legal advice, then that information will be made available. Senator Hamer made a request in relation to the National Film and Sound Archive. At this point I seek leave to incorporate both of those sets of answers in Hansard. Leave granted- The answers read as follows- QUESTIONS BY SENATOR MARTIN Question 1-What are ''films of a like nature'' and why are figures not available from the Film Commission on the number of such films produced. Answer-These are basically dramas produced for television. In many cases the Film Commission will not have information on them. Aggregate information available to the Department has already been provided. The Film Commission will be asked to look further into the matter in order to provide the maximum information from its sources. Question 2-What are the names of films produced under the 150 and 133 percent provisions? Answer-This question raised a legal difficulty under section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the relevant part of which reads: ''(2) Subject to this section, an officer shall not either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of any duty as an officer, and either while he is, or after he ceases to be an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person any such information so acquired by him.'' The Minister, the Department and the Australian Film Commission are all '' officers'' for the purpose of the provision. It will therefore be necessary to seek legal advice as to the extent to which this question can be answered from departmental records. Senator Martin will be provided with the maximum information legally and practicably available under the Act. Further inquiries will be made of the Film Commission as to relevant information available to them. Question 3-How much money has been raised under the Budget provisions for IOBA, i.e. 133% deduction? Answer-AFC's best market estimate is as follows: (12) Features-$17 million; (5) Mini Series-$16 million; (8) Telemovies-$7 million; Documentaries-no figures available. This is very much a ''guestimate'' obtained over the phone from AFC late yesterday. Note that this financing situation re films is changing daily as deals are put together. Question 4-How much money is in the trust account covered by the 1983 Budget provision? Under the total, what is the breakdown of how much for each feature film, mini-series, feature-like film, and documentary? Answer-The same secrecy provisions as mentioned in question 2 operate in this case and will be dealt with in the same manner. Trust Fund does not distinguish between funds obtained by investors at the 150% or 133% rate. Trust Fund Account is not of itself a monitoring vehicle but rather a bank account for investment funds and it is constantly changing. For this reason it would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable to provide the information at any one time. However the exercise could be undertaken after a cut-off point such as June 30. This will be done and the maximum possible information supplied . QUESTIONS BY SENATOR HAMER Senator Hamer referred to the written answers provided to the questions asked by Senate Estimates Committee D on 3 May, relating to the National Film and Sound Archive. Question-In regard to answer to question 2 concerning the National Library's part-time Task Force of 16 members continuing only to 30 June, and noting the answer to question 1 that 15 full-time positions were transferred from the Library to the Department on 11 May, what is being done to continue the work previously done by the Task Force? Answer-(i) A number of part-time positions, equivalent to the level employed by the National Library on tasks related to its film and sound archives sections over the previous 12 months, are being sought for in the context of the 1984-85 draft estimates for the National Film and Sound Archives; (ii) An appropriate top structure and other positions for the National Film and Sound Archive are being developed in consultation with the Public Service Board and the positions will be created as soon as possible. Question-Could the answer to question 9 concerning the 1984-85 Budget be elaborated? Answer-In the draft estimates submitted for 1984-85, a significant increase in funds has been sought for establishment and operation of the National Film and Sound Archive. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $3,669,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP E Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $7,191,000. (Quorum formed) Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.10) —During the hearing of Estimates Committee E I asked the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) some questions in relation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I direct the Attorney-General's attention to page 243 of the Senate Hansard of 3 May 1984. At the hearing of Senate Estimates Committee E I was asking the Attorney-General about the terms of the appointment of Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions. In his reply Senator Evans said: He is now based in Canberra following an initial transition period which, I think, is now complete. Later Senator Evans said that there was a transition period because of the relative speed with which Mr Temby had been appointed. It was then agreed that there be a protracted transition period of some months into this year, thus enabling Mr Temby to make more trips between Canberra and his home in Perth until he got himself established in Canberra. I asked questions also about the extent to which Mr Temby had been travelling to Perth. Senator Evans gave this assurance: There is not a whiff of scandal here. We have not been very generous at all, I can assure you, but we will do our best to tell you what we can. I then received from Mr Glare some further information which had been promised to me, although the Attorney-General does not seem to read the answers to questions that are provided by his Department. Maybe he has read this answer. At all events, I hope he has. In that answer, which is dated 24 May and addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Glare states: As the Attorney-General explained to the Committee . . . because of the short notice Mr Temby had of the appointment, it was acknowledged that in the short term there would be a fair amount of travel between Canberra and Perth. It was understood that as far as possible such travel would be combined with work arising from his position as Director of Public Prosecutions and in fact all such travel to date has included work in his official capacity. I am interested to receive more details about that point. Mr Temby was appointed on 5 March and this letter was written on 24 May. I would like to know how many trips in fact Mr Temby made to Perth in the intervening period and to what extent they were related to work in his official capacity. That is one aspect of the answer that intrigues me. The Attorney-General obviously was under the impression that this transitional period had been completed. He said that the Government was not being generous at all in relation to this matter, and that certainly there was not a whiff of scandal involved. I am sure there was no scandal, and I have never suggested that there was any scandal. I am not suggesting now that there is any scandal. What I am interested in-I started my remarks by asking this-is what were the terms of these arrangements. I was not provided with an answer to that question, and I still have not been given an answer by Mr Glare. He concluded this interesting letter by saying: Negotiations are under way for a more formal arrangement. That indicates that these transitional arrangements are still on foot and that an informal arrangement covering the transitional period is still to be entered into. That is the only way in which I can interpret the answer. Perhaps the Attorney-General can clarify the matter, or perhaps he reads that answer in a different way. The situation is highly ambiguous. It is totally unsatisfactory for the Estimates Committee. The answer provided is unsatisfactory for the consideration of this Committee, which has to approve the estimates of the Department. The situation is that on 3 May-that is, two months after Mr Temby had taken up his position and, I think, three months after he was appointed- neither the Attorney-General nor Mrs Higgins, who was the officer who attended the