Tuesday, 21 August 1984 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1984 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT (FOURTH PERIOD) Pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate passed on 15 June 1984, the Senate met on Tuesday, 21 August 1984, at 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-borne Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 1,064 citizens) and Withers (from 555 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 enquiry 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 enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 21 citizens), Grimes (from 86 citizens), Hill (from 198 citizens), Messner (from 324 citizens), Robertson (from 22 citizens) and Withers (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners do not want a Uranium Enrichment Plant constructed in South-East Queensland because: (a) there is no known way of safely storing uranium waste products; (b) there has not been an environment impact study conducted into the effects of such a Uranium Enrichment Plant; (c) Australia has adequate coal supplies to provide energy for industry; (d) the risks to local inhabitants from the operation of such a plant have not been established; (e) the products of such a plant will contribute to the prospect of nuclear war ; (f) the local area would become a target in the event of such a nuclear war; (g) the investment in such a Uranium Enrichment Plant would be better spent in research into clean, renewable energy sources such as solar energy. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: (a) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (b) reject all applications for the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (c) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants; (d) reject all applications for foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants ; (e) do all in the Senate's power to prevent the construction of a Uranium Enrichment Plant in South-East Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 123 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia: Concerned about the unprecedented threat to the survival of life on earth by the nuclear arms race, Concerned that $1 million per minute is spent on armaments while members of the human family suffer starvation and deprivation, Convinced that the peoples of all Nations wish to live in peace and brotherhood , Do humbly pray that the Federal Government, as a matter of urgency: 1. Submit to the United Nations a proposal for each Nation's funding for defence and armaments to be cut progressively by not less than 1 per cent initially, and by an increasing percentage yearly. 2. At least half of this saving be devoted to increased funding for international aid organizations developing self-sufficiency in the Third World. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hearn (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (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 disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measure 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 56 citizens), Chaney (from 16 citizens), Coates (from 10 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 103 citizens), Grimes (from 28 citizens), Harradine (from 227 citizens), Peter Rae (from 19 citizens) and Watson (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'joint Australian-United States' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Chipp (from 442 citizens), Primmer (from 71 citizens) and Zakharov ( from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment of supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 84 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 in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 22 citizens), Button (from 146 citizens) and Chipp ( from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: there is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, A.C.T.; there are at present no such existing facilities; provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Grimes (from 22 citizens) and Ryan (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Senator Scott (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for films and video tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 879 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of us, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully shows that we do most vigorously protest and deplore the introduction and availability of 'X' rated pornography, including 'X' rated video cassettes in Australia. We also most strongly oppose all forms of 'R' rated pornography. In addition, we dispute the statement attributed to the Federal Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, that the great majority of adult Australians do not object to hardcore, erotic pornography, and we reject his claim that it is the direct responsibility of parents to control their children's access to it. We, the electors, respectfully beseech you, our elected representatives, to protect our society, especially children, and beg that adequate laws be enacted and enforced to make illegal and importation, production, possession or distribution of both hard-core and soft-core pornography in any form. by Senator Boswell (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bolkus (from 539 citizens), Colston (from 28 citizens), Grimes (from 23 citizens), Robertson (from 11 citizens), Ryan (from 934 citizens) and Zakharov (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law 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. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 11 citizens) and Ryan (from 643 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament' (ALP Platform 1982, E ); and will: 'oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear . . . and other techniques of mass destruction' (ALP Platform 1982, E.34); 'attach high priority to preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to this end will not allow commercial considerations to govern Australia's anti-proliferation strategy' (ALP Platform 1982, E.35c); and 'oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1982, F.48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 143 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the Senate call upon the Government to honour its obligation to protect Australia's children, by reversing its decision to remove barriers to the importation of hardcore pornography; and to restore control to customs point-of-entry; because control at point-of-sale has proven to be wholly ineffective, and injurious video viewing by children is widespread. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 927 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle of individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 578 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth; 1. That a Bill of Rights be not introduced which; (a) does not provide for the protection of life before death as well as after or (b) if introduced it makes provision for the protection of life before death or after death. 2. That the Customs Regulations allowing the introduction into Australia of X rated videos or other pornographic videos be repealed as well as other pornographic material; That the Family as the prime unit of society be re-affirmed by disallowing any provision for de facto relationships and particularly for privileges in the case of de facto relationships of Members of Parliament; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 61 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, and for related purposes. Notice of Motion Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980, and for related purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That so much of standing order 242 be suspended as would prevent the third readings of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 being passed without calls of the Senate. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the further publication in the National Times of 27 July-2 August, 3-9 August and 10-16 August 1984 of purported proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge be referred to the Committee of Privileges in connection with the matter, referred to the Committee by the Senate on 14 June 1984, relating to the publication in the National Times of 8-14 June 1984 of a purported report of evidence taken by, and documents submitted to, the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That- (a) the publication on 17 August 1984 in the Age and the Australian of purported information about the actions and intentions of members of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge; and (b) the provision of such purported information by 'sources' prior to publication of the report of the Select Committee, be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Gold Coast attracts 4,000,000 tourists annually, generates $ 700m per annum in Commonwealth/State revenues and is rapidly becoming the focal point for overseas tourists; (b) recognises that beach erosion is a serious threat to the Gold Coast tourist industry and is costing the council $19m annually to control, which is an enormous burden on the city's 56,000 ratepayers; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to immediately accept its responsibility to help finance beach works and agree to pay 40 per cent of the cost. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Nursing Homes Fees Determination Principles 1984, formulated under sub -section 40AA (7) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with regret that today marks the first anniversary of the assassination of the former Philippine Opposition Leader, Senator Benigno Aquino ; (b) expresses its concern at the recent escalation of militarism in the Philippines, as indicated by; (i) the indiscriminate shooting by police at workers at a peaceful picket outside a factory in Manila in July 1984, (ii) the major military offensive in Northern Luzon involving the death of 50 people, and (iii) the deployment of 1,000 secret marshals in June and July this year; (c) expresses an opinion that military aid given by Australia to the Philippines should not be used to assist in the repression of democratic movements in that country; and (d) urges the Australian Government to act in the interests of human and political rights of the Filipino people and to ensure that Australian aid is not misused. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is the Australian Customs Service conducting an investigation into the implications of the Black Report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration-the Young affair-and on its ability to enforce compliance with declarations about the contents of baggage? Is the Minister aware of the concern of Customs officers that, in accepting Mr Young's defence of not knowing, Mr Black, and by its acceptance of the Black report, the Government, have challenged the long-standing concept that the onus should be on the person making a declaration to be aware of the contents of his or her baggage? Does not this interpretation mean that a person could claim no knowledge of a quantity of drugs contained in unaccompanied baggage and be regarded nevertheless as innocent? Finally, bearing in mind the recommendations of the report of the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures and the apparent inability of the seventh most senior Federal Cabinet Minister to handle a form which thousands of lesser mortals have to cope with every day, is consideration being given to redesigning baggage declarations or perhaps the possibility of a special simplified form for Australian Labor Party Ministers? Senator BUTTON —Following the publication of the report of the Black inquiry an investigation, if that is the correct word, is being conducted by the Australian Customs Service into the appropriateness of the form which passengers complete, whether it be in respect of accompanied or unaccompanied baggage. The outcome of that investigation or inquiry will be known in due course. I think the Senate will be aware that Mr Black in his report made some comments about that form. That matter is being investigated. No other matter to which Senator Rae referred in his question is being investigated by the Customs Service. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It refers to the recent episode of the 60 Minutes program which dealt with overpayment and fraud within the Department of Social Security. Is the Minister satisfied with the coverage given by the program to this matter? Were the facts and figures used by the 60 Minutes team correct? What steps have been taken to tighten further the Department's payment system to avoid fraud and overpayment? Senator GRIMES —I do not know that it is up to me to be satisfied or dissatisfied with a program of the type of that episode of 60 Minutes. However I, like all members of Parliament I suppose, at times wish that programs of this type were less selective in the information they use. I wish particularly that they would not be misleading, as they are, and as was particularly so in this case about the extent of overpayment and fraud in the Department of Social Security. In fact, the program ignored information given to it by the Department and by me in response to the accusations that were made. The inference attached to the two individual cases mentioned in the program were simply not in accordance with the facts, but I am not willing to disclose the facts of individual cases in or outside this Parliament even in response to such a program. I must say that I was disturbed to note that the program apparently had files containing names and addresses and individual cases of clients of the Department of Social Security. The simple fact is that steps have been taken by the Department with respect to the issue of replacement cheques. This has been ignored by the program. In 1983-84 nearly 1,000 fewer replacement cheques were issued than in earlier years. The estimate of 2.3 per cent overpayment used in the program referred only to unemployment benefit payments. In fact, the total amount of overpayments debited in 1983-84 was 0.48 per cent of the total amount paid out in that year in all payments by the Department of Social Security. In a budget of some $13 billion, with 66 million-odd cheques, I do not think that is a bad record. The simple fact of the matter is that most overpayments are recovered. Fewer overpayments would occur, particularly as a result of fraud, if in fact we moved to a more direct system of payment. But that is a matter for the future. The simple fact of the matter is that in this case, and in all these cases, the Department has, over the years, under successive governments, been improving its record in this area. However, there will always be a few people who will try to rip off the system, particularly a system as large as this. Those few people, I believe, are best prevented by the greater certainty of their being detected and , when they are detected, by action being taken either through the courts or without resort to the courts. I hope that in the future programs such as this have more respect for people's rights and more respect for the facts and the truth of the matter. I suppose the aim of the exercise is good television rather than fact, and that is something we all have to live with. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and follows the question asked by Senator Peter Rae. I repeat part of the question asked by Senator Rae which was not answered by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of the concern of Customs officers that, in accepting Mr Young's defence of not knowing, Mr Black has challenged the long-standing concept that the onus should be on the person making the declaration to be aware of the contents of his or her baggage and that the Government's acceptance of Mr Black's report similarly challenges that concept? I ask the Minister: Does not this interpretation mean that a person could claim no knowledge of a quantity of drugs contained in unaccompanied baggage and be regarded as innocent? Is this not a very significant difficulty for the Customs Service? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of concern amongst Customs officers on this matter . I think that if there was concern it would have been drawn to my attention. Senator Durack —You ought to be concerned. Senator BUTTON —If I can answer the question in my own way, dopey, I will do it. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The response of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in referring to another honourable senator as dopey, I really find objectionable. I ask that the remark be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Minister withdraw the reference. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I withdraw unequivocally. The point I was making when I was interrupted is that no concern by Customs officers has been drawn to my attention. That is a fact. Of course, a person could be in the position of filling in a Customs declaration and giving particular answers to the questions on that declaration, which answers may emerge to be incorrect. Of course, in Mr Young's case the point was that the answers were admittedly incorrect and Mr Young paid a penalty in respect of that matter. The same situation would apply to anybody else in that circumstance. Whether the matter is one which requires further examination is one that the Government will examine in the context of the Black Report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. But at this stage I can take the answer no further. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: Does he not agree that it is a farce if we can be permitted to have a situation whereby somebody does not know the contents of a bag and yet can make a declaration as to the contents of the bag and not be regarded as having committed an offence? Senator BUTTON —I assume that these questions are not being asked in totally hypothetical terms. The situation to which I adverted was that concerning Mr Young and this was the purport of Senator Rae's question in particular. In that circumstance the Minister made a declaration which was incorrect and paid a penalty as prescribed by the Customs Act for that. That is the penalty which is prescribed for any citizen in that circumstance, and it would be in the hypothetical situation to which Senator Chaney adverts. Senator McINTOSH —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to media reports during the past 2 1/2 weeks concerning a recent incident at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment at Lucas Heights in which apparently there was an accidental release of uranium hexafluoride from a Commission building. Can the Minister provide any details of this incident? Senator WALSH —On 6 July I was advised by telephone and also by telex that the incident-that is, the release of uranium hexafluoride to which Senator McIntosh referred-had occurred. The incident was described to me by the Commission as a minor incident. I was told then that the Atomic Energy Commission would be conducting an inquiry into it. The incident was next raised with my office by a journalist called Galvin Gilchrist on, I think, 5 August. A report was published in the Sun Herald on that day or the day after. Evidently-I became aware of this only today-there was some reference to the incident on a radio program in Sydney on the Monday after it happened. My office checked with the Atomic Energy Commission in early August about the progress of the report and the nature of the incident. The Commission advised again that the incident was minor, that the hexafluoride was released during work associated with uranium enrichment safeguards work, that no staff on the site or any persons off the site were likely to suffer any ill effects, that the State authorities had been advised and that the Commission's inquiry had not, at that stage, in early August, been completed. The report of the Committee on the incident is now complete. It will be examined by the appropriate State authorities and by my Department. It is now, of course, available to the public. As this brief history demonstrates, no attempt has been made to cover up. The Atomic Energy Commission is satisfied, as the report says, that it did not attempt to keep the incident secret. I understand that all the staff on the site were notified virtually immediately the incident happened. I table the report. Senator CHIPP —I ask either the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Attorney-General a question about which I wrote to the Attorney-General two weeks ago. Is it correct, as reported, that in 1974-75 the then Attorney-General gave instructions to Department of Customs and Excise officials to downgrade their surveillance and inspection of Sydney businessman Abraham Saffron? Will the Attorney ascertain what were the Department's reasons, if any, for its reported high level of surveillance and inspection before the alleged intervention by the then Attorney-General? Will he also ascertain what was the reaction of the Department to the alleged instructions by the then Attorney- General? What were the reasons of the then Attorney-General for not accepting the Department's contrary advice, if any such advice was offered? Will the Attorney arrange to have tabled all documents relating to this matter, including communication between the then Attorney-General and the Department of Customs and Excise? Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank the honourable senator for giving me advance notice of this question. I am afraid that all I am able to say at this stage is that the matter is being investigated and that answers will be supplied as soon as possible, hopefully later this week. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the Attorney- General any explanation as to why it has taken two weeks for the answers to these questions to be provided? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer is simply that files relevant to this matter are scattered around a number of departments, as might be expected in circumstances where ancient history of this kind is being delved into and dredged up. Inquiries are proceeding expeditiously. I repeat: Answers will be given as soon as possible. Senator BOLKUS —My question also is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to recent media reports suggesting that the National Crime Authority will not be taking further the unfinished investigations of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and, in particular, that proposed references for the Authority from Mr Costigan to the Attorney-General will, in fact, be watered down before being considered by the intergovernmental committee of that Authority. I ask the Attorney-General whether these claims are correct. I further ask him whether the Crime Authority will be vigorously pursuing such investigations into organised crime. Can he assure both the public and the inter-governmental committee that they will be fully informed on the issues which the Authority should be investigating? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are many inaccuracies in the media reports to which Senator Bolkus is referring and they should certainly not be taken at their face value. What I can say about the transition process is simply this: The legislation establishing the National Crime Authority, which is now in operation , does contain special provisions to facilitate the transfer of relevant information and materials from the Costigan Royal Commission to the NCA. Mr Costigan delivered to me some weeks ago a detailed compilation of material to form the basis of possible draft references to the Authority. I, in turn, transmitted that material forthwith to the Authority for its consideration and such action as it deemed appropriate. This material is now being examined by the Authority and it is expected that possible references will be considered by a meeting of the inter-governmental committee within the next few weeks. Since the passage of the Crime Authority legislation there have been quite extensive discussions and extensive liaison between the Costigan Commission and the Authority to ensure as smooth as possible a transition to the Authority when the Costigan Commission terminates on 30 September. Senator TEAGUE —Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce still maintain, as he told television reporters in Sydney on 24 July, that the Young Customs affair was simply 'an unfortunate misunderstanding'? Does the Minister intend to apply the same generous criteria to other violations of Customs regulations? Is he concerned that the credibility of the Australian Customs Service has suffered because of the lenient way in which the accident-prone Mr Young was treated? Finally, given that the Minister remained almost mute during the public debate on the Young affair when, if ever, does he intend to reply to freedom of information applications by members of the Opposition, including Senator Rae, Mr Howard and Mr Spender, for relevant documents? Senator BUTTON —On 24 July in a television interview-one of those door stops or whatever one calls them-I did describe the Young matter as an unfortunate misunderstanding. I have no reason, as a result of the publication of the Black Report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration, to alter that description of the incident. I do not believe that the credibility of the Customs Service has been damaged in the way suggested by Senator Teague. In fact Mr Black found totally to the contrary in respect of the Customs officers involved. One of the benefits of the Black inquiry, I believe, was that that finding was made by Mr Black in conducting that inquiry when allegations which were about might have been left in the air if the inquiry had not been appointed. I am accused of remaining mute in the course of this matter. It is a posture which I would recommend from time to time to a number of Opposition spokesmen who did not remain mute on the matter and who no doubt will have an opportunity in the next day or two to debate what they had to say. Some quite extraordinary statements have been made by Opposition leaders in respect of this matter over the period of the blissful ignorance which they enjoyed. In so far as the requests for material under the freedom of information legislation are concerned, they will be dealt with as soon as possible and the appropriate answers provided. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and relates to information that Mr Ross Lonnie is to appear before the Australian Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. The Minister would be aware that Mr Lonnie is a Perth lawyer who represents numerous Vietnam veterans in the agent orange class action in the United States of America and has been granted leave to appear before the Royal Commission. Has the Minister given consideration to, or will he give consideration to, granting financial assistance to enable Mr Lonnie to appear before the Royal Commission? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will recall that one of the early decisions of the Hawke Government was to establish a royal commission, following a request by the Vietnam veterans for such an inquiry into the use of chemical agents in that country during the war in the 1960s and 1970s. The Government decided that, in order that evidence may be placed before such a commission, the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia would be given adequate funds to present its views to the Commission, not in an adversary way but in the presentation of evidence that the Association believed would be of assistance to the Royal Commissioner. However, it has come to our notice that Mr Lonnie, a lawyer in Western Australia , had been acting for a considerable period before the Royal Commission began its hearings and he has had an association with the class action developments in the United States of America. Accordingly, the Government agrees that Mr Lonnie, who has acted on behalf of some Western Australian Vietnam veterans on a whole range of repatriation matters, should be given some financial assistance to present to the Royal Commission the evidence that he has assembled over the years. I am pleased to inform Senator Coleman that the Government has favourably considered the request from Mr Lonnie and has agreed to provide an amount of up to $35,000 to him so that the Western Australian veterans he represents will not be placed at any disadvantage in putting their case before the Royal Commission. In addition, the honourable senator might recall that the Government recently approved an extension of time for the Royal Commission. Additional funds have been made available for the finalisation of the inquiry into the use of chemical agents in Vietnam. A further $278,000 has been allocated to the Vietnam Veterans Association so that it might finalise its evidence and its case before the Commission which is currently sitting. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I remind him of his comments in Adelaide on 1 August when he said that if matters were left unresolved by the Black report the Government would consider some more formal proceedings with additional powers. I draw the Attorney's attention to comments by Mr Black in relation to his powers, on page 21 of his report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration, where he says that he would refrain as far as possible from expressing unnecessary conclusions about disputed matters of fact because the inquiry was held in private and people did not have the opportunity to cross-examine others whose views of the facts conflicted with their own. I ask the Attorney-General: Does he not agree that these restrictions, which obviously Mr Black felt about the proceedings that he was conducting, fully support the view expressed by the Opposition that there should have been and still should be a public judicial inquiry with necessary powers to investigate Mr Young's false Customs declaration and the circumstances surrounding it? I ask the Attorney as well: Did he advise that that was the correct course to take in the first place? Does he now agree that that is the correct course to take? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the propositions advanced by Senator Durack . For what it is worth, to put it on the record, I did not advise that any other form of inquiry would have been appropriate from the outset, nor do I believe at this stage that any such other form of inquiry would have been appropriate. It has always been my view that, if matters remained unresolved as a result of that kind of investigation, it would be necessary for some other form of inquiry at least to be considered by the Government. But as matters have turned out the concern was wholly hypothetical because no matters were left unresolved by Mr Black. He stated quite unequivocally that Mr Young did not act with impropriety and, in the light of the application of section 209 of the Customs Act, no question of prosecution of any kind arose. To the extent that there was an unresolved question of law in Mr Black's report about the meaning of section 234 (e) that was, by virtue of the application of section 209, a wholly hypothetical question and, as such, did not need to be resolved. As to questions of fact, it is clear that there was nothing that could be remotely described as an unresolved question arising out of his investigation. It is clear from Mr Black' s report that the fact that he did not have compulsive powers did not, in his view, hamper him in any way at all in his investigations. So in the light of those positive findings and very clear statements by Mr Black it is quite absurd to talk at this stage of any further inquiry. Senator GILES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health been made aware of the anxiety engendered in the small country town of Pingelly in Western Australia where the only doctor faces disqualification from Medicare for three years for what is being described as a minor infringement of the law? Is the Federal Government able to ensure that the people of Pingelly are not deprived of medical care and that the local hospital is kept functioning both as a service to the community and as an important source of employment in the town? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Giles said, attention has been drawn, through the 60 Minutes program, to the fact that a Dr Hood will be suspended from Medicare because of offences that he committed under the health insurance legislation. The offences were that he charged $5 per patient on top of direct billing the patient. The fact is that the profession, the public in general and I believe everyone in this country have been clearly, repeatedly and consistently advised that when the Medicare legislation was going through and before and after that no fee would be paid by the patient if the doctor direct billed or bulk billed as it is called under Medicare. The doctor concerned was provided with a letter from the State Manager of Medicare in Western Australia when he received his Medicare stationery. The letter stated: If a practitioner accepts patient assignments of a right to benefit from his services, no additional charges may be made by the practitioner to the patient concerning that service. The letter also invited medical practitioners to follow up any inquiries they may have had on a telephone hot line. In the pamphlet that was provided to every citizen in this country, it was stated: When doctors direct bill they accept 85 per cent of the schedule fee as full payment and the patient is charged nothing. Dr Hood apparently wanted to enjoy the real advantages of direct billing, and there are real advantages of direct billing, both financial and administrative, although this was not brought out on the television program, and yet he wanted to receive at the same time the higher Australian Medical Association rate of charge for his medical services. In signing the Medicare claim form for assigned patients, the form DB1, immediately above the doctor's signature is the statement 'No payments have been sought from the . . . patients for the provision of services supplied in the attached assignment forms'. The disqualification provisions of the Health Insurance Act under which the doctor will be disqualified were, in fact, introduced by the previous Government and took effect from 1 November 1982. They were proposed by the then Liberal and Country Party Government as a measure necessary to reduce medical fraud. All doctors were advised by letter when this legislation was passed and the then Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, issued a Press statement on 1 November 1982 stating that 'a medical practitioner found guilty of two or more offences of medical benefits fraud would be excluded automatically from medical benefits arrangements for three years'. In Dr Hood's case, the magistrate actually recorded convictions on five cases of fraud. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has contacted the Western Australian State Health Minister and has established that the Western Australian health authorities are taking appropriate steps to ensure that medical services will continue to be available for the residents of Pingelly. Mr Carlton made it clear when he was Minister in the previous Government that he would intervene only from a wish to protect patients, not practitioners. The present Government and the present Minister endorse that statement. For the majority of practitioners in this country there is nothing to fear from the provision which Mr Carlton and the previous Government introduced. Finally, I would point out that the doctor concerned has not been singled out. In the last four years 76 medical practitioners have been prosecuted, all but 15 of them successfully. There are now four doctors subject to disqualification, with a further 50 with the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. After fully reviewing the effects of the case, the Government and the Minister are satisfied that the doctor has not been harshly dealt with, given the nature of the offences he has committed. Bearing in mind that the Western Australian Government has guaranteed that the people of Pingelly will not be disadvantaged, under the circumstances the Minister has no intention of reversing the disqualification. Senator MacGIBBON —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows on earlier questions today relating to the reported decision by the then Minister responsible for Customs, Senator Murphy, to downgrade the surveillance of Mr Abe Saffron in 1974-75. Did the Menzies report into the Sala case establish that Mr Sala, during his stay in Australia, stayed at a motel owned by Mr Saffron? Did Mr Menzies make any findings about the relationship between Mr Sala and Mr Saffron? Finally, will the Attorney-General, belatedly, table the Menzies report so that the full facts of this matter are known? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to table the Menzies report on the Sala matter, for all the reasons I spelt out in loving and elaborate detail in this place in the latter part of March when we were debating this furphy at nauseous length. Nor do I propose to give further nourishment to Senator MacGibbon in his explorations of what manifestly, in the light of the matter put before the Senate, proved I think to the satisfaction of everyone in this place to be a misconceived allegation against Senator Murphy on that occasion. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of recent Press reports which have suggested a link between three young sailors who have contracted leukaemia in their work as painters at Naval Air Station, Nowra? Has an investigation of the claim that certain paints and allied compounds used by the Navy at Nowra may have caused these young men to contract leukaemia been initiated? What are the results of this investigation and, further, is the Government considering granting any compensation to the victims and their families? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister that the Navy is aware of three cases of leukaemia in sailors posted to the Naval Air Station at Nowra. A survey of chemicals, including paints with which the sailors may have had contact, has been carried out but none of these has been found to contain known causes of leukaemia. Further research into the matter is continuing. Any claim for compensation would certainly be considered under the Compensation ( Commonwealth Government Employees) Act or the repatriation system. In that event Navy would, of course, make available any relevant records. Senator HARRADINE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Did the Australian delegation at the recent population conference in Mexico make any effort to obtain assurances from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities similar to those obtained by the United States authorities that government grants to that Fund would not be used to support abortions or coercive population programs? I point out that in the last five years Australian governments have provided $6.6m to that organisation. Were any similar efforts made to obtain assurances from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that Australian grants to that organisation would not be used for the support of abortions or coercive population policies? I point out that the Australian Government gave an increased grant of $500,000 to that organisation last year. If no such efforts were made, why were they not made? Will the Government now undertake to seek such assurances so that we can be sure that Australian taxpayers' funds are not being used for the promotion of abortion or coercive population policies? Senator GRIMES —I have no knowledge of the conference or matters referred to by Senator Harradine. I shall refer those matters to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and obtain an answer as soon as possible. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health received, as I have, a letter from the Bayer Pharmaceutical Co.? Is he aware that a drug, fabahistin, which is manufactured by that company, has been withdrawn from the national health scheme list by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee because of concern about reports of agranulocytosis-a blood disease-associated with the drug? Is he further aware that the Bayer Co. says that it will continue to make fabahistin available to doctors and their patients and urges doctors to maintain confidence in that product? Can the Minister say what criteria the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee uses before deciding to withdraw a drug from the NHS listing? Given that the matters can be presumed to be serious, what comment does the Minister have about a drug company continuing to supply the prescription in the face of that decision? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that fabahistin in its tablet and suspension forms was deleted from the pharmaceutical benefits list, effective I think from 1 August 1984. As Senator Crowley said, those deletions were made on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee because of the adverse reaction reports received by the Committee. The reactions were agranulocytosis and neutropenia, which I would have thought-as I am sure would Senator Crowley- were not trivial reactions, even though in each of the cases reported on removal of the offending substance the agranulocytosis or neutropenia has reverted to normal. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is an independent statutory committee, composed of six doctors who are nominated by the Australian Medical Association, one pharmacist nominated by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, one pharmacist nominated by the Commonwealth Department of Health and one pharmacologist appointed by the Minister for Health. The Advisory Committee is not a government body in the true sense of the word; it is a statutory authority with statutory obligations. Before recommending delisting of any drug the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee asks the company concerned-in this case the Bayer Pharmaceutical Co.- to give reasons or provide evidence to show why the drug should not be delisted. That was done in this case, and the Committee was not convinced by the arguments put forward by Bayer. Fabahistin is an antihistamine. There are other antihistamines which have not been subject to adverse reaction reports. For that reason, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee was not prepared to recommend that this antihistamine should remain on the list. There are some 30 other antihistamine preparations in all sorts of strengths on the pharmaceutical list. I should have thought that there was adequate choice. A manufacturer able to produce evidence to refute the adverse reaction reports could apply to the PBAC for relisting. I was surprised, as was Senator Crowley, at the tone of the letter received from Bayer by medical practitioners throughout the country. As the company said, few reactions of agranulocytosis have been reported in the years in which fabahistin has been used, but I emphasise that this is not a minor reaction. The reaction is not easily detected. Sometimes the first evidence of such a condition may be a secondary infection, which may be very serious. For that reason, it is best left to each doctor to make an individual choice about whether to use this antihistamine or another. There are times when one must use to combat disease drugs which have side effects of this type but the possible benefits outweigh the possible side effects. I believe that that condition does not exist in this case. I expect that most doctors on reading this letter would be surprised at least by the company's complacent attitude to the reports of this serious side effect. Senator REID —I preface my question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, by informing him that I have received complaints from parents in Canberra who have hired G-rated videotapes for their children and have been shocked to discover that they contain very explicit scenes from X and R-rated videos advertising those videos. Will the Attorney place an immediate ban on the inclusion of material advertising X and R-rated videos in videos of other classifications? Will he take steps to prohibit the sale and hire of pornographic videos until the joint select committee which he belatedly announced yesterday has reported back to the Parliament? Senator GARETH EVANS —There has been some concern about X and R-rated material appearing on lesser classified video cassettes, and that is something that has been addressed in the legislation and certainly in the classification standards applied by the Film Censorship Board. It was a matter of discussion and decision at the last meeting of Ministers responsible for censorship, with the decision being-I believe it has now assumed legislative form-that the strongest material on a videotape, whether it be advertising material or otherwise, should determine the classification for the whole tape. It may be that in the early stages of the operation of this scheme nationally and within the Australian Capital Territory that has not as yet been fully applied in practice, but it is something on which obviously strict enforcement is necessary; and I fully accept the principle lying behind Senator Reid's question. As to placing an immediate ban on pornography in videotapes in the Australian Capital Territory, I simply make the point that we have in existence in the Australian Capital Territory a quite rational system of videotape classification and point of sale and hire controls. To the extent that that system is being applied in accordance with the law and is operating properly, as I believe it is in the overwhelming majority of instances-and I know that that view was certainly taken by Mr Doyle, who is the chairman of the relevant House of Assembly committee and who regards most of the opposition being expressed in the Australian Capital Territory to the present system as an extravagant beat-up- there is a rational system which enables consumers to be given full guidance as to the nature of the material, which, in relation to R-rated material, imposes certain point of sale controls designed particularly to ensure that it does not get into the hands of minors and which, in the case of X-rated material, applies even stronger point of sale controls to ensure that such material is not exposed in any way to minors in a shop and certainly is not purchased by them. Under those circumstances, and given the imminent joint select committee inquiry on the operation of the law in the Australian Capital Territory, I do not believe there is any case at all to be made for any radical revision of the existing law, and I do not propose to act in that way. Senator COOK —My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is alien to the Opposition because it is about the economy. I ask the Minister whether he has seen the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released yesterday which, in the words of one newspaper: . . . show a strong 14.5 per cent upward revision in the three months to July- August in private investment expectations for this financial year, suggesting mounting business confidence in the momentum of recovery. Since the Minister has been careful in the past when commenting on the performance of the economy under the stewardship of the Hawke Government by drawing considered attention to the level of capital investment, will he now indicate what he sees is the significance of these figures? Taken together with other economic indicators, are these ABS statistics important on Budget eve? Senator BUTTON —Of course, the statistics are important on Budget eve, and I have no doubt that they will be drawn attention to in the forthcoming week. In that circumstance far be it from me to go into any great detail about the figures to which Senator Cook referred. The Government is reasonably happy with most of the economic indicators now available to it. Senator Watson —What about manufacturing? Senator BUTTON —No, not entirely. I said: 'reasonably happy with most of the economic indicators available to it'. Then there is the Senator Watson parenthesis which everyone can read in Hansard. But the revised figures in relation to investment and to private investment are encouraging. Senator Cook accused me, by implication in his question, of being cautious in my reply to these questions in the past. I shall be so again; I am sorry to disappoint him. I simply say that the improvement in the investment figures is very encouraging, but I remind the Senate that it stems from a low base in 1982 and 1983 and a low base throughout the decade of the 1970s as compared with that of many other countries, so there is a long way to go in terms of encouraging increased investment in industry. But the signs of a favourable start to that process exist, and, although it is patchy in a sense, the Government is very encouraged by those signs which are supportive of all the other economic indicators to which Senator Cook referred. Senator HILL —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the report on today's edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation World Today program concerning the Age tapes. Has the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, submitted his final report on the tapes to the Attorney? Have the Attorney or the Attorney's officers sought in any way to alter, amend or edit that report? When will the report, which was expected to be tabled in the Parliament today, be presented to the Senate? Will it be completely and wholly that report submitted to the Attorney by Mr Temby? Senator GARETH EVANS —The report on the World Today program today was, again, it must be said, a beat-up of fairly comprehensive dimensions. The relationship between Mr Temby and myself, which was the subject of a great deal of speculation in that report, continues to be perfectly amiable, even though he occasionally expresses differences of opinion with all the robustness appropriate to an independent statutory officer. The Government will be tabling the Temby report as soon as possible. There are, however, some questions that remain to be resolved about the timing of that tabling, given the delay in the bringing down of the Senate Committee report and what I understand to be the desire of that Committee, or at least some members of it, to delay the introduction of the Temby report until the Senate Committee has completed its deliberations, and there are also questions that remain to be finally resolved about the extent, if any, of the confidentiality that it may be appropriate to afford publicly to sections of the report. Senator HILL —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I remind the Attorney-General of parts of my question: Firstly, whether the Attorney or his officers have sought in any way to alter, amend or edit Mr Temby's report, and secondly, whether it will be the whole report of Mr Temby that will be tabled before the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not need reminding of the terms of Senator Hill's question. I chose to answer it in the way that I did. As to the first part of his supplementary question, however, I entirely resist any imputation in the terms of that question, or any implication, that in some way either I or my officers were acting in any fashion that is inappropriate. There has been complete consultation at all stages with Mr Temby. There are matters, as I have said, about aspects of the report which remain to be finally resolved. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the National Acoustic Laboratories, which is located on the fourth floor of the MLC Building in York Street, Launceston, presents a problem to the elderly who have to visit the laboratories to obtain hearing aids? Some people, in particular the elderly, are afraid to use the lifts, so they climb the stairs, and on at least one occasion this has resulted in death. Will the Minister consider the relocation of the acoustic laboratories to ground floor premises? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that the Acoustic Laboratories is on the fourth floor of the MLC Building in Launceston. I was not aware of the incidents to which Senator Hearn has referred. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Health. I remind Senator Hearn, however, that ground floor space is not easy to obtain in Launceston and in many other cities throughout the country. I will certainly seek the Minister's assistance in ensuring that elderly people who do not like to use lifts can be escorted into the lifts and up to the fourth floor of the building. For further details I will have to refer the matter to the Minister for Health. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Following the successful prosecution of the Mobil oil company for contravening the Trade Practices Act by putting pressure on a Perth suburban petrol station proprietor to increase his petrol prices, will the Government again consider the Australian Democrats' proposal to divorce petrol wholesale distribution from petrol retailing? As in this case the service station was leased by Mobil Oil to the proprietor, does the Minister appreciate that the control of retail outlets by the oil companies enables the companies to keep prices high, as evidenced in this case by the statement by Mobil's Western Australian Territory Manager that 'Shell are trying to get the retail price up to 38.9c and Mobil will look as though it is not conforming to Shell's attempts to raise the price'? Does the Minister not agree that this makes divorcement of the petrol wholesaler from the petrol retailer an absolute necessity? Senator BUTTON —The Government will not in the immediate future be reconsidering the suggestion made by the Australian Democrats that there be total divorcement of retail petroleum sites from the petroleum companies. Prior to Question Time today I gave notice of a motion in relation to two pieces of legislation which are relevant to this issue. The first is the petroleum marketing franchisees legislation and the second is the petroleum marketing retail sites legislation. The legislation relating to franchisees is designed to provide a whole range of protections for franchisees of service stations which were not previously available to them. The sites legislation is designed to allocate retail sites on a different basis from the way in which they have been allocated in the past. I know that Senator Jack Evans will have the opportunity to peruse that legislation shortly. I simply say to him that it was a result of a long and detailed inquiry into the whole matter by officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce. All sections of the industry were involved in consultation and in the investigation which took place. I think the legislation represents a satisfactory outcome in respect of most of the difficult problems which have been encountered in the past. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the decision by General Motors-Holden's Ltd to stop making six-cylinder engines in Australia. What effect will this have upon employment in the motor vehicle industry? Also, will the Minister comment on the assertion that the move threatens to turn Australians into a race of assemblers? Senator BUTTON —I do not know who said that this decision threatens to turn Australians into a nation of assemblers. It is certainly not the Government's intention and it is certainly not the intention of the car industry plan, which was announced in May this year, that that should take place. I think it is very easy to look, as it were, at the history of the car industry in Australia and make statements of that kind without adequate consideration. I am aware, of course, of the decision by General Motors to cease manufacture of a six-cylinder engine in Australia. It is not a decision which was arrived at recently, which the publicity might suggest. It is a decision which was arrived at, certainly in negotiating terms, as a result of the previous Government's policies well before the car industry plan was announced in May. Indeed, it was foreshadowed in a famous document which allegedly fell from the back of a General Motors truck in Adelaide in, I think, May or June of 1983. That decision was well under way before the present plan was introduced. Insofar as the employment aspects are concerned, I am not able to provide a detailed answer in respect of that except to say that General Motors has indicated publicly that there are some 600 employees involved and it would hope to accommodate those employees within the existing structure of the company. I remind Senator Foreman that General Motors also has made a decision, which is a reconsideration of an earlier decision, to continue the manufacture of an eight- cylinder engine in Australia. Certainly that will have favourable employment consequences. It is a decision which has been made directly as a result of the provisions of the plan which this Government announced in May of this year. I simply reiterate that although one might have wished otherwise the decision by General Motors is a decision for that company and it is consistent with the Governments policy in relation to the vehicle industry. I should also say that further down the track of the eight-year plan the Government would hope, indeed expect, that arrangements would be made between various companies for joint production of a six-cylinder engine in Australia. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the report in today's Australian Financial Review regarding Mr Justice Alley's letter to the unions and employers in the building industry threatening to change the entire award basis on which wages are paid? Did Mr Justice Alley's letter arise from concern within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that building unions and employers are privately arranging additional site allowances? I understand that a private conference has been arranged for 10 September. I ask the Minister whether the Government has considered this matter and whether he is able to advise the Senate whether the Government intends making any submission on this matter to the Commission? Senator BUTTON —I apologise to the Senate; I am not aware of Mr Justice Alley's letter. But that is not the pertinent matter which is contained in the question. I think the question is directed to what the Government's attitude would be to private arrangements made within the building industry contrary to the decisions of the Commission. The Government's attitude in relation to that is that it would not approve of private arrangements which are made contrary to the spirit of the wage fixation guidelines. I will refer Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. To my knowledge no decision has been made about an intervention to the Commission at this stage. I think it highly likely however that one will be made. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware of a claim by Professor Levin, who I understand is touring Australia at the invitation of Women Who Want to be Women, that the Government's affirmative action program is identical to United States of America legislation? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether this claim is true? Senator RYAN —I have been aware of some of the outrageously untruthful claims that the person referred to in Senator Zakharov's question has been making about the Australian affirmative action plan. I think it is very disappointing that an Australian organisation of women-called in this case Women Who Want to be Women- should go to the the trouble of bringing out to Australia, at whose expense I do not know, some American nonentity the sole purpose of whose visit here seems to be to rampage around the countryside insulting members of the Government, particularly me, and saying things about the affirmative action program that are totally wrong. As all honourable senators will know, and as Opposition senators will agree as the Opposition supported the affirmative action proposal- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —Mr President, I must say that I find the shouts of pain emanating from the opposite side of the chamber quite surprising. The Opposition has given formal approval to the Government's affirmative action plan. Indeed, the shadow Minister for women's affairs, Ian Macphee, has accepted our invitation to be a member of the working party which will develop, in consultation- Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister is not telling the truth on this occasion-- The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator RYAN —Mr President, I think it is time that some of the enlightened and informed members of the Opposition had words to say to their less enlightened colleague. I can understand their embarrassment. The fact is that the Australian affirmative action plan is quite different in many essential respects from programs which have been introduced in various States in the United States of America. One of the main differences is that at this stage our program is voluntary. We will eventually legislate, but we will not be legislating for court-imposed quotas to be introduced into any particular area of employment; we will be finding a way whereby large employers in the private sector can work with the Government and the trade unions to implement a management plan that will enable women employed in those firms to have equality of opportunity in employment. That is a very simple objective. The method of achieving it is not so simple because there has been a great deal of structural discrimination against women in most areas of employment. The Government, and I am sure the enlightened members of the Opposition, have been heartened by the very positive and constructive approach to this plan that has been taken by large employers in the private sector. As is well known, 28 major companies covering a quarter of a million Australian workers have volunteered to participate in the voluntary stage of the program and make their experiences available for the benefit of women in the work force generally. The aim of our program is to remove discrimination against people in the work force, although it will be of main benefit to women, where that discrimination is based on stereotyped attitudes to sex and has nothing to do with the merit of the worker in question. It is, in some ways, a similar aim to that of the American scheme but the methods by which we will achieve our aim are totally different. I must repeat my disappointment and astonishment that any Australian women's organisation, even the Women Who Want to be Women, has gone to such trouble, and presumably expense, to bring out to Australia somebody who does not understand or refuses to understand our Government's policy and who I think is doing damage to the reputation of that organisation and anybody who provides a forum for such misleading statements to be made. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the reports of the Auditor-General on certain efficiency audits dated 26 June 1984. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that on Tuesday, 7 August, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and I, in the company of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), attended the official opening of the new Parliament building of the Papua New Guinea National Parliament in Port Moresby by his Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales. Honourable senators are informed that the Speaker's chair and the chamber table in the new building are gifts from the Australian Parliament. This presentation continued the tradition of exchange of gifts of symbolic parliamentary significance between Commonwealth parliaments on such occasions and confirmed the close ties between the two legislatures. I had pleasure in conveying to the Speaker and the members of the Papua New Guinea Parliament the felicitations of all members of the Australian Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —On 1 May last Senator Robertson directed to me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice regarding delays on road construction projects on the Stuart Highway. I advised the Senate that the Government's approval of the five road construction projects on the Stuart Highway would bring to $47.5m the total expenditure on that highway in 1983-84. In fact that figure relates to all roadworks within the Northern Territory. Of that figure, $ 24m will be spent directly on the Stuart Highway. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare I present a progress report on retirement income systems. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ELSTOB —by leave-The purpose of this report is to advise the Senate of the progress the Committee has made with the reference on Australia's retirement income systems, to indicate the range and diversity of the issues that have been brought to its attention during the inquiry and to comment generally on the scope of the inquiry. Honourable senators will appreciate that this inquiry involves an examination of the complex relationships between social welfare policies and fiscal policies and the relative roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors in the provision of income support for the retired and the aged. On 6 September 1983 the Senate referred the matter of Australia's retirement income systems to the Committee for inquiry and report on, or before, the first sitting day in August 1984. In particular, the Committee was asked to report on any changes that may be necessary to ensure equitable and comprehensive income security for Australians of retirement age. The Committee subsequently formulated detailed terms of reference to clarify the main objectives of the inquiry and to assist those preparing written submissions. These terms of reference, which are outlined in the progress report, also identified particular issues the Committee believed warranted examination, without excluding other issues that might be brought to its attention in the course of the inquiry. I reported these terms of reference to the Senate on 29 November 1983. During November 1983 the Committee advertised the inquiry in the national Press and invited individuals and organisations to present written submissions outlining their views to the Committee. A closing date for submissions of 31 January 1984 was initially set. However, this proved to be unrealistic as many potential contributors were unable to meet this deadline and sought extensions of time to lodge submissions. Major submissions continued to be received until June this year. A total of 356 submissions has been received together with a large volume of supporting material. Between March and July 1984 the Committee conducted a series of public hearings as part of the inquiry. On examination of the evidence it became apparent to the Committee that more detailed information was required on certain aspects of the inquiry, particularly detailed costings relating to proposals for changes to existing income retirement arrangements. Additional material was subsequently sought from the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Treasury, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and others. At this stage insufficient supplementary material has been received for the Committee to proceed to the formulation of recommendations. Further, several major submissions to the inquiry have not yet been received. These include submissions by the State governments of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia and also the Northern Territory Government, all of which have indicated their desire to contribute to the inquiry. I should also add that the Queensland and Tasmanian governments have already presented their submissions and the Victorian Government has indicated that it will not be preparing a submission for the inquiry. In view of the importance and complexity of the inquiry and its far-reaching social and financial ramifications, the Committee resolved recently to seek the agreement of the Senate to allow it more time to obtain the outstanding information and to continue its examination. As part of the inquiry the Committee has taken approximately 3,000 pages of evidence during the past five months. This evidence reflects the views of a wide cross-section of the community, including groups representing the aged and the retired, the Federal and State governments, welfare agencies, trade unions, women's groups, the insurance industry, employers, academics and other organisations and individuals . The evidence not only reveals growing uncertainty and dissatisfaction within society about the adequacy and effectiveness of present income support arrangements for the aged but also points to genuine public concern to ensure that future reforms provide a more comprehensive, equitable and cost-effective system than presently exists and one that is better integrated with the taxation system and better complements occupational superannuation schemes. Many organisations and individuals who have contributed to the inquiry have expressed concern at the levels of present pension payments, including the appropriateness of indexation arrangements, the availability of supplementary assistance, the provision of fringe benefits, and the desirability of income or assets testing. More specific areas of concern which have been brought to the Committee's attention include the age of pension entitlement, differential pension rates for single and married pensioners, flexibility of pension take-up, residency qualifications, and aspects of the taxation system including marginal tax rates, the tax threshold, and the rebate system. Submissions have been received calling for the reform of present occupational superannuation arrangements, especially with regard to provisions concerning vesting, preservation, portability, security of benefits, regulation of funds, range of benefits, and comparability between schemes and between the public and private sectors. The Committee has also been asked to consider the appropriateness of providing subsidies, through taxation concessions, for occupational superannuation scheme participants; the effectiveness of occupational superannuation schemes in terms of coverage; and the Government's role in encouraging other forms of self-provision. During the inquiry the Committee has heard arguments for and against various options for the future provision of income support. These options fall into five broad categories: Firstly, the retention of the present selective, or means- tested, system; secondly, the introduction of a universal, or non-means-tested, system; thirdly, the adoption of a system of national contributory superannuation, as recommended in 1976 by Professor Hancock and more recently by the Victorian Council on the Ageing; fourthly, the promotion of a guaranteed minimum income scheme, as proposed by Professor Henderson in 1975; and fifthly, the development of a comprehensive system comprising elements of a non-means- tested universal system and a means-tested non-contributory system, as advocated by the Life Insurance Federation of Australia and National Mutual T & G. Variations to these approaches have been proposed by other groups such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Australian Institute of Actuaries, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Social Service. In examining each of these options, it is necessary to take into account the equity, efficiency and cost of the proposals as well as their effect on incentives for private retirement savings. A focal issue of the debate is the means of financing each option and it is for this reason that the Committee requires the information which remains outstanding. Any proposed change to existing arrangements will be affected by broader considerations and constraints, including commitments arising from people's present arrangements, other priorities within the social welfare area, and limited financial resources. In conclusion, the Committee emphasises that this is a progress report which provides a brief discussion of some of the issues that have been brought to its attention during the inquiry and highlights the complexity of those issues. While the Committee is conscious of the need to complete its investigations as expeditiously as possible, it is also concerned to give this important topic the detailed consideration it deserves before presenting a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Senate. I commend the progress report to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Elstob)-by leave-agreed to: That the date for presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare on Retirement Income Systems be extended and that the Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible. Motion (by Senator Tate)-by leave-agreed to: That the time for the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge to report be extended to Friday, 24 August 1984. Senator CHIPP —(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)-by leave-I refer to the article headed 'Murphy: No case likely', in the Melbourne Age and similar articles in other newspapers on 17 August 1984. I advise the Senate that the reports insofar as reference to me personally was made would lead the reader to come to a wrong conclusion as to my position in relation to the evidence, findings, and future conduct of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and that no inference whatsoever should be made as to my intended action on the basis of those articles. Senator BUTTON —(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)-by leave-I inform honourable senators of the death during the recess of the Hon. Sir Alister Maxwell McMullin, former President of the Senate. I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on 8 August 1984 of the Hon. Sir Alister Maxwell McMullin, K.C.M.G., a former Senator for New South Wales from 1951 to 1971 and President of the Senate from 1953 to 1971, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and daughter in their bereavement. The late Sir Alister McMullin was born in 1900 in New South Wales. He was a very longstanding member of the Liberal Party of Australia, a senator for New South Wales from April 1951 to June 1971 and the longest serving President of the Senate, serving nearly 18 years from September 1953 until June 1971. I did not have the privilege of knowing Sir Alister McMullin, but that period of service in the role of President of the Senate, if I might say so without disrespect to your office, Mr President, suggests a great degree of tenacity and staying power. During his 20 years Sir Alister served on various parliamentary committees and represented the Parliament and the Government at various conferences and delegations. I believe that his contribution to this Parliament was appreciated by all his colleagues at the time. I know that the Senate will join me in conveying to his widow and family sincere sympathy and condolences. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Like Senator Button, I came to the Senate after Senator Sir Alister McMullin had resigned-indeed, some three years after that time. I must say that Sir Alister's reputation was still great in the Senate when I arrived. He cast a very long shadow. Indeed, I was told that he cast a very large shadow. I am told he was a man of great stature, both physically and as a senator. Not having known him and having merely heard of his record as the longest serving President of this place, I went back to the time of his departure from the Senate to see what was said about him by his peers. It was interesting to find a consistency of comment from the different representatives who spoke on that occasion. I refer to what was said by then Senator Wright, a senator who, I think we all know, spoke his mind, and spoke with great force and who had a great and a warm regard for the institution of the Senate. Senator Wright prefaced his remarks about the departure of Sir Alister in terms of his regard for the Parliament. Senator Wright said: It is no accident that today this-- he meant the Senate- is the only place where the voice of Parliament is being heard in this Australian Capital Territory, and that today the voice of this chamber is often heard with great effect. I think there is still some truth in that statement. Given the situation of the parties, this is the institution which has retained a peculiarly parliamentary flavour in Australia. People like Sir Alister McMullin have been very important in contributing to that continuing reality. Senator Wright went on to refer to the great service given by Sir Alister to the parliaments of the Commonwealth through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is clear from the record that Sir Alister made a great contribution to those bodies. Senator Wright also referred to Sir Alister's enthusiasm for a new and permanent Parliament House. It must have been a matter of some satisfaction to Sir Alister to know that the cause he pursued with such vigour in this Parliament was at last coming to fruition. I know that Sir Alister felt great regret that matters financial always seemed to stand in the way of a proper parliament being built. I am sure it was a matter of great pleasure to him that subsequent to his leaving this place governments finally grasped the nettle and proceeded with that project. The other major point made by Senator Wright related to Sir Alister's contribution to the Parliamentary Library and the fostering of the research service which serve us all so well, and to the fostering of a committee system of this Parliament. Whilst many senators contributed to that end, it was during the presidency of Sir Alister that major developments in the Senate Committee system occurred which have persisted to this day. The performances of all Presidents in this place-and I am sure you, Mr President, are aware of this-are judged not just by the view of the governing party. Presidents are judged also by the attitude of the minorities in the Senate, be they Independents, minor parties, or indeed the official Opposition. That attitude tells one something of the quality of the man in the office. I note with great satisfaction the way in which then Senator Byrne, on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labour Party, spoke of Sir Alister. In a sense, what was said by Senator Byrne carried much of the flavour of what I heard about Sir Alister McMullin when I arrived in this place. Senator Byrne said: I know, Mr President, that you have, and always have had, a certain style as President. After all, the Standing Orders are always before you on your bench but I think it could be said that you have never regarded the Standing Orders as an iron discipline to be exercised over honourable senators. You have regarded them as guidelines to be generally observed, but no more than that. Therefore your attitude in the chair has been one of liberality and understanding. Senator Byrne went on to refer to the fact that that type of attitude can be effective only if the President has great personal stature. Senator Byrne said that that was a quality that Sir Alister had brought to the presidency. The then Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Murphy, made the references that I would have expected, judging from his reputation when I became a senator in 1974. Senator Murphy referred to Senator Sir Alister McMullin's dignity in the way in which he had presided over the Senate. He spoke of the great and valuable changes that had been made in the Parliament during that time . Senator Murphy referred to the fact that Senator Sir Alister McMullin had had a record period in the Chair and that his flexible handling of the Senate's procedures would be greatly missed. Senator Sir Alister McMullin's presidency was unusual in its length. He was President during a period when major changes were made to this place which are of continuing benefit to Australia. I record that point at this time as we express our appreciation of Senator Sir Alister McMullin's work and our sympathy to his family. I was touched by Senator Sir Alister McMullin's final words as President. When he left he said: I say to all honourable senators: Thank you very much. I have enjoyed being with you. I will miss you when I go away from you. It has been good fun. As a boy I thought that Parliament was more fun than it appears to me now-that may be true or it may be just part of the aging process. However, it was my view of Parliament at that time that members brought to it a straightforward zest and enthusiasm, which I found attractive. I welcome the late Senator Sir Alister McMullin's acknowledgment of that fact. I hope that in remembering him we shall remember the spirit of those times and recall more of that spirit to this place. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of myself and the National Party of Australia, I endorse the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition on the passing of Sir Alister McMullin. When I first became a senator in 1970, for a brief time Sir Alister McMullin was still the President. I suppose that as a new boy one is impressed by the President or someone with his sort of authority more than at most other times. Senator Sir Alister McMullin literally filled with a massive frame the chair which you, Mr President, now occupy so well. He made a great contribution to the sensible and flexible control of this chamber. In spite of the fact that he had, at least to a new boy, a somewhat stern appearance, he showed a great measure of kindliness, and that was very much appreciated by a learner. I last saw and talked with Sir Alister McMullin some years ago at a race meeting in the north-west of New South Wales. He had a great interest in that sport. Sir Alister was a well-known and well-respected pastoralist. He was the first chancellor of the University of Newcastle. Sir Alister McMullin was a competent man in and out of this chamber. Australia has lost a fine citizen. I join my colleagues in expressing sympathy and extending condolences to his family. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —Although I was a member of the Senate for a short time while Sir Alister McMullin was President of the Senate and I was previously a member of the same political party, it was not my privilege to know him personally and, therefore, I cannot speak to this motion with any personal knowledge. However, I join the Australian Democrats in this motion of condolence and join with the expressions of sympathy to his family. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I join my Senate colleagues in conveying our deep sympathy at the passing of Sir Alister McMullin to his widow, Lady McMullin, and to his daughter, Katherine. It was my privilege to know Sir Alister McMullin over some 36 years and to share a warm friendship with him. Indeed, if I may think of the journey, I well recall, I think in 1948, going to his farming property just outside Scone, enjoying the warmth of his hospitality and his fireplace and a good, cold beer and inviting him to form a branch of the Liberal Party in Scone. That was the start of the journey which took him through that branch to the presidency of the Paterson branch of the Party, to the Senate , to the presidency of the Senate and to great distinction. I may also add that it was my privilege to take the vacancy in the Senate created by his retirement in 1971. In Alister McMullin one found the kinds of qualities that one would look for in a fine and distinguished Australian. He was a man of generous spirit. He was a man who had a great love of his country, particularly of rural Australia. As has been said, he was interested in many things, including horse racing and the whole of agriculture. His figure, which was a well defined figure, as has been noted, was very familiar not only at horse races but also at the Royal Agricultural Society and elsewhere. It is no mean thing for a man to be a member of the Senate for some 20 years and for 17 or more of those years to be its President. In that time he was respected by all sides. He was an eminently fair man. It is true, as was said in the valedictory speeches upon his retirement, that he did not always look to the Standing Orders, but somehow or other he managed, as everybody's uncle, to keep the peace; and people walked with him because they respected him. He walked with great dignity and great value to Australia through many countries of the world. In 17 years he was able to journey, representing Australia, to many parts of the world, and many people have told me how well he represented Australia. As has been said, he was Chancellor of the University of Newcastle for a lengthy period and was well respected there. He had been associated with his local hospital board and with local government. It was a personal tragedy for his family that in recent years he was incapacitated, because, in thinking of Alister McMullin, I know no man more restless in wanting to be on the move and to get things done. It is one of those tragedies that for many recent years that was not possible. But he bore that with dignity and his family was a great support to him. Let me simply say that I was privileged to share the friendship of his family. I pay tribute to his widow, Lady McMullin, herself a woman of great distinction and great support to him, and to his daughter, Katherine. Therefore, I join the Senate in expressing our deep sympathy at his passing and our thanks for his long and valuable life to Australia. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —As one who served here for three years under the presidency of Sir Alister McMullin, I would like to add that he was fondly known to many of us as Big Al, a reference to his size. He was a very large man; a very distinguished presence; and a man whose gruffness at times hid a generosity of heart and spirit which was made known particularly to the new boys in this place during his presidency who were helped in many way by Sir Alister. I well recall the manner of his management of affairs. When an absolute riot broke out in this place one day during Question Time, he sat unperturbed and said, 'Come on, it is a bit early in the day for that sort of nonsense', and the whole thing subsided. It was the calming of the waters. That sort of manner which he brought to this place was memorable and I think played an important part, as has been said by others, in the development of the institution we have today, he having presided over it for such a long period, including the period of the development of the committee system. I add my words of tribute, condolence and sympathy to his family. The PRESIDENT —I would like to say something on this motion, both in my capacity as a senator for New South Wales at the same time as the late Sir Alister McMullin represented that State and as one of his successors in this office. Sir Alister McMullin served as President for a record term of almost 18 years from 1953 to 1971. I was very privileged to be a member of the Senate during the last nine years of his occupancy of this office. As Senator Chaney said, he was a very big man. He was a great Australian, a strong and dignified President, and certainly during his period of office the Senate grew in prestige and influence. As has already been said, a significant development during the term of his presidency was the development of the Senate's comprehensive committee system which I think it is fair to say has become a model for parliaments throughout the world which are based on the Westminster system. He was also a strong supporter of the Parliamentary Library. Under his chairmanship of the Library Committee there took place a major reorganisation of the Library that serves this Parliament. We saw during his chairmanship of that Committee the establishment of the National Library of Australia. The National Library took over the national public functions of the then Parliamentary Library, thus leaving the Parliamentary Library to concentrate on the specific and specialised services to the Parliament. This was followed, under his chairmanship, by the establishment within the Parliamentary Library of the Legislative Research Service, giving the Library its present strong structure and responsible functions which remain to this day. He was a strong supporter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and was Chairman of the Commonwealth of Australia branch from 1953 to 1971. He attended numerous Commonwealth parliamentary conferences overseas during the period 1959 to 1969, and was Chairman of the Association during its conference in Australia in 1970. At the time of his death I, with others, was in Papua New Guinea attending the opening of the new Parliament House. Sir Robin Vanderfelt, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who was also present, flew to Australia after his attendance in Papua New Guinea to meet Lady McMullin because of the great admiration and respect he held for our former President. Sir Alister was also instrumental in initiating the Australasian Presiding Officers Conferences and had the honour of hosting the first of these in Canberra in July 1968. The late President was the first of the joint chairmen of the New Parliament House Committee. He worked hard to ensure that Parliament and governments took a continuing interest in building a new national Parliament House, and I am sure that but for his tremendous enthusiasm for that task in those early days we would not be seeing the progress that is now taking place. Besides the great dignity and dedication that Sir Alister brought to the position as President, he also possessed a fine sense of humour. Senator Peter Rae has already recalled the incident when he said: 'Order, order! It's too early in the morning for all this nonsense'. I well remember in the early days of the committee system of this Parliament when Sir Alister was presenting the Estimates of the Senate before an early Estimates Committee. The then Senator Murphy was asking questions about the independence of Parliament in its relationship to the Executive. Senator Murphy was trying to show that the Parliament was completely dependent on the Executive for its funding. Senator Murphy asked Sir Alister McMullin what he would do if he had to get a typewriter . Sir Alister said that he would seek the advice of the Clerk. He was then asked whether it would be necessary for him to seek funds from the Treasurer's Advance . He said, 'No, I would go out and buy the typewriter and get the money from petty cash'. In paying my tribute to Sir Alister, I remind the Senate of other words expressed upon his retirement from this place. Speaking on a motion in honour of retiring senators in May 1971, both the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Sir Kenneth Anderson, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Senator Murphy, paid great tribute to Sir Alister. Speaking to the motion, Sir Kenneth said: In appreciation of 'the wonderful service you have given the national Parliament and to us senators', that 'your dignity and your ability to control the Senate have been an inspiration to all who will follow you'. Senator Murphy, in speaking, also said: You have always carried a great part of the burden of promoting and encouraging a better understanding and appreciation of the Senate and its role in our parliamentary system. Your own conduct has done much to uphold and strengthen the traditions of the Senate as an institution. People of all political persuasions had a great respect for him. Speaking on a personal basis, I know that he and my own late father were fairly close personal friends. I have conveyed to Sir Alister's wife, Lady McMullin, and to his daughter Katherine, the sympathy of all honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform honourable senators of the death during the recess of the Rt Hon. Sir Phillip Reginald Lynch. I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on 19 June 1984 of the Rt Hon. Sir Phillip Reginald Lynch K.C.M.G., a former Minister of the Crown and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Flinders, Victoria, from 1966 to 1982, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family in their bereavement. Phillip Lynch was a member of the House of Representatives from 1966 to 1982. Those honourable senators who are interested can consult the parliamentary handbooks of the time and publications such as Who's Who and see the enormous range and breadth of Sir Phillip Lynch's interest as a parliamentarian. I do not want to go to those matters because I think that they are not the important part of his life and work in total; they are just indicative of some aspects of the man's character. I just say, on behalf of the Government, that Sir Phillip Lynch was a distinguished and very dedicated member of the Liberal Party, who served his Party with great distinction. His parliamentary record is a tribute to his personal diligence and enormous capacity for hard work. I simply add to that the fact that his parliamentary life, which was seen in that diligence and capacity for hard work, was reflected in his wide ranging community activities as a supporter, promoter and developer of all sorts of good community causes, particularly in my State of Victoria and in his own city of Melbourne. I was in Parliament at the same time as Sir Phillip Lynch. I did not have much to do with him, but I must say that when we were elected to government there were a number of activities in which he had been concerned as Minister for Industry and Commerce about which I had the opportunity of speaking to him and of seeking his advice, and he, in turn, took the opportunity of seeking my consideration and involvement in some of the matters with which he had been concerned as Minister. I enjoyed those discussions and meetings. Probably the best that I can say is that Sir Phillip was a very dedicated, hard working, man whose life, particularly towards the end, displayed great tenacity and courage. I had the privilege of attending Sir Phillip's funeral in Melbourne, representing the Government. On that occasion I had the opportunity to convey the condolences of the Government and my own personal sympathy to his wife, his sons and his parents, and I do so again today on behalf of the Government and on behalf of honourable senators on the Government side of the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition, I support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). The Rt Hon. Sir Phillip Reginald Lynch was a very great contributor to this Parliament, to Australia and to the Parliament of which he was part. He had many positions. Like the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I shall not seek to chronicle them all here. But Sir Phillip held many ministries from shortly after he was elected to this Parliament. He was elected in 1966 and he became a Minister in February 1968. He served in a succession of Ministries until the Liberal Government lost office in 1972. At that time, he became the Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, and he remained the Deputy Leader until his retirement from the Parliament. On our return to government, he was Treasurer and, subsequently, Minister for Industry and Commerce. Many things could be said about the late Sir Phillip Lynch. One of them is that he was a self-made man. His father was a fitter and turner. Phillip Lynch worked his way through school and university and obtained a number of scholarships. His parents gave him the the enormous advantage in life of a close and loving family . I believe that Sir Phillip benefited from that for the whole of his life and that he sought to reproduce it in his own life. He had a successful university career. He became the President of the Young Liberal Movement at an early age. He taught for a short time. He went into accountancy and management consultancy and he became the National President of the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Many people felt that that period was a very great influence in his style of presentation. The qualities that the Leader of the Government in the Senate mentioned, Sir Phillip's diligence and capacity for hard work, were very strong features of the late Sir Phillip Lynch. He had those qualities more, I think, than any other man that I have ever met. He had qualities which were, perhaps, less widely perceived. His award for bravery is something that reminds us of a different aspect of his qualities. He was instrumental in saving someone's life in the sea , and that gave him the Royal Humane Society of Australasia's certificate of merit. He was a man who had early promotion in politics. There was a ready recognition of his talents. But I think that he was most highly regarded by those who worked closely with him, in the Party, in the community and in the organisations with which he was closely associated, both as a Minister and otherwise. I think that most people who deal with bodies such as the Metal Trades Industry Association and the Housing Industry Association would find it hard to match the warmth that he received from those organisations because of his diligent application to their interests and concerns. I must say that visiting organisations of that sort with Sir Phillip was something of an eye- opener, because one could see the real appreciation of his continuous attempts to understand their concerns and problems. All of us believe in the role of political parties in Australia. There is only one person in this Parliament, Senator Harradine, who has not come here under the umbrella of a political party. Since political parties play an important role in Australian democracy and government, it is important to note Sir Phillip 's great contribution to the Party of which he was part. I believe that within the Federal Parliamentary Party and within the party organisation he had no peer in the care that he took in ensuring that the Party's interests were maintained and preserved. He was always available to his colleagues. He devoted a great deal of time, care and attention to looking after the interests of others within the party structure. I was always at a loss to know how he managed to be so readily available to so many of us when he carried such a heavy burden in terms of the deputy leadership of the Party and senior portfolios. I will always remember him for his role in ensuring that anybody who had a difficulty or a problem had someone to discuss it with and someone to provide assistance. Sir Phillip Lynch, like all politicians, had a brief period of difficulty. I suppose some have periods of difficulty which are not brief, but Sir Phillip certainly had a very difficult time in 1977 and that has been remembered on occasions since his death. He had difficulties with his health and there were allegations of scandal about him. I remember that time well because subsequent to the 1977 election I spent a good deal of time with him. Indeed, he gave me absolutely free access to his affairs and to his professional advisers at that time. I was very quickly able to satisfy myself that the allegations about him were utterly baseless. It was a matter of great satisfaction to me that he came through that period of difficulty and restored his political fortunes and that it simply remained something which for him was part of his experience. He never showed any signs of bitterness or of the sort of human reaction one might expect for having received less than wholehearted support during a period of difficulty and for having had very considerable criticism levelled at him in a very public way. I took it as a mark of his quality that he was able to put that behind him so completely and to bear no ill-will towards anyone for that time. I wish also to mention Sir Phillip's attitude to his family. I mentioned that he started life with the enormous benefit of a close and loving family. In my dealings with him he frequently discussed the difficulties that there are in bringing up and maintaining a family at a distance. All of us who serve in this place have that difficulty and I acknowledge the advice which Sir Phillip Lynch gave to me about how one should best get over those difficulties. I might say that one of his pieces of advice was that I should take up sailing. He explained to me that if one is trying to bring up three sons it is important to have interests which can be shared with them. That was an interest which he shared very successfully with his sons. My sons, fortunately, gave it away. They showed the lack of interest which I felt very early. But it was typical of him that in the middle of his busy life he was able always to direct himself to personal concerns as well as to political concerns. I like to think, having, like the Leader of the Government in the Senate, been at his funeral, that it was something of a measure of his life that so many people, such a variety of people , went to his funeral and that there was such evident grief of his death and such regret at Australia's loss, because he died at a very early age. The spirit that was evident at that service was something which I think all of us who attended will always remember. I was fortunate to attend subsequently the service closer to his home, the burial, and to go back to spend some time with his family. I was reminded again of the enormous advantages of close family bonds. It was a very inspiring gathering of Sir Phillip Lynch's close relations and friends, who talked of him with such affection and with such satisfaction with his life. Archbishop Little said of him at the more formal ceremony: Sir Phillip was a reconciler, a peacemaker and a builder of bridges between groups and factions. He bore no grudges and remained humane and magnanimous despite the pressure of public life. He was a man of fundamental humility, with a sense of humour which goes with genuine humility. In the oration Father Duffy, the head of the Jesuits in Australia, said: The partnership between Sir Phillip and Lady Lynch was an example of what fine family life could be when both parents were determined to give it their devotion and care. Those remarks and the other many things which were said of Sir Phillip at that time all reflected very accurately what I saw as the very positive sides of his life. I deeply regret his passing and on behalf of the Opposition I extend our great sympathy to Lady Lynch and to his three sons. We are grateful for what he did for us, for our Party, for the Parliament and for Australia. For those people who knew only the public man, who were not able to be privy to the very great personal strengths of Sir Phillip, I can only say that I regard all that I have said and all that others have said about him since his death as a real measure of the man. I have very great pleasure in that sense in supporting this motion of condolence, which expresses the regard of this Parliament for a man whom I regard as a very fine Australian. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On my own behalf and on behalf of my Party I join in supporting this motion of condolence for the late Sir Phillip Lynch. I agree with Senator Chaney, having also been honoured to attend Sir Phillip's funeral, not only that an incredible number of people from diverse walks of life were there but also that, being at that funeral service, one could actually feel the affection and sympathy that those people held for Sir Phillip Lynch. One of the features of his life, of course, was his absolute loyalty to his party and to those around him. I do not know whether in my 24 years in this place I have seen anybody who had a higher capacity for work than Phil Lynch. He was tireless and indefatigable. There never seemed to be any ceiling to the amount that he could take on board and still be able and bright. In particular, I can remember the two years leading up to the 1975 election when Malcolm Fraser took over as Leader of the Liberal Party. He appointed, I think, six of us to form what was called a policy review committee, headed by the Deputy Leader of the Party, Sir Phillip Lynch. The purpose of that committee was to go through 28 areas of policy and 28 shadow Ministers and refine those policies in accordance with the newly defined concepts of the Liberal Party which had been established when Malcolm Fraser took control. We all worked hard, but Sir Phillip Lynch, being chairman, worked two or three times harder than any of us. At times late at night-1 o'clock in the morning or whatever-we would all be saying 'Let's go home to bed' but he, with a bright and inspiring form of leadership, would say ' No, let us go on for another half hour or so'. He was a remarkable person in terms of capacity for work. The leaders under whom Sir Phillip served will never know the loyalty he showed them, not just on the floor of the House or publicly. One of the normal things about a political party, particularly when there are large majorities, is that from time to time back benchers become discontented. They feel as if they are not getting a fair go, as if they are being disregarded by the leadership or whatever. Many of us, if not all of us, have experienced that feeling from time to time. But Phil Lynch's door was always open to that discontented back bencher who had a gripe. I do not remember any back bencher or anybody else who came out of his office still having the discontent that he or she had when going into his office. I was amused by Senator Chaney's saying that he had had discussions with Sir Phillip Lynch about how to maintain a family in this crazy life of politics and that Phil gave him advice about sailing with his sons. I remember him giving me identical advice. I was playing cricket with my sons at the time, who showed a singular lack of interest in that sport. I tried sailing out on them and they grasped the new sport with enthusiasm, so much so that my eldest son, who was then about 10 years of age, persuaded me, against my will, to go sailing in his Sabot one bitterly cold June morning at Black Rock in Melbourne. I was aboard about three minutes when I was able to capsize the craft. I spent the next two hours in the freezing water with my son-with appropriate language coming from him. I remember coming back and telling Phil the story. He was very amused, not the least part of his amusement being that I then happened to be the Minister for the Navy-a fact which he agreed should never reach the newspapers. That was another feature of Phil. He had a tremendous sense of humour, almost an impish, mischievous look in his eye. When things were tough, he would always have that sort of a word to say. The most I can say about Phil Lynch relates to the last years when he knew he was a dying man and the amount of courage that he showed in facing that fate. Unless one knew that fact when talking with him one would never have known that anything was wrong, such was his courage in facing that kind of end. His belief in God and in the religion that sustained him, I think was an object lesson to anybody who feels that sometimes we need something stronger than material things . I have a particular feeling for his beautiful wife and their three sons because there are very few families who have sacrificed more in terms of the time spent with their husband and father than those four people. The premature death is not only a sad blow to Australia but also must be quite devastating to them because of the sacrifices they made for him and for Australia. Therefore, it is with those feelings that I associate myself and my Party with this condolence motion and message of sympathy to his loved ones. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On my own behalf and on behalf of the National Party of Australia I support this motion of condolence on the death of Sir Phillip Lynch. I had the honour and pleasure of knowing Phillip Lynch during the entire time I have been in this Parliament. Indeed, his was a very distinguished parliamentary career. His involvement in government must surely have been almost as great as the involvement of anyone who has passed through this Parliament. He had a whole range of very senior portfolios. I am sure that his performance in all of them was first class. I suppose if I tried to think of anything that really indentified Phillip Lynch for me it would be his extraordinary loyalty to and promotion of a specific political philosophy and way of life of which he was absolutely and totally convinced. It was that loyalty that probably was branded on my mind more than any other single thing. The extraordinary, sad and savage illness that he endured for so long has already been mentioned. His courage in that circumstance cannot have failed to be noticed by the whole Australian community. Indeed it is a tragedy not only for his family but also for the whole community in which he moved that he should have died at such a young age. I guess one would have to conclude that Phillip Lynch was indeed a very great achiever in far too short a span. I add my sincere sympathy and that of my Party to that already expressed to his wife and his family. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I join with other senators in the tribute being paid today to Sir Phillip Lynch and the members of his family. I say in regard to the political matters referred to by Senator Chaney, Senator Chipp and others that one could only agree most wholeheartedly with their expressions. I want more particularly to speak in a personal sense of Phillip Lynch whom I had the honour to have as a friend for something like 30 years. The Lynches lived at one end of the street and the Missens lived at the other end of the street. I knew him as a young man. I suppose I may be blamed for having induced him to come into politics. I think I may have joined him up with the Liberal Party of Australia and persuaded him to take over the presidency of the Kooyong Liberal Club from me-a position from which of course he went on to greater and better things. I think this country has much to be thankful for in the fact that Phillip Lynch did do that and that he gave those years of great value to his country in his service in politics. There are a couple of other factors in his life to which I want to refer. There are many facets of Phillip Lynch's life that I think call for commendation and recognition at this time. One is that in the area of debating he was of course an excellent speaker. He was early a debater of national standard both in the Jaycees and the national championships. I had the honour of leading a team in which he was the star performer when the Australian championships were won by the Victorian team in 1959. Phillip went on to lead the Victorian team for a number of years and to do so with great distinction. Of course, he was also very active in the Jaycee organisation and in due course became its national president. The Jaycees was a cause to which he devoted tremendous attention and a lot of hard work. It was the sort of work which he also did at a later stage in politics. His work helped to build the Jaycees organisation into a greater and more effective one. I know that he is held by Jaycees not only throughout Australia but also internationally as one of the most effective and worthy of their leaders in recent times. From that, of course, he entered politics. He joined the Liberal Party around 30 years ago. As I said, I have an understanding that I might have caused him to do that. Throughout his quick career-he was very quickly into parliament-not only was he actively working in the Parliament here but also he was a great communicator and a great worker in the party organisation. I think many of the things he did would be unknown publicly. For example, the extent to which he was a very careful communicator between the parliamentary party and the organisation is appreciated by thousands of Liberals in Victoria who recognise that he never grew beyond the organisation which put him into parliament. He always remained most attentive to its needs. I remember the time while he was in parliament, and the work he did as chairman of the National Platform Committee. Senator Sir John Carrick will of course remember this very well. Phillip Lynch's work on that was constant. He did a marvellous job in producing the platforms of 1973-74 and the policies that flowed from that and in bringing together all those disparate views and sections which we had, to produce a document which I think is one of the great things that he achieved. We heard later on how he did this in other political areas. Of course, he did this as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. It is very often the unseen things that are not appreciated and are not known. I instance the important part which he played in the course of Liberal-National Party government in keeping in communication with the back bench members by always having plenty of time to talk to someone, to find out what his worries were and to make suggestions. He carried out his job as ministerial head of many departments very well. At the same time he found time to be a very effective go- between for this Parliament and the organisations of the Liberal Party. I believe that one is tested when troubles occur. Senator Chaney has referred to the difficulties in 1977 and thereafter when Phillip suffered very severe bad health and was under attack. Like Senator Chaney I knew the facts of that time and I was very satisfied that Phillip's integrity was assured and that the attacks were unjustified. We were delighted that he emerged from that crisis with his integrity recognised by, I think, most of the community. But it was a period of difficulty. His later life was a matter of difficulty. The courage he showed in facing up to those later difficulties and deteriorating health, I think, speaks highly of his character. He was a man of very strong religious conviction. He practised his religion and the precepts of his church in his family life, his business life and his political life. It is a matter of some sadness, particularly to people such as my wife and I who were very close friends of the Lynches for many years, not to have been at the funeral and not to have seen the demonstration of the affection held throughout Australia for Sir Phillip. It is a sad thing for Leah and for his boys that, at a time when they might have expected him to be free to be with them and to have enjoyed many years with them, he was snatched away in this way. It reminds one of the late Ivor Greenwood who, after serving here, was snatched away in a similar way and did not get to enjoy the benefits of a later and more leisurely life. Phillip Lynch leaves behind him not only a fine and very courageous family but also I think, in the eyes of those who knew him, a belief that there is no one who is quite like Phillip Lynch-nobody of his cheerfulness, his disposition, or, as I say, his ability to effectively communicate ideas to his fellow man. I trust that the things which are said today and the feelings which we all have will be a comfort to his family and to his many friends. I hope that we will long remember the fine work that Phillip Lynch did for this country. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —It is always very sad when someone in mid-life, in the midst of a family, goes from us. It is doubly sad in the case of Phillip Lynch, who had so much more to offer, having given so much. To be a little sentimental for a moment, I wrote to Leah after the funeral. I had been very privileged to have seen something of Phillip during his latter weeks. I reminded Leah of some words that Shakespeare said so much better than we could: . . . he died as one that had been studied in his death To throw away the dearest things he owed As 'twere a careless trifle. If ever I saw a man throw away the dearest thing he owned as though it were a careless trifle, it was Phillip Lynch. He gave a message to us all. In fact, sometimes some of us would do well to be humbled in our arrogance in the presence of the resolution, the courage and the faith of the man. It was good to see those qualities symbolised in those days. Indeed, if there is goodness in seeing someone snatched away, it was good at the funeral to learn from the magnificent tributes paid to Phillip for the warmth and the measure of the man. When we are paying tributes here to former parliamentarians we tend to talk about public life, but the real tragedy of loss is the tragedy of loss in private life-in this case the loss to Leah and to the boys-and the loss to us of a friend. As parliamentarians we tend not to look at the magnitude of goodness and the fine qualities of others but at the pimple on the nose. It is not a bad thing, occasionally, to be able to stand up here and say-I use Shakespeare again , this time four words from another play, Julius Caesar-'He was a man'. That is a great tribute to pay. Yes, I walked with him, although for not quite as long as Alan Missen. I remember him as a young man, a young Liberal, who came to me as National President of the Junior Chamber of Commerce and said: 'John, I have a problem. I have an international conference of the JCC in Sydney at the Town Hall. Will you help me?' I watched the measure of the man there. I saw the respect in which he was held. I journeyed with him. He was a great organisational man, a man with a great understanding of his Party's organisation and of the need to do the back room work that makes the party. A number of honourable senators have paid tribute to his work in that regard. Alan Missen has paid tribute to his work on the Party's platform. I do not know how many hundreds of hours were put in on it . I saw Sir Phillip in each of his phases. When I sat alongside him in Cabinet I shared vicariously the puff of his cigar smoke and got to know the man very well indeed in the stress and the strain of things. It is in that spirit that I offer through you, Mr President, to Leah and to Sir Phillip's sons my condolence. I also reminded Leah, when I wrote to her after the funeral, of the tribute paid by the son of Sir Christopher Wren to his great architect father which is inscribed on, I think, the north door of the Chapel of St Paul's Cathedral. It is written in Latin, but translated rather roughly it says: If you would seek his monument, look around you. I think that is worth saying of Sir Phillip Lynch because we find his monument in the things he has done and in the hearts and the minds of his friends. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —Briefly, I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the late Sir Phillip Lynch. I do so because after the election of November 1966 I entered Parliament with Phillip Lynch and became a very close friend of his during the three years that I was a member of the House of Representatives. I recall that when he became Minister for the Army, very early in his career, he was subjected to relentless attack by the Opposition with respect to certain allegations that were made concerning the treatment of a Vietnam prisoner. I rather admired Phillip in those early days for the way he came to grips with that situation and survived two or three weeks of attack, something which happens frequently in the Houses of Parliament. He went on to greater things, to which other colleagues have referred. I have always admired the service that Phillip rendered to Australia. I am glad to say that when I learned of his serious illness in May I was able to put my feelings on paper and write to him before his death. Regrettably, I was overseas when he died and was unable to attend his funeral. However, when I came home I found a letter from Phillip written only a few days before he died. Of course, I have been in touch with Leah and have expressed to her the feelings of my family . It is a tragedy to lose a loved one at such a young age. I join the rest of the Senate in extending my sympathy to Leah, her sons and Phillip's parents. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I cannot add much at all to the condolence motion before us and to what has been said previously. I wish that I had a copy of the panegyric delivered by Father Paul Duffy, the Provincial of the Jesuits, on the occasion of the requiem mass for Phillip Lynch in St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne because that said it all. It was a magnificent explanation of the basis upon which Phillip Lynch established his whole personal life and political life approach. I join all honourable senators in conveying condolences to Lady Lynch and Sir Phillip's family. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I join in the condolences very briefly because I do not believe I can add to what has already been said. When I first came to the Parliament as a new back bencher I appreciated very much the friendship that Sir Phillip Lynch gave me. When one met him in the corridors and had a query he would always stop to chat. He never seemed to be in too much of a hurry to chat to one of the new back benchers. It was appreciated by all of us, I know. I do not believe I can add any more to what has already been said. Those who read Hansard will understand he was a very popular member of this Parliament; indeed he was respected by every member of both chambers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on 11 July 1984 of Anthony Sylvester Luchetti, a former member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Macquarie, New South Wales, from 1951 to 1975, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family in their bereavement. The late Anthony Luchetti, or Tony Luchetti as he was known to us all, was born on 27 May 1904 in Lowther, New South Wales, and served this country, his local community and the Australian Labor Party long and well. Before his election to the House of Representatives as the member for Macquarie in 1951, at which time he succeeded the late Ben Chifley, former Prime Minister, a fact of which he was very proud, he had done various work in the community. He had been a brickmaker, a miner, an iron worker and a journalist. He was an alderman for the city of Lithgow from 1941 to 1952. He was twice Mayor and twice Deputy Mayor of Lithgow. As I have said, he was first elected to the Parliament in 1951 and he retained his seat, the seat of Macquarie, at each election until his retirement in 1975. During his 24 years as a member of this Parliament he served on various parliamentary committees including the House of Representatives Library Committee, the Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the Hansard of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on the Voting Rights of Aborigines. He served on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for some two years. He was on the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. He was Temporary Chairman of Committees from 10 August 1954 to 4 November 1955 and from 18 February 1959 to 2 November 1961 and Deputy Chairman of Committees from 4 March 1970. He represented the Parliament and the Government on various delegations overseas. I was not a member of this Parliament with Tony Luchetti for very long but it was clear in the short time that I was that he was a friend of most people-of all people, I suspect-on both sides of this Parliament. I could not have met, I believe, a more cheerful, more friendly and happier man in the time that I have been a senator. Yet at the same time the strength and courage of his convictions were such that his impassioned entries into debate in the Caucus and the Parliament could not but impress a new member, a new senator as I was. To visit his electorate, both when and after he was the member for Macquarie, provided a demonstration of the extraordinary respect in which he was held and the extraordinary kindness which he was shown by all members of the electorate, particularly the citizens of Lithgow. I suppose that is reflected in the fact that he was so consistently re-elected to this place for 24 years. His contribution to the Parliament was, I believe, much appreciated by colleagues on both sides. His advice and friendliness to new members and new senators of the Parliament were greatly appreciated, I am sure, for the whole of those 24 years. It is interesting to note that he was on the New South Wales Executive of the Australian Labor Party in 1929. He was a delegate to the Federal Conference of the Labor Party in 1930. So over that long expanse of nearly 50 years he represented the Labor Party and in doing so, as I said when I started my remarks, he represented the country and his local community very well indeed. I was very pleased and honoured to know him if only for a short time in Parliament although I saw him many times after he left the Parliament. I know that the whole of the Senate will join with me in conveying to his widow and his family our sincere sympathy and condolences. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I express support for this motion of condolence and join with the Deputy Leader of the Government in the remarks which he has made about Mr Luchetti. Like Senator Grimes, my period in the Parliament overlapped that of Mr Luchetti for only a brief period, but I agree with the summary that has been given to us this afternoon. Mr Luchetti was held in high regard on my side of the chamber and was regarded as a man who should be accorded respect by all. He served his country in a range of ways. As has just been pointed out, he served his own political party from the late 1920s through to the 1970s which is a considerable period. He served in local government both on the Lithgow City Council and as Mayor of Lithgow. He was very active in the New South Wales Local Government Association of which he was the Senior Vice-President. He was active in the Parliament and he had outside interests which perhaps accounted for his normalcy and the warmth with which he was regarded. He retained an interest in bushwalking and reading. I sometimes think that is the secret of the sort of man that Mr Luchetti did remain during his long political career. The Opposition joins with the Government in expressing its sympathy to his widow and children. Again we say thank you to him for his excellent service which he rendered Australia and his community. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I would like to be associated personally and on behalf of the National Party of Australia with support for the motion of condolence on the occasion of the death of Tony Luchetti, for many years member for Macquarie. I knew Tony Luchetti reasonably well inside and outside the Parliament. His electorate edged to a point which is only about 120 miles from my home. In terms of Australian distance that is more or less next door. I think the remarkable thing about Tony Luchetti was that he followed into this Parliament the legendary figure of Ben Chifley and in the next 24 years Tony Luchetti became something of that nature too. I extend my sincere sympathy and the sympathy of my Party to Tony Luchetti' s wife and family. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —Today we are saying farewell to some very old friends of this Parliament. I was privileged to know Tony Luchetti over this journey and I pay tribute to him. When I think of him I think of a number of qualities. I think of a man of very simple dignity-I think that shone through -of friendship. I think of a person who had a generous spirit. I think of him as Mr Lithgow. One cannot think of Lithgow without thinking of Tony Luchetti. I think of him as a man in the mould of Ben Chifley and I think of him as one of the old style Australian Labor Party members. That is how those of us who are looking at the Australian Labor Party scene would describe him. That, I think, is a high tribute to the man because he and his family played a major part in the Labor Party both organisationally and in the Parliament. He lived a long and full life; he contributed much both in local government and in Federal affairs. Because of my acquaintanceship with him I express my sympathy. The PRESIDENT —I would like to join with my colleagues in expressing my regret at the passing of Mr Tony Luchetti with whom I served in the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party for many years. Not only was he the member for Macquarie from 1951 to 1975, a period of some 24 years, but also, as has been said, he was an alderman on the Lithgow City Council for a great number of years before he entered the parliament. I also had the honour of serving with him as a member of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party from 1962 to 1975. He was a most active parliamentarian and, for a great number of years, he served as the Labor Party's front bench spokesman on national development. Even after his retirement he took a very keen and active interest in the Labor Party's affairs. Indeed, it is sad to say that he collapsed at the Party's Conference last June at the Sydney Town Hall after he had just made an impassioned speech to the Conference about the Australian banking system. To me it is a great pity that, although he served in the Parliament for 24 years, he never had the opportunity of becoming a Minister of the Crown. For 21 years in this place his life was spent in opposition, but when the Labor Party came to government in 1972, whilst he did not seek nomination for election to the then Cabinet, he nonetheless always expressed a plain old-fashioned view within the confines of the Labor Party and his views were always loudly and clearly heard within the confines of the Party's Caucus. As I have said, to me it is a great pity that, because of his tremendous national pride, his love of country and his tremendous capacity, he did not get the opportunity during his 24 years of service in the national Parliament to be honoured to be a Minister of the Crown. He and his wife, May, gave tremendous service to the electors of Macquarie. As Senator Sir John Carrick has said, he was commonly referred to as Mr Lithgow. Indeed, I think he and his wife were commonly referred to as Mr and Mrs Lithgow. He will be sadly missed, not only by his wife May and the members of his family, but also by all those who knew him, particularly all those who knew him so well in the Labor movement in New South Wales. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I wish to join with the Senate in expressing sympathy to Tony Luchetti's widow and family. I have very good memories of Tony Luchetti although I actually was not in parliament at the time that he was. I came in on the election which followed his retirement. But prior to that people will recall that I was involved in organisational matters. If my memory serves me correctly I have very favourable responses when the name Tony Luchetti is raised. I must say that a large number of people right throughout the length and breadth of Australia admired Tony Luchetti's stand, particularly his stand on that memorable day in the House of Representatives on 10 May 1973 when he stood for the pro-life forces in that chamber. I can only join with the Senate in expressing deep sympathy to Tony Luchetti's widow and his family. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on 6 July 1984 of the Hon. Kevin Michael Kiernan Cairns, a former Minister of the Crown and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Lilley, Queensland, from 1963 to 1972 and 1974 to 1980 and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family on their bereavement. The late Kevin Cairns was born in Sydney on 15 May 1929. He was a long standing member of the Liberal Party of Australia and, before his election to the House of Representatives for the division of Lilley, he was an economic consultant, a university lecturer and a dental surgeon. He was elected for the seat of Lilley in 1963 and held that seat until 1972. There was then a break and he again held the seat from 1974 until the election of 1980. In 1971 he was made Minister for Housing in the McMahon Government. He was also an active member of various committees in the House of Representatives: The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, the House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee, the Joint Public Accounts Committee and the Joint Committee for the New and Permanent Parliament House. He was also a member of the parliamentary delegation to Europe in June 1975. I suppose, from a philosophical or ideological point of view, there would be few people in this Parliament in the time that I have been here who were further apart from me in my views than Kevin Cairns. Yet, in the time that I was in Parliament with him, I liked him. I talked with him frequently. I suppose one of the best things we can say about our colleagues on either side of this place is what I say about Kevin Cairns and that is that I was perfectly happy to find myself sitting next to him on a plane wherever it was going in this country. He was an intelligent and thoughtful man. He was a voracious reader, obviously, as anyone who entered into conversation with him would know. He has very strong views and he expressed those views with great strength and determination. I understand, from colleagues opposite, that he had no hesitation in expressing those views inside the party room and out, no matter who was there or whose views he was going against. Like many people in this place I frequently found myself in conversation with Kevin Cairns after some controversial matter had come up or after either he or I had made some controversial statement in the Parliament or even in committees at times. It seemed to me that he kept a tab on everything that was going on in this place. He even kept a tab on what was happening in Senate committees at times. He certainly had no hesitation in taking up points and arguing those points vigorously with whoever he came across and wherever he found himself. It is for this reason that I have very fond memories of Kevin Cairns although, as I have said, on most issues I suppose we differed and differed very strongly. But one of the pleasant features of being a member of this Parliament and a member of this Senate is that with people such as Kevin Cairns one can have such differing views and yet, at the same time, have friendships of the type we had where we could discuss things with the vigour with which he always discussed them and yet at the same time finish those discussions perhaps still differing but still respecting one another's views. I think his contribution to this Parliament was considerable. I am sure it was appreciated by his colleagues on the opposite side and by people on this side of the House. I know that the Senate will join with me in conveying to his widow and family our sincere sympathy and our condolences. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition and on my own behalf I would like to support the motion of condolence which has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senator ( Senator Grimes). With the exception that there was almost no disagreement between Mr Cairns and me I wholeheartedly endorse the comments that have been made by Senator Grimes. I think he has very accurately portrayed many of the very good qualities of the Hon. Kevin Cairns. As I have said, with that exception, I adopt the remarks that Senator Grimes has made. The basic career of Kevin Cairns has been put before the Senate. To what has been said already I merely add that Mr Cairns showed a very great enthusiasm for Brisbane getting a new airport. I hope it was a source of some satisfaction to him that at that airport, which was so proximate to his electorate, there are so many signs of progress. Few politicians get to see concrete results for their work. I do hope that that was a source of satisfaction to him. I think that Kevin Cairns brought an unusually high intellectual quality to this place. He was a man of very considerable ability. He applied himself with great vigour and determination and in the debates in our Party, whether on economic issues or on social issues, he was a major contributor. I know that there are members of the Senate from Queensland who wish to speak of him and who perhaps had closer dealings with him than I did, but I would like to adopt the words of Sir James Killen who was reported after Mr Cairns's death as saying: . . . Mr Cairns had a strong sense of commitment to his faith, his principles and his friends. He reached for excellence in his personal and social behaviour and defended brilliantly his social and political attitudes. I think that does encapsulate a good deal about Kevin Cairns. He was a man who one felt had an overriding faith which was very important to him and which was very much a practical part in his life. In the case of two of the people that we have been talking about this afternoon, there has been what we would call an untimely death. Kevin Cairns died at the age of about 55. He leaves behind a widow and seven children and some of the children are of a young age. I think that sharpens our sense that his death was untimely. On behalf of the Opposition I extend to his widow and children our very great thanks for his great contribution to the Liberal Party of Australia in the Federal Parliament, to the Federal Parliament itself, to his electorate and to his State. We sympathise with them for their loss and we share that sense of loss with them as best we can. On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion and extend our very great sympathy to his widow and children. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Part of Australia) —On my own behalf and on behalf of the National Party of Australia I want to be associated with the motion of condolence to the wife and family of Kevin Cairns. I did not know Kevin Cairns as well as many of my colleagues. I did know him quite well and I certainly knew him well enough to recognise him as a very friendly character. He had a fine, analytical mind. I am sure he must have been one of the most sincere and effective representatives of the people in this country. This is an occasion on which we have been robbed, from the point of view of his family and Australia in general, of a man at a far too young an age who had a great deal to contribute. I express sincere, personal sympathy and the sympathy of my Party to his widow and family. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I would like to join in supporting this motion of condolence before the Senate at the premature death of Kevin Cairns. I knew Kevin Cairns well and I know his family. The central point in Kevin's life was his family. He was a very devoted father, but that devotion to his own family was not a selfish interest; he had a very great concern for all the families of Australia and that was manifested in his great interest for the welfare and quality of life of the Australian community. I first met Kevin Cairns when I joined the Liberal Party of Australia many years ago, but his association with the Party goes right back to young Liberal days and many years beyond my time. When I entered the Senate in 1978 I had his fellowship when he was the honourable member for Lilley. Senator Grimes said he represented Lilley from 1963 to 1972 and from 1974 to 1980. It is testimony to his personal qualities and his political ability that he represented what was essentially a Labor seat for so long. He had to fight for it but, never mind, he won and he won for very many years. He was an outstanding member and he was a very able parliamentarian and Minister. The outstanding qualities he had as a member were his deep involvement and his total commitment to all of his constituents. No one was too poor or beyond his notice. As he used to say to me, he walked all the back streets of Sandgate. After the 1980 election when he was defeated I became involved in electorate work in Lilley, an interest which I still have. It is quite remarkable to me to meet people in all sections of that electorate who knew him and knew him well. They speak volumes of his care, his concern for their welfare, his understanding and his compassion. That is a side of him that really is not seen by members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives who saw him only in this place. They saw him as a person who had an overriding interest in economic matters and all that flowed from that. The great interest he had in economic matters carried on after 1980 when he joined the business world in various capacities and served on boards of directors and as an economic adviser to various concerns in Queensland. But, above all, when he left politics after many years of service he maintained that commitment to and involvement in the affairs of the community. As Senator Chaney said, his permanent achievement in politics lives on in the well advanced new Brisbane international airport. He led the campaign by the Liberal senators and members of the House of Representatives to get that airport established, to get a curfew free airport of adequate dimensions able to be a port of entry for international services to Australia. International airports in this era have the importance that seaports had in earlier centuries. He was responsible for the original decision to build that airport being carried by the McMahon Government. It was cancelled by the Whitlam Government in the years it was in office and he fought to have it reinstated under the Fraser Government. Proposals have been made to have that airport named the Cairns airport, but that is just not practical because we already have a Cairns international airport in Queensland and it would be very confusing for people and pilots coming in from overseas to know which airport to go to. But there is a very strong movement in Brisbane and in Queensland to have the driveway into the airport known as the Kevin Cairns Memorial Drive. I hope that the Government accedes to that request because there could be no more fitting memorial for that man and his years of public service than to name the drive into the Brisbane airport as the Kevin Cairns Memorial Drive. Everything that Kevin did was marked by his conscientiousness. As Senator Grimes said, he brought a great intelligence and a great dedication to all that he did for his family and for his service to the Australian community. But, above all that, he was his own man. He retained what was at times an individuality which was at variance with his colleagues but he always did that on the strictest of analytical examination and he did it with a great air of responsibility. He called on my office the day before he died and, as has been mentioned previously, he was a voracious reader. He was voted out of office in 1980, but in the four years between 1980 and the present he was turning up every second month or every second week in my office with books that he had borrowed from the Parliamentary Library. These books were not borrowed four years ago, some of them went back about 10 years. It was on such an occasion that he called at my office the day before he died. Kevin's death was a great shock and, Mr President, it was with sadness that I accepted the honour of representing you at his funeral. I join other members of the Senate in paying tribute to Kevin Cairns and extending sympathy to his family. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —Some people outside this Parliament often find it confusing that firm friendships can be formed and are formed between members of parliament in opposing political parties. So it was the case with Kevin Cairns and myself. I did not agree with many aspects of his political philosophy nor did he with mine; in the political sphere neither he nor I gave any quarter. Even so, I regarded Kevin Cairns as one of my firm friends and I believe he felt the same way about me. It is a depressing coincidence that in the autumn session I spoke in this chamber following the passing of Mr Frank Doyle, who, for a short period in 1972 , took the seat of Lilley from Mr Cairns. Mr Doyle was also a firm friend of mine and I expected him to live for far longer than he did. I also expected the same of Mr Cairns, who, as has been mentioned earlier this afternoon, died at only 55 years of age. Both left this life far too early. Mr Cairns distinguished himself in this Parliament and before his defeat in 1972 was a Minister of the Crown. His efforts for his own party were not lessened when he returned to the Parliament, even though he did not have ministerial rank. After he left this Parliament, he continued his service to the public. For example, he was a member of the Independent Air Fares Committee. At one stage Kevin Cairns and I had adjoining rooms in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices in Brisbane. During that period, unbeknown to one another, we both travelled overseas. I was in London for a short period, having travelled there via North America; Kevin Cairns travelled to London via a westward route. We were both surprised to meet by chance in mid-London, and it was a coincidence I shall always remember. The coincidence probably stretched a little further in some respects in that, sadly, I was overseas when Kevin Cairns died. I learned only on the day I returned to Australia that his funeral was being held on that day. Regrettably, I did not hear about his death early enough on that day to be able to attend his funeral. I last spoke to Kevin Cairns when we met in the Brisbane city mall. We must have spoken for half an hour on a wide range of topics, one of which I vividly remember was education. It was a sad blow to me personally to learn of Mr Cairns 's passing. However, my sadness is of course far surpassed by that of his family . I should like it to be on record that I extend my sympathy to Mrs Tonia Cairns and to her seven children. I hope that their burden will be eased by knowing that Kevin's friends came from both sides of politics. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —Many of Kevin Cairns's friends and associates were deeply shocked on the day they opened the newspapers and read of his death. We were all aware that he had been ill some weeks earlier, but most people thought he was recovering. It was a shock and a feeling of loss to read of Kevin Cairns' s death. Mention has been made today of his service in the Parliament. His distinguished record reached its pinnacle on his appointment as Minister for Housing in the McMahon Government. Kevin Cairns's achievements were many. Senator MacGibbon referred in particular to his activities in relation to Brisbane Airport. Those of us who worked with him for a long time in the Liberal Party and in the Parliamentary Liberal Party know the detail of many of the issues he espoused with such vigour and effect. Kevin spent most of his life as a member of the Liberal Party. As a Young Liberal 24 years ago, I remember attending a meeting at which he was awarded life membership of the Young Liberals. In my youth he seemed even then to be venerable and wise. His long membership of the Party was always very active. He served the organisation of the Party with great vigour. Before he was a candidate for Lilley which, as has been mentioned, was only ever a marginal seat , he had been a Liberal Party candidate in other elections for safe Labor seats and had campaigned with distinction. After losing his seat in the 1980 election, Kevin Cairns continued to work very hard for the Liberal Party organisation in Queensland and he sought to serve the Party in a number of ways. Most of those facts are known to the world; they are the public facts. I should like to speak for just a few minutes this afternoon about Kevin Cairns the man. That will be my abiding memory of Kevin Cairns, distinguished and effective though his service in Parliament was. To visit Kevin Cairns in his home was to go into the bosom of a very warm and loving family. His wife Tonia is a most intelligent and wonderful lady and she and her seven children clearly had a loving husband and father. It was always clear that Kevin took a close and loving interest in every one of his children and their deeds. Another thing I will remember about Kevin Cairns is his very high sense of principle, and loyalty must have been very close to the top of the list. He was a very human man. Many of those who knew him through politics, and perhaps did not know him well personally, will remember him as a man of great intellect with a searching and analytical mind, who was tenacious in his pursuit of what he thought was the truth. Those of us who knew Kevin in both his public and private capacities knew that his personal principles were of overriding importance to him. He was dedicated to his church and its principles. He sought always to serve everyone in the community. He had a real and deep concern for the disadvantaged. The fact that his electorate contained many areas of disadvantaged people was not the element that directed his attention to the disadvantaged: It was the real care and concern he had as a man. I am sure he would have acted with equal dedication had his ambitions in life not taken him into politics. As has been mentioned, Kevin was a man of great intellect. His professional training was as a dentist. Subsequently he studied economics and did not seek to return to dentistry. He used his knowledge of economics to serve people. He employed that knowledge both to serve Australia and to serve people in humble circumstances. Those of us who served with him in the Parliamentary Liberal Party will recall how many times he would rise to his feet in party room debates to bring another dimension to our discussion, particularly on economics, on the subject of distribution of income. He made sure we had before us the real needs of the poorer people in our community. I was reminded, when the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, said that he had had a number of conversations with Kevin Cairns on aeroplanes, that my last substantial conversation with Kevin Cairns took place on an aeroplane, on a flight from Brisbane to Sydney, where we talked about a number of things. He was a very entertaining and interesting person to talk to. The greatest part of our conversation on that occasion dealt with technology, its impact on Australia and how it could harm the 'little' person. Even whilst out of Parliament he tried to put the point of view and position of those people about whom he cared so deeply. At his funeral many tributes were paid to his intellect and achievement. I shall remember Kevin Cairns most for his kindness. He was a man with a very soft heart. I know of instances of his personal kindness to people with whom one might think, if one thought about it only superficially, he did not have much in common or whom he did not have much interest in helping. I know that he had a very deep concern for every human being. If someone needed help, and Kevin Cairns could give it, Kevin left no stone unturned to ensure that help reached that person. In some cases that help might not have been welcome initially, but I know of instances in which Kevin Cairns's help was the turning point in the lives of people who deeply needed personal help. Kevin Cairns did not have the academic concern of an economist for figures relating to people or incomes when talking about the disadvantaged; he had a total concern. He raised that concern in public life and lived it totally in private life. I am sure that I speak for many people in Queensland when I say to Tonia and her children that Kevin Cairns contributed a great deal to the lives of many people. He will be truly missed. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I associate myself with other senators in this condolence motion. Kevin Cairns was not a member of my Party, but he was a great coalitionist and was recognised as such in Queensland. I was fortunate to attend Kevin Cairns's funeral. A great many people were present, and it was obvious that he was held in the highest esteem in Queensland, in the Liberal Party of Australia and in politics in general. It would be a great and fitting honour to the man to name the road into Brisbane Airport the Kevin Cairns Drive. I shall support that move in every way I can. I did not know Kevin Cairns as well as Senator Martin, Senator MacGibbon or some other senators, but I, too, met him on aeroplanes-he must have been a frequent traveller-and spoke to him quite often when travelling. Kevin Cairns was a very friendly man and always gave me advice as a new member of the Senate and new parliamentarian. He leaves a wife and a fairly large family who deeply loved him. I extend my sympathy to his wife and family. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I join in this condolence motion as a member of the Joint Library Committee, as a Tasmanian and as one of Kevin's mates. Much has been said about Kevin Cairns's voracious capacity to devour books. In the late 1960s a parliamentary librarian once said of Kevin that he read more books than any three parliamentarians put together. On one occasion a story went around Brisbane to the effect that Kevin had told his wife one Saturday morning to have a sleep-in while he got up and prepared the breakfast for the seven kids . Kevin started off, but then saw a recently borrowed book on an esoteric subject dealing with economics, and he started to read it. When Tonia started to smell the smell of burnt toast wafting into her bedroom she came out-there was Kevin, thoroughly engrossed in his economic tome and totally ignoring the hints that were vigorously put by his children. It was appropriate therefore, that when the Parliamentary Library first brought out its booklet as a guide to the services of the Parliamentary Library it selected Kevin, for the illustrative photograph, as the typical member of parliament who made use of the Library's services. As a Tasmanian, I place on record my appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of those from less populous States, for the incisive nature of Kevin's analysis of Commonwealth grants and the various schemes of assistance to the States to prove the thesis that, when dealing with the apparently generous grants to the smaller States, one must consider a multitude of indirect subsidies enjoyed by the larger States and not available to the smaller States with smaller manufacturing bases. Mind you, I was not always able to follow Kevin's arguments, but I am sure that, in the end, he had all the facts and figures and that he was right. As a mate, I pay tribute to Kevin. I can do no better than quote a couple of excerpts from the panegyric delivered at Kevin's requiem mass by the Reverend Doctor John Eddy, SJ, who is a senior fellow in history at the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. He said: He tried consistently, in all his incredibly busy and often effective doings, to clarify the moral and spiritual issues of the business which engaged him, to purify his own motives, and to activate as well as he could the consciences as well as the intellects of his colleagues. His pennant as a practical and believing Australian Catholic family man was always clearly displayed, boldly but without rashness or bigotry, and he suffered gravely from the prejudice of enemies and the misunderstanding of friends as well as the apathy and half- hearted support of those from whom he could justly have expected encouragement and backing. He detested humbug, or snobbery, especially the sort which he found too prevalent in public life and which he thought tended to smooth out untractable problems merely on the surface without facing the often unpleasant reality lying underneath. He respected and liked opponents who stood to their principles more than the wishy-washy, confused 'allies' who adapted too easily to morally unacceptable or facile solutions. He was a man of great intensity and passion, who could not and would not be fobbed off by dishonest compromise-though his grasp of political and social reality and his leadership qualities surely made him a suitable candidate for higher and more responsible office than the mediocrity and shallowness of the times allowed him to attain. Far from being a man out of touch with humanity and the needs and aspirations of ordinary citizens, Kevin had a great feeling for humanity. The Reverend Doctor John Eddy said: How can one forget the romantic fellow who saw his future wife's picture in a girlish snapshot and followed her relentlessly for years until he had his heart' s ease; who brought with him at first marriage 17 shirts, not one of which had the same neck size; who had to be restrained frequently from wearing odd socks and even odd shoes, who could always be identified at the beach as the only towel-hatted middle aged man absorbed in conquering the art of riding a child's surfboard; whose legendary barbecues could bring in twenty-seven strangers all intent on discussing privately with 'Dad' some absorbing topic or theory of their own or his choosing until he had to slip out of the back-door with Tonia to drive 'to the tip' for a moment's peace and quiet; who could whiz to a halt in the car at the middle of peak traffic in Albion Fiveways to take down a thought which had suddenly struck him as relevant; who could be so absorbed in reading such a tome as 'Equality and Diversity' or 'Science and Ethics' at the beach that he would not notice it had become pitch-dark; who would go to any lengths to meet any fellow-man and discuss any topic as long as it was fruitful and interesting. This was the Kevin Cairns that I knew. In fact, very close to his death, about a month before he actually died, although he and I did not know that, I visited him in hospital. He wanted to discuss with me the economic burdens on the family and people economically not well off. He said: 'How do you determine this?' I said: 'How do you, Kevin?' He said: 'You have to determine who in this day and age is least likely to be able to exercise an economic choice as to disposable income'. I said: 'That might be right, but how would you do it?' He said: 'I have a lot to do with the travel industry and I have analysed a survey within the travel industry as to who in the current economic climate has decided not to travel as much as previously, particularly interstate for holidays'. With figures he showed that the area of greatest decline was singles under 20 years of age and families. He said: 'There it is, Brian. If you are feeling the pinch you will stop your annual holidays interstate and cut out your travel, and there is the proof of it'. At that time I asked whether he would provide me with this detailed information, and his family has done so. I am sure that at some future and more appropriate stage the Senate would be interested in that. Finally, Kevin was in the forefront of alerting the public to various items of social engineering legislation which he could see would find their way into Australia. He was concerned about the future ramifications of the family law legislation. He served on the Joint Committee on Family Law. He had grave misgivings about what was being done and, sad to say, his misgivings have proven correct. I join with the Senate in conveying sympathy to Tonia and to her and Kevin's family. I am sure that in the darkness they may experience they will not forget what they and Kevin learned in the light. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I associate myself briefly with the remarks made by other honourable senators about Kevin Cairns. I do so because we are not always a particularly interesting lot in this Parliament, I suspect. Kevin Cairns was a very interesting man. He had a very good and tough mind. Without wishing to insult anybody, that is not something which one finds every day in the Parliament. He stood out for that. I noticed with interest that he listed his major leisure occupation as reading. I understand that, because not only had he a tough and fine intellect but also he was a very well informed man. I want to say nothing about his parliamentary career and so on because all that has been said, but I admired him personally very much for those qualities and I join with others in expressing my sympathy to his wife and family. The PRESIDENT —I invite all honourable senators to stand in silence to indicate their assent to the motions of condolence and as a mark of respect to the former President and members of the House of Representatives. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The PRESIDENT —The sitting of the Senate is suspended until 8 p.m. as a mark of respect to the deceased. Sitting suspended from 5.25 to 8 p.m. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I seek leave to make a statement outlining the Government's budgetary proposals for the financial year 1984-85. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Before delivering the statement to the Senate, I table the following papers: Budget Statements 1984-85 Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year Ending 30 June 1985 Civil Works Program 1984-85 Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1984-85 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1984 Australia's Overseas Development Assistance Program 1984-85 National Income and Expenditure 1983-84 Income Tax Statistics Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending 30 June 1985 Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending 30 June 1985 Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending 30 June 1985 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments Mr President, to test the feeling of the Senate, and lest honourable senators would prefer to watch the Treasurer (Mr Keating) deliver the Budget Speech in the House of Representatives, I seek leave to incorporate the Budget Speech in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Senator WALSH —Tonight the Treasurer is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1984-85. It is my privilege to outline to the Senate the Government's Budget proposals. It is just 18 months since the Australian people elected a Labor Government-at a time of severe economic crisis. Australia was in the grip of the most savage economic recession in fifty years; the economy was in severe decline; unemployment had grown by 270,000 in the previous twelve months and inflation was rising at 11.5 per cent. A remarkable transformation has taken place in the Australian economy since the Labor Government's first Budget 12 months ago. Tonight, I am proud to be able to tell the Australian people that we now have strong economic growth, many more jobs, a substantial fall in inflation and declining interest rates. The Government's policies are on track; they are producing the results we sought-results that our opponents and many commentators said were not achievable in such a short time. We have shown the Australian people that their trust in us was well founded. This Budget consolidates and builds upon those successes. But it aims to do much, much more. Australia now has before it an historic opportunity to embark upon a new growth path. That is, the achievement of non-inflationary growth-sustainable economic growth -that will provide the lasting jobs so desperately needed by the unemployed- growth that will provide real benefits to other needy groups in our society. We can take this path, or we could opt for a return to the sickness of the 1970s-with high inflation, low growth and declining job opportunities. There can only be one path to take. There is no real choice. This Budget is directed at ensuring that the opportunity does not pass us by. RECENT ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE Mr President, at the time of the last Budget, there was much debate about the economic strategy this Government adopted to tackle Australia's worst recession since the 1930s. Some thought we were expanding Commonwealth spending too much; others believed we were being too timid. Whatever views were held then, I believe that by any measure the achievements of the past 12 months have far exceeded expectations. No one could seriously argue that we could have done better. In the past year- and-a-half of the Labor Government, Australia has undergone a transformation. In the year between the June quarters of 1983 and 1984, economic growth was over 10 per cent, the best performance in the 25 years for which quarterly national accounts have been compiled. This means Australia was the fastest growing economy in the Western World. In the same year, 230,000 Australians found jobs, compared with the 240 000 who lost them the year earlier. Inflation fell to 6 1/2 per cent; and declined over the course of the year, so that during the last six months it was running at an annual rate of about 5 per cent. That means our inflation rate is finally falling to about the same level as our major trading partners. Profits recovered, interest rates fell and business investment began to pick up . Central to that success was the Accord on prices and incomes between the Government and the Australian trade union movement. The Accord has been a remarkable success-and the contribution of the ACTU to that outcome has been vital. Where the last Government was unable to stimulate the economy because of fears of wages and prices breaking out-thus causing inflation to accelerate-this Government has been able to restore a strong rate of growth, but in the company of falling inflation. This has only been possible because the Accord has given the Government an agreed basis of wage and price restraint. That restraint, that moderation, has restored health to business, producing profits that can now be ploughed back into expansion and jobs. On the basis of the Accord, the Government was able to employ the traditional arms of policy to set the economy on the path to recovery. Budget policy was structured to employ a deficit of sufficient power to re- start the economy, and an effective monetary policy was applied to finance it, without adding to inflationary pressures. The policy of fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously, championed by the Labor Party during the last election campaign and now employed as the policy of the Government, has borne fruit quickly. At long last, an Australian Government has provided a comprehensive and coherent economic policy within which all sections of the community can work together. THE 1984-85 BUDGET Our strategy this financial year will be to continue with the co-operative approach pioneered last year and to consolidate and build upon these achievements. The strategy will seek to ensure that economic recovery continues, that inflationary pressures are further reduced and that job prospects are further improved. We have the policies to overturn the history of more than a decade, a history of economic stops and starts, of recoveries that were frittered away in one senseless, destructive price and wage round after another. This time, with the co-operation of all Australians and the Australian trade union movement, the story will be different. Australian workers can continue moderation in their pay claims in the clear knowledge that the nation will be the better for it and that their own position will be more secure. In recognition of the restraint practised to this time and on the basis of its continuation, the Government will provide in this Budget a significant cut in personal income tax, particularly for those on low and middle incomes. At a cost of $1300 million in 1984-85, and over $2100 million in a full year, all taxpayers are to receive a reduction in tax, with the biggest percentage reductions going to lower income earners. We will introduce a new five step tax scale, replacing the old three step scale , in order to make the tax system more progressive and fair. At the lower end of this scale, the tax rate on income between the threshold and $12,500 a year is to be reduced from 30 cents in the dollar to 25 cents. This will mean that taxpayers earning less than $240 a week will enjoy a tax reduction of almost 17 per cent. All taxpayers earning between $240 a week and $538 a week will have a tax cut of $7.60 a week. The majority of Australian employees earn between these amounts and most taxpayers will receive the $7.60 tax cut. This will assist in the quest for continuing income restraint and to that extent will underpin the Prices and Incomes Accord, and should command the full support of the trade union movement. It will also boost family incomes, and hence will stimulate consumer spending as the year progresses. People with incomes above $28 000 a year will also receive a tax cut, but its size will gradually diminish as income exceeds $538 a week. These tax changes will take effect from 1 November. As well as tax cuts for those in employment, the Government regards it as imperative that social welfare recipients and beneficiaries, particularly those in greatest need, receive support in this Budget. To this end the Budget provides a social welfare package that will cost $430 million in 1984-85 and $683 million in a full year, over and above the normal indexation arrangements. The Government has decided to raise indexed pensions and benefits, including the unemployment benefit, from the first payment in November 1984, by $2.50 per week for single people and by $4.20 per week for couples. That increase will lift the single pension rate to $91.90 a week and the combined married rate to $153.30. It will more than compensate beneficiaries for the effect of the introduction of Medicare on the indexation adjustments to pensions. Also, under the usual indexation arrangements those pensions and benefits will further increase in May 1985. In addition to these increases in general pensions and benefits, the Government is providing special assistance targeted to those groups most in need. From November 1984 we shall be giving substantial extra help to pensioners who rent and to those with children. Supplementary rental assistance will increase by 50 per cent to $15 a week; additional pensions and benefits will increase by $2 to $14 a week per child, while the mother's and guardian's allowance will increase by $2 to $10 a week. In all, since the Government took office, the pension income of a sole parent pensioner with two children in privately rented accommodation will have gone up by some $30 a week, an increase of over 25 per cent. A further increase of $2 per week will be provided from May 1985 to single unemployment beneficiaries 18 years of age and over with no dependants. These changes mean that the single adult unemployment benefit will have increased by over $20 a week, or by about 30 per cent, since this Government won office. The Government is particularly concerned about the structure of the various forms of assistance to young people, and will undertake a fundamental review of present arrangements in time for the next Budget. In the meantime, tertiary education allowances will be increased by 10 per cent ; allowances under the Secondary Allowances Scheme will be increased by 15 per cent; and the family income limits applying to both schemes will be extended by 10 per cent. Also in advance of this review, the maximum rate of unemployment and sickness benefit for single people aged 16 and 17 years will be increased by a further $5 to $50 per week for those who have been in continuous receipt of benefit for six months or more. The Government recognises that unemployment is a principal cause of poverty in Australia. The unemployed have borne the brunt of the failure of previous economic policies for too many years. That is why the Government in its first year of office and now in this Budget has substantially increased benefits to the unemployed and provided major job creation programs. However, the fundamental task before us is to create permanent employment. For this reason the overwhelming objective must be to maintain the momentum of economic recovery so as to maximise employment growth. And to do that we need more investment. That will happen this year; there will be more investment. But to encourage it further, the Budget incorporates a number of initiatives in the area of business taxation. First, the rate of depreciation on new non-residential income-producing buildings will be increased from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent. That will provide a significant boost to the construction industry. Secondly, the tax system is to be changed to allow companies to transfer losses between different members of their company groups where there is 100 per cent common ownership. This should significantly improve the cash flow position of many companies undertaking new investments. Thirdly, the Government has agreed to provide a concession long sought by the mineral exploration industry. After tonight, money spent on general mining exploration will be deductible against income from any source, thereby providing considerable assistance to many members of the mining industry. These three initiatives, combined with the very generous accelerated depreciation provisions legislated by this Government, provide a sound environment for business investment in coming years. They will, at substantial cost to the Government, provide considerable financial support for business investment. It must be recognised, though, that the cost to the Budget of these measures, particularly the accelerated depreciation provisions, will grow rapidly over the course of the decade. Therefore, the Government has decided not to alter that aspect of the former Government's legislation which sets 30 June 1985 as the date by which plant and equipment must be ordered to qualify for the investment allowance. However, the Government will extend to 30 June 1987 the date by which plant must be in place to qualify for the allowance. This will be of particular assistance for firms undertaking large projects with lengthy lead times. Aside from those changes, a number of other adjustments are being made to the tax system. Zone rebates for those living in remote areas are to be increased by 25 per cent, and de facto couples are to become eligible for the dependent spouse rebate. Also, new rebates are to be introduced to ensure that people whose sole income is derived from unemployment, sickness or special benefits do not have to pay tax. The Government has decided to make few other changes to the tax system, the major exception being the tax treatment of beer and wine. First, the tax arrangements for low alcohol beer are to be restructured. These are in two categories. The first comprises very low alcohol beer which contains less than about one per cent alcohol. Until now this has been exempt from tax. The second, much larger, category is that of light beer which typically contains about a half or two-thirds of the alcoholic strength of ordinary beer, which until now has been taxed at the same rate as full strength beer. The Government believes that this tax structure should be changed in recognition of the lower alcohol content. For this reason, the Government has decided to reduce the excise on ordinary light beer by 8 cents per litre, or about three cents a can. The Government has also decided to remove an anomaly by imposing a sales tax on very low alcohol beer at the same rate which now applies to soft drinks-that is, 20 per cent. The new sales tax will raise about $6 million a year. However, lowering the excise on ordinary light beer will cost the Government about $12 million a year. The Government is also concerned that the previous tax regime discriminated heavily against beer and spirit drinkers in favour of wine which has not been taxed at all. Against that background, a sales tax of 10 per cent on wine and alcoholic cider is to be introduced from tonight. This is expected to increase revenue by $49 million in 1984-85 and $62 million in a full year. To avoid any risk of double taxation, the excise collected last year on fortifying spirit will be refunded to producers. BUDGET OVERVIEW As I have stressed, this Budget is about economic growth, it is about embarking upon a new growth path. One of the major contributions any Government can make towards encouraging that growth is to create the conditions which open the way for further falls in interest rates. I say further falls, because in the last year we have seen very significant reductions. Lower interest rates will greatly encourage business investment-and if this economy is to grow, we need investment. For that reason the Government, in framing the Budget, has kept a careful eye on the overall impact on financial markets. The end result is a Budget deficit for 1984-85 of $6745 million, a reduction of $1216 million on last year's deficit. This will be equal to 3.3 per cent of gross domestic product, a marked reduction from last year's 4.3 per cent. This will reduce the overall borrowings of the public sector, and help minimise pressure on interest rates-to the benefit of all Australians. In sum, the Government has kept its three-fold commitment for the 1984-85 Budget. We will substantially cut personal income tax. We will increase social security spending, and in particular direct the extra assistance to those most in need. And we will reduce the Budget deficit by over $1200 million. Australia can be confident that this strategy will provide a basis for further strong economic growth in 1984-85. We expect non-farm growth to average 5 per cent, a little larger than last year 's excellent figure. But overall growth will not match non-farm growth because last year's strong outcome for the rural sector will not be, or at least is unlikely to be, repeated. For that reason, we believe gross domestic product-that is, for the total economy-this financial year will be about 4 per cent higher than in 1983-84. Such growth will see a further large increase in jobs, and another fall in the unemployment rate. By June next year, we expect that since coming to office over 400,000 new jobs will have been created in Australia. That will place us well on the way to fulfilling our election-time promise to create 500,000 jobs in three years. Underpinning those achievements, inflation will remain at its lowest level in more than a decade. With continued wage moderation and a non-inflationary monetary policy, the rise in the consumer price index is expected to be a little over 5 per cent between the June quarters 1984 and 1985-a dramatic change from the 11 1/2 per cent inflation rate we inherited from our predecessors. As I said at the outset of this statement, it is just 18 months since the Labor Government was elected in the midst of a grave economic crisis. While it was clear before the election that the Australian economic situation was grim, it was not until after the election that the full truth was revealed to the Australian people. It became apparent to all sections of the Australian community that the situation was drastic-that, unless this Government could lead the way out of recession, Australia would be condemned to another decade of economic stagnation and decline. At the National Economic Summit a consensus emerged that the crisis would be overcome only by the application of the right policies and by all Australians working together. It was agreed that we would all need to make sacrifices and work in harmony if Australia were to recover. We have made those sacrifices, we have worked in harmony and we are now experiencing the early fruits of our efforts. Now we must advance even further. We must build upon the foundations that we have, together, so successfully laid . We must seize the opportunity now to embark upon a new growth path for Australia. We will do that with this Budget. OUTLAYS I will now move on to discuss the outlays side of the Budget in more detail. Budget outlays are estimated to rise by 13.0 per cent in 1984-85, an increase which is lower than the outcome for any year since 1979-80 and follows an increase of 15.6 per cent in 1983-84. In real terms the estimated outlays growth in 1984-85 is 6.1 per cent, compared with 7.7 per cent in 1983-84 and 6.5 per cent in 1982-83, the last year of our predecessors. The major part of this financial year's outlays growth is accounted for by increases in the larger less-discretionary items of expenditure and the full- year effects of programs introduced last year. In the former category, payments to the States, public debt interest and social welfare entitlements under existing legislation involve virtually automatic increases in outlays. For 1984-85, two particular items have been of notable importance in terms of their contribution to outlays growth. First, the full-year operation of Medicare alone contributes 2.2 percentage points of the total 6.1 per cent real growth in outlays. I mention Medicare because it replaced a tax expenditure in the form of the health insurance rebate and transferred a formerly private expenditure to a direct public outlay. The introduction of Medicare more than accounts for the increase in outlays as a proportion of GDP over last year. Secondly, escalating public debt interest payments-the legacy of past Budget deficits and their necessary financing-will contribute a further 1.6 percentage points of that growth in 1984-85. Other program initiatives taken last year that contribute to increased outlays in 1984-85 include the First Home Owners Scheme, the Community Employment Program and increased funding for social welfare and education. I outlined earlier some of the new spending initiatives for this year in the social welfare area. But this Budget also provides for a range of new and expanded initiatives in other areas. I will now discuss the major ones. Details of individual programs are contained in Statement No. 3 and other Budget Papers; more information will be provided, as appropriate, by the relevant Ministers. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE As I have already announced, the Budget allocates some $430 million to new social welfare programs or improvements in existing programs; these measures have a full-year cost of $683 million. This package includes an increase in pensions and benefits to individuals, including an increase of over 10 per cent in unemployment and sickness benefits for certain single beneficiaries aged 16 and 17. It also provides substantial additional assistance to low-income families with children. Child Care This Government is also providing increased expenditure on the Children's Services Program which will increase from $113 million in 1983-84 to about $158 million this year, bringing the increase over the past two years to more than 60 per cent. Care of the Aged A New Home and Community Care Program will be negotiated with the States and the Northern Territory to provide care to the aged and to younger disabled persons. The proposed program would integrate Commonwealth and State activities and involve estimated expenditure by the Commonwealth exceeding $300 million over three years. Assistance for Aboriginals Funding for Aboriginal advancement programs administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will be increased by 14 per cent to $234 million. Priority will be given to improving water, sewerage, housing and other services for Aboriginal communities, including fringe dwellers. EDUCATION The Budget provides $4544 million in direct spending on education, representing a real increase of nearly 4 1/2 per cent, the largest in eight years. The Government's strong commitment to education is shown by increases for both the tertiary and the schools sectors announced over recent weeks. Against a background of significant unmet student demands for tertiary places, the increased funding is designed to create an additional 15,000 places in universities and colleges by 1987. In addition, it is estimated that a further 15,000 full-time places will be created in TAFE institutions over the same period. In recognition of increased student and staff numbers, capital grants for building programs in higher education will increase by 20 per cent to $64.8 million in 1985. In the schools sector the Government's 1985 Schools Commission guidelines represent a new era in the Commonwealth's approach to schools. The Government has decided to provide financial support for all schools according to an eight year plan. This plan provides for Commonwealth recurrent grants to government schools to increase by almost 50 per cent over the eight year period to 1992. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING The employment situation has improved considerably over the past year and is forecast to improve further in 1984-85. But the number unemployed is still far too high and our responsibility in this area, especially to the long-term unemployed, remains. An amount of $1111 million is provided in 1984-85 for labour market and related employment and training programs, double the provision for 1982-83. Included in this total is expenditure on the Community Employment Program which will increase by 44 per cent to $410 million. We also propose to develop a national strategy in the field of occupational health and safety, for which $12.1 million is available in 1984-85. HOUSING Total outlays from the Budget on housing for this year are estimated at $1252 million, an increase of 21 per cent on 1983-84 and up 69 per cent on funding provided by the previous Government in 1982-83. $623 million will be provided to the States this year under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. This includes a net increase of some $50 million for public and crisis accommodation. The level of Federal funds provided for this priority area will be over $200 million higher than when the Government came to office. The increase in funding, together with the renegotiation of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, provides the basis for a 10 year program to attack housing-related poverty. First Home Owners Scheme The First Home Owners Scheme has been a major success. Since it was announced, industry activity has increased by about 25 per cent and housing interest rates have fallen significantly. Against this background the income limits for the scheme have been reviewed for those who contract to buy or build a house after tonight. The upper income limit of $27,900 will remain unchanged for families, joint applicants and sole applicants with dependent children. A new threshold of $20, 000 a year will apply for maximum assistance. The changes will mean that no family, joint applicant, or sole applicant with a dependent child who is currently eligible will be excluded from assistance. For sole applicants without dependants, income limits will be half those for other applicants. In reviewing income limits the Government was concerned to ensure that assistance went to those most in need. The changes to income limits for sole applicants without dependants recognise that they typically have fewer financial commitments than families. The scheme will continue to give significant support to first home buyers and the housing industry. Expenditure will be $265 million in 1984-85-an increase of over 85 per cent. This will assist a further 80,000 Australian households into home ownership in addition to the 55,000 first home buyers who were assisted under the scheme last financial year and who will continue to receive assistance this year. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND WORKS Total Budget payments for capital purposes (including capital grants and advances) are estimated to rise by 11 per cent to about $5630 million. Expenditure on civil works funded directly from the Budget is estimated at $497 million, an increase of over $168 million on 1983-84. This includes $127 million in Budget-financed civil works for airports including Brisbane, Perth, Darwin and Canberra. Major new projects to commence construction this year will include the Adelaide Commonwealth Centre, the Townsville Airport redevelopment and, in the defence program, the Tindal RAAF Base in the Northern Territory. In the ACT, civil works expenditure in 1984-85 is estimated at $293 million, an increase of $120 million on 1983-84. This includes $109 million for the Parliament House Construction Authority. POLICIES CONCERNING WOMEN Later tonight the Prime Minister will table a document setting out in detail an assessment of the impact of this Budget on women. Let me highlight some of its contents. Our tax cuts will be of significant benefit to working women. Our special rebate will ensure that needy women living on benefits will be saved from having to pay tax this financial year. The Government's welfare initiatives are generous and women will be the major beneficiaries of our decisions. The Government has paid particular heed to the needs of sole parents, one of the most disadvantaged groups in our society. The Government has also made provision in this Budget for the Affirmative Action Pilot Program currently being undertaken by 28 of our leading companies and three of our tertiary education institutions. Funds have been provided to allow the newly proclaimed Sex Discrimination Act to operate effectively across Australia. CULTURE, SPORT AND RECREATION The Budget provides $340 million to the ABC, an increase of nearly 13 per cent on 1983-84. The Australia Council is to receive $43.6 million for arts funding, an increase of 14 per cent, and $5.4 million has been provided for the National Institute of Dramatic Art. The Budget provides $65 million for sport and related programs in 1984-85, an increase of $24 million over last year. This includes $8.9 million for the Australian Institute of Sport-almost double the funding of two years ago. This has underpinned the facilities and coaching for many of our athletes in the Olympic Games. A new three year program costing $27 million is proposed for the construction of additional international standard sport facilities in the States and Territories. INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Tourism Reflecting the importance which the Government attaches to the growth and employment potential of this industry, funding for the Australian Tourist Commission will rise by $3.3 million to $22.8 million in 1984-85, bringing the increase over the past two years to 128 per cent. Research and Technology Transfer To encourage the introduction of new technologies in Australia's manufacturing industry, the Government has decided to establish a nation-wide advisory service on computer-assisted manufacturing at a cost of $2 million in 1984-85. Motor Vehicle Industry As part of revised assistance arrangements for the motor vehicle industry announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in May 1984, the Government will fund a five year program for Australian design and research activities. This year the Government will enter into commitments of up to $20 million for these activities. Primary Industry The Government fully recognises the significant contribution of primary industry to the national economy. The funding of wool promotion has at last been put on a secure and predictable basis. This year's allocation is $26 million, an increase of 30 per cent. Because of developments in financing by the Australian Wheat Board, the Wheat Finance Fund is to be wound up and returned to growers on 1 July 1985, while growers' contributions in respect of 1983-84 season deliveries-estimated to exceed $50 million-will be returned within the next few months. Trade Promotion An additional $3.4 million is provided for an expanded program of trade promotion activities, taking total expenditure for trade promotion-including the overseas promotion of rural products-to a level 36 per cent above that for 1983- 84. The increased funding will permit an intensified effort in the Japanese, Chinese and North American markets. Emphasis will be accorded to the promotion of high technology, and co-funding of trade promotion activities initiated by the States will also be undertaken. Funding under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, which was increased by $10 million in 1983-84, has been increased by another $10 million to $125 million. Sufficient funds have been provided to meet all outstanding claims under the Export Expansion Grants Scheme which will be wound up this year following its termination by the previous Government. TRANSPORT Roads Grants to the States and the Northern Territory for roads will total $1245 million in 1984-85, an increase of 46 per cent or $394 million on the level of two years ago. Bass Strait Passenger Services A grant of $25 million is to be paid to Tasmania to complete the purchase of a replacement for the Empress of Australia. This will include costs associated with the upgrading of associated facilities. The Tasmanian Government will subsequently assume responsibility for the service. DEFENCE The Budget provides $5820 million for defence, an increase of 8.1 per cent on 1983-84 outlays; the adjusted underlying real increase will be about 3.3 per cent. Senator MacGibbon —It is the last of all your priorities, and it is a real cut of about 12 per cent. There is nothing new in that. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ryan —There he goes; wind him up. The PRESIDENT —Order! Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MacGibbon. Senator WALSH —I think, Mr President, that a colleague-if that is the right word -or a would-be colleague of a number of the interjectors on the other side made some comments a couple of days ago about how the principles espoused in opposition by the coalition parties are abandoned when in government. We have seen a manifestation tonight of the accuracy of that statement. REVENUE MEASURES I referred earlier to the personal income tax cut and to some of the other revenue measures contained in this Budget. I now elaborate a little; additional details are being released separately. Medicare Levy In order to continue to shelter low income earners from the Medicare levy, the income thresholds at which the levy becomes payable are to be increased from 1 July 1984. For single persons the threshold will increase to $7110, or about $135 per week . For married couples and sole parents the threshold rises to $11 803, plus an additional $1330 for each child. For example, married couples with two dependent children will pay no Medicare levy until their taxable incomes exceed $14,463 per annum-almost $280 per week. Also reflecting the effects of earnings growth, we have decided to increase the ceiling on the maximum levy payment from $700 to $750 per annum with effect from 1 November 1984. Social Security Beneficiary Rebates The Government has decided to introduce special taxation rebates for unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients. For 1984-85, the maximum rebate will be $50 for single beneficiaries and $75 for married beneficiaries. This measure will ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on these social security benefits do not become liable for income tax. The maximum amount of rebate will reduce by 12 1/2 cents for each dollar of taxable income in excess of $4783 for a single beneficiary and $7989 for a married beneficiary. Pensioner Rebate Following the personal income tax cut, the $250 pensioner tax rebate will now begin to shade out at the higher income of $5534. This means that single pensioners benefiting from the rebate will pay no tax until their income exceeds $106 per week. Dependent Spouse Rebate The Government has decided to remove the taxation discrimination whereby a dependent spouse rebate has been available only to taxpayers who are legally married. With effect from 1 July 1984, eligibility for the dependent spouse rebate will be extended to a de facto spouse. A housekeeper rebate will no longer be available in respect of a de facto spouse. Zone Rebates The basic amounts of income tax zone rebates for people living in remote areas are to be increased by 25 per cent, with effect from 1 November 1984. In a full year, the Zone A rebate will be $270 and the Zone B rebate will be $45. In special zone areas, the full-year rebate will be $938. The boundaries of the special zone areas are also to be adjusted to reflect the changes in town populations arising from the 1981 Census results. This adjustment will only be made, however, where it is to the advantage of taxpayers. Taxation of Wine With the introduction of the general sales tax on wine and alcoholic cider mentioned earlier, the present sales taxes applying only to imported alcoholic grape wines and alcoholic cider will be converted to customs duties with effect from 8 p.m. tonight. However, because of certain GATT obligations in respect of wine, the duties to be applied to imported alcoholic wines will be equivalent to a sales tax of 10 per cent, rather than 20 per cent. This reduction in protection is not expected to result in any significant increase in wine imports. Fortifying spirit excise paid or payable in respect of 1983-84 will be refunded in full; this will avoid the double taxation that might otherwise have been borne by fortified wines. Against this background, an independent inquiry into the grape growing and grape product industry will be held to investigate all aspects of the structure of this industry with a view to making recommendations to government to overcome the industry's economic and regional problems. Diesel Fuel Certain off-road uses of diesel fuel attract a rebate of excise duty of 7.155 cents per litre. When the system of indexing rates of excise was introduced last Budget, the diesel fuel rebate was left outside the system. The Government has now decided that the rebate will be indexed, with effect from 1 February 1985. Aviation Fuel Excises Excise duties on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel will be increased by 0.25 cents per litre from 8 p.m. tonight. This measure will help to improve the level of cost recovery from the aviation industry. Bank Account Debits Tax Following a review of various aspects of the Bank Account Debits Tax, the Government has decided to permit three additional exemptions from the tax, namely: * school parents and citizens associations and other support groups for institutions which are themselves exempt; * non-business local councils and government bodies, except where they conduct substantial business activities; and * debits of less than $1. To offset the cost of these further exemptions, the rate of tax on debits of $ 10 000 or more will be increased from $1 to $1.50. Primary Producers Two measures relating particularly to primary producers will be introduced. The scheduled termination date for the immediate deduction for expenditure incurred on fencing to help eradicate bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis in livestock will be extended by two years, to 30 June 1986. Secondly, the prescribed minimum values for natural increases in livestock, which have applied since 1936, are to be increased. The new values for 1984-85 and later income years are $1 for sheep, $5 for cattle and horses, and $4 for pigs. Business Taxes I indicated earlier that the Government would be introducing significant new tax benefits for business. The transfer of losses within company groups, increased depreciation provisions for non-residential income-producing buildings , and writeoffs for mineral exploration expenditures will all enhance the prospects for a continuing investment recovery in Australia. The Government recognises that continued reform of the tax system is essential. In the context of its review of the tax laws, careful consideration will be given to the appropriate long-term tax regime for business and investment. Measures to Counter Avoidance and Evasion This Government will remain unrelenting in its efforts to counter tax avoidance and evasion. Additional measures will be taken to strengthen the collection mechanisms for various taxes, including increases in levels of penalty for late payments and other breaches of taxation laws. The Budget also provides for a significant increase in the compliance staff of the Taxation Office in order to increase the proportion of tax returns subject to audits. MONETARY POLICY The overall objectives of monetary policy in 1984-85 will continue to be to provide for strong economic growth while accommodating no more than the minimal cost and price increases that might flow from the effective operation of the Prices and Incomes Accord. In considering an appropriate monetary projection range, likely changes in the velocity of circulation of money need to be considered, as well as real growth, and the progress that can be made against inflation. Last year M3 velocity increased by about 6 per cent. Such strong growth is not unusual in the early stages of recovery. In 1984-85, however, velocity is expected to grow at a much more moderate rate of about 1 1/2 per cent. On this basis, the Government has adopted a conditional projection for M3 growth between the June quarters of 1984 and 1985 of 8-10 per cent. Monetary projection this year is complicated by a measurement problem. This arises because the removal from 1 August of maturity controls on bank deposits will enable the banks to compete for the first time for deposits which previously had to find a home with non-bank financial institutions. There is no basis on which to forecast how much of this ''re-intermediation'' will occur, but the scope is very large. To the extent that the banks attract deposits from non-bank institutions, M3 will be increased but there will be no change in underlying monetary conditions. Because of this measurement problem the Government will pay increased attention to broader monetary aggregates, which are less affected by deregulation, and to other indicators of financial conditions. As information on the extent of re-intermediation becomes available later in the year, we will review the conditional M3 projection. At that time, we will also consider whether the projection should be modified in the light of changes in the economic outlook. The Government believes that the substantial reduction in the domestic deficit of $1600 million in this Budget, supported by the major reforms instituted at the Loan Council meeting in June, will be welcomed by the financial markets. This outcome, together with the continuing progress being made against inflation, provides considerable scope for further interest rate falls during 1984-85. Consistent with the policy outlined above, the Treasury is announcing tonight details of the next bond tender for an amount of $1200 million. CONCLUSION Mr President, this Budget will consolidate and strengthen the economic recovery . Within the context of a significant reduction in the Budget deficit, we have delivered a substantial tax cut and implemented a social welfare package that will be of considerable benefit to needy Australians. The reduction in the Budget deficit will help to relieve inflation and interest rate pressures. In turn, the reduction in these pressures will encourage the further strengthening of investment spending essential to economic growth and hence to the well-being of all sections of the community. The tax cuts will ensure the continuing moderation of wage pressures-moderation that has been central to putting the recovery on a sound footing. In these ways this Budget will consolidate the recovery, thereby providing scope to pursue stronger economic growth which in turn will enable us to attack the inequities that still abound in our society. I commend this Budget to the Senate. Motion (by Senator Walsh)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women) —For the information of honourable senators I table the following paper: Women's Budget Program: An Assessment of the Impact on Women of the 1984-85 Budget, dated 21 August 1984. I seek leave to move a motion in connection with this paper. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.00) —Before I seek leave to continue my remarks I ask whether the paper tabled by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has been circulated. Senator Ryan —Mr President, I understand that the paper is being circulated at this time. Senator Watson —We have not got it. Senator Grimes —Mr President, it is my understanding that the paper has been circulated already with the other Budget Papers. Senator CHANEY —As I said, I do not wish to speak to this paper because I have only just received it. It is not with the papers that have been delivered to me. It has just been handed to me by the attendant. I thank him very much for that. I simply ask the Minister whether she will kindly ensure that the document is circulated because I am sure that now she has tabled it honourable senators will wish to examine it so that they can participate in a debate that relates to it later. At this stage I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —by leave-It was the understanding of the Government that the paper was circulated along with other Budget Papers. It is quite clear that the attendants are now circulating it to those senators who have not been able to find it in their own papers. I can assure honourable senators that the paper is well worth waiting for. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.03) —For the information of honourable senators I table the report of an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration on 5 July 1984, dated 17 August 1984. I seek leave to move a motion in connection with the report. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.03) —I acknowledge the Government's tabling of this paper this evening, rather than this afternoon, at the request of the Opposition. It was our view that we could not have had a sensible approach to condolence motions had we had debate on this important report this afternoon. The fact that it is being introduced at this late hour is due in fact to our request. The Government has agreed that we should have an opportunity to debate the report if after our examination of it we seek that tomorrow. I acknowledge also the Government's co-operation in that. At this stage I simply seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTERCHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.04) —Is it not intended that there be a cognate debate on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984? Senator Grimes —I suggest that they be debated cognately, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator DURACK —The attitude of the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), in relation to these matters and the offhand way in which he has approached the very introduction of the Bills on the subject shows how little interest the Government really has in constitutional reform. Senator Grimes —Why don't you get on with your speech, you boring turd? Get on with your speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you will withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I withdraw it, no matter how accurate it is . Why should we have to put up with people like that taking advantage of the circumstances? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you do not have the call. Senator Durack has the call. Senator DURACK —The Minister who was so affronted a moment ago is now about to walk out again and compound his attitude. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I point out that we had to send out of the chamber to get the honourable senator who is speaking now into the chamber because he was not here in time for the Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order. Senator DURACK —Mr Deputy President, that remark of the Minister is total rubbish. The fact of the matter is that the Government was putting down statements. I was in this chamber before the Bills were brought on. We have a Minister in charge of the business of this chamber who is so full of pique and pettiness that this chamber is subjected to the insult of behaviour such as we have just witnessed. As I said, that fit of pique, pettiness and total disinterest in constitutional reform is a good foundation for the discussion we are about to have on the subject of the referendum proposals. It is not surprising of course that the Government should approach this, I think now, third debate on its referendum proposal in this cavalier, offhand, disinterested and, as I said, irresponsible way. It clearly marks the whole attitude of this Government to the question of constitutional reform. During the Government's election campaign-indeed, for some time prior to the election campaign-at which it was elected, the now Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), then the shadow Attorney-General, made great play of the importance of constitutional reform and what he and a Labor Government would do about it. In fact, right at the very beginning of the Government's term of office, in the course of a constitutional convention in Adelaide at the end of April 1983, the Attorney-General endeavoured to upstage even the Constitutional Convention which was then sitting to consider proposals for constitutional reform by announcing that there would be a referendum on several matters, including his pet panacea of fixed term parliaments, to take place in August 1983. A few weeks later, in May 1983, the Attorney-General introduced a package of referendum proposals which had as its centrepiece fixed term parliaments, proposals for interchange of powers, advisory opinions and the removal of what he called outmoded provisions of the Constitution. The Senate commenced to debate those proposals. I spoke on behalf of the Opposition in reply to them on 19 May 1983. The attention that we primarily gave to that package was in relation to the proposal for fixed term parliaments which was opposed by the Opposition in fairly strong terms. In relation to other matters of the package we saw little virtue in them but in fact did not oppose them and said that as far as we were concerned if there was to be a referendum we would be supporting the proposals. However, the proposal of fixed term parliaments, if it had been passed by the referendum which was then projected, would have required this Government to see out its full term-at least almost its full term because its first opportunity for an election would have been November 1985 under its fixed term proposals. Of course, as we know, in the election campaign this Government and the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made great play of the early election called by the Fraser Government. It was all part of its new approach to government and parliament that we would not have actions such as that of Mr Fraser when he called an early election in 1983. But it did not take this Government very long to learn that there were great advantages in Prime Ministers being able to call elections when they liked. We know now, of course, that the great influence of the New South Wales right wing faction of the Labor Party on the Prime Minister soon got the better of him and the Attorney-General' s ideals about fixed term parliaments et cetera soon bit the dust. They bit the dust within a very short time of the introduction of the proposal for fixed term parliaments. It was announced that the referendum to be held in August 1983 was to be postponed. Of course, even then we could not get the Government to come clean with an honest statement that it was actually abandoning the proposal. It was merely to be postponed. All sorts of dust was thrown in everyone's eyes to indicate that there was not in fact to be an abandonment of the concept of fixed term parliaments. But of course the reality was that the Attorney-General had been completely rolled in Cabinet by the cynics of the New South Wales right wing of the Labor Party, of which he is a captive. Shortly after that it was announced that the Government would not be going on with the proposal for fixed term parliaments at all but, in lieu of it, would be going on with a referendum containing proposals for a four-year parliamentary term and simultaneous elections for both Houses of Parliament. Bills for that purpose were brought into the Senate in, I think, October last year. At that stage the Opposition was attracted by the proposal. In fact, we had floated it ourselves; that is, that in order to give stability to government in Australia there would be merit in having four-year parliamentary terms and simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Opposition was attracted to that proposal as a package. We thought that the proposal for a four-year parliamentary term was the important one. As there could well have been objections to the Senate's having a fixed eight-year term, we were attracted to the proposal for simultaneous elections for both Houses to try to modify the possible effect of the fixed term parliament proposal on the term of the Senate-that of making it excessive. That was the second proposal of the Government, presumably very much a second best proposal as far as the Attorney-General was concerned. But as I have already said, he was already being shown to be of very little consequence as far as the Government was concerned. He was being rolled time and again in regard to various pet hobby-horses of reform, whether constitutional or otherwise. The fact was that the Government was really genuine and honest about the unsuitability, the undesirability of early elections and the need for governments to complete the three-year terms for which they were elected. There was still some sense in the Government's proposal at that stage because a referendum was proposed for February this year. Of course, that would have avoided the need for an election of half the Senate by 30 June 1985 and certainly would have avoided any need at all for the consideration of an early election for the House of Representatives. It would have avoided the need for a half-Senate election by 30 June 1985 and the need for a general election by 1986 . However, shortly after those proposals were debated in the Senate and supported by the Opposition-as I said, because of their package aspect-the attractions of an early election started to become very apparent to the Prime Minister. We know that the Attorney-General is a little slow in catching on to the political realities of the world in which he lives. He was still boring on with semi-ideal solutions. They were very much second or third best, but nevertheless he was still pursuing the academic pipe dreams that stirred him with such enthusiasm. However, again the realists in the Labor Party, particularly the Prime Minister, captive of the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party, at about the time that the Attorney-General was still pursuing his Will-o'-the- wisps of constitutional reform decided that an early election would be very attractive to the Government. They knew that with the breaking of the drought, the improvement in the world trading position, the wage pause and the fact that generally things were improving-which had nothing to do with the Government but was a result of completely external factors-the Government would be in a reasonably happy position. As we have seen from the Budget presented tonight, the economy is now in a reasonably happy position-owing not, of course, to any actions on the Government's part but as a result of fortuitous circumstances-and the Government would be in quite a good position for an election by the end of 1984 or early 1985. What a difficult position-what an unfortunate position-the Attorney-General, with all his pipe dreams and Will-o'-the-wisps, had placed the Government in. We remember all the great proposals for constitutional reform, the ideals and principles about government which so motivated the Attorney-General and, indeed, which the Prime Minister said motivated him, for a time. When faced with the realities of political life the Prime Minister proved fairly quick on the uptake -much quicker than the Attorney-General. At the end of last year the Government was searching around from some excuse to get out of these embarrassing limitations upon total freedom to call an early election whenever it seemed likely, during some temporary period of office, that it would be re-elected with somewhat the same sort of result it had received in March 1983. The Government then had the effrontery to propose that $2.5m of taxpayers' money should be spent by it on the referendum campaign that was then proposed for February this year. Not unnaturally, perhaps, it was deliberately setting up an excuse for not having that referendum. When that proposal hit the light of day, of course, the Opposition together with the Australian Democrats, in a very principled way, opposed the total misuse of taxpayers' moneys in that way. As soon as the strength and principle of the Opposition parties and the Democrats in this chamber defeated the proposal and prevented its going ahead the Government used it as an excuse for abandoning the referendum campaign in February. It provided the Government with just the excuse it was looking for to abandon what had already become a complete embarrassment to the Prime Minister; that is, the need to have a referendum campaign which would have limited-in fact , virtually destroyed-his chances of calling an election at a time which he thought suited him for naked political purposes. That was the end of that proposal. The Government has now introduced not a fixed-term proposal, not a four-year term proposal but a proposal for simultaneous elections to be held. To try to give this some veneer of respectability the Government throws in the interchange of powers proposal. No explanation has been given of why the Government has abandoned the advisory opinions which the Attorney-General thought were so important; no explanation has been given of why it has abandoned the proposals to amend all the outmoded and spent provisions of the Constitution. There are just proposals for simultaneous elections which everybody has always conceded expand further the Prime Ministerial power. There is no doubt whatever that these proposals do limit to some extent the independence of the Senate. They enable the Prime Minister much more easily, without any complications whatever, to call early elections whenever he likes. He does not have the complication he now has of having to have an election for the House of Representatives at any particular time within a term for which the members of the House of Representatives have been elected. Of course there have always been-we recognise this-good arguments against simultaneous election proposals. As I have said, if they had been coupled with some real measure to improve the stability of government in this country, such as a four-year term proposal, we on the Opposition side have said that we would not oppose them. However, we are not prepared now to support a simultaneous election proposal on its own which, as I have said, is a thoroughly naked, stark piece of political cynicism by the Prime Minister and this Government of which the Attorney-General is a pathetic victim. Any Attorney-General who has made such a great business of constitutional reform, who has held up ideals that have motivated him in a political career, who has been rolled ignominiously on his first proposal for fixed term parliaments, who has been rolled even more ignominiously on his third best proposal for a package of four-year terms and simultaneous elections, would have resigned in protest at the cynicism of his colleagues. But not a bit of it, he still sits on the front bench enjoying, presumably, the fruits of office and participates in this total cynicism of the Government about constitutional reform. How can anyone believe any more that this Government is fair dinkum in any shape or form about constitutional reform after this sorry story that I have just unfolded to the Senate? The Opposition will no longer participate with the Government in any ideas about constitutional reform after the way the Government has behaved, after the way the Government has treated this Senate, this Parliament, and the way the Government has treated the Opposition which has until now been prepared to participate in reasonable debate about constitutional reform and to support reasonable action in relation to constitutional reform. As I said, the Opposition is now totally convinced of the dishonest, expedient, partisan approaches of this Government, the total cynicism of this Government, and the Opposition will no longer be part of it. There is also another factor and that is that any government interested in constitutional reform would put its proposals for reform on their own at a referendum, not coupled with an election campaign. On this occasion these proposals for constitutional reform will be put to the electorate at the same time as an election campaign, at a time when people's attention is, of course, devoted to the issues of the Government's record and the Opposition's alternative proposals. Attention is on those issues; it is not on the referendum proposals at all. Presumably the Government thinks that this will assist it in some way in getting these proposals up but it is another example, as I said, of the Government's totally dishonest and cynical approach to constitutional reform . We in the Opposition believe that if the Government were really serious about constitutional reform it would be putting the proposals, as we did in 1977, on their own at a referendum when they can be judged by the people on their own merits and not as part and parcel of an election campaign. The interchange of powers proposal on its own certainly does not justify a referendum. There are provisions in the Constitution for the reference of powers by the States to the Commonwealth. They could well be improved, as I have always conceded. There may be some merit in the proposal of interchange of powers but as I pointed out when this proposal was debated in the Senate in May 1983, it is only for the benefit of governments and politicians. It is of little obvious benefit to the people. As I pointed out to this chamber in May 1983, the real reason why the Government proposed the interchange of powers is that the States will have the power to impose excise duties on their people. The Government supports the interchange of powers so that the States can impose indirect taxes. I think people should be aware of that and I said that at the time. The States have the right to refer powers under the Constitution as it exists. However, they rarely do so because States do not like giving powers away, not because there are any particular doubts or difficulties about referring those powers. I pointed out in the debate in May 1983 that despite the fact that four State governments had said that they would refer powers for the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to the custody of children they never did so in the space of 5 1/2 years. Senator Chaney —The guardian of the Labor Party. The minder of the Labor Party. The friend of criminals. Senator Gareth Evans —There is an exchange going on here courtesy of the Leader of the Opposition-he ought to be the Deputy; he ought to be something less-in which he uttered, a moment ago, the proposition 'friend of criminals', apropos of nothing that I could discern in particular. I regard it as totally offensive and I demand that he withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I did not hear the remark that was made. Will the Leader of the Opposition withdraw it? Senator Chaney —I withdraw it. He asked me to speak up. I withdraw it. Senator DURACK —The proposal for a referendum on the interchange of powers has just been thrown in here for window-dressing, so that the Attorney-General can say: 'We, of course, are here proposing a package of constitutional reform'. As I have said, what utter cynicism has been revealed by this Government in the last 18 months, in its term of office, on that subject. Nobody would ever suggest that we have a referendum on the interchange of powers, or such a matter of minor significance in constitutional reform, as it is, on its own. It has been thrown in here only because the Government wants to give some veneer of respectability to its present proposals, single proposals, for simultaneous elections. Again it is another subject of minor significance so far as constitutional reform is concerned. It is one which was rejected by the Australian people in two previous referendums, in 1974 and 1977, when the simultaneous elections proposal was put on its own without any compensating or improving factors being put in conjunction with it, some more elaborate proposals such as fixed term parliaments or four-year term parliaments. As I have said, the Government is trying to put it up again to give some veneer of respectability to its quite unjustified claims that it believes in constitutional reform. The Opposition is not prepared to take part in this farce any longer. The Government has shown its total cynicism in relation to this matter. It is determined that it will pursue its own total self-interests and have an early election if it judges that that is in its interests. Over the years we have heard all the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General about the evils of early elections and so on and the power of the Prime Minister to call elections. I think they have called it obscene. I think that was one of the favourite words of the Prime Minister. I do not think I can accuse the Attorney- General of using that word. Nevertheless they have constantly criticised what they conceded to be the Prime Minister's power. 'We must curb the Prime Minister 's power', they have said. Here we have this Government bent on preserving prime ministerial power at all costs and at all times. The Government could not care less, if that suits its purpose, that that is the position that exists today. There is nothing in these proposals which lessens prime ministerial power. There is everything in these proposals which increases prime ministerial power and the Opposition will oppose them. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.33) — We are again discussing the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 and cognate Bill dealing with proposed referenda to be conducted in conjunction with the next election which, seemingly from the Budget tonight, will probably be early in December. The two issues that we now have before us are simultaneous elections and the ability of the States and the Federal Government to interchange powers. Both of these matters have been debated before and have been the subject of votes in the Senate on previous occasions. On those occasions and on this occasion the Australian Democrats will be supporting the constitutional amendment Bills which are currently before us on the basis that we have consistently held that the Australian electorate ought to have the opportunity of expressing its views about important matters of constitutional change. That does not canvass the possibilities or the items in themselves but it does say-we have presented to the Senate a Constitution Alteration (Electors Initiative) Bill-that more matters ought to be put to the electorate for its deliberation and its vote. On those bases we will be supporting the Bills. However, on the previous occasion when we were debating the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill there was some discussion in the Committee stage and an amendment was moved by Senator Hill which substantially altered that proposal. Senator Hill —Improved it, I thought. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Hill says that it improved the proposal. We thought it improved the proposal and we supported it and it became part of the Bill which then passed through the Senate. On this occasion I will foreshadow that we are looking at procedural and constitutional possibilities in relation to the simultaneous election Bill. We are still consulting with our advisers on the possibilities of those changes. Of course, the matters in these Bills are complex. A fair amount of care and consideration needs to be taken in providing any rewording which would be necessary. When looking at the simultaneous election Bill and the reasons put forward for it we see that the obvious reason which makes it relatively popular as an issue within the electorate is the notion of fewer elections. However, I believe that, if we look at the Bill and suggest that the bill be carried by the people and become part of the Constitution, we see that we really now do not have any basis upon which to claim that there will be more elections or fewer elections. Essentially, the Bill provides to the Government the ability to call elections. If one looks at the recent history of the times we have had elections-I certainly hope we would not have more elections than we have had in the past 10 years when we have had on average about one every two years or so-one will see that it would be very difficult to have many more elections than we have had in the immediate past. I do not think there is any empirical way of showing that we will have more elections or fewer elections. That would be purely determined by the Government itself. Essentially the simultaneous election proposal provides that the Prime Minister gains considerable power in relation to the disposal of those times. Currently under the Constitution the Prime Minister is able to advise the Governor-General in relation to the House of Representatives. The conventions, if followed, mean that the Governor-General would grant a Prime Minister an election in relation to the House of Representatives on almost every conceivable occasion that a Prime Minister asked for one. However, under the current Constitution, the Prime Minister has considerable difficulty with those sections of the Constitution dealing with the terms of senators. If one looks at the Constitution one sees that the only element of fixed term that is available in our Constitution concerns the terms of senators. I remind the Senate that when the Government came to power, indeed even before the Government came to power, during the election campaign in 1983, the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, announced that his Party, that is, the Liberal Party of Australia, with the National Party of Australia, would seek to hold referenda if returned to power and one of the issues was simultaneous elections. On that occasion the then shadow Attorney- General, and now the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said: There is no question of Labor supporting a four-year simultaneous election referenda unless it also provides for fixed terms. The Democrats enthusiastically supported the proposition put forward by the then shadow Attorney-General, the current Attorney-General that, if one were looking at a simultaneous election proposal, one would necessarily also have to look at a fixed term proposal. The reason for that is obvious. A fixed term proposal removes from the Prime Minister the power that he currently has of taking out the House of Representatives at any time that he so chooses. The fixed term proposal removes the power of the Prime Minister in relation to the timing of elections. The simultaneous election proposal by itself, as is now proposed, gives the Prime Minister total power over not only the House of Representatives but also the Senate. In other words, it is directly contrary to the proposition put by the Australian Labor Party to the electorate when it was elected to office in 1983. This particular proposal has been put to the people twice before: It was put to the people on 18 May 1974 and on 21 May 1977. On both occasions the proposal was defeated. In some ways it seems odd that it was defeated because in the run-up to the 1977 referenda campaign a Morgan gallup poll was published in the Bulletin on 2 April, that is some three weeks prior to the actual time that the people cast their vote, showing opposition to the proposal. It was found that 73 per cent of Queenslanders and 71 per cent of Western Australians would have voted yes to a simultaneous election proposal. However, when one came to the actual event of the casting of the vote, the Queensland percentage was 47.5 per cent and the Western Australian percentage was 48.5. It is difficult to account for the discrepancy in those figures except by referral to the campaign that was conducted at that time. When this matter was raised in the Senate in October last year I made some comments in relation to the questions that were put at that time, to the booklet that was circulated and to some of the arguments that were rehearsed in the media. I suggested, and I stand by my comments, that many of them were hysterical, false and certainly a great number of them were misleading and deceptive. However, the essential ingredient of the proposition on simultaneous elections that the Democrats are opposed to is that it is the exact opposite of a fixed term proposal which empirically will give fewer elections, necessarily must give fewer elections and could be shown to give fewer elections. However, the simultaneous election proposal cannot show anything of the sort. Yet that is the basis upon which it will certainly be tried to be sold to the Australian people. The Democrats have supported the notion of fixed terms because it produces within the electoral climate of a country a predictability that is useful not only politically but also economically. It produces an ability for the Parliament itself to work through a legislative program since it knows of the time of its own demise. It allows the people to have a much more considered view of events, such as we have had tonight, that is Budget events, which cannot then be placed and created specifically to deal with an early election which undoubtedly the Budget tonight was brought in to achieve. Indeed, it does put a pressure upon the Parliament to perform the tasks that the Parliament is supposed to perform. For that reason the Democrats are now looking at some possible amendments to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill which would bring about materially fewer elections. Of course, it is not possible to amend this particular Bill in the way that we would really like since that is a subject matter for a different Bill and hence would, undoubtedly , be ruled as not being able to be operated under the context of this particular piece of legislation. The Senate will remember that we did have a vote on fixed terms. We had a vote to try to keep fixed terms in this House. The only people who voted for fixed terms at that time were the Australian Democrats. If our proposals prove fruitful this time, they will be concerned with the length of time of the terms of senators. We believe that at least that will provide some possibilities of encompassing and taking away from that overweening power that this proposal purports to give and will certainly give to the Prime Minister in the calling of elections. It will give the power that no Prime Minister has ever had over this chamber. It seems to the Australian Democrats that it is moving in quite the wrong direction in terms of constitutional and legislative reform. Reform should be moving in another way. It should be moving to strengthen the parliamentary process, not to put the parliamentary process further under the thumb of the Executive, which is what this proposal undoubtedly does. I believe that the simultaneous election proposal, if presented as constitutional reform, will be laughed at and must be laughed at by anyone who is genuinely concerned with constitutional reform. It should be changed to make the system operate better in the interests of its citizens, not in the interests of its politicians. Essentially, the Democrats support the notion of fixed terms because we believe that it would put more power back into the hands of citizens. The simultaneous election proposal puts all power into the hands of politicians. The other proposal contained in the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill has been rehearsed on previous occasions. I must admit that I was rather surprised at the vehemence of Senator Durack in his response. Senator Gareth Evans —Particularly since he has been supporting it since 1973. Senator MACKLIN —Well, that is the honourable senator's reason. My reason is somewhat different. Looking at the actual Bill, it does not seem to be an issue that one should get oneself into a lather about. Essentially it does not take any powers away from anybody; it allows both the States and the Commonwealth to retain their overriding powers and it allows them to withdraw references if at any stage in the future they wish to do so. I really cannot see why it is even on the legislation. My criticism of the Attorney-General is that it is really not the type of thing that I would have thought was the first proposition. Obviously these are the first propositions that are likely to go to the electorate from this Government that one would want to be looking at as a matter of constitutional reform. It is really a whimp of an operation. It is not a constructive operation in terms of the types of things that the Attorney-General was talking about in the election campaign, such as visions and lights on the hills. It is a proposition which, if the electorate looks at it in terms of what it is doing, must surely get support. It is not something where one would oppose many substantial arguments. I note from the interjection from the Attorney- General that it has had wide support from all political parties and at the various constitutional conventions. Indeed, when one looks at debates of those conventions they have not seemed to be of very much moment. There has been no heated debate on the matter today. Senator Gareth Evans —Where is your historical sense? It was the one triumphal achievement of the original convention in 1973. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, one can even go further. I assume that Senator Durack's position is as pragmatic as is the position of the Attorney-General. In other words, the Opposition parties are saying that if they oppose the first, they must also oppose the second proposition. I think that is selling out the electorate. I believe that the electorate is capable, and has shown itself to be eminently capable in the past, of distinguishing between questions put to it about its own Constitution. The electorate is capable of giving overwhelming support to some propositions and of defeating others. Politicians time and again , by their actions if not by their words, suggest they think that the electorate consists of a mob of fools. Frankly, I believe that the electorate can easily distinguish these matters. I point to the campaigns in which overwhelming support was given to the transfer of powers in relation to Aboriginal affairs from the States to the Commonwealth while at the same time the electorate defeated other proposals. The electorate has taken that course on numerous occasions and I am sure on this occasion will do so again. If the Opposition parties intend to campaign against the first proposition, the Democrats will certainly join them in that campaign. But on the second proposition there is no need to be that derogatory of the electorate. The Opposition parties should stay with their previous propositions and at least allow a modicum of movement to go ahead. Everybody who looks at the constitutional situation in Australia will recognise the position. Surely if one looks at the debate at the last Constitutional Convention in relation to family law, one is pressured to say that it is a necessity that the States and the Commonwealth are able to exchange more of their powers, if they agree. Senator Durack —States can refer that matter. Senator MACKLIN —I know they can, and I have said so on many occasions. I would like to see a vote from the electorate supporting those matters because I want to see some sense entering the area of family law. In innumerable judgments at almost every level of jurisdiction relating to family law judges ask why the Parliaments of this country cannot do something sensible in regard to that body of law. This, I think, is an opportunity to rehearse some of those views in a constructive way in a referenda campaign. We would be engaging in our task of trying to bring forward issues of concern to the electorate, saying that support for this proposal will add impetus to exchange of powers between the States and the Commonwealth. The citizens of this country would say: Why do not the States and the Commonwealth get together more on those issues that are of vital concern to so many people? It seems to me that there are positive things that could come out of this exercise, although the issue itself is fairly insignificant. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition parties, in conducting a campaign against one proposition, will not feel that they must take that view of the electorate and conduct a campaign against the second proposition as well. I hope that fairly soon I shall be in a position to circulate amendments, but at present I wish to draw attention to one other item in the first Bill. It seems to me to be somewhat extraneous to even the proposition of simultaneous elections and it runs foul of the propositions which I have put in past debates, that Bills concerned with changing the Constitution ought to contain within them one question, and one question only, and ought not rehearse other propositions. That is the proposal which at the time I enunciated it met with support from people in both parties. However, one finds within the current Bill a proposition dealing with the seniority of senators. I suggest that is not a matter appropriate to ask in a question which will be dealing only with the long title of the Bill. The question on the ballot paper will be concerned with bringing together the election dates of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the subsequent changes that will be necessary to the Constitution to enable that to operate. That in no way seems to concern itself with the notion of the seniority of senators which up to now has been a matter for the Senate itself to determine. Last year the Senate, in passing amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, included a proposal to enable the Electoral Commissioner to undertake a recount in the event of a double dissolution. That would suggest there were only half the number of those actually in the ballot contesting the election. If one took at that time only five places and recounted the ballot paper, one would then have a view different from that taken in many cases I believe from the way in which seniority is currently organised in the Senate, and has been since 1948 when proportional representation was introduced. If one looks at the changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act one will find that they are not mandatory on the Senate to accept but merely provides the Senate with a set of figures. Senator Peter Rae argued a set of figures that would more accurately reflect a seniority for the Senate. I must admit that I support that position, too. I believe it would more accurately reflect that position, although in terms of my own Party it may not be advantageous to us to adopt that proposition. The Senate itself has used a method of choosing which I believe is not as accurate. I am not rehearsing the actual proposition of what the Senate should have, but dealing with the appropriateness of including it in a simultaneous election proposal at all. I do not believe it should be included. It is extraneous to the matters that we will ask the electorate to vote on, and therefore I believe it ought to be deleted. I will seek, if possible, to move some amendments on that matter in order to delete those sections if that can be done without causing damage to other parts of the Bill. To recapitulate, we will be maintaining the principle that we have enunciated in the past on referenda Bills. We believe that such Bills are for the people to decide and that the Senate and the House of Representatives are the conduit by which the Constitution now allows questions to go to the people for decision. The Democrats have always held that there should be other means by which questions are put to the people. We maintain that proposition. However, that does not and will not stop us, if possible, seeking to amend these Bills in the Committee stage to make them into a proposition that we believe should be more appropriately put to the people. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable senators I table the report of the Special Prosecutor, Ian Temby, QC, into the Age materials dated 20 July 1984, together with a report by the Acting Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr J. C. Johnson, on 'Allegations of Illegal Telephone Interceptions: Inquiries on Behalf of the Special Prosecutor' dated 30 April 1984. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Special Prosecutor, Ian Temby, QC, into the Age materials dated 20 July 1984, and the report by the Acting Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr J. C. Johnson, on ' Allegations of Illegal Telephone Interceptions: Inquiries on behalf of the Special Prosecutor' dated 30 April 1984 presented by the Attorney-General this day. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report and to incorporate the text of the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, Q.C., in his capacity as Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate and prosecute any Federal or Territory offences in relation to the Age materials or their contents, has presented his final Report to me. I take the first opportunity of the present Sittings to table Mr Temby's Report. I should point out that full copies of both Reports have been given already to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and to Mr Justice Stewart in his capacity as Royal Commissioner into Nugan Hand Activities. Making the Reports available to these two bodies as soon as practicable after it became available to the Government was in accordance with the course that was followed in relation to Mr Temby's interim Report, to which I referred in the Senate on 6 June 1984. Copies of the Report have also been provided to the New South Wales Attorney- General's and Justice Department, as the investigations referred to in the Report are part of joint investigations carried out by the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police in relation to the so-called Age materials . I make it clear that the Report tabled tonight is the full Report presented to me by Mr Temby on 20 July, without deletions or editing of any kind. The decision to table the Report in this complete form, together with the attached Report signed by the Acting Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, has not been an easy one to make, and the Government has had to weigh and balance strongly held and argued competing views. On the one hand, the AFP has expressed concern that public release of its own Report would set a precedent for the release of police operational documents of a kind which have not hitherto been made publicly available by any Government, and would have unfortunate consequences for the capacity of the AFP to pursue future inquiries on cases likely to excite public interests. The Government also had to consider the fact that a number of individuals are named in the Report in such a way as to make it possible in practice that, justifiably or not, adverse inferences might be drawn about them. Basic civil libertarian principles demand that the reputations of individuals, and particularly those about whom no adverse findings or recommendations are made, should be given the maximum possible protection. I welcome this report. It is the first part of a report being prepared by a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Waterhouse. When the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service was established in 1982 regard was given to its future continuance. This report is considerable evidence of the fact that the Service produced some very effective results in its first couple of years. Its clients numbered in excess of 3,000. Clearly, this part of the report, which makes quite a number of recommendations, provides a very successful and necessary addition to the circumstances surrounding Vietnam veterans in particular and their problems, both social and economic, in settling into the Australian community to which they so clearly belong. It is quite an extensive, in-depth review and evaluation of the operation of this Service. A number of recommendations are of a structural and administrative nature. Indeed, the final one, if I recall it correctly, suggests the possibility that the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service may well eventually be extended to involve such a service to veterans from all other conflicts in Australia's history and veterans of the defence forces themselves. There seems to be little doubt that many of the problems that confront the Vietnam veterans in this country are in some measure peculiar to them. The yare peculiar perhaps in the sense that it was a conflict in which there was not unanimous support at home for the people involved. It wa a conflict which took place in unusual circumsstances; circumstances in which even one's enemy was extraordinarily difficult to identify. Because of these and other pressing reasons the problems of those men who have returned from that conflict have in some measure differed, certainly in intensity, from the problems of men who have returned from other areas of conflict over the years. I do not need to add to these remarks except to reiterate that the first part of the report of Professor Waterhouse's committee quite clearly indicates that the operation of the COunselling Service is successful. It involves a great number of people who are benefiting from it. Recently I had an opporutnity totalk to members of the Vietnam Veterans COunselling Srvice in Townsville. I was impressed by the amount of work that they did and the sincerity and dedication of the people involved in offering the services in that area. This service has spread to all capital cities, and Townsville. It is probable and, certainly I believe, necessary that its availability to the more remote areas of rural Australia should be a significant consideration for the future. O commend the report to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated by Sessional Orders for the consideration of government papers has expired. In this respect, the Commissioner has expressed his concern to the Government that the tabling of the police report may unfairly bring to public attention personal details and statements of individuals who have been involved in the police inquiry and who are quite innocent of any wrong doing. The Commissioner has also expressed his concern that material provided to the police investigation by many people could be subject to Parliamentary debate without those persons having any right of reply. Against this, on the other hand, the Government had to consider the very strongly held view of the Special Prosecutor that his Report, together with its AFP attachment, should be published in its entirety: that no current or future investigation would be likely to be prejudiced by such publication, and that no other overriding public interest required any part of the Report to be kept confidential. A compromise position initially favoured by the Government was the tabling and publication of the Report with several names (but not those of the Judge or solicitor) excised, and the attached police report deleted entirely, but with the full Report and attachment being made available on a confidential basis to the leaders of the non-Government parties in both Houses. On balance, the Government came to the view that the independence and integrity of the Special Prosecutor should be completely respected and that, despite the reservations felt about doing so, the Report and attachment should be tabled in full. We make it absolutely clear, however, that this should not be regarded as a precedent for the tabling of any police operational document in future. The circumstances associated with the preparation of the present police report have been quite unique, namely oversight throughout the Special Prosecutor pursuant to his statutory responsibilities under the Special Prosecutors Act 1982. Investigations Mr Temby's description of the investigations that were carried out may be summarised as follows: The materials delivered to the Attorney-General by the Age on 1 and 2 February 1984 comprised 524 pages of documents which are, or purport to be, transcripts of telephone conversations, summaries of telephone conversations and profile notes on certain persons, together with four cassette tapes. The documents bear dates within the period from 5 March 1976 to 5 May 1981. The tapes contain no internal evidence as to recording dates. The original source of the documents is not apparent. (Para 6). The Editor of the Age, Mr Creighton Burns, after agreeing to an interview, declined to be interviewed, saying that the Royal Commission should be appointed and that '' 'The Age' had no confidence in the investigation''. (Para 7). The actual material given to the Age, report- edly by Mr Bob Bottom, was provided by Mr Burns. The transcripts received had the same content as those previously received by the Attorney-General, but the tapes received differed in one important respect. They included one conversation which is of some importance in establishing the source of the tapes; this conversation was omitted from the material handed to the Attorney-General and is apparently between a member of the NSW Police Force and a prisoner. (Para 10). The conclusion of the technical expert who was requested to examine the tapes, Mr Don Craig, of Louis Challis and Associates Pty Ltd, was that neither set of tapes comprised an original recording but were copies and that there were examples of editing on each set of tapes. The likelihood is that the original recordings were made on reel-to-reel tapes and reproduced on recording with a mechanical system of operation. Although the expert did not say this, Mr Temby understands that such a system of recording is likely to be used in conjunction with a device used for the surreptitious interception of telephone conversations. The expert has advised that further examination of the tapes appeared to him to be unwarranted; Mr Temby concurs. (Para 11). Mr Bob Bottom declined to be interviewed by the AFP. (Para 14). Information from Mr F. A. Silvester, formerly the Director of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, indicates that Bottom was already in possession of part of the materials by September 1981 (the purported conversation between Mr Morgan Ryan and others between 7 February 1980 and 10 May 1980 and the personal profile notes). (Para 16). The other avenue of investigation that has been closed to Mr Temby is through refusal of a former member of the NSW Police Force to be interviewed by either the AFP or NSW Police. It is Mr Temby's belief that the former officer could assist in further investigations into the source of the materials. (Para 17). All persons who were allegedly parties to the telephone conversations, except the Judge, have declined to be interviewed or to comment on whether the purported telephone conversations took place and whether the content or theme accorded with their recollections. (Paras 18-19). A report received by the senior officer in the NSW component of the Joint Investigating Team contains the general conclusion that the authenticity of the materials is questionable. There is nothing in that report which would assist in laying charges against any individual for any Federal offence. (Para 20). Findings It is important to note the following findings contained in Mr Temby's Report: The Age materials have no present probative value. (Para 25). The voices on the tapes cannot be proved, save to the limited extent to which the Judge has given an acknowledgment which however would not be of any assistance on the question of authenticity. (Paras 22, 25). It is not possible to prove that the tapes or transcripts, or any part of them, are of actual telephone conversations. (Para 25). Mr Temby is satisfied that, if there were intercepts of telephone conversations , they were not authorised under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. (Para 21). Conclusions and Recommendation I come now to Mr Temby's main conclusions in the Report: He states that he has sought to detect all offences against Federal laws and finds that (apart from the question of telephone intercepts) there is nothing that warrants a charge or further investigation. (Paras 27, 30). Other possible offences which appear from the contents of the material are matters of State law with which Mr Temby is not concerned. (Para 27). Mr Justice Stewart, in his capacity as a Royal Commissioner, is investigating matters arising from part of the transcript material. In the course of that investigation, it seems likely that he will inquire into the circumstances in which the transcripts and tapes were made. (Para 28). In particular, Mr Temby has noted (para 27) that the investigation of certain matters referred to in the interim Report has been completed and in no case is the laying of a charge warranted. The matters were itemised in the interim Report as follows: ''Suggestion that charges in the A.C.T. were 'watered down' from $100,000 to $9 ,000 Suggestion that improper assistance had been given to two medical practitioners in Medifraud matters The possible 'fixing' of a case in the A.C.T.'' Recommendation I come now to the specific recommendation that Mr Temby makes in his report. He notes in para 31 that the question of possible offences against Federal law could be taken further by some body or person having coercive powers, and that both the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and Mr Justice Stewart, as Royal Commissioner, have such powers. His recommendation is that the matter be left as it is until Mr Justice Stewart and the Senate Committee have completed their respective tasks. He stated that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining his appointment as Special Prosecutor, which expired on 21 July 1984. He has pointed out that, in the event that there is sufficient evidence to enable charges to be laid, he would not hesitate to do so in his principal capacity as Director of Public Prosecutions. That completes the description of Mr Temby's Report. I would like to acknowledge the professional, expeditious and impartial manner in which Mr Temby carried out the responsibilities of Special Prosecutor in this matter. Government's Response The Government has accepted Mr Temby's recommendation in toto. In this regard, I have already indicated that Mr Temby's Report was forwarded as soon as practicable to the Senate Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, as well as to Mr Justice Stewart as Royal Commissioner. The Government will be studying carefully the report of the Senate Committee as soon as it is available. I shall be introducing as soon as possible an amendment of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to clearly enable Mr Justice Stewart to investigate the Age materials that have been referred to him. The Act as it stands at present does not, technically speaking, allow unlawfully obtained intercepts to be used for any purpose, not even for the purpose of inquiring whether or not an offence has been committed against the Act. As to the question of any possible offences against State law, I have already indicated that copies of the report have been provided to the New South Wales Attorney-General's and Justice Department. By virtue of sections 26 and 27 of the Commissioner of Public Complaints Act 1984 of New South Wales, the Age materials are in effect the subject of a statutory reference to the Commissioner under which he is to give due consideration, first of all as to whether any or all of the materials has been authenticated. If, having done that, any matter in the materials appears to the Commissioner to be capable of being the subject of, and to be appropriate to be dealt with as, a complaint under that Act, then the Act applies to the matter as though it were a complaint under that Act. It has been indicated to the New South Wales Government that the Commonwealth Government would have no objection to Mr Temby's Report being provided to the Commissioner for this purpose. Finally on this aspect, I wish to state categorically that the Government would reject any proposal that Mr Temby's Report justifies or requires a special Royal Commission be appointed in relation to the Age materials. Mr Temby makes no such recommendation, but in any case the matter is one for the Government to decide. The Government believes that the investigations already made by or under the Special Prosecutor, and the investigations and consideration made or being undertaken by Mr Justice Stewart and the Senate Select Committee between them amply cover all significant issues requiring investigation at this stage. Comments By way of comment, firstly I can only repeat what I said on the first day of the autumn sittings. The most worrying aspect of this whole matter continues to be the massive indifference to illegality and invasion of privacy which has surrounded this affair; and, associated with that, the profound indifference, even cynicism, with which illegality and privacy invasion has been greeted by some members of the media and Opposition spokesmen. The reputations of individuals have been slandered in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland and, under privilege based on those Parliamentary statements, by the media. The damage and injury done to the targets of what has patently been an orchestrated, co-ordinated campaign is to a significant extent irretrievable, and would have been known to be irretrievable. Six months later, the question of authenticity remains. The dubious status of the material has not really changed since I referred to it in my statement on 28 February. The material remains anonymous and unauthenticated. I referred in that statement to a belief by the Age that the materials had been received from some source in the NSW Police Force. Mr Temby's Report notes in paragraph 10 that a tape omitted from the materials passed by the Age to me but subsequently made available to Mr Temby is of some importance in establishing the source of the tapes. It seems to increase the likelihood that the tapes emanated from elements within the NSW Police Force. However, I point out that Mr Temby goes on in paragraph 20 to state: ''It would be idle for me to express any view as to whether the materials or any part of them were prepared by elements within the New South Wales Police Force. I make specific mention of that possibility because it is treated in some circles as a received truth that the materials emanated from that general source . What matters for present purposes is proof, not speculation.'' Finally, notwithstanding the difficulties of proof, I note the statement by Mr Temby, Q.C., that, in the event that there is sufficient evidence to enable charges to be laid, Mr Temby will not hesitate to do so in his principal capacity of Director of Public Prosecutions. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate take note of the report and statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTERCHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.02) —I wish to speak to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984. I do not wish to speak for long; the material is well known to us. It might be said that we went through all of this discussion not so long ago. To date the Government's record on constitutional change has been disappointing. We were said to have a constitutional reformist as an Attorney-General. To date I believe that it can fairly be said that he has let down his supporters badly. It is interesting to note that, according to the speaking list tonight, not one member of the Government is prepared to speak in support of the Bill of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Let us examine why that might be the case. Last year we debated a Bill proposing a fixed term for the House of Representatives. I supported that Bill. It was an imaginative and worthwhile constitutional reform. I thought that it could and probably would result in fewer elections and would facilitate holding simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. I support that principle for obvious reasons-economic advantages, cost savings and convenience to government and the electors. Probably the most important reason for supporting it is that the reform would force a government to govern in both good times and bad. Over a year ago I said in my contribution to the debate on that Bill that the legislation would stop Prime Ministers assessing a time for an election simply because it was the time at which the governing party would be most likely to be returned to office. I said that the legislation would, therefore, enable the public to assess a government's performance during the whole of its three-year term, which is desirable. I said that the legislation would remove uncertainty about and speculation on early polls, which I think all Australians believe is damaging to business and the general conduct of affairs in this country. As I said, that was a potentially courageous reform, and I still believe it to be so. What did the Government do with that legislation? The Government went to water. It failed to have the courage of its convictions. It never gave the people the opportunity to express their views on that proposal. I believe that that platform has been removed from the Labor Party's policy and that it has fallen into the too-hard basket. That action by an Attorney-General who, we were told was to be a reformist one, can be described only as most disappointing. Not so long ago there was a whole series of Bills for constitutional change, including the so-called Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 and the legislation on advisory opinions, exchange of powers and four-year terms. The Senate put a great deal of work into debating those Bills and, on occasions, improving them. I refer modestly to the small improvement to the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983 to which I contributed through an amendment. On that occasion the Senate did its job. I supported some of the Bills and opposed others. We believed, as did all members of the Parliament, that we would go to the people with the legislation and that they would have an opportunity to consider it and to make a determination according to the Constitution's provisions. The Government set a date for the referenda and started to expend money on them . It purchased the paper to prepare the for and against cases under the provisions of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act. The Government properly said at that stage that it would give the people of Australia an opportunity to make a decision. The Government, however, decided to abuse the referendum process by financially supporting only the Yes case. It decided to spend $1.25m on the Yes case. Clearly that was contrary to the spirit of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, which enables Yes and No cases to be prepared and information on them distributed at public cost. Fortunately, the Senate managed to stop that abuse. What was the reaction of the Government and the Attorney-General? They decided that if the people heard both sides of the argument and if there were equal government spending on both the Yes side and the No side of the case or if there were no spending on either side of the case the people might decide in a way contrary to the Government's wish. In those circumstances, the Government again decided not to proceed. It decided that the people should not be given the opportunity to make a choice. That was an example of what might be called democracy in action. The referenda proposals were withdrawn. That was very disappointing to those who were looking to this Attorney-General and this Government to match their promises on constitutional reform. The Attorney-General has come back with two of the Bills. He decided to reintroduce them in the Senate and said that they will be put to the people at the next election. One might be excused for being somewhat unsure about whether that will occur, even if the legislation passes through both Houses of Parliament. Why does the Government now propose to put these issues at the time of a general election? The reasons are obvious. The first reason is that this action can be fairly described as an attempt to snow the issues, to camouflage the referenda issues and to bury them within the general election campaign. That action is disappointing because it was not the way in which we understood the Government would act. The Government said that it would give the people a fair opportunity to assess alternatives for constitutional reform. The second reason why the Government is putting the proposals to the people at the general election rather than well in advance of the election is that the Government does not want any argument. The Government's argument for the unnecessary early election is that it wants to put the elections for both Houses back into synchronisation. Of course, if it puts through these referenda at an early date it runs the risk of losing that argument. So it is really a quite cynical approach. Therefore, I assess that the methodology of what the Government is attempting to do has little about it that is honourable. However, that leads me to look briefly at the content of what is proposed in this so-called simultaneous elections Bill. On the last occasion it was before the Senate I opposed it, and the reasons I opposed it then are the reasons I will again oppose it. It is dressed up to be a simultaneous elections Bill but if one reads the title one will see that it gives a hint as to its real purpose. The title reads: An Act to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly . The hint comes at the tail of that description, in the words 'to adjust the terms of senators'. This Bill is really intended to abolish fixed terms for the Senate and to give the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the same control over the Senate as he now has over the House of Representatives. That power is to terminate the Senate term at his will simply by calling an early election for the House of Representatives. Therefore, all the advantages of a fixed term which I argued for in relation to the first Bill of this sequence which was put a year or so ago and which the Senate now has would be lost. The Prime Minister would take control of the Senate in a way he has never been able to before. I do not believe that is in the best interests of the Australian people. I will look briefly at the arguments that the Attorney used for the Bill in his second reading speech. First, he said that by eliminating separate half-Senate elections the numbers of elections would be reduced. I remind the Senate that since Federation there have been only six House of Representatives elections and four Senate-only elections. So since Federation there have been very few single House elections. That might be compared with the number of simultaneous elections. There have been 21 House and half-Senate elections and an additional six House and full-Senate elections. Later this year, of course, we will have another simultaneous election. So the reduction in the number of elections is likely to be small. In fact it might be argued that, once the fixed term for the Senate has gone, it will be sufficiently tempting for the Prime Minister on future occasions to pull the Senate out earlier than three years and the ultimate result could therefore be more elections rather than fewer. Therefore, the first argument put by the Attorney in his speech I find far from convincing. Secondly, the Attorney said that the elections being eliminated are unnecessary half-Senate elections which are unnecessary in that they do not affect who will govern Australia. But as I have said, there have been only four such elections since Federation. There have been very few of these so-called unnecessary elections. Therefore, that argument is not particularly strong. I accept that there are too many elections in Australia, but that is because Prime Ministers increasingly do not serve their full terms; they go to the people early. I think the average federal term in this country is about 2.4 years, and that is not going to be changed by this Bill. Simultaneous elections are desirable, but under the Constitution they are provided for now. Most elections are now simultaneous and if Prime Ministers would serve their full terms all elections would be simultaneous. In other words, this Bill is not needed for that purpose. The Attorney also says that the proposal will ensure that the composition of the Senate reflects the current wishes of the people. I remind the Senate that under the current Constitution there will be an election for half the Senate every three years and that that, by comparative international standards, is a very short term. Therefore, the Senate will always be reasonably temporarily reflective of the position existing in Australia. So again that argument seems to have very little merit. Lastly, the Attorney says that it will provide greater accountability of the Senate to the extent that senators will have to face the people if the senators' actions lead to a premature House of Representatives election. That, I believe, is getting to the nub of the question. We all know what that means. If the Attorney-General were seriously interested in the situation in which Supply was refused by the Senate, he would support Senator Rae's Bill whereby in that situation both Houses would go to the people. But he will not. What he really means by that statement is that when the Prime Minister wants to go to the people and to look to the Senate to justify what he is doing, he should have the opportunity to do so. I want to look briefly at some of the achievements of this Senate over the last year and at the reaction of the Prime Minister to those achievements, which I think will indicate really what this Bill is all about. If one looks at the achievements of the Senate over the last year and at the role of the Opposition, particularly in the Senate, it will be seen that it has fairly and properly acted as a House of review. It has been able to highlight defects in government legislation which would otherwise have been imposed on the Australian people. I touch upon only a few: Labor's attempts to get through the Senate retrospective tax legislation in relation to bottom of the harbour schemes and more recently in relation to superannuation funds; its handling of the proposed assets test when the Opposition was able to highlight glaring anomalies and inequities after it was announced in the last Budget. We heard from the Government that the Senate was hindering and obstructing what the Government proposed to do, until on 22 February the Prime Minister said at the National Press Club that really what the Senate was about was accurate; there were anomalies and the proposals should be returned to a committee for further consideration. The lump sum superannuation proposals were held up by the Senate against an outcry by the Government, but that delay resulted in improvements. We remember that the Attorney-General absolutely condemned the role of the Opposition in referring the National Crime Authority legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Reform and then, after that report had been put down by the Committee, he congratulated the Committee upon its work and , as a result, took up a number of its recommendations; and a better Bill has resulted. The Sex Discrimination Bill was held up by the Senate which led the Government itself to bring in 53 of its own amendments, thereby acknowledging that the Bill was deficient and needed gross improvement. How does Prime Minister Hawke assess what the Senate has been doing in this regard, the constructive role it has been playing? He was quoted in the Age of 16 December 1983 as saying: I've had enough of this recalcitrant Senate blocking the will of the Government . I am not going to be in a situation . . . where we are dictated to as the democratically elected Government by the mish-mash of opposing forces in this country. If they think they can determine the pattern of the Government, then they have another think coming. That is what this so-called simultaneous elections Bill is all about-this Prime Minister wanting to be able to condemn the Senate for doing its job well and then taking the Senate to the people in the hope of gaining a majority and reducing it to a toothless tiger. I am pleased that that opinion is not just mine. I refer to the well-known commentator Malcolm Mackerras who in Notes on the News on 1 February 1984 said about this proposal: In the case of so-called 'Simultaneous Elections' my view is that this is quite the most dishonest proposal ever put to the Australian people; the public case in its favour is a series of lies, and it has already been twice rejected, in 1974 and 1977. It is not the purpose of that proposal to give the Australian people the benefit of joint elections for the two houses. Its purpose is to give more power to the Prime Minister and to weaken the independence of the Senate. The great protection that the Senate has is its separation from the manipulative power of the Prime Minister through having a fixed term. I refer to Odgers in Australian Senate Practice, 1976, as the leading commentator and Australian authority in the field. He said: All free systems of parliamentary government acknowledge the need for checks and balances against any concentration of unbridled power and, so far as the Australian system is concerned, the Senate is the most important of the constitutional checks and balances. That check and balance would be largely lost if control were passed to the Prime Minister, in the same way that he controls the House of Representatives. In those circumstances, I trust that this Bill will be defeated and that that event will not come to pass. If the Bill is not defeated by this Parliament, I trust that it will be rejected by the Australian people later this year. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.21) —I rise to support my colleague Senator Macklin and, indeed, Senator Hill in the matter of the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984. The Australian Democrats believe that in this referendum the people are being sold a bill of goods, to use the American expression. It is a deceptive proposition which, no doubt, will be put to the people on the basis that it will create fewer elections in Australia, whereas in fact it is quite likely to create more elections in Australia. There is no saving to the people. This is, indeed, really just part of a long term, long running campaign on the part of the Australian Labor Party to destroy the Senate and its powers in whatever way it can. It has reached the stage at which it cannot destroy the Senate without the approval of the Senate. Whilst the situation remains that the Government does not control the Senate, I believe that honourable senators will not willingly contribute to the destruction of the powers of this House. The simultaneous elections referendum might be acceptable, and probably would be acceptable to the Australian Democrats, if it also included a fixed term. Without that, it is really just a mechanism for manipulating both Houses of this parliament, for permitting the Prime Minister, as has been said in this debate earlier-I reiterate it; I believe it and agree with it-to be able to manipulate the Senate, to control the Senate in just the way in which the House of Representatives is controlled now. There could be those who would say: 'Perhaps this is a good idea'. A while ago I heard an honourable senator, who is not now in the chamber, say 'Hear, hear' when a quotation of an earlier Prime Minister was read out, talking about an obstructive Senate, and things of that kind. But is the Senate really obstructive? What is its value to the Australian people? Would it be of value to the Australian people if we had a situation, as the Labor Party would no doubt wish us to have, in which we had a single House, not a genuine people's House but a House still elected on the ancient single member constituency system? There is no way in the world in which the House of Representatives can be called the people's House. It is not that at all. It is a House in which 49 per cent of the people are not represented by someone for whom they voted. Let us be absolutely clear on that point. If there is a people's House, this House, the Senate, resembles it far more closely, because at least it is elected on a basis of proportional representation. It has its powers, and it has assumed the unique role that it is assuming now in the Australian parliamentary system because of that. It allows groupings in the community which are not, perhaps, 49 per cent or 50 per cent supported, to be represented in this Parliament. Is it necessarily a good thing that the only representation in a House of Parliament should be a party which can gain 48 per cent or 50 per cent of the vote? I do not believe so. I do not believe that any idea of democracy can be taken so far as to assert that a minority in the community, even a large minority, ought to be ignored. Let us, then, look at the Senate. Has the Senate, in the view of the Australian people, been exercising its powers improperly? Is it a place which deserves to be curbed? I believe not. I believe that in every election since the Australian Democrats have held the balance of power in the Senate there has been a significant differential between the votes for the Australian Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. In other words, in the last election the vote in the Senate for the Australian Democrats was roughly double that in the House of Representatives. I believe that is because the Australian people have begun to understand the value and importance of the Senate as a House of review and its value to them as a watch dog. I think the point has to be got through to governments constantly that we cannot have a democratic system under circumstances in which a dozen Bills can be forced through late at night by the use of the gag and the guillotine. The politics of exhaustion were used frequently in this Parliament as they were in other parliaments before governments lost control of the Senate. By and large matters are now debated in this House. This is the only House of this Parliament in which matters are fully debated. In the other House debate continues only so far as the Government and the Executive are prepared to tolerate and it is then cut off. Is that democratic? Of course not. It is approaching dangerously and perilously the dictatorial situation. I think the people and the media of this country appreciate and understand that. They do not want that situation to return. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who is sitting in the chamber at the moment, are not coming to us now and saying that they are going to put a fixed term in this proposition. During the time of the Fraser Government a large amount of the time of the Senate was devoted to the private member's Bill of the then shadow Attorney-General which in itself was a Bill designed, even at that stage rather impudently I felt, to castrate this House and which was very properly amended thoroughly. But what was left after that? Virtually what was left was the concept of fixed terms. The Attorney-General was the first person to support it. Now we have the situation where presumably some sort of dictatorial view has been taken in the Executive that this is a bad thing. That takes me to my next point: The Australian people are not allowed to consider matters which they might wish to consider. The only matters which are put to referendum in this country are matters which the Government wishes to be put to referendum and only in the terms which it wishes to put to referendum. That is not democratic either. It is an absolute farce of democracy. It is rubbish. It is a reason why virtually every referendum that is put to the Australian people is thrown out. They recognise those referenda as a kind of contemptuous bone thrown to the unfortunate dog of the Australian constituency. The Government itself holds the whip hand and it decides what it wants to put to referendum. Then it comes to us with crocodile tears and says: 'Our proposition was thrown out'. I assure the Attorney that this one will be thrown out. I understand that the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia will be campaigning against it. I assure him that the Australian Democrats will be campaigning against it too. Because of our belief in consultation, we would not allow a situation to arise in which we would willingly vote against a matter being put to a referendum of the Australian people. We have some faith in the discretion of the Australian people to make decisions for themselves on matters of this kind. I think they are going to see through this one. I think the Government realises the perilous weakness of its situation. It realised it when it came to us with the preposterous suggestion that it should spend a huge amount of money only on the Yes case. What a delightful democratic precedent that was! Just think what problems it might have caused in the future. A future government could say: 'But we had the precedent of the Hawke Government not giving equal weight to matters put to the people by referendum because it made a subjective judgment on what they should think'. I have heard the Attorney -General get up in this Parliament and say that virtually the people might not be able to think right about it, so he has to go on television at a cost to public revenue and tell them what he thinks they should think. That is a very dangerous thing. It is something which we would not tolerate and on which the Senate showed one of its chief values to the Australian people by throwing it out. I give the Government fair notice that if any such ridiculous proposition is put here again it will be thrown out. I might say that the public reaction I got when we threw that one out was one of universal congratulation from the community. We got a lot of letters on that. All of them condemned the Government and all of them supported the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for throwing out that absurd proposition. So I hope the Attorney has learnt better than to raise that matter again. Senator Gareth Evans —It was a raging populist cause of six letters, was it? Senator MASON —No, I do not say it was a raging populist cause. I just say that it was somewhere where the Attorney put his foot wrong and, I think, where he put his foot wrong morally and philosophically as well as practically. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers are presented: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 176. Aboriginal Development Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 135. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 187. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 188. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 125, 127, 189. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1984-No. 5-Quarterly Collection of Local Government Data. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rule of Court-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 110. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 164. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1984- L3-Quality Assurance Programmes and Inspections-Live-stock. MQ8-High Quality Beef to EEC-1984 Control Scheme. Australian National University Act-Statutes-No. 173-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment No. 19. Banking Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 111, 168. Bankruptcy Act-Rule-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 155. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 130. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 123. Commonwealth Banks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 160. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 133, 134, 192. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 121, 122, 165, 166. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determinations 1984-Nos 1, 2. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 163. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 147. Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 175. Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 128, 137, 191. Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 124. Defence Act-Determinations 1984- No. 22-Pay of Reserve Force Members. No. 23-Cadet Forces Allowances. No. 24-In Port Allowance and another. No. 25-Pay of Reserve Force Members. No. 26-Flying Allowance. No. 27-Outfit Allowance and another. No. 28-Indonesia Living Allowance. No. 29-Flying Allowance and others. No. 30-Special Royal Navy Allowance Paid to RAN Members Posted to and Serving in Britain. No. 31-Diving Allowance. No. 32-Living Out Allowance. No. 33-District Allowance and others. No. 34-District Allowance and others. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 119, 151, 152, 153, 154, 177, 178, 182. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 146. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 118, 185, 186. Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 149, 150. Environment (Financial Assistance) Act-Agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland with respect to the conservation of bridled nailtail wallaby and its habitat-Project related to the Environment ( 1984), dated 6 June 1984. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 126. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 159. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 139. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices- No. 123A-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 123 -Prohibition relating to the taking of scallops from proclaimed waters in Banks Strait. No. 123B-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 123 as varied by Fisheries Notice No . 123A-Prohibition relating to the taking of scallops from proclaimed waters in Banks Strait. No. 125-Prohibition relating to the taking of rock lobster from an area within Torres Strait. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 167. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 109, 162. High Court of Australia Act-Proclamation-Amendments to the High Court of Australia Building and Precincts Directions for Regulating the Conduct of Persons, dated 13 June 1984. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 172. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 194. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (5) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 120. Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 129 . Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 193. Meat Inspection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 115, 116. National Crime Authority Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 132. National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 148, 161, 169. Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 173. Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 114. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1984-Postal (Staff) (Amendment) No. 1. Public Service Act- Appointment- Department of Social Security-Ms C. Carter. Determinations- 1984-Nos 16, 17, 18. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 112, 131, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 174. Radiocommunications-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 184. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Chiropractors Registration. Dentists Registration. Surveyors. Veterinary Surgeons'. Ordinances 1984- No. 19-Remuneration (Amendment). No. 20-Health Commission (Amendment). No. 21-Unlawful Games. No. 22-Liquor (Amendment). No. 23-Lotteries (Amendment). No. 24-Poker Machines Control (Amendment). No. 25-Police Offences (Amendment). No. 26-Pool Betting (Amendment). No. 27-Rates (Amendment). No. 28-Sewerage Rates (Amendment). No. 29-Sewerage Rates (Amendment No. 2). No. 30-Surveyors (Amendment). No. 31-Water Rates (Amendment). No. 32-Crimes (Amendment). No. 33-Notaries Public. No. 34-Testamentary Guardianship. No. 35-Community Development Fund (Amendment). No. 36-Civil Liability (Animals). No. 37-Pounds (Amendment). No. 38-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products). No. 39-City Area Leases (Amendment). No. 40-Dentists Registration (Amendment). No. 41-New South Wales Acts Application. No. 42-Health Commission (Amendment) (No. 2). Regulations 1984- No. 14-(Poker Machine Control Ordinance). No. 15-(Police Offences Ordinance). No. 16-(Surveyors Ordinance). No. 17-(Dentists Registration Ordinance). No. 18-(Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance). Specifications of Fees made under the Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance, dated 30 July 1984. Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 179, 181. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of- Queensland, dated 21 June 1984. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 1 July 1984. States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 138. Stevedoring Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 170. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 171. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 113, 136, 156, 157, 183 , 190. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 158. Transfer of Prisoners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 180. Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 195. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 117. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATION-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General are presented, notifying that His Excellency has proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Act 1984- Provisions other than sections 1 and 2-6 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 262, 5 July 1984) Commonwealth Banks Amendment Act 1984-29 June 1984 (Gazette S 241, 28 June 1984 ) Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Act 1984-1 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984) Judiciary Amendment Act (No. 2) 1984-section 7-1 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 231, 22 June 1984) Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984-Part II and sections 31 and 33-20 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 276, 19 July 1984) National Crime Authority Act 1984-1 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984) Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1983-Sections 78, 79, 85 and 87 and 95-30 June 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984) sub-section 4 (1), sections 15, 19, 20, 23 and 24, sub-section 25 (2), sections 26, 29, 31, 32 and 33, sub-section 34 (2) and sections 35 to 40, 42, 60, 62, 70 and 73, 1 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984) Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendments Act 1980-Sub-sections 5 (1) and (4), sections 14, 15, 23 and 36 and sub-sections 37 (1), (2), (3) and (4)-30 June 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984) sections 22, 25 and 42 and sub- section 45 (8)-14 June 1984 (Gazette No. S 218, 13 June 1984) Public Service Reform Act 1984-Sub-sections 5 (1), (2), (3) and (9), sections 6 , 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 27 and 51, sub-sections 52 (1) and 57 (1), sections 58, 60, 62 and 78, sub-section 80 (1), sections 81, 89 to 93, sub-sections 97 (2 ) and 99 (1) and (4), sections 101 and 102, sub-sections 109 (3) and 110 (1) and 127 (1) and (3), sections 128, 134 to 136, sub-sections 151 (1), (2) and (9) and section 158- 1 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984)-sub-sections 5 (7) and 110 (2)- 2 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984) 20 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 June 1984)-sections 10 and 150 and sub-sections 152 (1)-20 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 276, 19 July 1984) Quarantine Amendment Act 1984-sections 20 to 22-1 August 1984 (Gazette No. S 291, 30 July 1984) Sex Discrimination Act 1984-1 August 1984 (Gazette No. S 264, 6 July 1984) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1984-Section 6 and the amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973 made by the Act-1 August 1984 ( Gazette No. S 288, 26 July 1984)-Amendments of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 made by the Act-2 July 1984 (Gazette No. S 245, 29 July 1984) Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983-1 August 1984 (Gazette No. S 292, 30 July 1984) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 543) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) (2) (a) (2) (b) Australian Capital Territory Task Force on Self-Government 14 3 Australian Capital Territory International Youth Year Steering Committee 2 Nil Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee 8 2 Australian Capital Territory Asbestos Advisory Committee Nil Nil Australian Capital Territory Occupational Health and Safety Committee Nil Nil ACTION Liaison Committee Nil Nil (1) (b) Australian Capital Territory Racecourse Development Fund Committee Nil Nil Board of Inquiry into Poker Machines Nil 3 Inter-departmental Committee to Consider Report by the Advisory Council on Inter-Governmental Relations on Local Government Responsibilities and Resources Nil Nil Advisory Committee on the Disabled in the Australian Capital Territory Nil 2 Australian Capital Territory International Youth Year Co-ordinating Committee Nil 3 Housing, Branch Advisory Committee Nil Nil (Question No. 544) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support , upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Additional Authority, Committee, Bureaus et cetera staff 1 (a) GAF Task Force Nil Murad Implementation Committee 2 (a) 6 Ordnance Factory Working Group Nil Working Group on Costing, Pricing and Financial Management Nil Factory Autonomy Working Group Nil Equal Employment Opportunities Policy Committee Nil Central Computing Advisory Committee Nil Department of Defence Support Computing Policy Committee Nil Internal Audit Committee Nil Defence Industry Development Committee 2 (b) 4 1 (b) Board of Management for Munitions * Board of Management for Defence Aerospace * Board of Management for Defence Shipbuilding * Augmented Dockyard Steering Group Nil * The three Boards of Management will be serviced by the same four officers proposed for the Defence Industry Development Committee. NB: All of these initiatives have been accommodated within existing staff ceilings. (Question No. 650) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) What are the criteria required for Category 2 hospitals under Medicare. (2) Does the Neerim District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Gippsland satisfy the criteria for Category 2 hospitals. (3) Will the Minister for Health provide a detailed explanation why the Neerim District Soldiers' Hospital in Gippsland is classified in Category 3. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(3) The original criteria relating to the categorisation of private hospitals were contained in the order and principles published in Commonwealth of Australia Special Gazette No. S 30 dated 1 February 1984. All private hospitals were provided with copies of the Gazette. The principles required that for categorisation purposes the characteristics of a hospital shall be ascertained in respect of in-patients, discharges and daily bed payments by reference to the period of 12 months commencing on 1 July 1982. The order stated that Category 2 hospitals would consist of those hospitals which had the following characteristics- (i) more than 15 per cent of discharges and daily bed payments under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (other than discharges and daily bed payments in respect of nursing home type patients) in respect of surgical or maternity patients and (ii) less than 35 per cent of daily bed payments under that Act in respect of nursing home type patients. The order also gave me a discretionary power to categorise a hospital other than in accordance with a hospital's characteristics. However, the exercise of the discretionary power was limited by the order to those instances where a hospital had been the subject of a recommendation by the Minister for Health of a State. A replacement order published in Commonwealth Gazette No. S 112 on 22 March 1984, a copy of which was sent to all hospitals, stated that Category 2 hospitals would, from that date, consist of those hospitals that- (a) have- (i) more than 15 per cent of discharges and daily bed payments under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (other than discharges and daily bed payments in respect of nursing home type patients) in respect of surgical or maternity patients and (ii) not more than 50 per cent of daily bed payments under that Act in respect of nursing home type patients. (b) have been the subject of the exercise of the Minister's discretionary power , as previously described; or (c) are psychiatric hospitals having more than 70 approved beds. The relevant statistics for Neerim, according to my Department's records, were as follows for 1982-83: 10 per cent of discharges and 14 per cent of daily bed payments were in respect of surgical or maternity patients. 