Estimates Committee hearing, could answer my question about the terms of Mr Temby's appointment. I find that unbelievable. Now, almost a month after that Estimates Committee hearing on 3 May, we are still in the dark about the whole matter. Mr Glare's letter raises even more questions than I asked. All we have is a statement that negotiations are still going on. Unbelievably, many serious questions remain unanswered. I hope that the Attorney-General can clear up this matter here and now before the Committee is asked to vote on this appropriation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.17) —Some of the matters raised in the questions asked by Senator Durack may be still unanswered, but they are neither many nor serious. Senator Durack asked questions about the amount of travel undertaken by Mr Temby since his appointment, in particular the number of trips to the West, and the business that transpired on each of those occasions. I am happy to provide the information requested, but I shall have to take the questions on notice because that information is not with me or my officers physically at the moment. Senator Durack —Don't you want a vote on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would hate to think that Senator Durack would be churlish enough to deny a vote on a matter of detail of that kind, of which he did not give specific notice before the day's proceedings commenced. Senator Durack asked also about the terms and conditions applicable to Mr Temby's appointment generally. That question was answered by Mr Glare, when he stated succinctly: . . . his terms and conditions of appointment, not elsewhere provided for, (are ) those applying to an officer in the First Division of the Australian Public Service. That is as one would expect, given the status and stature of this particular appointment. I was asked about the terms and conditions of the appointment, particularly those designed to accommodate Mr Temby's needs in the transition period and subsequently. No such term and conditions have formally been identified in past negotiations or in any negotiations that have taken place since the date of the Estimates Committee hearing. There was simply an informal acknowledgement, to which I referred at the Estimates Committee hearing, that there would need to be, given the short notice character of the appointment, perhaps a slightly greater degree of travel during an initial transitional period than would otherwise be the case. I expect that situation to continue throughout the year, but certainly not to the extent of Mr Temby engaging in travel which has no justification other than his tidying up his personal affairs . It has been envisaged from the outset that any such travel in which Mr Temby engaged would be likely to be very much justified in any event by the need for him to travel a great deal around Australia setting in place the arrangements for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and working out the arrangements for the prosecution agencies, as it were, that will continue to exist in those deputy Crown solicitors offices that do not have a formal identification with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Glare in his letter said that negotiations were under way for a more formal arrangement. Since that letter was written by Mr Glare I have had occasion to talk to Mr Temby about the desirability or otherwise of there being a formal arrangement governing his travel in the future. I think it is our shared view, subject to possible further better thoughts-I doubt that there will be further better thoughts; I think it is our shared view-that there is no necessity for any such formal arrangement, that things have settled down quite quickly. A degree of travel around Australia will continue to be involved in the job but in the future that will be sufficient for any particular needs that Mr Temby might have so far as his home State is concerned. It is unlikely that there will be anything justifying the description of negotiations or justifying the description of a formal agreement reached outside the framework of the ordinarily applicable Public Service First Division conditions. Apart from supplying that detailed information, which I am happy to do as soon as we can dig it out, I do not think there is anything more I can usefully add on this subject. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.21) —We really do have an extraordinary situation which, I might say, does not seem to be confined to the appointment of Mr Temby. There are some other matters about recent appointments by the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) that I propose to raise, where things are just done on some sort of nod and wink basis. It seems that the matter is to continue on that basis. Yet we have here a formal statement from the Deputy Secretary of his Department that negotiations are under way for a more formal arrangement which now, apparently, the Attorney-General tells us, will not be pursued because it is easier, apparently, for all concerned, to have this nod and wink arrangement. I think that is an entirely unsatisfactory arrangement. These things should be the subject of firm rights. The answers were given by officers of the Department to the Estimates Committee as to what the ordinary arrangements are for public servants or indeed permanent heads who have moved to Canberra, and what their entitlements are. It is quite clear in this case that the entitlements have been stretched in a way to suit Mr Temby's personal situation. What worries me is that, apparently, the arrangements will continue to be stretched for that reason. It is common knowledge that Mr Temby held several public positions in Western Australia at the time he was appointed to this position, apart altogether from his position as President of the Law Council of Australia. I think he was in fact Deputy Mayor of the City of Subiaco. At least he was on that council. He was also on the board of a hospital in Perth. He may have held other positions that I do not know of but I certainly know of those two positions. Perhaps the Attorney could at least tell us whether Mr Temby has given up those positions, whether he proposes to give them up and when he will give them up. He has had commitments at meetings in relation to those bodies and I think it is a very unsatisfactory arrangement for him to continue to sit on those bodies when he obviously has his hands more than full as Director of Public Prosecutions. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.23) —I understand that Mr Temby has either already given up all the positions that he occupied in Perth and elsewhere, or is shortly about to do so. It has been a process of progressive shedding of these responsibilities over this initial transition period. I am not able to give full details about this. Again, I am happy to do so in writing subsequently and to treat it as a question on notice, should Senator Durack desire me to do so. I simply add only that when one is appointing high class people to high level jobs it is necessary sometimes to move rather quickly in order simply to take advantage of situations as they arise, and the availability of people as it arises. An utter inability to respond flexibly and quickly in that way was, I might suggest without wishing to be unduly churlish, one of the hallmarks of the previous Administration-one of the reasons why it got so little done and attracted so little high level capacity to its bureaucratic ranks. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.25) —If the Attorney-General wants to trade insults I remind him that there was a perfectly good National Crimes Commission in existence when he came into office, with a Chairman already designate and about to take up the position. As a result of the attitude that he and his Government adopted, that Chairman was lost. Of course, we know the sorry history of the whole matter ever since then. I suggest that if the Attorney-General wants to trade insults in this debate I am happy to deliver blow for blow. Senator Evans —You will have to lift your game. Senator DURACK —I turn to another matter and much on the same theme but in relation to another appointment by the Attorney-General. Senator Walters —He is just being so rude. Why does he do it? Senator DURACK —I do not know. Perhaps Senator Walters can ask him next week and we can discuss it further. The Attorney-General seems to be very proud of his appointment of Professor Harding as Director of the Institute of Criminology. The Attorney-General has already been gravely embarrassed by Professor Harding, of course, in one notable speech that Professor Harding made and apparently he has had to be admonished. I hope he has been admonished by the Attorney-General although the Attorney-General is not as forthcoming about that as he is abut many other matters, except his Bill of rights, referendum proposals and other things that he is keeping quiet about. But in relation to the appointment of Professor Harding, I asked some questions at the Estimates Committee about the travel entitlements of Professor Harding in the event that he wants to make further speeches of the kind that we protested about. Perhaps he has learned his lesson, although I doubt it very much, knowing Professor Harding as I do. In relation to the questions I asked, the answer I received, also in a schedule from Mr Glare, is that there is an item of transport for Professor Harding as Director designate for travel to Canberra from Perth for consultations on two occasions. I have no complaint about that. But the information then goes on to say that pursuant to his terms and conditions of employment the Director travelled to his home in Perth. The cost of four journeys including that proposed for May amounts to $4,105. I wish to ask the same question that I asked in relation to Mr Temby. Is there an arrangement in the terms and conditions of Professor Harding's appointment that he has the right to travel to his home in Perth? If so, how long does that arrangement last? Is Professor Harding based in Perth or in Canberra? There is mention of a journey in May. I presume he has now done that. The date of the covering letter here is 24 May. I would like to be assured that it is up to date as of today or told whether there has been any further journey to Perth, how long this arrangement is to continue and whether it will be formalised or whether it will be another of these nod and wink situations. If Professor Harding is in fact maintaining a home in Perth, is that to be a permanent arrangement? Indeed, how long is it expected that he will occupy the position of Director of the Institute? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.29) —There is a formal arrangement in place in relation to Professor Harding, whose circumstances were different from those of Mr Temby to the extent that Professor Harding had a family in Perth which could not, for reasons that I will not go into, come to Canberra for a period of 12 months. It was desired to make an arrangement whereby Professor Harding, while operating out of Canberra, could make visits at monthly intervals to his home and family on condition that in each such monthly period there was no reciprocal visit to Canberra by his wife. I think provision is made for two trips to Canberra for his wife in order to make arrangements for the purchase or rental of a home for the second year and subsequently, but that is as far as it went. After that first year's travel arrangement there was to be no travel entitlement as such; it was strictly a 12 months transitional arrangement based on these particular circumstances and clearly in lieu of any other decision which might have been made by the Government to confer something of the nature of a Canberra allowance for the occupant of this position. As Senator Durack will well know, special arrangements are made in relation to appointees from overseas. There was a large and high class field of applicants from overseas for this position and under the circumstances it was felt desirable to appoint Professor Harding, whatever Senator Durack might think of his fellow Western Australian, and it was thought appropriate, in order to be able to attract the services of Professor Harding, to make the particular arrangement to which I have referred. Formal terms and conditions exist in writing, and I am happy now to table those for Senator Durack's edification. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.31) —Another matter I wish to raise relating to appointments by the Attorney-General concerns the Solicitor-General and the arrangements for his basing in Canberra. I raised this matter in the Estimates committees as well and it was made clear to me that this question would be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. I think at that time the Attorney said in his answer to me that the Government had not made up its mind as to what submission it would make to the Remuneration Tribunal. I perused the recent report of the Tribunal with considerable interest and expectation in relation to the Solicitor-General but I could not find anything there relating to any special arrangements for him. Perhaps the Attorney could enlighten us as to what the situation is now regarding the Solicitor-General. I also ask would the Attorney indicate whether, at the time the Solicitor- General was appointed or prior to his appointment, it was determined whether the Solicitor-General would be based in Canberra or would continue to be able to be based in Melbourne along the line of the same arrangements that existed in relation to his predecessor, Sir Maurice Byers who, in accordance with the arrangement under which he was appointed, was entitled to remain in his home city of Sydney. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.33) —As to the situation relating to Dr Griffith, the Solicitor-General, there were discussions before his appointment was formalised about his location in the job. It may well be that there was some degree of misunderstanding between us in relation to the force with which I pursued the proposition that the position ought to be Canberra based but that is in the process of being amicably resolved, as indeed it has been amicably discussed over the whole period since Dr Griffith's appointment as well as the prior approach to him. The arrangement is one whereby Dr Griffith's remuneration is fixed by the Remuneration Tribunal and we are awaiting final determination from the Tribunal as to what that rate should be. The conditions enjoyed are, again, essentially those applicable to a First Division officer of the Public Service. There is an outstanding question about whether or not the position should attract to it something in the nature of a Canberra allowance, in particular to compensate for the deprivation that is involved in accepting a limited term appointment in Canberra while maintaining a household, or at least a house, in Melbourne in order to create the possibility for return to the Bar at the expiration of that appointment. I understand that will be dealt with by Cabinet in the next week or two so I am unable to advise Senator Durack further as to the likely outcome of that aspect of the matter. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.35) — The other matter I want to raise concerning recent appointments by the Attorney-General arises out of an answer that I very belatedly received from his Department concerning sitting days by Federal Court of Australia judges. There are very interesting and somewhat disturbing comparisons of the number of sitting days of Family Court of Australia judges as against sitting days for Federal Court judges. I might say that that comparison is much in favour of Family Court judges. I would have thought that the statistics would be much the same for both courts. The Family Court figures were delivered promptly, as well, but, as I said, we belatedly received the information concerning the sitting days for Federal Court judges. I am aware that some differences would be expected between the number of sitting days for Family Court and that for Federal Court judges so I do not need a lecture about that. Nevertheless, the indications from this answer make it clear that not all Federal Court judges are exactly overburdened with work. Again I know I could receive a lecture from the Attorney-General about the matters that have to be taken into account. For instance, naturally a number of judges on this list are fully occupied in Territory courts so the number of days they are able to sit in the Federal Court is very limited. That is understandable. Then we have the president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to say nothing of the tremendous demands upon one of the newest Federal Court judges, Mr Justice Kirby. Because of his work with the Australian Law Reform Commission he obviously does not have much time to sit in the Federal Court. We find that he sat only six days in the Federal Court during the course of the nine months so far this year. I am disappointed that he has not had more time to sit in the Federal Court. I warmly welcomed his appointment as a Federal Court judge. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a pity you didn't make it yourself. Senator DURACK —I was disappointed that that did not occur because time did not permit it in the circumstances. Certainly it was my intention, if I had had the opportunity, to appoint or nominate him for appointment as a judge to that Court so that he would have the opportunity of extending his judicial experience to a greater extent than appears to be the case from the statistics that have been provided. Coming back to the actual point of my question, obviously a number of judges of the Federal Court do not seem to be exactly overburdened with work. It is for that reason that I ask the Attorney why he felt it necessary to appoint three new judges of the Federal Court a week or two ago. That was a somewhat surprising decision in the light of the considerations that are now reaching a very advanced stage in the Australian Constitutional Convention about an integrated court system. He must be aware of the deep concern of the legal profession and members of the judiciary about the expansion of the Federal Court and what it might portend. He also must be aware that the move towards an integrated court system is proceeding very satisfactorily and promisingly. Therefore, it surprised me that he saw fit suddenly to appoint three new judges to the Federal Court. This can only raise a great deal of suspicion about the Government's policy in relation to the Federal Court and the long term size and role of that Court. I also express concern about other aspects of the appointments. I have already mentioned two recent appointments to other positions. I refer to Mr Temby, a prominent Labor lawyer, and Professor Harding, a prominent supporter of the Labor Party and the labour cause. I do not know whether he is a Labor lawyer but I presume he is. One of the new appointments to the Federal Court, Mr Justice Spender, is apparently a very prominent Labor lawyer in Queensland. I am not objecting to appointments of Labor lawyers if they are in other ways qualified, which Mr Justice Spender obviously is. I am just expressing some concern as to whether the Attorney proposes to make appointments from the ranks of Labor lawyers as a matter of policy. I have already mentioned the second point which questions the necessity of appointing extra Federal Court judges. There is probably a reason for it in Brisbane considering the workload there. Mr Justice Fitzgerald is obviously one of the hardest working Federal Court judges. But the appointment of Mr Justice Gray in Melbourne seems quite unjustified on the basis of the number of days Melbourne-based judges have sat. They seem to have been sitting relatively less than almost any of the other Federal Court judges. Why another judge has been appointed in Melbourne is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps the Attorney can assist us in answering those points. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.42) —There was a delay in the supplying of these figures to Estimates Committee E, a delay which I think was indefensible. I have made that view plain in words of one syllable to the Department and the particular officers involved, and I do not expect it to be repeated in the future. Secondly, I do not want, any more than Senator Durack wants to hear me, to lecture him or anybody else as to the differences in sitting day patterns as between Federal Court and Family Court judges and, indeed, as between different categories and individuals on the Federal Court itself. But there are very significant reasons for such differential patterns as have emerged. There are differential amounts of travel in respect of the courts; the fact that a number of Federal Court judges are committed to royal commissions and inquiries; the fact that the Federal Court had a vacation period during the months recorded and the Family Court did not; the fact that the statistics do not necessarily reflect actual sitting days as distinct from formal sitting days to hand down judgments or something of this kind; the fact that a number of judges have much more appellate or reserve judgment work to do than formal sitting work within the Federal Court but, more particularly, as between the Family Court and the Federal Court; and a number of other matters of that kind, including the Territory judges quota that Senator Durack himself referred to. I would not want any sort of generalised sniping to stay on the record without at least some endeavour on my part to indicate that there are all sorts of reasons why the sitting day figures come out as they do. As to the question of appointing three additional judges to the Federal Court, that is something on which as always I closely consulted the Chief Judge, Sir Nigel Bowen, a former Liberal Attorney-General. I was happy to accept his advice as to need and certainly acted on the basis of that advice. I make no apology for any of the particular appointments made. I think they are three outstanding men. I find rather distasteful the kind of sniping that is made under the guise of not sniping that Senator Durack offers. Mr Justice Spender is very well qualified, intellectually and by experience, for the job. I make no apology for his appointment. I notice there was no reference to Mr Justice Wilcox of New South Wales, whose credentials are universally known and regarded. The appointment of Mr Justice Gray is essentially a specialist appointment. His commission is confined to the industrial division. It is an appointment based on the expectation and desire that he be peripatetic, travelling widely throughout Australia, to deal with industrial matters because of the fact that the Federal Court Bench is relatively light on for substantial industrial experience at the moment, particularly with a couple of the senior judges with large and extended industrial experience being occupied on royal commissions and inquiries. Should the point want to be made again about the supposedly partisan character of my appointments to the Federal Court, I remind Senator Durack that apart from Mr Justice Kirby, whom I was able to appoint in my first year to the Federal Court-unlike Senator Durack who for five or six years previously had merely good intentions in that respect-the other two judges that I have appointed, Mr Justice Neaves and Mr Justice Beaumont, on any view of their backgrounds and what I understand to be their inclinations could not be regarded as Labor appointees. I really do wish that this particular canard were not pursued even though I make no apology whatever for those of my appointments here and elsewhere as have been overtly Labor inclined in terms of their political affiliations to the extent that that has had anything to do with the ground of their appointment, which obviously it has not. One appoints people on the basis of their capacity to do a job. That is a criterion I have applied. Again, I make no apology for it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.47) —I am glad at least to have that assurance from the Attorney. I raised the matter in the light of the large proportion of appointments of prominent Labor people in the few appointments the Attorney has made. The question was being asked not just by me but of me by a number of people. It is as well we have it on the record that no policy of that kind is being followed by the Attorney-General. I am assured by his statement. I did not impugn and I do not impugn the qualifications of any of the three judges that he has appointed. I very carefully did not do so. In fact, I went out of my way to express the view that Mr Justice Spender, although not known to me, was found as a result of inquiry to be highly regarded as a lawyer and no doubt fully qualified to be appointed to the Federal Court. Clearly, Mr Justice Wilcox is also highly qualified as is Mr Justice Gray in Victoria. I am a little surprised at the Attorney's justification for an additional appointment in Victoria when, as I pointed out, the pattern of sittings by Victorian Federal Court judges would indicate that the Victorian Federal Court judges seem to be less burdened than others. In fact, one of the more surprising things about the Victorian-based Federal Court judges is that the one who has sat the most is Mr Justice Smithers, who is in his eighties or thereabouts. He is, of course, a very lively, vigorous and able judge. But other judges in Victoria are not sitting anything like the extent to which Federal Court judges are sitting in South Australia, New South Wales or Queensland. I just found it somewhat extraordinary. The Attorney says the Victorian appointment was made because Mr Justice Gray is a specialist in the industrial field. I can see here the names of a number of other judges of the Federal Court who have very distinguished industrial experience. I refer particularly, of course, to Mr Justice Woodward and there are others. I know that Mr Justice Evatt is now engaged in a royal commission, but that is only a temporary matter. In view of these statistics, I still find it rather strange that an additional appointment has been made particularly of a Melbourne-based judge. I do not believe the Attorney-General answered the question I asked-that is, what is the policy that he is pursuing in relation to the size or expansion of the Federal Court? In light of the very fruitful discussions and the movement towards an integrated court system, is the Government pursuing the policy which was pursued by the previous Government, or is it changing the policy? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.51) —I am sorry that I omitted to mention that matter. I certainly do not see the appointments which I have recently made to the Court as in any way significant in relation to, or in any way cutting across, the policy which I strongly espouse, as Senator Durack ought to know, for an integrated national court system. I do not think that it would be viewed in that light. Certainly, it has not been intended as having any significance in that respect. I indicate that it is 10 minutes to four. I think there has been some discussion as between the parties about the desirability-indeed, necessity-of concluding the consideration of the Estimates by 4.15 p.m. I am happy to debate these matters at any time with Senator Durack. But, they are not specifically raised by anything in the Estimates. Matters pertaining to judges are really outside the Estimates altogether. It is essentially a philosophical discussion which we are having and I would be delighted to continue it at another time and place. If Senator Durack can indicate the matters on which he requires quick, snappy answers or undertakings from me to provide them, I am happy to do it. We have to deal with the Departments covered by Estimates Committees E and F. In everyone's interests, it is desirable that we complete that by 4.15. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.52) —It is news to me that Federal Court judges do not come within the Estimates. There are items for their travel and schedules are supplied regarding sitting days. It is an absurd suggestion that they do not come within the Estimates. However, I will let that go. That completes the questions that I wanted to ask in relation to estimates of the Attorney-General's Department. I do not know whether other honourable senators wish to raise matters regarding that Department. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $12,905,000. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.54) —I do not know what the Attorney- General was hinting at regarding finishing consideration of the Estimates at 4. 15. There are a number of questions to be asked in relation to the Department of the Special Minister of State, apart from any other matters that may be raised. I think the Attorney should be made aware of that at this stage. I do not know whether he wants to extend the sitting of the Committee beyond 4.15 or what he has in mind. I hope that officers who can deal with these questions are present. The Attorney-General would be aware of the great concern that was expressed in relation to coastal surveillance undertaken under the estimates of the Department of the Special Minister of State. The matter to which I refer concerns answers to questions which we have received regarding what was called the extension of the Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd contract. We have received a series of answers from both the Australian Federal Police and I believe the Department itself. Unfortunately, I am still uncertain, from the answers we have received, as to why the contract was extended in the way it was when it was decided not to renew the contracts for the other companies which were engaged for surveillance of the northern and Queensland coasts. When those contracts expired the Skywest contract was extended to cover those operations and no tenders were called from other people who might have been interested in seeking to contract for those areas. As I understand it, under the Skywest contract there was excess capacity. The Government could call on Skywest to perform surveillance work outside the area off the Western Australian coast. The airline had excess capacity and, as I understand it, it was able to do this work cheaply . I understand that is the reason the Government simply extended the Skywest contract. We have never received a copy of the actual contract, although there was a lot of talk about it. I wonder whether the contract could be tabled. Certainly, it would have made our discussions of it more intelligible, particularly as officers who appeared before the Estimates Committee did not appear to know anything much about it. I recognise the problem that the Australian Federal Police had because they took over this responsibility only recently. I think that it would have been better for all concerned if the contract had been made available to us. Is it a fact that under the Skywest contract the Government had guaranteed that Skywest would be called upon to fly a certain minimum number of hours? In other words, was the Government paying Skywest for flying hours that it did not require? Alternatively, did Skywest have an excess capacity that was not being called upon and, therefore, did not have such a profitable contract as it had anticipated? Further, did the contract contain a provision that the areas that were designated for surveillance by Skywest would be exclusive only to Skywest or did the Government have the right to engage any other contractor in those areas which were covered under the contract with Skywest? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) 3.59)-I have with me the tender documents which really are the essence of the contract as finally accepted. As I understand it, the contract was simply an exchange of letters recording the acceptance of the terms and conditions laid out in the tender document. I am happy to table the tender document. It is not possible in the circumstances to riffle through it and get the immediate answers to the particular questions about excess capacity and exclusivity to which Senator Durack referred. No doubt he can riffle through it and satisfy himself that the answers are or are not there to the questions he asked. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.00) —It is perhaps a little late to have that information given to us. I wonder whether the Attorney-General or the officers assisting him can answer the question shortly as to whether or not Skywest did have a guarantee under the contract of a minimum amount of flying hours which were not being taken up or would not have been taken up in view of the lower demand for surveillance off the Western Australian coast. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) 4.01)-I do not believe that there was any such limitation of that kind, on the basis of the information available to me at the moment. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.01) —The Estimates Committee had enormous difficulty eliciting information about the Skywest surveillance contract. In the light of the questions we have had, I ask the Minister why the Departmennt did not consider using the Searchmaster Nomads that were already in Australia and fitted out with Litton radar for the marine surveillance role on the Great Barrier Reef? Were studies done to show that there was an alternative solution to the problem at a cheaper rate? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.02) —First of all, in further answer to Senator Durack's previous question, the contract was in two parts-the standing charges, which made up two-thirds of the cost involved, and then the flying charges, which made up one-third. The Government was committed to the standing charges only and the actual flying charges varied on demand. That is the answer in short. No doubt it still leaves questions of details to be pursued , but that is the essence of the contractual arrangement, as I understand it. In regard to the question of alternative options that Senator MacGibbon has pursued, as he has been doing for some time, the answer that can be given by the Government is really only a repetition of that which has been offered over and over again in the past. It is simply a matter of commercial reality that the particular decision was made in these terms. There had until 30 April been three contracts for civil area coastal surveillance. They were the Skywest one, current until 1986, the Northern Territory Aerial Work one, which expired on 30 April, and the Air-Search one, which also expired on 30 April. By government decision the tenders for the new contracts to replace those expiring on 30 April were not called due to a reduced demand for surveillance from the Department of Health. The identified demand for surveillance could therefore be satisfied, it was felt, determined by the existing contract with Skywest, the terms of which contract have been re-negotiated to provide for that greater area to be covered. As we understand it, the matter was wholly in accordance with the kind of practice and tendering practice that had been adopted by previous governments. Summary documents which I have here seem to support that assertion. I am further told that the cost of the Litton-fitted Nomad was considerably more expensive than the Shrike, with its SLAR. The Shrike was estimated to be about 60 per cent of the cost of the Nomad, and that was undoubtedly a relevant consideration in producing the solution I have just summarised. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.04) —I can follow everything the Minister is saying, but he cannot follow what we are saying. With respect, it is not a matter of commerical reality. It is not a matter of a contractor being able to fly a certain task. We are talking here about the provision of a radar surveillance capability. That is our specific point. In the Nomad Searchmaster we had an aircraft which was technically, for the particular role, the best in the world. The operational experience that the officers gave was that it performed its tasks satisfactorily. Now we have a proposition that a contractor who has not operated a radar-equipped aircraft before will provide an aircraft with a sideways-looking radar, which we find out after great probing is an Ericsson SLAR. I want to know whether any flight evaluation was done before that contract was let as to the performance of the radar installation in that aircraft? I am aware that the Swedes have operated them in Cessna 337s, but even a simple thing like putting an aircraft radio or a radio navigation aid into a small aircraft is a specialist job. What fits easily in one aircraft and performs well may not fit and operate satisfactorily in an otherwise comparable aircraft. We have to know that the equipment will perform in that role. I would like to know what evidence the Department had before it awarded this contract that the performance of the Ericsson SLAR in Shrike Commander aircraft would be satisfactory? Following from that, I would like to know the detailed economic basis for the decision. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.06) —I am advised no detailed operational evaluation was done before the tenders were let. It was done simply on the basis of a paper evaluation, and the operational evaluation is now being done, the aircraft having come into operational service in the Barrier Reef area today, as I understand it. As to the essence of the decision on the technical aspects, the public comparisons of the performance and cost of the Nomad aircraft fitted with its Litton 360-degree radar and its replacement, the Shrike Commander, with its SLAR, are false because they fail to take into account the nature of the Great Barrier Reef patrols, where visual observation is equally as important as the radar detection function in surveillance. The optimum search height of 1,000 feet, with the combination of radar and visual search needed on the Reef, has been established after years of experience. It represents a compromise between maximising the radar detection horizon and accommodating limitations imposed by performance and fuel criteria arising from the need to descend frequently to identify and present a visible presence to the hundreds of small craft in the area. I do not know whether Senator MacGibbon accepts that or whether he wants to make further complaints about that kind of reasoning, but I put on the record that that is the kind of reasoning and justification that is advanced for making the decision in those terms, along with the obvious commercial reasoning I have endeavoured to explain previously. I think that covers the general points the honourable senator made. He wants a detailed cost comparison supplied. I do not know whether it is possible to supply any more detail on matters financial than we have already. If it is so possible, we will do it. I am happy to treat it as a question on notice and answer it accordingly. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.08) — I think we can understand only that the Department has decided to discount completely, or almost completely, the value of radar surveillance and go back to visual observation of the Great Barrier Reef and other other areas where they wish to use these aircraft. The advantage of radar equipment is that one can see in all weather and one can see beyond visual range, even operating at low altitudes, as is done on the Reef, of 1,500 to 2,000 feet. Looking at the paper of Ericsson's on the particular SLAR kit that is proposed here, I would imagine that there is probably a radar horizon out to about 60 nautical miles either side of the track flown by the aircraft at 2,000 feet. Even with the brilliant facilities the Attorney-General has, I do not think his eyeballs would run out to 60 nautical miles either side of the track. The other important thing is that this is a sideways-looking radar. There is no surveillance of what is ahead. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the flow. However, we can have these sorts of comparative discussions about the value of different kinds of equipment supplied in different ways, but might I suggest that this kind of discussion, largely philosophical in character , is not strictly pertinent to what an Estimates discussion ought to be about. There are questions as to the appropriateness of expenditure, I acknowledge, and it might be argued that some expenditure is more cost effective than others, but this sort of endless argument about matters of detail in circumstances where there does not appear to be any challenge any longer to the Government's bona fides in reaching the decision that it did seems to me to be beyond the proper scope of this kind of debate. The CHAIRMAN —Senator MacGibbon is entitled to raise alternative ways of spending the money, and presumably ways of saving it, and I have to rule that he is in order. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr Chairman, I have a very genuine interest in whether this equipment is going to work at all. Secondarily to that, I want to know whether it is the most cost effective use of the taxpayers' funds. I will move away from the technical performance of that radar and- Senator Durack —I think we need to know more about it. Senator MacGIBBON —I just want to go on to a different point, other than the operational performance. I want to know what assessment the Department has made of the performance of the Shrike Commander aircraft when the Ericsson radar set is installed and the crews and the rest of the supporting equipment are installed. I do that because the Shrike Commander in Australia is a very odd aircraft. In the whole of the world the Shrike Commander is certified to operate at a maximum take-off weight of 6,750 lbs. Through an aberration that I do not understand, years ago, when the Shrike Commander was introduced into Australia, it was certified for Australian use at 7,150 lbs under instrument flight rules conditions for a maximum take-off weight and 7,400 lbs in the visual flight rules role. That is a difference of about 650 lbs, which is a very big increment in the maximum take-off weight for a light twin-engined aircraft of that nature. I would like to know, when this aircraft is fitted out with this Ericsson set, with a crew on board and with the adequate fuel reserves and instrumentation, whether it will attain the climb gradient in the single engined operation phase that is demanded by the Department of Aviation, and whether the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) took steps to establish that that was so. Unless that is so we are going to lose the aircraft when it loses an engine. I remind the Attorney that some while ago a Nomad B Searchmaster of Air Queensland lost an engine at low level while investigating a trawler at near maximum all-up weight. It climbed back to a safe altitude and returned to its base without any problem at all. I have a genuine concern that this aeroplane will not perform in the role that is intended in the engine-out situation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.11) —Mr Chairman, I am advised that the Department of Aviation has approved the aircraft to operate with the SLAR, that it does meet Department of Aviation requirements. If there is some concern over and above that which perhaps ought to be drawn to the attention of the Department of Aviation no doubt Senator MacGibbon will do so. But that is the best I am able to offer in my capacity as representing the Special Minister of State. I also remind the Committee that whatever else is in the supplementary estimates, there is no appropriation for coastal surveillance. I suggest that even though my last point of order did not hold, Mr Chairman, that one might have some chance. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.12) —Mr Chairman, I do not know whether the Attorney-General was taking a point of order. This matter having been canvassed at great length on two occasions before the Estimates Committee, and detailed answers having already been provided from the Department of Aviation and from the Australian Federal Police, which I might say do not really totally explain the position, and considering that we are entitled to ask questions, presumably here, it is a bit late in the day for the Attorney-General to be taking points of order as to whether these questions really arise out of the estimates before us. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Chairman, might I suggest that you rule on this matter. I am fully entitled to take a point of order at any time. The fact that one does not do so through earlier stages, as a result of some misguided tolerance to the Opposition, is no justification whatsoever for not being able to take a point of order when one's patience and the time of the Committee runs out. We have endeavoured to be as co-operative as humanly possible. We will answer any further questions on notice that are placed in relation to this matter. We are perfectly happy to debate and articulate and explain it publicly but we are not perfectly happy to do it when it is out of order in an Estimates period which is out of time. The CHAIRMAN —The Attorney-General is certainly entitled to take a point of order whenever he chooses. The difficulty I have with this is that it is impossible for me to determine whether these estimates are or are not affected by the coastal surveillance operations, which are the subject of the discussion. I ask, in any further development of this, that Sentor Durack indicate in some terms where the estimates are involved in the subject he is raising. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT Order! It being after 4.15 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.16 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 634) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: Will the Minister for Administrative Services provide the following information about official cars held by Embassies and other overseas official posts in all overseas countries with right-hand drive vehicles: (a) The make of each vehicle held, (b) the country of manufacture, (c) the cost to the Commonwealth, and (d) if the vehicles were not of Australian manufacture, the reasons for them not being so. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) to (c)- Country of Cost to Country/Mission Make of vehicle Manufacture Commonwealth Bangladesh Dacca Holden Statesman Australia 9,167 Holden Kingswood Australia 4,745 Holden Gemini Australia 8,138 Toyota Landcruiser Japan 13,651 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 10,680 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 9,030 Bajaj Van India 1,652 Brunei Holden Statesman Australia 22,195 Holden Commodore Australia 15,200 Cyprus Nicosia Mercedes-Benz Federal Republic of Germany 12,268 Fiji Suva Holden Statesman Australia 10,253 Mazda Van Japan 5,560 Holden Commodore Australia 8,844 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,227 Hong Kong Holden Statesman Australia 11,466 Nissan Bus Japan 16,630 Toyota Crown Japan 13,092 Ford Falcon Australia 9,679 Ford Falcon Australia 9,679 Ford Falcon Australia 10,658 Ford Falcon Australia 10,658 Nuku'Alofa Holden Statesman Australia 11,975 Toyota Hi-Lux Japan 7,200 India Bombay Holden Kingswood Australia 6,482 Ford Fairmont Australia 10,270 Ford Falcon Australia 10,427 New Delhi Ford LTD Australia 18,365 Ford Falcon Australia 8,188 Ford Falcon Australia 8,632 Ford Falcon Australia 9,636 Ford Falcon Australia 11,068 Ford Telstar Japan 6,000 Ford Falcon Australia 9,280 Nissan Bus Japan 8,393 Ford Telstar Australia 6,000 Ford Van Australia 3,345 Nissan Van Japan 6,845 Ford Falcon Australia 9,280 Ford Falcon Australia 9,810 Indonesia Jakarta Holden Caprice Australia 20,142 Holden Caprice Australia 10,639 Holden Commodore Australia 8,628 Holden Kingswood Australia 4,782 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,435 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,421 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,421 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,421 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,233 Holden Commodore Australia 8,628 Holden Commodore Australia 9,247 Holden Commodore Australia 6,639 Holden Commodore Australia 7,101 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,233 Holden Commodore Australia 7,101 Holden Commodore Australia 7,061 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 6,176 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 6,176 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 6,176 Toyota Hi-Ace Australia 6,176 Toyota Hi-Ace Australia 6,480 Toyota Hi-Ace Australia 6,480 Toyota Hi-Ace Australia 6,480 Toyota Hi-Ace Australia 6,480 Holden Flat Top Australia 4,901 Holden Flat Top Australia 6,790 Holden Utility Australia 4,468 International Truck Australia 3,665 Toyota Bus Australia 16,476 Bali Ford Fairmont Australia 10,787 Ford Falcon Australia 9,810 Ireland Dublin Mercedes Benz Federal Republic of Germany 14,799 Datsun 200 Japan 6,315 Peugeot Estate France 3,851 Jamaica Kingston Volvo 264 Sweden 11,500 Volvo 245 Sweden 12,000 Volvo 244 Sweden 5,500 Falcon Australia 9,700 Japan Tokyo Mercedes-Benz 500 Federal Republic of Germany 25,000 Nissan Truck Japan 5,449 Nissan Bluebird Japan 7,711 Nissan Cedric Japan 8,406 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 5,838 Nissan Bus Japan 6,035 Nissan Cedric Japan 9,116 Nissan Bluebird Japan 5,198 Nissan Cedric Japan 8,600 Nissan Cedric Japan 9,116 Nissan Cedric Japan 8,600 Nissan Cedric Japan 12,095 Toyota Crown Japan 6,950 Nissan Cedric Japan 12,095 Nissan Cedric Japan 8,095 Osaka Toyota Crown Japan 9,715 Toyota Crown Japan 7,518 Kenya Nairobi Mercedes 280 Federal Republic of Germany 15,085 Volkswagen Bus Federal Republic of Germany 11,274 Range Rover United Kingdom 19,312 Peugeot 505 France 9,754 Peugeot 504 France 10,231 Range Rover United Kingdom 7,496 Peugeot 504 France 5,740 Kiribati Tarawa Ford Fairmont Australia 13,294 Toyota Crown Japan 9,866 Toyota Hi-Lux Japan 6,647 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Holden Statesman Australia 9,550 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,327 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,327 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,327 Ford Telstar Malaysia 9,848 Ford Telstar Malaysia 9,848 Ford Telstar Malaysia 9,848 Ford Laser Malaysia 6,646 Ford Laser Malaysia 6,646 Ford Laser Malaysia 6,646 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 6,584 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 6,584 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 6,500 Malta Valetta Mercedes 200 Federal Republic of Germany 12,174 Peugeot 305 France 3,020 VW Polo Federal Republic of Germany 5,459 Nauru Ford Fairmont Australia 9,309 Datsun 200 Australia 6,128 New Zealand Auckland Holden Statesman Australia 7,629 Holden Kingswood Australia 5,828 Ford Australia 6,780 Wellington Holden Statesman Australia 16,111 Holden Kingswood Australia 4,660 Holden Kingswood Australia 7,431 Holden Commodore Australia 9,017 Holden Kingswood Australia 8,863 Pakistan Islamabad Mercedes-Benz Federal Republic of Germany 18,315 Ford Falcon Australia 11,512 Ford Falcon Australia 11,915 Toyota Land Cruiser Japan 12,576 Holden Commodore Japan 7,000 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 3,461 Toyota Land Cruiser Japan 9,745 Ford Falcon Australia 10,759 Ford Falcon Australia 10,759 Toyota Land Cruiser Australia 9,482 Toyota Land Cruiser Australia 9,482 Papua New Guinea Port Moresby Ford LTD Australia 24,185 Holden Caprice Australia 10,043 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Galant Japan 6,887 Mitsubishi Japan 7,377 Datsun Japan 8,024 Datsun Japan 8,024 Nissan Patrol Japan 13,627 Nissan Japan 8,497 Nissan Japan 8,172 Mitsubishi L300 Japan 5,954 Mitsubishi Canter Japan 8,475 Nissan Urvan Japan 7,680 Singapore Ford LTD Australia 16,559 Ford Cortina Australia 6,896 Ford Cortina Australia 6,430 Toyota Crown Japan 10,187 Daihatsu Truck Japan 8,654 Mazda 929 Japan 9,672 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 5,722 Toyota Crown Japan 11,371 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 7,253 Ford Cortina Singapore 5,679 Ford Cortina Singapore 5,787 Ford Cortina Singapore 5,874 Ford Cortina Singapore 4,874 Solomon Is. Honiara Holden Commodore Australia 8,260 Nissan Patrol Japan 5,742 Toyota Land Cruiser Japan 4,875 South Africa Capetown Mercedes-Benz 280 Federal Republic of Germany 13,529 Ford Granada South Africa 9,731 Volkswagen Van South Africa 6,360 Toyota Cressida South Africa 4,565 Mercedes-Benz 280 Federal Republic of Germany 11,210 Opel Rekord Federal Republic of Germany 7,416 Sri Lanka Colombo Holden Statesman Australia 14,883 Holden Commodore Australia 9,720 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 9,972 Bajaj India 1,722 Tanzania Dar es Salaam Mercedes-Benz 280 Federal Republic of Germany 16,212 Peugeot 504 France 9,700 Volkswagen Bus Federal Republic of Germany 11,200 Toyota Land Cruiser Japan 10,886 Thailand Bangkok Mercedes-Benz Federal Republic of Germany 17,070 Holden Commodore Australia 8,593 Holden Commodore Australia 8,593 Holden Commodore Australia 8,593 Holden Commodore Australia 8,681 Holden Commodore Australia 8,681 Holden Commodore Australia 8,681 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 7,440 Toyota Hi-Ace Japan 7,580 Toyota Hi-Lux Japan 4,800 Nissan Urvan Japan 9,522 Nissan Urvan Japan 10,910 Toyota Crown Japan 12,915 Toyota Land Cruiser Japan 10,085 United Kingdom London Rolls Royce United Kingdom 47,868 Jaguar XJ6 United Kingdom 10,885 Ford Granada Federal Republic of Germany 9,275 Ford Fiesta United Kingdom 4,740 Ford Bus United Kingdom 13,226 Ford Granada Federal Republic of Germany 12,238 Ford Granada Federal Republic of Germany 12,256 Ford Granada Federal Republic of Germany 10,495 Ford Granada Federal Republic of Germany 10,469 Zambia Lusaka Mercedes-Benz Federal Republic of Germany 16,585 Peugeot 504 S/Wagon France 15,000 Peugeot 504 S/Wagon France 16,585 Note: This list does not include one special purpose protected vehicle provided under a special security program. (d) The reasons for the use of vehicles of other than Australian manufacture are lack of effective spare parts and after sales service or excessive comparative price taking into account also the cost of freight from Australia. There are also some cases where no Australian vehicle is suitable for the use proposed. (Question No. 781) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs table in Parliament a report on the meeting held at Parliament House on the afternoon of Friday, 9 March 1984 at which, according to Mr Holding's Press statement of 8 March 1984, experts attempted to resolve the serious and deteriorating social situation at Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory. (2) Who attended the meeting, and what groups are represented. (3) What were the recommendations of the meeting. (4) What further action does the Minister envisage will be taken as a result of the meeting. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have made the report of this meeting available to the honourable senator. (2) The Hon. Clyde Holding, M.P., Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; The Hon. Cecil Blanchard, M.P.; The Hon. Doug Everingham, M.P.; The Hon. Darryl W. Manzie , Minister for Community Development, Northern Territory; Mr Alan Scott, Secretary, Department of Community Development, Northern Territory; Mr Gerard Galvin, Northern Territory Chief Stipendiary Magistrate; Mr David Biles, Acting Director, Australian Institute of Criminology; Mr Colin McDonald, Solicitor, North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service-NAALAS; Mr Charles Perkins, Chairman, Australian Development Corporation; Mr Alan Wright, Superintendent, Public Affairs, Groote Eylandt Mining Co.-GEMCO; Ms Madelaine Smith, representing Professor Cawte; Ms Maggie Brady, Northern Land Council; Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-Dr Neil Thompson; Ms Sue Kesteven; Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Mr Don O'Rourke; Mr Ken Wanganeen; Mr Bob Beadman; Mr Chris Marshall; Dr Helen Ross; Ms Deborah Milner-Minutes Secretary. (3) The discussion led to the following conclusions which are included in the record of the meeting: That a co-ordinated approach is needed, and That the establishment of a task force to undertake consultation with the Aboriginal communities would be a useful first step. (4) During my visit to Groote Eylandt on 15 and 16 May it was agreed that an all-Aboriginal task force be established to examine the problems and agree on a course of action. (Question No. 787) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Has Mr Levi Koovschinoff been contacting the Commonwealth Employment Service for the past two years 'to find a driver for his taxi and three people for his management marketing business' as reported in the Courier Mail on 2 April 1984; if so: (a) how many people have been referred to Mr Koovschinoff for each of the positions; (b) what are the details of his 'management marketing business' including the conditions of work; and (c) what conditions of work were attached to the taxi-driver's position. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Coorparoo Office of the CES, which services the area mentioned in the Courier Mail, has no record of dealings with Mr Koovschinoff, nor is he known to office staff. The adjoining offices of Mt Gravatt and Woolloongabba also have no record of Mr Koovschinoff having lodged vacancies with them. (Question No. 810) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) Did G. J. Coles and Co Ltd use the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) in filling the positions at their new store at Mount Druitt; if so, how many people were employed from the CES and what is their age break up. (2) Was the company, on employing these people, entitled to Federal Government funding under any of the employment schemes which are currently in operation. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Three hundred and sixty-one people were engaged through the CES. The age break up is as follows: 15-19 yrs-262; 20-24 yrs-37; 25-44 yrs-55; 45 yrs and over-7; total-361. (2) Yes. G. J. Coles received approval to receive payment of subsidy in respect of one person only, and this was under the provisions of the Training Scheme for the Disabled. (Question No. 856) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 7 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are no statutory authorities within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Defence Support.