10 per cent of daily bed payments were in respect of nursing home type patients . These figures did not qualify the hospital for Category 2 as the surgical/ maternity bed days and discharges did not exceed 15 per cent. The manager of the hospital subsequently requested me to review the category of the hospital because he believed that the utilisation statistics collected by the hospital met the criteria for Category 2. He was asked to submit the names and details of hospitalisation of all patients accommodated during the specified period so that a check could be made against the Department's records. It was subsequently established that claims for a substantial number of bed days during 1982-83 had either not been submitted by the hospital or had been claimed for at an incorrect rate. My Department then sent a letter to the hospital giving a detailed analysis of the discrepancies and the manager was asked to claim for outstanding bed days and to request an adjustment for the bed days which had been claimed for at an incorrect rate. This request was complied with and adjusted Departmental records for the hospital for the 1982-83 period now show 15.1 per cent for surgical/ maternity discharges and 20.8 per cent for surgical/maternity bed days. Recent figures for the period 1 August 1983 to 31 January 1984 show that the hospital had 16.1 per cent surgical/maternity bed days and 15.3 per cent surgical/ maternity discharges. As these figures qualified the hospital for Category 2, I then consulted with the State Health Minister, giving details of the hospital's latest statistics and seeking his views about reclassifying the hospital. Mr Roper recently advised that he had no objection to the hospital being reclassified and Neerim has consequently been classified as Category 2 with effect from 7 June 1984. (Question No. 764) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Is Australian National Railways Commission (ANRC) planning to focus its railway workshop activities in South Australia more on one particular site in future compared with the present position of operating workshops at Port Augusta , Petersborough and Islington. (2) What is the future of the locomotive and rolling stock workshops at Peterborough, Port Augusta and Islington. (3) Is it planned in future to maintain employment at current levels in those workshops; if not, what changes in employment levels are envisaged. (4) Does the ANRC plan to establish completely new railway workshops in the Adelaide metropolitan area; if so, is the cost of this project to be in excess of $20m and what are the reasons for the project. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has been continuously rationalising its workshop activities since the amalgamation of the systems in 1978. This has meant a reduction in the number of staff employed at the workshops in Port Augusta, Peterborough and Islington. No. employed No. employed March 1978 May 1984 Islington 1 328 1 025 Port Augusta 937 699 Peterborough 175 89 I am advised that this process of rationalisation is still continuing. While the basic role of the Port Augusta and Islington workshops will remain unchanged AN is reviewing further rationalisation of workshop activity between Port Augusta and Islington. The Peterborough workshops will also continue present operations subject to periodic reviews of capacity and efficiency. AN has advised that a review it has carried out on these workshops recently has suggested that they are uneconomic compared to Port Augusta and Islington. (3) Further rationalisation of workshop activities will inevitably mean further changes to the levels of employment at AN's workshops. The future levels of staffing will depend on the level of business undertaken by AN and the efficiency of the workshops in undertaking maintenance and construction works. It is also AN's policy to inform employees of likely changes in employment levels and to hold consultations with unions prior to effecting changes. (4) Provision of new rolling stock maintenance facilities at a site adjacent to the Islington workshops is currently under investigation. The estimated cost of this project is approximately $5.6m and a decision by AN in support of the project will depend upon the financial assessment of alternatives made as part of this investigation. (Question No. 770) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) Did Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) indicate in its 1980-81 annual report that four DC9-30 aircraft were surplus to requirements and that the remaining eight would be updated. (2) Were three or four DC9-30 aircraft subsequently sold. (3) If four aircraft were not sold as planned what was the reason for the change. (4) How many DC9-30 aircraft does TAA currently operate and have they all been refurbished. (5) Which particular aircraft were sold and when. (6) Are the DC9 aircraft reported as being for sale in October 1984 in the journal Australian Flying the DC9 aircraft currently operated by TAA. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Yes. (2) TAA sold four DC9-30 aircraft to Australian Aircraft Sales subsequent to indicating the aircraft were surplus to requirements. (3) Refer answer 2 above. (4) TAA currently operates nine DC9-30 aircraft, eight of which are owned by TAA and one leased from Australian Aircraft Sales. All of these aircraft have now been refurnished. (5) A total of four aircraft, VH-TJJ, VH-TJK, VH-TJM and VH-TJN, were sold on 16 February 1982. (6) No. (Question No. 797) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) How many licensed kangaroo shooters were operating in Australia during the most recent period on record. (2) How many of these licensed kangaroo shooters were full time or part time operators. (3) What average prices were paid on the market for each animal. (4) Does the Government agree with the estimate of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council in their submission to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare which estimated that the average shooter, working 250 days per year, was taking between 5,000-7,500 animals and earning from $10,000-$15,000 per year. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Responsibility for kangaroo management rests primarily with State and Territory wildlife authorities and the following answers have been provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales, National Parks and Wildlife Service of Queensland, Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, National Parks and Wildlife Service of South Australia and National Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania. (1) New South Wales-The number of trappers (kangaroos) currently licensed is 375. Over 100 of the licensed trappers were operating during the period September to November 1983. Queensland-The number of licensed kangaroo shooters in 1983 was 1,431 and the number of licensed kangaroo shooters authorised during the period from 1 January to 31 March 1984 was 751. Western Australia-The number of shooters currently licensed is 136, made up of 90 within the red kangaroo management program and 46 within the grey kangaroo program. South Australia-The number of persons licensed to shoot kangaroos in 1983-84 is 188. Tasmania-During the 1983 season there were 384 shooters licensed for the commercial hunting of wallabies. (2) New South Wales-On the basis that a shooter taking less than 2,500 kangaroos per year is part time and more than 2,500 kangaroos per year is full time, during 1983 when 349 shooters were licensed, 290 shooters were part time ( 73 of whom shot no kangaroos during the year) and 59 shooters were full time. Queensland-Approximately 10 per cent of shooters are full time operators. Western Australia-All shooters within the grey kangaroo program are part time operators. Most of the shooters in the red kangaroo program have supplementary incomes, usually station work. South Australia-The number of shooters that could be considered full time in 1984 is approximately 30. Tasmania-All shooters are considered to be part time operators, most being either landowners or their employees who hunt, on average, only four days each month. (3) New South Wales-Current prices for kangaroo carcasses, including skins, range from $0.26 to $0.28 per kilogram. The average weight for carcasses is currently 22 kilogram, while the medium value is 20 kilograms. On this basis the average price per carcass is $5.94. Queensland-The average price for skins is $5.00, depending on size, while carcass prices vary from $0.20 to $0.32 per kilogram. Western Australia-The price paid to the shooter varies within the range of $0. 25 to $0.30 per kilogram. The average carcass weight is in the region of 19 kilograms. South Australia-A shooter receives approximately $0.22 per kilogram for trade butts, or about $3.00 per animal of butt weight 14 kilograms. Tasmania-The commercial value of Tasmanian wallabies lies primarily in their fur. Fur prices are currently very low, with hunters receiving less than $1.00 for a wallaby skin. (4) New South Wales-New South Wales does not agree. In 1983, 21 per cent of licensed shooters shot no kangaroos, 53 per cent shot less than 500, 83 per cent shot less than 2,500 and 96 per cent shot less than 5,000. The average shooter therefore shot less than 500 kangaroos. Obviously the number of days worked and earnings on the average are proportionately less than the figures quoted in the question. Queensland-No. Western Australia-No. Western Australian shooters, on average, took less than 2 ,000 kangaroos in 1983, within the range of approximately 200 to 6,700. Only four shooters shot more than 5,000 animals. South Australia-The South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has no data on the earnings of a full time shooter. The number of animals a shooter takes is subject to the availability of destruction permits and quotas. A figure of between 20 and 30 animals per night is considered to be the economic breakeven point to cover costs, including equipment and fuel. Tasmania-Based on hunters' returns, it is estimated that the average commercial hunter currently shoots less than 300 wallabies per year. The majority of these wallabies are utilized privately and do not enter the commercial trade. (Question No. 820) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Are government departments, tertiary institutions and statutory authorities selected as consultants, managing agents and supporting authorities for projects in the Australian aid program bound by the preferential purchasing policies of the Commonwealth and, where applicable, State governments. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The arrangements entered into with consultants/ managing agents provide for all goods and services required for a project to be procured strictly in accordance with the regulations governing such procurement. Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities are bound by Commonwealth purchasing preference arrangements. State Government Departments and statutory authorities as well as tertiary institutions are bound by their own regulations and purchasing and preference policies. The extent to which preference should be a consideration in purchases for the Australian aid program will be considered in the light of the Jackson Committee' s report on Australian aid policy. (Question No. 821) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What is the number and value of projects in the Australian bilateral aid program using: (a) Federal government departments; (b) State government departments; (c) Tertiary institutions; (d) Statutory authorities; and (e) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as: (i) managing agents; (ii) consultants; and (iii) supporting authorities. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Number of projects Value $'000 (a) Federal government departments 29 23.775 (b) State government departments 10 18.706 (c) Tertiary institutions 69 47.131 (d) Statutory authorities 5 1.776 - Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation 23 136.381 (e) CSIRO* - as Managing agents 8 2.756 - as Consultants . . . . - as Supporting authorities . . . . Totals 144 230.525 * Public sector bodies, when managing Australian Development Assistance Bureau projects, are referred to as 'managing agents'. 'Consultants' are private sector consulting firms. Either of these terms would appear to be synonymous with ' supporting authorities' when used of ADAB projects. (Question No. 838) Senator Chipp asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 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 answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The attached schedule shows the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under my jurisdiction as at 20 July 1984. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO AS AT 20 JULY 1984 Date of Term of Designation Name Salary appointment appointment Australian Capital Territory Parole Board Part time Chairman The Hon. Mr F. X. L. Connor, Q.C. $159.00 per sitting day 2.12.82 2.12.82-1.12.85 Part time Member Professor A. D. Hambly Nil 2.12.82 2.12.82-1.12.85 Part time Member Mrs E. M. Grant $128.00 per sitting day 2.12.82 2.12.82-1.12.85 Part time Member Mrs I. Lovric $128.00 per sitting day 2.12.82 2.12.82-1.12.85 Part time Member Mr G. J. Walsh, M.H.A. Nil 2.12.82 The term of the A.C.T. House of Assembly from 2.12.82 Part time Relief Chairman The Hon. Mr Justice J. F. Gallop Nil 2.12.82 *from 2.12.85 Part time Relief Chairman The Hon. Mr Justice J. J. A. Kelly Nil 2.12.82 *from 2.12.82 Secretary Mr C. T. A. Murphy Nil 22.1.83 *from 22.1.83 Australian Institute of Criminology Board of Management Part time Chairman Mr P. Loof Nil 25.1.84 *from 25.1.84 Part time Member Professor G. J. Hawkins Nil 15.4.84 *from 15.4.84 Part time Member Dr T. P. Speed Nil 15.4.84 *from 15.4.84 Barristers and Solicitors Admission Board of the Australian Capital Territory Chairman Mr D. C. Harper Nil 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.84 Member Mr H. T. Bennett Nil 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.84 Member Mr G. J. Lunney Nil 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.84 Member Mr R. B. Topfer Nil 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.84 Member Mr M. P. Cummins Nil 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.84 Secretary Mr A. J. Corboy Nil 12.11.80 At the pleasure of the A-G from 12.11.80 Common Investment Fund Investment Board Part time Member Mr P. Brazil Nil *Ex Officio Part time Member Mr P. J. Wenn Nil *Ex Officio Commonwealth Practitioners Board Part time Member Senator the Hon. G. J. Evans, Q.C. Nil *Ex Officio Part time Member Mr P. Brazil Nil *Ex Officio Part time Member Mr F. W. D. Jones Nil *Ex Officio Part time Member Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E., Q.C. Nil 30.4.74 At the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the A.C.T. Supreme Court from 30.4.74 Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board Part time Chairman Mr C. L. Hermes *less than 3 hrs $68.00 more than 3 hrs $136.00 4.1.83 4.1.83-3.1.86 Part time Member Mr A. L. Hayward *less than 3 hrs $55.00 more than 3 hrs $110.00 4.1.83 4.1.83-3.1.86 Part time Member Mr A. E. Hall *less than 3 hrs $55.00 more than 3 hrs $110.00 4.1.83 4.1.83-3.1.86 Part time Deputy to a Member Mr S. D. Bailey *less than 3 hrs $55.00 more than 3 hrs $110.00 4.1.83 4.1.83-3.1.86 Part time Deputy to a Member Mr M. G. L. Fitton *less than 3 hrs $55.00 more than 3 hrs $110.00 4.1.83 4.1.83-3.1.86 Films Board of Review Part time Chairman Sir Richard Kingsland, C.B.E., D.F.C. $6,609.00 p.a. 1.1.82 1.1.82-31.12.85 Part time Deputy Chairman Mr G. Souter $4,002.00 p.a. 1.1.82 1.1.82-31.12.85 Part time Member Mrs R. Danziger $2,729.00 p.a. 1.1.82 1.1.82 -31.12.85 Part time Member Mrs V. Smorgon, O.B.E. $2,729.00 p.a. 1.1.82 1.1.82-31.12.85 Part time Member Professor P. Sheehan $2,729.00 p.a. 1.1.82 1.1.82-31.12.85 Film Censorship Board Chief Censor Mrs J. Strickland $48,262.00 p.a. +Allowance $975.00 28.9.79 28.9.79-21.12.84 Deputy Chief Censor Mr K. F. Barton $35,255.00 p.a. 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.88 Member Mr D. Haines $27,806.00 p.a. 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.88 Member Mrs J. Marnie $27,806.00 p.a. 21.12.81 21.12.81-31.12.84 Member Mrs U. J. Downer $27,806.00 p.a. 2.12.82 2.12.82-31.12.85 Member Mr J. A. C. Bean $27,806.00 p.a. 1.1.83 1.1.83-31.12.86 Member Mr G. Wood $27,806.00 p.a. 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.87 Member Mr D. O'Farrell $27,806.00 p.a. 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.87 Member Ms D. Ehrlich $27,806.00 p.a. 1.7.84 1.7.84-30.6.87 Member Mr W. Hume $27,806.00 p.a. 16.7.84 16.7.84-31.12.84 Relief Member Ms E. Mildern $122.60 per sitting day 1.1.83 *from 1.1.83 Human Rights Commission Part time Chairman The Hon. Dame Roma Mitchell, D.B.E. $279.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.84 Deputy Chairman Mr P. H. Bailey, O.B.E. $70,782.00 p.a. +Allowance $3,800.00 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 Part time Member Professor M. J. Aroney $206.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 Part time Member Professor P. J. Boyce $206.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 Part time Member Mrs N. C. Ford $206.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 Part time Member Mrs E. Geia $206.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 Part time Member Mr C. D. Gilbert $206.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 Part time Member Ms E. Hastings $206.00 per sitting day 10.12.81 10.12.81-9.12.86 The Commissioner for Community Relations Commissioner Mr J. P. M. Long $66,557.00 p.a. +allowance $2,985.00 5.11.82 5.11.82-4.11.89 Institute of Family Studies Board of Management Part time Member Presiding Member of the Board The Hon. Mr Justice K. J. A. Asche Nil 11.8.83 11.8.83-30.6.86 Member Dr D. E. Edgar Nil 1.2.80 1.2.80-31.1.87 Part time Member Professor Lois J. Bryson $175.00 per sitting day 11.8.83 11.8.83-30.6.86 Part time Member Mr. R. K. Burr $175.00 per sitting day 11.8.83 11.8.83-30.6.86 Part time Member Mr J. F. Davoren $175.00 per sitting day 11.8.83 11.8.83-30.6.86 Part time Member Mrs M. M. Finn Nil 11.8.83 11.8.83-30.6.86 Part time Member Ms C. P. Petre $175.00 per sitting day 11.8.83 11.8.83-30.6.86 Law Reform Commission Chairman The Hon. Justice M. D. Kirby, C.M.G. Nil 11.12.81 4.2.82-3.2.85 Member Professor A. D. Hambly $61,129.00 p.a. +allowance $1,900.00 14.6.83 14.6.83-13.6.86 Member Professor M. R. Chesterman $61,129.00 p.a. +allowance $1,900.00 25.7.83 25.7.83-24.7.86 Member Mr R. W. Harmer $61,129.00 p.a. +allowance $1,900.00 16.7.84 16.7.84-15.7.86 Member Mr G. Zdenkowski $61,129.00 p.a. +allowance $1,900.00 23.7.84 23.7.84-22.7.87 Part-time Member Mr J. A. Mazza $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 23.8.82 23.8.82-22.8.84 Part time Member The Hon. Mr Justice F. M. Neasey Nil 2.12.82 2.12.82-19.10.84 Part time Member Mr T. Simos, Q.C. $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 1.1.82 1.1.82-31.12.86 Part time Member Professor A. E. S. Tay $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 15.2.82 15.2.82-14.2.87 Part time Member Dr M. C. Pryles $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 14.6.83 14.6.83-13.12.85 Part time Member Professor D. St. L. Kelly $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 1.7.83 1.7.83-30.6.86 Part time Member Mr T. H. Smith $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 1.1.84 1.1.84-31.12.86 Part time Member The Hon. Justice Josephine Maxwell Nil 14.3.84 14.3.84-28.2.87 Part time Member Mr D. M. Ryan, Q.C. $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 12.4.84 12.4.84-11.4.87 Part time Member Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E., Q.C. $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 31.5.84 31.5.84-30.5.87 Part time Member Associate Professor R. A. Hayes $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 31.5.84 31.5.84-30.5.85 Part time Member Dr J. R. Crawford $6,609.00 p.a. + $279.00 per sitting day 27.6.84 27.6.84-3.6.87 Legal Aid Commission Australian Capital Territory Part time Chairman The Hon. Mr Justice J. E. Ellis Nil 19.2.80 19.2.80-18.2.85 Part-time Member Mr A. W. Wynne $6,609.00 p.a. 2.12.82 11.12.82-10.12.85 Part time Member Mr D. C. Harper $6,609.00 p.a. 2.12.82 11.12.82-10.12.85 Part time Member Mr G. J. Walsh, M.H.A. Nil 2.12.82 11.12.82-10.12.85 Part time Member Mr. E. M. Haddrick Nil 2.12.82 11.12.82-10.12.85 Part time Member Mr T. J. Brennan $6,609.00 p.a. 2.12.82 11.12.82-10.12.85 Part time Member Mr J. M. Wark, O.B.E. $6,609.00 p.a. 2.12.82 11.12.82-10.12.85 Director Mr G. M. Wheeler $52,551.00 p.a. +allowance $1,355.00 278.9.81 27.9.81-26.9.88 National Companies and Securities Commission Chairman Mr L. Masel $83,875.00 p.a. +allowance $5,475.00 11.3.80 11.3.80-10.3.85 Deputy Chairman Mr J. A. Coleman $72,307.00 p.a. +allowance $2,421.00 11.3.80 11.3.80-10.3.85 Member Mr A. B. Greenwood $72,307.00 p.a. +allowance $2,421.00 11.3.80 11.3.80-10.3.85 Part time Member Mr J. R. Nosworthy, C.B.E. $14,530.00 p.a. 22.6.83 22.6.83-21.6.86 Part time Member Mr G. T. Kryger $14,530.00 p.a. 7.10.83 7.10.83-6.10.86 Trade Practices Commission Chairman Mr R. M. Bannerman $66,557.00 p.a. +allowance $2,985.00 27.9.81 1.10.81-31.12.84 Deputy Chairman Mr W. J. Coad $61,129.00 p.a. +allowance $1,900.00 1.3.84 1.3.84-3.2.88 Member Professor J. McB. Grant $56,840.00 p.a. +allowance $1,355.00 1.2.82 1.2.82-31.1.87 Part time Associate Member E. J. L. Tucker $279.00 per sitting day 27.8.82 27.8.82-26.8.84 Part time Associate Member Mr D. E. Turner $279.00 per sitting day 4.2.83 4.2.83-3.2.86 Part time Associate Member Mr R. S. French $279.00 per sitting day 4.2.83 4.2.83-3.2.86 Part time Associate Member Mr J. H. Pascoe $279.00 per sitting day 4.2.83 4.2.83-3.2.86 Part time Associate Member Professor D. J. Harland $279.00 per sitting day 2.11.83 2.11.83-1.11.85 * At the pleasure of the Governor-General. * If engaged on business of, or at a Meeting of the Board Note: No salary or fee is paid where the office holder is a Judge, holds another full-time public office, or is employed full-time by the Commonwealth, or where no fees have been determined. (Question No. 839) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 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 has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board Chairman: The Commissioner for Superannuation: Mr R. C. Davey, appointed by the Governor-General as Commissioner for Superannuation from 21 December 1983 until 2 January 1990. Deputy Chairman: The Australian Government Actuary: Mr J. R. Ford, from 27 June 1978. Member: Representative of the Minister for Defence: Mr R. B. Finnegan from 6 May 1982. Member: Representative of the Chief of Naval Staff: Commodore D. M. Coulson appointed by the Governor-General on 27 June 1984 for a period of two years. Member: Representative of the Chief of the General Staff: Brigadier B. D. Phillips, appointed by the Governor-General on 16 February 1984 for a period of two years. Member: Representative of the Chief of Air Staff: Air Commodore R. E. Gillard appointed by the Governor-General on 13 July 1983 for a period of two years. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board is constituted by the above members pursuant to section 5 of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 . No salary is payable to the members for their presence on the Board. The Defence Force Representatives on the Board hold office for two years unless sooner terminated by the Governor-General. (2) Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority Chairman: The Commissioner for Superannuation: Mr R. C. Davey. Appointed by the Governor-General as Commissioner for Superannuation on 21 December 1983 until 2 January 1990. Deputy Chairman: Nominated by the Minister for Defence: Mr J. E. Ludovici. Appointed by the Governor-General on 27 June 1984 for a period of two years. Member: Nominated by the Chief of Naval Staff: Commodore D. M. Coulson, appointed by the Governor-General on 27 June 1984 for a period of two years. Member: Nominated by the Chief of the General Staff: Brigadier B. D. Phillips. Appointed by the Governor-General on 16 February 1984 for a period of two years. Member: Nominated by the Chief of Air Staff: Air Commodore R. E. Gillard appointed by the Governor-General on 13 July 1983 for a period of two years. The above members appointed pursuant to section 8 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 do not receive remuneration for their services to the Authority. (3) Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Board Chairman: Rear Admiral W. J. Crossley appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff on 5 January 1984. Members of the Board: Acting Captain J. G. Ingram appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff on 19 April 1984. Mr T. J. Keely appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff on 22 September 1977. Commodore J. L. Jobson appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff on 1 May 1982. Warrant Officer B. Jones appointed by the Chief of Naval Staff on 5 March 1984. The Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Board is established pursuant to regulation 7 of the Navy (Canteens) Regulations. No maximum term of appointment is specified in the Regulations. Pursuant to regulation 19 of the Navy (Canteens ) Regulations no remuneration is payable to the members of the Board in respect of the duties or functions performed. Note: The Regulations also provide for an advisory Committee known as the Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Committee consisting of the Director-General of Naval Personal Services and up to 12 other representatives selected by the Chief of Naval Staff. The members of the Committee are also not entitled to any remuneration. (4) Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund Chairman: Rear Admiral W. J. Crossley appointed by the Governor-General on 24 January 1984. Trustees: Commodore D. M. Coulson appointed by the Governor-General on 2 June 1984. Acting Commander J. H. Speed appointed by the Governor-General on 30 June 1980. Commander H. J. Murdock appointed by the Governor-General on 8 October 1983. The Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund is established under the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman and Trustees of the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund are not entitled to receive from the Fund any remuneration for work done in relation to the Fund pursuant to section 11 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman and trustees hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. (5) Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund Chairman of the Trustees: Brigadier B. D. Phillips appointed by the Governor- General on 31 January 1984. Trustees: Mr C. B. Hazen appointed by the Governor-General on 6 July 1977. Colonel C. C. Hall appointed by the Governor-General on 13 April 1976. The Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund is established under the Services Trust Fund Act 1947. The Chairman of the Trustees and the Trustees of the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund are not entitled to receive from the Fund any remuneration for work done in relation to the Fund pursuant to section 11 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman of the Trustees and the Trustees hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. (6) Services Canteens Trust Fund Chairman of the Trustees: Major-General R. R. Gordon appointed by the Governor- General on 1 February 1973. Deputy Chairmen: Miss C. G. Stevenson appointed by the Governor-General on 1 July 1947. Mr J. A. K. Wicks appointed by the Governor-General on 1 July 1947. Trustees: Miss D. M. Langley appointed by the Governor-General on 1 September 1975. Commodore H. D. Smyth appointed by the Governor-General on 14 January 1976. Mr C. R. Eggleston appointed by the Governor-General on 4 March 1976. Captain T. E. Nare appointed by the Governor-General on 5 July 1976. The Services Canteens Trust Fund is established under the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman of the Trustees, the Deputy Chairmen, and the Trustees of the Services Canteens Trust Fund are not entitled to receive from the Fund any remuneration for work done in relation to the Fund pursuant to section 11 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman of the Trustees, the Deputy Chairmen and the Trustees hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. (7) Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Members: Air Vice-Marshal P. J. Scully appointed by the Governor-General on 16 February 1984. Mr C. B. Campbell appointed by the Governor-General on 18 January 1978. Mr A. Stobart appointed by the Governor-General on 22 April 1982. The Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund is established by the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953. The Members hold office at the Governor-General's pleasure and pursuant to section 12 of the Act are not entitled to receive remuneration for their services as members of the Trust. (8) Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund Chairman of Trustees: Air Vice-Marshal P. J. Scully appointed on 3 November 1983. Trustees: Wing Commander W. E. Richardson appointed by the Governor-General on 20 September 1979. Air Commodore G. J. Crossman appointed by the Governor-General on 11 January 1983. Warrant-Officer T. R. Hill appointed by the Governor-General on 1 April 1982. Mr C. B. Campbell appointed by the Governor-General on 1 February 1977. The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund is established under the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman of Trustees and the Trustees of the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund are not entitled to receive from the Fund any remuneration for work done in relation to the Fund pursuant to section 11 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. The Chairman of the Trustees and the Trustees hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. (9) Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management Two members of the Army not below the rank of Major-General appointed by the Chief of the General Staff: Major-General G. J. Fitzgerald appointed on 9 January 1984, Major-General P. J. Day appointed on 16 January 1984. Two officers of the Air Force not below the rank of Air Vice-Marshal appointed by the Chief of the Air Staff: Air Vice-Marshal E. A. Radford appointed on 9 January 1984, Air Vice-Marshal P. J. Scully appointed on 28 March 1984. An officer of the Australian Public Service occupying an office in the Department of Defence appointed by the Secretary to the Department of Defence: Mr P. J. Fogarty appointed on 24 January 1983. Two persons with extensive business or commercial experience appointed by the Minister for Defence: Mr B. P. Bradbury appointed on 22 March 1982 to 31 December 1984, Mr A. G. Taylor appointed on 28 July 1981 to 28 July 1984. The Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations also make provision for a Managing Director to be appointed to the Board by the Board of Management. An interim appointment has been made of Mr S. J. Beddoe from 4 April 1984. The Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management is established by Regulation 9 of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations. The members appointed from the business community, that is, Mr B. P. Bradbury and Mr A. G. Taylor are entitled, pursuant to Regulation 25 (2) to be paid remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal or if no determination is in operation they are paid as the Minister determines. Mr Bradbury receives a remuneration of $7,275 a year and Mr Taylor receives a remuneration of $5,100 a year. These payments are provided for from the Army and Air Force Canteen Service funds. The Managing Director appointed to the Board is also paid from these funds as Managing Director. Other members of the Board do not receive remuneration in respect of their services. Note: Members of the authorities listed at items 3-9 may be reimbursed for travelling expenses or out-of-pocket expenses, even though remuneration is not payable. (Question No. 851) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of the statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: STATUTORY APPOINTMENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO (AS AT 1 JULY 1984) Full-time Daily Term or part-time Salary Allowances sitting Date of expiry Position ($ per ($ per fee Name Position appointment date (for P) annum) annum) ($ Per day) Australian Telecommunications Commission Mr R. W. Brack, A.O. Chairman 16.11.81 15.11.86 P 26,254 . . . . Mr P. J. W. Cottrell O.B.E. Deputy Chairman 30.6.82 29.6.87 P 13,220 . . . . Mr W. J. B. Pollock A.M. Managing Director 4.11.84 18.1.87 F 88,908 5,155 . . Ms M. Jackson Commissioner 31.8.83 30.8.88 P 8,823 . . . . Mr G. Slater, A.M. Commissioner 8.12.83 7.12.88 P 8,823 . . . . Mr C. B. Quartermaine, D.F.C. Commissioner 31.8.83 30.8.85 P 8,823 . . . . Mr R. B. Lansdown, C.B.E. Commissioner 25.10.79 Indefinite P . . . . . . Australian Postal Commission Mr D. R. Rickard Chairman 13.9.83 12.9.85 P 26,257 . . . . Mr A. L. Paton Deputy Chairman 30.6.80 29.6.85 P 13,220 . . . . Mr D. H. Eltringham Managing Director 23.10.81 22.10.86 F 81,714 3,800 . . Mr R. L. Gradwell Commissioner 21.1.81 20.1.86 P 8,823 . . . . Prof. D. Yerbury Commissioner 11.3.84 13.3.89 P 8,823 . . . . Mr R. B. Lansdown, C.B.E. Commissioner 25.10.79 Indefinite P . . . . . . Ms V. Randall Commissioner 23.9.82 22.9.87 P 8,823 . . . . Promotions Appeal Board: Australian Postal Commission and Australian Telecommunications Commission Mr B. Einsiedel Senior Chairman 1.7.83 30.6.88 F 48,262 815 . . Mr J. E. Bartholomew Chairman 21.2.83 20.2.86 F 43,974 815 . . Mr F. W. Hill Chairman 1.2.84 31.1.87 F 43,974 815 . . Mr D. H. Guilfoyle Chairman 1.7.84 31.1.87 F 43,974 815 . . Mr P. J. Hickey Chairman 1.7.84 30.6.87 F 43,974 815 . . Dr D. B. Williams Chairman 1.8.82 31.7.85 P . . . . 175 Mr L. G. Fletcher Chairman 1.7.82 30.6.85 P . . . . 175 Mr L. J. Lutze Chairman 18.8.81 17.8.84 P . . . . 175 Mr F. W. C. Moore Chairman 4.2.84 2.2.87 P . . . . 175 Mr M. R. Gildea Chairman 1.2.84 31.1.87 P . . . . 175 Mr K. M. Seeney Chairman 1.2.84 31.1.87 P . . . . 175 Disciplinary Appeal Board: Australian Postal Commission and Australian Telecommunications Commission Mr D. W. Smith Chairman 14.6.86 13.6.86 P . . . . 175 (subject to an annual minimum of $875 p.a.) Action to fill two vacant Chairman positions is proceeding Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) Mr R. D. Somervaille, A.M. Chairman 30.6.84 29.6.87 P 19,769 . . . . Mr D. M. Hoare Vice Chairman 23.9.82 22.9.85 P 13,220 . . . . Mr J. H. Curtis, C.B. Commissioner 29.07.81 28.7.84 P 8,823 . . . . (Governor-General has approved re-appointment from 29.7.84 for 3 years)Mr H. S. Cottee Commissioner 21.9.81 20.9.84 P 8,823 . . . . Mr E. E. Payne Commissioner 10.9.83 9.9.86 P . . . . . . Mr R. G. McIver Commissioner 21.9.84 20.9.87 P 8,823 . . . . Promotions Appeal Board: Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) Vacant Chairman . . . . P . . . . 175 Disciplinary Appeal Board: Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) Vacant Chairman . . . . P . . . . 175 (Action to fill position is proceeding) (Subject to an annual minimum of $875 p.a.) Aussat Pty Ltd Mr D. M. Hoare Chairman 1.8.83 . . P 16,433 . . . . Dr D. D. Brown, A.O. Deputy Chairman 17.11.81 . . P 8,823 . . . . Mr H. S. Cottee Director 17.11.81 . . P 6,609 . . . . Prof. M. W. Gun Director 17.11.81 . . P 6,609 . . . . Mr E. E. Payne Director 17.11.81 . . P . . . . . . Mr R. H. Treweeke Director 17.11.81 . . P 6,609 . . . . Mr L. J. Carden Director 1.8.83 . . P 6,609 . . . . Mr W. L. Dix Director 1.8.83 . . P 6,609 . . . . Prof. H. Hughes Director 1.8.83 . . P 6,609 . . . . Mr W. J. B. Pollock Director 1.8.83 . . P . . . . . . Mr R. de O. Robin, C.B.E. Director 1.8.83 . . P 6,609 . . . . Australian Broadcasting Corporation Mr K. B . Myer, A.C., D.S.C. Chairman 9.6.83 8.6.88 P 26,257 . . . . Ms W. E. McCarthy Deputy Chairman 9.6.83 8.6.86 P 13,220 . . . . Mr N. T. Bonner Director 9.6.83 8.6.86 P 8,823 . . . . Mr R. Boyer Director 9.6.83 8.6.86 P 8,823 . . . . Mr R. A. Raymond Director 9.6.83 8.6.86 P 8,823 . . . . Sir P. V. Brady, I.B.V.M. Director 9.6.83 8.6.86 P 8,823 . . . . Ms J. L. Marsh Director 9.6.83 8.6.86 P 8,823 . . . . Mr T. Molomby Director 15.12.83 14.12.85 P . . . . . . Promotions Appeal Board Australian Broadcasting Corporation Ms J. M. Moore Chairman 23.11.83 22.11.84 P . . . . 175 Mr M. F. E. Wright Chairman 23.11.83 22.11.84 P . . . . 175 Special Broadcasting Service Sir Nicholas Shehadie, O.B.E. Chairman 1.7.84 30.6.85 P 16,433 . . . . Mr A. Bonnici Member 1.7.84 30.6.85 P 6,609 . . . . Mr G. Zangalis Member 1.7.84 30.6.85 P 6,609 . . . . Mr G. Rutherford Member 25.7.83 24.7.86 P 6,609 . . . . Ms G. De Lacy Member 25.7.83 24.7.86 P 6,609 . . . . Dr A. Jakubowicz Member 25.7.83 24.7.86 P 6,609 . . . . Mr L. Bini Member 25.7.83 24.7.86 P 6,609 . . . . Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Mr D. A. T. Jones Chairman 1.7.80 30.6.85 F 75,097 3,800 . . Mr K. A. Archer Vice Chairman 19.2.81 18.2.86 F 58,740 1,900 . . Miss C. F. Weigall Member 17.4.80 16.4.85 F 56,840 1,355 . . Mr M. C. Armstrong Member 18.7.83 17.7.88 F 56,840 1,355 . . Mr R. N. Watterson Member 26.9.83 25.9.88 F 56,840 1,355 . . Ms J. James Bailey Member 31.1.84 30.1.89 F 56,840 1,355 . . Dr R. J. Perry Member 14.5.84 13.5.89 F 56,840 1,355 . . Broadcasting Council The Hon. E. L. Sammerlad Chairman 1.7.84 30.6.86 P 13,220 . . . . Mr D. Foster Member 1.7.84 30.6.87 P . . . . . . Mr J. Malone Member 1.7.84 30.6.87 P . . . . . . Ms G. De Lacy Member 1.7.84 30.6.87 P . . . . . . Mr K. Mackriell Member 1.7.84 31.12.84 P . . . . . . Mr J. Fitzmaurice Member 1.7.84 31.12.84 P . . . . . . Mr R. Fowell Member 1.7.84 30.6.87 P . . . . . . Mr P. Westerway Member 1.7.84 30.6.87 P . . . . . . (Question No. 869) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: (1) How many unallocated export meat inspection service officers were in the service as at 30 April 1984. (2) How many staff joined the meat (and later exports) inspection service during the financial years 1981-82; 1982-83, 1983-30 April 1984. (3) How many left the service during the same period. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The requirement for meat inspection staff varies considerably with seasonal and market conditions in the export meat industry. There has been a surplus of meat inspectors over operational and relief requirements since October 1983. The extent of this surplus has varied with industry conditions but was assessed as 153 staff as at 30 April 1984. Of these an average of 60 are fully employed in providing relief for an extensive program of refresher training instituted in accordance with recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Other staff have been encouraged to take long service leave and other unrostered leave. There has been no recruitment of meat inspectors since September 1983. No other categories of export inspection staff are in surplus. (2) Inspection staff joined: 1981-82, 57; 1982-83, 146; 1983-30 April 1984, 373 (includes takeover of 328 New South Wales domestic inspection staff). (3) Inspection staff left: 1981-82, 76; 1982-83, 82; 1983-30 April 1984, 69. (Question No. 872) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: Are officers of the Department of the Treasury entitled to concessional interest rates on loans; if so, who is entitled to this benefit and what is the extent of the benefit. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: No officers of the Department of the Treasury are entitled to concessional interest rates on loans. (Question No. 887) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: Will the Minister for Health consider withdrawing any concession applying to New Zealand in relation to the import of fruit that could transmit fireblight given that under Proclamation 20P the import of pome and stone fruits is prohibited from any country where fireblight occurs as it only requires a single cell of fireblight to multiply into 16 million cells in 24 hours. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No consideration is presently being given to varying the quarantine conditions under which fresh fruits which are hosts of fireblight disease may be imported from New Zealand. To elaborate, Proclamation No. 20P prohibits the importation of stone and pome fruits from any country where fireblight (Erwinia amylovora) occurs. However it exempts New Zealand apples from this prohibition providing Ministry of Agriculture officials certify the apples were grown in a district where fireblight does not occur. The basis for this exemption is a widely accepted quarantine concept of certification that certain areas are free from designated pests or diseases. Quarantine restrictions are subject to continuous review to take account of changing patterns of pest and disease occurrences and new scientific information on which risk assessments are made. No changes will be made to the present conditions for the importation of apples unless there are adequate safeguards to prevent the introduction of fireblight and other pests and diseases. In respect of stone fruits, the general prohibition was lifted when, following a review of literature reports, it became evident to Australian quarantine officials and State agricultural departments, that the records for cherry, peach and nectarine were based on erroneous, earlier papers. Accordingly the prohibition on the importation of these fruits, because of the risk of fireblight has been lifted. (Question No. 888) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: What were the quantities of: (a) fortified wines; (b) fortified wines produced in Australia; and (c) fortifying spirit produced in Australia, for each month since July 1982, expressed in litres and in litres of alcohol. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Stocks of Fortified Wines in Australia ('000 litres) 30 June 1982-135,254; 30 June 1983-134,132. Data for stocks of fortified wines are not available on a monthly basis. Figures expressed in litres of alcohol are not available. (b) Production of Fortified Wines in Australia ('000 litres) 1982-83-33541. Data for production of fortified wines are not available on a monthly basis. Figures expressed in litres of alcohol are not available. The data include current vintage only, for example, in 1982-83 they exclude approximately 10 million litres of fortified wine produced by adding grape spirit to unfortified wine from earlier vintages. The data were obtained from Australian winemakers with wine sales of 250,000 litres or more in 1981-82. These wineries account for about 98 per cent of local production. (c) Production of Fortifying Spirit in Australia ('000 litres of alcohol) 1982- 83-7,881. Data for production of fortifying spirit are not available on a monthly basis. Figures expressed in actual litres of fortifying spirit are not available. (Question No. 889) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: Will the Treasurer consider providing financial assistance to the South Australian Government for the Riverland fruit products redevelopment, given the imminent decision of the South Australian Government on the future of the Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Cannery at Berri and that the closure of the cannery will cost the Federal Government an estimated $8-9m. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In May 1984, the Commonwealth Government considered a request from the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, for a grant of $6m to meet the capital cost of a major reconstruction of the Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Cannery. For its part the South Australian Government was proposing to forgo past debts owing to it by the Cannery as well as providing working capital and operating subsidies for the reconstruction. I wrote to the Premier on 31 May 1984 stating that the Government was unable to agree that Commonwealth assistance was warranted in this instance. In so doing, I noted the substantial government assistance that had already been provided to the Riverland Cannery and that, given the current state of the industry, there was considerable doubt whether the provision of further assistance would ensure its longer term viability. Since then, the Premier has announced that the South Australian Government will provide Berri Fruit Juices with a grant of $200,000 to prepare, in conjunction with the South Australian Department of State Development, a business plan for Berri Fruit Juices to undertake new project development using the assets and some of the labour force of the Riverland Cannery. If the study plan is acceptable, the State Government has undertaken to provide up to $4m in equity finance to assist the new venture. In announcing its decision to fund the study plan, the State Government acknowledge that the implementation of the original proposal for a major reconstruction of the cannery would have been economically irresponsible and would not have guaranteed the long term viability of the cannery. (Question No. 893) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) What is the level of South African investment in Australia. (2) What is the level of Australian investment in South Africa. (3) What is the level of Australian investment in other countries in the southern part of Africa, for example, Tanzania, Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The level of South African investment in corporate equities in Australian enterprises as at 30 June 1982 was $6m. The level of South African investments in other net assets in Australian enterprises was zero at that date. (2) Statistics on the level of Australian investment in South Africa are available in respect of direct investment only. The level of direct Australian investment in South Africa at 30 June 1982 was $8m in corporate equities and $5m in other net assets. (3) Separate statistics on the levels of Australian investment in other countries in the southern part of Africa are not available. However, the total level of direct Australian investment in African countries other than South Africa at 30 June 1982 was $5m in corporate equities and $1m in other net assets . Comparable statistics for investment other than direct investment are not available. An important limitation regarding the current basis of valuing levels of investment in corporate equities should be noted. Corporate equities are valued at the paid-up value of the Shares and hence the levels of investment in such equities exclude share premiums, reserves, provisions and retained earnings. The equity figures quoted above, therefore, may bear little relationship to the actual level of equity funds to which the investors have claims. For this reason , the levels of investment in corporate equities and other net assets are provided separately and are not aggregated. (Question No. 895) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Is 3,000 feet still the minimum required height for commercial aircraft on arrival and departure patterns for Eagle Farm Airport; if so, do departmental officers monitor these flight patterns, particularly in the evening. (2) What action, if any, have departmental officers taken to see that flight approach and departure patterns divert aircraft away from Brisbane bayside suburbs, particularly those of Wynnum/Manly. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Senator Boswell asked similar questions during the appropriation debate on 4 June, (Hansard, pages 2442-2443). A response was given on 5 June, ( see Hansard, page 2494). (Question No. 906) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) What detention facilities are used for apprehended illegal immigrants in Queensland. (2) Are the facilities the same for men and women. (3) Are there any plans for the provision of a detention centre in Queensland; if so, what is the nature of these plans. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Those illegal immigrants and deportees detained in immigration custody may be held initially in police watch houses and, as soon as practicable, taken to Queensland State prison institutions, especially the remand sections. (2) As far as my Department is aware facilities within the State institutions are not precisely the same for men and women. (3) As part of the Brisbane Airport redevelopment project a site has been reserved for the construction of an immigration detention centre by 1986. Design plans are under examination at present. As a general policy, unless it is known that an illegal immigrant has a criminal background, I prefer to avoid the use of State prisons for the custody of illegal immigrants; unfortunately until immigration detention centres are more widely available it is not entirely possible to avoid the State institutions. I should mention that not all illegal immigrants who are located are taken into custody. Under the general policy my Department endeavours to avoid placing in custody any children, aged or infirm people, women known to be in advanced stages of pregnancy and women who have children in their care or other serious home responsibilities such as caring for aged or infirm relatives. (Question No. 909) Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1984: (1) What is the total cost of funding the in-vitro fertilisation program throughout Australia. (2) What are the eligibility guidelines for couples who wish to participate in the program. (3) What is the estimated cost to couples who undergo successful treatment. (4) What benefits are available to these couples under Medicare. (5) How many couples are presently awaiting treatment under the program. (6) What is the estimated total cost of employing staff in the program. (7) What States have in-vitro clinics operating and where are they located. (8) Do all clinics funded by the Federal Government have distinct legal, ethical, medical and social guidelines from which to operate; if so, what are they. (9) In cases where no guidelines have been finalised, when will they be introduced and how are these guidelines being developed. (10) Are all clinics which receive funding accountable for all in-vitro research projects undertaken; if so, to whom are they accountable. (11) What clinics allow frozen ova to be used for other than donor couples and for what purposes are they used. (12) Is a register maintained containing information on the natural (donor) parents of each embryo stored or used in cases where frozen ova is used for other than the donor couple; if not, what provision is made for, (a) children born under the program who may wish to know of their natural parentage; (b) preventing the future risk of intermarriage of genetically related persons; and (c) the future possibility of children born under the program claiming personal compensation for medical and/or social negligence. (13) Is the long term health of children born under the program monitored. (14) Is genetic manipulation being practised on human embryos. (15) What happens to frozen embryos which are not required by donor parents. (16) Do the donor parents or the hospital/clinic have right of ownership of embryos. (17) When was the first frozen embryo developed in Australia and by what clinic . (18) How many frozen embryos are presently in storage. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth Government does not provide any direct funding, nor funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council, for the various in- vitro fertilisation (IVF) programs which are operating around Australia. The various State governments have full responsibility for determining the conditions and arrangements under which these programs operate, and I understand that these vary considerably between States and programs. Given the number of programs and the complexities involved, I am unable to answer many of the questions asked by the honourable senator, as the information is only held by the States or the program directors. However, in respect of parts (4), (7), (8) and (17) of the question, the answer is as follows: (4) Medicare benefits are payable for medical services listed in the Medical Benefits Schedule and rendered in conjunction with the IVF program, provided the doctor itemises the particular medical services on the account. At present, approximately 50 per cent of the medical costs and up to 100 per cent of hospital charges are covered. (7) All States have in-vitro fertilisation clinics; these are located thus: New South Wales-The Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney Victoria-Queen Victoria Medical Centre, Melbourne; Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne Queensland-The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane Western Australia-The University of Western Australia, Perth South Australia-Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide Tasmania-Queen Alexandra Hospital, Hobart (8) The Federal Government does not fund any in-vitro fertilisation clinic. The National Health and Medical Research Council adopted guidelines on in-vitro fertilisation, prepared by its working party on ethics in medical research, in August 1982. These guidelines are simply advisory and may be adopted or rejected by the States. The guidelines can be enforced only in institutions and/or research funded by the Council. (17) The process of freezing and thawing was developed in 1983, by Dr A. Trounson, Queen Victoria Medical Centre, Melbourne. The first pregnancy and birth resulting from this process was in 1984, at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre, Melbourne. (Question No. 912) Senator Maguire asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1984. (1) Do specific Acts of Parliament provide for all expenditure programs carried out by the Department of Social Security. (2) Which areas of expenditure by the Department of Social Security are not provided for under a specific Act of Parliament. (3) Are funds allocated for women's shelters by the Department of Social Security provided for in a specific Act of Parliament. (4) Is it the intention of the government to prepare a Shelter Act to provide for women's shelters; if not, what factors led the Government to this conclusion . Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The areas of expenditure under programs administered by the Department of Social Security which are not provided for under a specific Act of Parliament are- (a) the children's services program (to the extent that the program is not covered by the Child Care Act 1972); (b) the aged persons program (to the extent that the program is not covered by the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954); (c) grants towards the publication of book equivalent materials for use by print handicapped; (d) grants to the Northern Territory for home care services (grants to the States are covered by the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969) and; (e) national women's emergency services program. The appropriation legislation also provides for various grants-in-aid to assist organisations in the welfare area. (3) A small number of women's shelters are funded under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974. Funds provided under the women's emergency services program are not supported by an Act of Parliament. (4) The Commonwealth Government is considering the possibility of establishing a new supported accommodation assistance program to be cost shared with and administered by the States and the Northern Territory. If agreed to this program would be supported by legislation and would include the present national women's emergency services program and sections of other programs administered by my Department which assist women's shelters. In the event that a supported accommodation assistance program is not established, supporting legislation for WESP would be necessary if WESP grants to the States were made subject to legally enforceable terms and conditions. If, however, funds were to be distributed merely on the basis of an understanding with the States, legislation other than that now contained in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1983-84 (Division 949 .07) would not be required. (Question No. 918) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) Are people in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania receiving higher rebates from Medicare than people in Queensland even though everyone pays a 1 per cent levy on taxable income; if so, why. (2) Is the Minister for Health aware of a recent survey that found 76 per cent of Queensland doctors are charging above the schedule fees and the higher premium. (3) Will the Minister give an assurance that Queenslanders will not be discriminated against and that a standard rebate will apply. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Medicare rebates are calculated as a standard 85 per cent of schedule fees with a maximum patient contribution of $10 in all States. Schedule fee differentials between States do exist for many items of service in the medical benefits schedule and have their origin in a list of common fees submitted by the Australian Medical Association in 1970 as being fair and reasonable. Some of the original fee differences have been reduced or eliminated by past independent fee enquiries and by the adoption of recommendations by committee established to facilitate an ongoing review of the medical benefits schedule. (2) No. However, the reverse is the case. Statistics on benefits being paid by Medicare indicate that more than three quarters of the services rendered in Queensland are being charged at or below the Schedule fee. (3) I have initiated a major review of the medical benefits schedule and the question of further moves towards uniform schedule fees will be considered in this review. I hope to be in a position to announced details of the review shortly. (Question No. 926) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) What public information is made available to workers about the occupational dangers of chemicals and contamination in work places. (2) What evaluation of the hazards of chemicals used in industry is carried out . Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) There is currently no comprehensive collection of Australian occupational health and safety information. This absence of a data base can be attributed to lack of funds and to the fragmentation of responsibility for occupational health and safety through various State and Commonwealth agencies. Australia currently has access via computer to specialised overseas occupational health and safety data bases such as CISDOC (operated by the International Labour Office) and HSELINE (the British Health and Safety Executive data base). Locally, the Department of Health Medline network has available specialty data bases such as the Toxicology Data Bank (TDB) and RTECS (Research into the Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances), as well as more general medical literature encompassing occupational health. While an essential tool for expert and specialist users, these data bases are of little use to broader, non-expert user groups. Other sources of information are provided by organisations such as the Standards Association of Australia, which publish emergency procedures to be followed with certain chemicals. This area has received significant attention in the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which I tabled in Parliament on 29 May 1984. The report recommended that the proposed National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety adopt the major role in the development of a computerised national occupational health and safety data base, and be a major user of the technical information it contains. The role of the proposed National Occupational Health and Safety Office would be to co-ordinate the information function and develop a 'user-friendly' system. A particularly important aspect of this role would be 'translating' technical material into a form suitable for a variety of users. This should be done by a combination of Office and Institute staff. It should also include a facility to translate overseas papers for use within the Commission and to provide multilingual information for the Australian work force. In addition the Office and the Institute would: act as a first point of contact for users of occupational health and safety information and advice; organise and co-ordinate the collection of data from a large variety of sources ; develop the means for coding and processing this information into a suitable form; investigate and advise the Commission on technologies appropriate to information storage and dissemination; develop links with international information agencies; provide advice on non-technical occupational health and safety issues such as the operation of occupational health and safety committees, and legal aspects; and assess user needs for information. This set of functions is one of the key elements of the national strategy for occupational safety and health. The report of the Interim Commission also makes significant recommendations in respect of the evaluation of hazardous industrial chemicals. Currently there is a voluntary notification scheme operated by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment which provides some assessment of new industrial chemicals. For many years there has been detailed assessment of agricultural chemicals, veterinary and therapeutic drugs, and food additives. It is the intention of the Government that all new chemicals will be subject to a national notification and assessment scheme. Notification is the provision of information about a chemical substance according to a specified protocol. The Interim Commission recommended that there should be only one point for notification, and that this should be a separate function to assessment and control. The assessment of chemicals may be divided into the effect on human beings, and the effect on the environment. It is recommended that studies relevant to the hazardous effects of chemicals on humans be undertaken by the proposed National Institute. The question of a national chemicals licensing system, and the provision of information on chemicals by labelling and other means are matters to be urgently addressed by the proposed National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. (Question No. 942) Senator Peter Rae asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Does the Attorney-General believe that the National Companies and Securities Commission Act still needs redrafting to provide for: (i) an extension of the scope and enforceability of its financial interests provisions, (ii) a requirement that hearings of the Commission be normally held in public, and (iii) the explicit prescription of the matters on which the Commission must annually report; if so, does the Attorney-General propose to take any action to amend the legislation as above; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (i) The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities considered the scope of the financial interests provisions of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979 at a meeting last year. The Council resolved that further consideration of this issue should await finalisation of the general policy to be arrived at concerning Commonwealth public servants and statutory office- holders. (ii) While sub-section 36 (2) of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979 provides the Commission with a discretion to hold a hearing in public or private, I am satisfied that the Commission is applying an acceptable policy in determining whether or not to hold a hearing in public and that there is no present need to amend the Act. (iii) While there is value in legislation containing detailed prescription of the matters to be included in annual reports, in the present circumstances it is appropriate to take account of the high standard of reports which have been produced by this Commission (see my commendation and that of the honourable senator in Hansard, 1982 Vol. s. 93 pages 155-7). (Question No. 944) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment been drawn to a report in the Darwin Advertiser of 17 May 1984 stating that Ashmore Reef Marine Park is under threat from Indonesian fishermen, in particular from the use of explosives, over fishing of clams, and contamination of water supplies. (2) Is the Minister satisfied with the surveillance of this area carried out by patrols of the Royal Australian Navy; if not, will the Minister take action to ensure the appointment of at least one full time ranger by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to be permanently stationed in the nature reserve. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. At the time the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve was declared, I gave an assurance that the priviliges afforded traditional Indonesian fishermen, under the memorandum of understanding concluded in 1974, would be maintained. Since that time, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) has become aware of a number of breaches of the memorandum of understanding. These offences include the taking of seabirds and their eggs, the killing of turtles, damage to vegetation, and unauthorised landings. Reports of the use of explosives by the Indonesian fishermen have not been substantiated. The contamination of the water in the well on Middle Island by cholera vibrios cannot be directly attributed to its usage by the Indonesian fishermen, as contamination from other sources is a possibility. (2) ANPWS is regularly sending wardens to the reserve on RAN patrol boats and, on occasion, in chartered vessels. Coastwatch aircraft patrol the reserve on a random basis. At this stage, the permanent stationing of ranger staff on such small islands 450 kilometres from the nearest Australian port is not considered the most suitable option for protection of the area. ANPWS is currently investigating, in collaboration with other Commonwealth departments, improved mechanisms for law enforcement in the nature reserves. (Question No. 946) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) When will the Government announce its intentions with regard to the development of a Royal Australian Air Force Base at Tindal in the Northern Territory and the redevelopment of Darwin Airport, both of which were recommended by the Parliamentary Public Works Committee to be undertaken. (2) When is it expected that funds will be released by the Government for: (a) the Tindal project; and (b) the Darwin Airport Redevelopment. (3) Are the proposed timetables for these projects, that is that both projects be completed by mid 1988, acceptable to the Government; if not, what timetable does the Government anticipate these projects to be developed under. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Following the presentation to Parliament of reports on both projects by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public works, motions approving work on them were passed in the House of Representatives on 7 June 1984. (2) (a) The Government will consider the Tindal project in the Budget context. (b) Funds for the Darwin Airport redevelopment were made available in the 1983- 84 Budget. (3) Yes. I understand that the first major tenders for the Darwin Airport project, for the aircraft pavement and terminal building, are expected to be called in August 1984 and September 1984 respectively. (Question No. 948) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) What (a) number; and (b) proportion of medical (i) practitioners, and (ii) specialists in South Australia are bulk billing patients through Medicare. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1239 or 75.3 per cent of general practitioners and 477 or 54.3 per cent of specialists have direct billed Medicare. These figures relate to claims processed by the Health Insurance Commission in the period 1 February 1984 to 31 May 1984. A practitioner is classified as a ' direct bill' practitioner if at least one of the services processed for him in that period is direct billed. A practitioner is classified as a general practitioner if the majority of his services are GP services. (Question No. 954) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Were community employment program funds provided to 'IRIS-Tasmania's Feminist Newsletter', $33 721 being 100 per cent of the total cost to employ 3 workers (possibly women) in the production of the paper. (2) Is it compatible with Government policy to fund an item which in itself is so blatantly sexist while claiming among other things to be non-sexist. (3) Is the paper sold or distributed freely; if so, to whom, by whom and at what expense. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. An application for funding under the community employment program (CEP) was submitted by 'IRIS-Tasmania's Feminist Newsletter'. This application was assessed and subsequently deferred as it did not comply with the program's guidelines. The sponsor has had discussions with officers of the CEP joint secretariat, and is to rework the proposal to more fully comply with the program 's guidelines and objectives. (2) All applications for funding under CEP are assessed according to the CEP guidelines. If projects meet the program's objectives of assisting the long term unemployed and disadvantaged groups in the labour market, and also comply with all other guideline requirements, then those projects will be considered on their merits by the community-based State Consultative Committee. The Commonwealth and State governments approve projects for funding on the basis of the Consultative Committees' recommendations. (3) The newspaper is available by subscription and is also distributed by voluntary labour to selected outlets at a cost of $1 per copy. (Question No. 958) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 June 1984: Can the Minister for Social Security explain why Aboriginal liaison officers operate under different guidelines in Queensland's offices of the Department of Social Security where regional directors have insisted these officers report via social work staff. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In Queensland Aboriginal liaison officers report to the Regional Manager and other senior staff via the senior social worker in each office. In other states Aboriginal liaison officers generally report directly to regional managers but individual arrangements are made to accommodate different circumstances. In Queensland it has been possible to utilise a uniform arrangement throughout the State. Largely because of the wide span of responsibility of regional managers in the larger offices in which Aboriginal liaison officers are typically appointed, the senior social worker is best able to provide the desirable level of consultation necessary to ensure that Aboriginal liaison officers receive appropriate support and assistance in co-ordinating those activities which impact on the responsibilities of other areas in the regional office. (Question No. 959) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 June 1984: (1) Has information been presented to the United States Congress by the Pentagon concerning the functions of the United States bases at Pine Gap and Nurrungar, as indicated in the National Times? (2) Did Australian officials in America advise the Government of this information, if so, when? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) As the Prime Minister said in his statement of 6 June 1984, all functions and activities of the joint defence facilities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. Close liaison arrangements exist with the United States to ensure that this requirement is satisfied. No information is available to either the United States or Australian governments that substantiates any claim that information concerning the functions of joint defence facilities in Australia; not available to the Australian Government, has been made available to the United States Congress. (Question No. 961) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 13 June 1984: (1) What library services are presently provided by the Department of Territories and Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) Where are these services located. (3) When are each of the services open to the public. (4) What mobile library services are available in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Territories and Local Government is responsible for the provision of public library services to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. This service comprises seven libraries situated throughout the Australian Capital Territory, and a mobile library service which regularly visits a number of areas. (2) The Public Libraries are located at: 74 Leichhardt Street, Kingston (Central Library); Woden Town Centre; Erindale Centre; Dickson Shopping Centre; Ground Floor of the North Building, Civic; Belconnen Town Centre; and Kippax Fair. (3) The seven libraries are open at the following times: Central Monday-Friday 10.00-9.00 Saturday 9.00-5.00 Erindale Centre Monday-Thursday 8.30-8.30 Friday 8.30-6.00 Saturday 9.00-5.00 Woden Town Centre Monday, Thursday 10.00-5.30 Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday 10.00-9.00 Saturday 9.00-5.00 Belconnen Town Centre Monday-Friday 10.00-9.00 Saturday 9.00-5.00 Civic Branch Monday-Friday 8.30-6.00 Saturday 9.00-5.00 Dickson District Monday-Thursday 9.00-8.00 Friday 9.00-9.00 Saturday 9.00-5.00 Kippax Interim Monday Closed Tuesday-Thursday 10.00-5.45 Friday 9.00-8.00 Saturday 9.00- 1.00 (4) I have been informed that there is one mobile library service which provides library services to three primary schools in the Tuggeranong Valley, rural areas at Hall and Tharwa, a number of old people's homes and retirement villages, and the Quamby Children's Remand Centre. The current timetable for the mobile library is as follows: Monday- Manuka 9.00-10.00 Jindalee (Lower) 10.15-11.15 Hartigan Street, Garran 11. 30-12.30 Quamby Children's Remand Centre 1.45-2.45 Goodwin Homes, Farrer 3.00 -4.00 Tuesday- Hall 9.00-11.00 Kankinya Nursing Home, Lyneham 11.10-11.30 Morshead Home, Lyneham 11.40-12.30 Goodwin Homes, Ainslie 1.45-2.45 Girrahween Lodge, Braddon 3.00-4.00 Wednesday- * Richardson (Primary School) 9.00-12.00 Tharwa 2.00-3.45 Thursday- Ozanam Home, Campbell 9.00-10.00 Ainslie Avenue/Batman Street, Braddon 10.15- 11.15 Hayley Street, Ainslie 11.30-12.30 Karingal Court, Narrabundah 1.50-2. 30 * Monash (Primary School) 3.00-4.00 Friday- * Gowrie (Primary School) 9.00-12.15 Mirinjani, Weston 1.45-2.45 Ambara Court, Waramanga 3.00-4.00 * Primary Schools are not visited during school holidays. The Mobile Library does not operate on weekends and public holidays. A new vehicle is presently being constructed for the mobile library service and it is expected to be operating in September/October this year. (Question No. 966) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 June 1984: (1) Will the Minister for Health consider making the payment of the domiciliary nursing care benefit operative from the time a patient leaves hospital, in view of the long delays which are being experienced under the present arrangements. (2) Will the Minister issue a brochure informing patients of the service when it becomes available. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The National Health Act provides for the domiciliary nursing care benefit to be paid in fortnightly instalments rather than on a daily adjusted basis. The legislation also specifies that actual entitlement to benefit payment does not occur until the commencement of the first fortnight's pay period following approval or re-approval of an application for benefit. The purpose of fortnightly payment is to ensure that funds available for payments of this nature are expended as far as possible on the benefits rather than on excessively detailed administration. There is further provision in the Act that the permanent head of my Department may determine benefits on a daily basis. That provision is intended to cope with cases where a beneficiary would be otherwise disadvantaged. Delays in restoration of the benefit may occur depending on the time taken by an applicant to inform my Department that the patient has returned home. Such delays do not result in loss of benefit because restoration is made retrospectively to the date of entitlement, that is the first pay period following return to care. (2) A pamphlet outlining the domiciliary nursing care benefit is currently being revised. (Question No. 977) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs recognise an anomaly in the defence service home corporation loans legislation, that while loans are available for home purchase, home extensions and renovations are excluded. (2) Will the Minister consider re-examining the issue to assist the ageing veterans sector of society to enable them to stay in their homes for a longer period. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) One of the basic objectives of the repatriation system is to arrange for those who served in wartime to be suitably re-established in civilian life. In keeping with this, the primary intention of the legislation is to facilitate home ownership for those who may have suffered some disadvantage, in comparison with those who did not serve, in obtaining a home. Since the introduction of the defence service homes scheme in 1919 it has been the view of successive Governments that assistance given to those who served to acquire a home, on highly favourable terms, places them on an equal footing with other members of the community. In accordance with this philosophy, the Defence Service Homes Act places responsibility on each borrower for the maintenance of the home and makes no general provision for further loans to finance renovations, maintenance or repairs. It is accepted that, with advancing years and deteriorating health, many veterans may experience difficulty in maintaining a home. Hence, notwithstanding the general policy that an eligible person may receive only one loan, the Defence Service Homes Act allows a ministerial discretion to approve a second loan. The policy guidelines for the grant of a second loan allow favourable consideration of applications to assist a borrower who can no longer maintain a family home to move to a strata title unit where maintenance is the responsibility of a body corporate. The guidelines limit the amount of the second loan to the outstanding balance of the first loan and require the lodgement of the application before the sale of the first home. Senator Grimes —On 6 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1234) Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the Medicare funding. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The Medicare agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments provides for a provisional grant to Queensland in 1983-84 (five months only) of $29m, with an estimated payment of $79.2m for the current financial year. These figures include payments in respect of a special grant of $35m in a full year, over and above the general Medicare provisions. Senator Grimes —On 13 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2915), Senator Messner asked Senator Ryan a question about industrial action in the Department of Social Security. Senator Ryan referred the question to me for reply. The answer is as follows: On 9 May 1984 the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association imposed limited work bans in Social Security regional offices in New South Wales in response to a move to reduce staff numbers in line with failing unemployment benefit workloads in the Department. All bans were lifted from 28 June 1984 following votes by staff association members in New South Wales to accept the terms of settlement of the dispute offered by the Government. The dispute had nothing to do with the introduction of an assets test. During the dispute bans were placed on the processing of overpayments and on checks of identity but they were not applied with any uniformity. With the lifting of bans those overpayments which were not processed during the dispute are now being actioned. The cost of the income and assets test for 1983-84 financial year was $20,772, 149. (Question No. 943) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Have funds for the program of aids for the disabled been exhausted in some States. (2) Why has this situation come about. (3) Has the scheme been abused. (4) What action has the Minister for Health taken to investigate the administration of this scheme. (5) If no action has been taken, will the Minister immediately initiate an investigation into the administration of the scheme and give an undertaking to report to the Parliament the results of that investigation. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Funds originally provided for the program of aids for disabled people (PADP ) in 1983-84 were $7.1m, an increase of 27 per cent over 1982-83 funding. The original allocation was virtually fully committed by the end of March 1984. The Government was concerned that disabled people within the Community were suffering unnecessary hardship as the waiting list for aids increased and accordingly, an additional $3.8m for PADP for 1983-84 was approved in May 1984. Total funding for PADP for 1983-84 was therefore $10.9m-a 95 per cent increase on 1982-83 funding. (2) The underlaying reasons for the accelerated commitment of original 1983-84 funding ($7.1m) were increased demand for aids and the fact that most states issued aids on a first come first served basis although the PADP arrangements provided that the states may determine priorities in the issue of aids as between categories of aids and/or recipients. (3) There is no evidence that PADP has been, or is being, abused. (4) and (5) As indicated in my News Release of 26 May 1984 announcing the additional funds for PADP for 1983-84, it is not possible in times of financial restraint for the program to be left open-ended and the States have the continuing responsibility for ensuring proper regulations of monies spent under PADP. My Department recently examined the operation of PADP in the current Budget context, with a view to developing options for the future of the program, including proposals for greater expenditure control and to ensure that funds are provided on an equitable basis with priority to those in need. These proposals will be discussed in detail in consultations with the States and Territories, and I will be seeking the assistance of all State Health Ministers in working together with the Commonwealth so these objectives can be reached. Senator Button —On 31 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2229) Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning occupational health and safety. In my reply I undertook to seek information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerning the response of employers to the Federal Government's proposed occupational health and safety commission. The Minister has provided the following response: The publication of the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (INOHSC) has added momentum to the discussion already underway throughout industry and the wider community about health and safety in the workplace. The Interim Commission was a tripartite body, with representation from the highest levels of the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Consultations with a wide range of interested bodies were held in every capital city and a total of 150 different groups and agencies were able to present their views. In addition, 143 organisations and individuals with an interest in the area took the time to prepare written submissions for consideration. Of these, 20 written submissions and 41 oral submissions came from individual employers or employer organisations. The submissions were made in addition to views expressed in the internal consultations carried out by the CAI and represented in the submission of that body. The Government's initiatives in the area of occupational health and safety have received widespread support; indeed, in his response to the tabling of the INOHSC report on 29 May 1984 the Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ian Macphee, congratulated the Interim Commission on its work and reiterated the strong support of the Opposition for the role of the Commonwealth in co-ordinating a national occupational health and safety strategy . Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , without notice, on 10 May 1984: Did the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in its Nationwide program, seen in Adelaide on Monday, 28 November 1983, present a report of a meeting in Melbourne of an auction of signs stolen from the Commonwealth defence facility at Pine Gap ? Will the Minister provide either a transcript or a video copy of the report to members of parliament and the Australian Federal Police to ascertain whether breaches of Commonwealth law were involved? Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 28 November 1983, Nationwide in Melbourne produced a report which was broadcast in Adelaide about the Australian Labor Party Victorian Branch Conference dealing in particular with the anti-uranium debate. The film report included a 12-second sequence of several signs being waved about. The commentary over this sequence reads: On display like trophies from a medieval battle were the relics of the female fracas at Pine Gap. Commonwealth property it may have been, but here it was being raffled in aid of the anti-uranium cause. If the Australian Federal Police consider that the program material raised matters for further investigation, I am sure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would co-operate fully. It does not seem to me to be a matter in which it would be appropriate for the Minister to take direct action of the nature referred to in the second part of the question. Senator Walsh —On 4 June 1984 (Hansard, pages 2406-7) Senator Jessop asked me a question without notice concerning reprocessing of Australian uranium. I undertook to provide additional information. The supplementary answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There is no substance whatever to the assertion that Australian uranium eventually winds up in Soviet and American nuclear arms. Very stringent safeguards requirements apply to Australian uranium exports to ensure that this does not happen. As far as the United Soviet Socialist Republic is concerned, Australian uranium is not supplied to that country, but Australian uranium supplied to Finland is enriched in the USSR on an 'all-in all-out' basis, meaning that both enriched uranium and depleted tails equal to the total amount of Australian uranium shipped into the USSR must be returned from the USSR. Australian uranium is not reprocessed in the USSR under any circumstances. No Australian uranium exported under contracts signed since 1972 has been reprocessed in any country. Australia has not consented to reprocessing by Finland, nor has Finland sought such consent. Senator Grimes —On 30 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2136) Senator Jones asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the alleged illegal removal of eyes at New South Wales hospitals. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Yes. My attention has been drawn to a segment that was screened on 60 Minutes on May 27 alleging illegal removal of eyes. I requested officers of my Department to investigate the implications of these allegations for the Commonwealth. There does not appear to have been any infringement of Commonwealth laws administered by my Department in respect of these allegations. All aspects of tissue transplants are a matter for State legislation. There is no legislation administered by my Department which could be used to remedy the alleged offences in connection with the removal of eyes. The alleged offences regarding removal of eyes without permission took place in New South Wales public hospitals. The administration of the New South Wales public hospital system is the responsibility of the New South Wales State Government. I understand the New South Wales Department of Health has instituted an investigation into specific complaints arising from the 60 Minutes program. The investigation of alleged conspiracy to obtain eyes from illegal sources is a matter for State authorities. Should such an offence be proven I will pursue the implications with regard to Medicare in each individual case. No. I have no evidence concerning similar practices in other hospitals in Australia. Senator Grimes —On 30 March 1984 (Hansard, pages 995-6) Senator Messner asked me , as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the program of aids for disabled people (PADP). I undertook to follow up with the Minister for Health the matter of his negotiations concerning funding under the program. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: I am pleased to inform Senator Messner that on 26 May I announced an additional $3.8m had been approved for the program of aids for disabled people for 1983-84, bringing the total funding for the program for this year to $10.9m-a 95 per cent increase over the funding for 1982-83 ($5.6m). The State and Northern Territory Ministers for Health were advised of their respective additional allocations on 30 May 1984. Western Australia is to receive an additional $350,000, bringing the State's total allocations under the Program for 1983-84 to $1.06m. I have also advised the States that the program is under review and that there will be no 'topping up' in any future year: Thus it will be essential for each State and Territory to regulate the funds provided in a way that ensures priority needs can be met throughout the year. Senator Grimes —On 7 May 1984 (Hansard, pages 1627-8) Senator Robertson asked me , as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning a survey of drug usage by New South Wales school children. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Although details of the survey have been kept confidential until recently by the New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority, certain 'highlights' of the survey were made available on a confidential basis to my Department in late February 1984. There has been no correspondence concerning the survey apart from my Department requesting details of the outcome of the survey. The New South Wales authority recently released an expanded version of these ' highlights' and I have asked that a copy of the New South Wales survey ' highlights' be lodged in the Parliamentary Library. The New South Wales authorities advise that full survey results will not be available until later in the year. The Acting Minister also answered a question without notice on 9 May 1984 from the honourable member for Macquarie on this matter in the House of Representatives (Hansard, page 2107). In his reply the Acting Minister stated that 'The Commonwealth is very concerned at the results of the survey which covered 4,165 students in New South Wales between Year 7 and Year 11. A number of other disturbing things came out of the report, indicating that more girls and boys are now smoking regularly, that over half the girls and boys using alcohol are using it on a regular basis and that analgesic usage is high and increasing. As a result of these concerns, the Drug Education Sub-committee and the Health Committee on Drugs of Dependence established a working group to develop a range of educational materials for students, teachers, parents, health educators and community groups to address the solvent abuse problem'. The Acting Minister also mentioned that at the recent Health Ministers' Conference, Ministers decided that additional funds should be made available at Commonwealth and State level for drug education programs for International Youth Year. Reports have also been sought from New South Wales as to action being taken in New South Wales schools to address the problem. The Acting Minister stated that 'at the national level, the assessment team of the Drug Education Sub-committee has produced its final report on the national drug education program (NDEP) and has made a number of recommendations and findings which will have national implications for drug abuse prevention strategy. These recommendations are currently being considered by State health authorities before referral to all State and Territorial health Ministers'. The Acting Minister stressed that 'The Commonwealth will continue to give an emphasis through the NDEP to projects directed towards youth in its funding of State and Territory drug education programs in 1984-85'. Senator Gareth Evans —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2759) Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that at present a protest hunger strike is taking place outside the Polish Embassy in Canberra and that the strike is organised in moral support of the political prisoners who are currently held in concentration camps and gaols in Jaruzelski' s Poland, as well as being a gesture of solidarity with Dr Andrei Sakharov and his wife Yelena Bonner of Gorky in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Has the Minister been informed that the Australian residents participating in the hunger strike all suffered severely at the hands of the Polish communist state? Will the Australian government take up their demands for an immediate and unconditional release of the growing number of political prisoners in Poland and deplore the failure of Poland to recognise their status as political prisoners? Will the Australian Government immediately make representations to the Polish Government and further condemn the increasing record of deaths, torture and ill- treatment of prisoners in Poland? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of the hunger strike which was mounted in front of the Polish Embassy by members of Polish 'Solidarity' who have recently arrived in Australia . I understand the hunger strike ended on 10 June. The Government noted their demands, which were concerned with the plight of their colleagues in detention in Poland. I instructed the Australian Ambassador to raise our concerns with Polish authorities. The Ambassador has now reported that he was able to make representations at a high level of the Polish Government on 26 June. He expressed the hope that all those in detention on political grounds would be released and that detainees would be treated in accord with accepted international standards. The Ambassador added that it was not the intention of the Australian Government in making these representations to express antagonism, nor to interfere in Poland's internal affairs. Our representations were an expression of concerns and values strongly held in Australia and similar concerns had been expressed to a range of other governments. Although the Polish Government rejected this approach as interference in Poland 's internal affairs, they were nevertheless concerned to demonstrate that serious abuses of recognised standards were not taking place and that the laws of Poland were being observed. I believe we have a duty to raise such vital issues with other governments and assure you we will continue to monitor the Polish Government's policy towards political detainees. Our Embassy will also report fully on the forthcoming trial of leading members KOR, scheduled to commence on 13 July. Senator Ryan —On 14 June 1984 (Hansard, page 3026) Senator Reynolds asked a question without notice concerning reports of lack of meteorological back-up for international flights landing at Cairns Airport. I undertook to seek a reply from the Minister for Science and Technology. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Observations and briefing services for aviation are provided by Bureau of Meteorology staff located at Cairns. Weather observers are normally on duty between 2 a.m. and 11 p.m. local time and technical officers (meteorology), who provide the briefing services, between 4 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. Aviation forecasting services for Cairns are provided from Townsville. Public weather forecasting services, including the tropical cyclone warning service, are provided from Brisbane. Recent staff shortages in the Bureau made a temporary reduction of one observer at Cairns unavoidable, with a result that the coverage was reduced to 2.30 a.m. to 9.15 p.m. Saturday to Thursday and 7 a.m. to 9.15 p.m. on Friday from 29 March 1984. However technical officers were always on duty at the scheduled times of landing of international flights. The full observer roster will be back in operation on 8 August 1984. Senator Button —On 14 June 1984 (Hansard, page 3027) Senator Cook asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the following question without notice: What is the view of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations of yesterday's decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granting a 4.1 per cent national wage rise to Australia's 130,000 building workers? Is it a fact that the Bench commended the role of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 'sponsoring the gradual and orderly development of occupational superannuation'? Is it a fact that the Bench described the building industry negotiations as seeking to achieve a genuine superannuation scheme? Do these comments and the outcome of the case reflect commendably on Minister Willis's handling of the serious problem in this industry and represent a case study in how the accord works to lower tensions in the previously strife-torn industry? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The Government welcomed the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission' s decision on 13 June 1984 to extend the 4.1 per cent national wage increase to building workers. In handing down its decision, the Commission stated inter alia, that the ACTU ' played a responsible part in coordinating the negotiations and in endeavouring to eliminate industrial action associated with the superannuation claim. It has primarily committed itself to a gradual and orderly development of occupational superannuation, and has given an unequivocal commitment that the building unions ' superannuation scheme will not form the basis for flow-on of such schemes to other areas.' The Commission was not asked to approve the proposed superannuation scheme. However, on the basis of the information supplied by the ACTU and the Commonwealth, the Commission found that it appeared that the proposal was for a genuine superannuation scheme. It did not accept opposing claims that the scheme sought to avoid Principle 3 of the National Wage Principles, or to compensate employees for prior rejection of aspects of the 1983 Building Industry Agreement . The Commission's decision supports the Government's position on this matter. The Government has been concerned to promote stability in this industry from the outset. The establishment of the National Building and Construction Industry Conference in May 1983, the support for the parties' negotiation of superannuation arrangements for the industry and the Commonwealth's intervention in respect of the flow-on to building industry unions of the 4.1 per cent national wage case decision, have all been to that end. The Government expects that the introduction of superannuation arrangements, together with commitments by the parties to the associated industrial relations package, will contribute substantially to the stability which this industry needs if it is to contribute fully to economic recovery. (Question No. 486) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 8 November 1983: Has Telecom Australia received representation from the subscribers of the Yalleroi telephone exchange in relation to charges under the Countrywide Calling system; if so, does Telecom agree with the subscribers' claim that 'Countrywide Calling' is 'one of the greatest confidence tricks of all times' and does Telecom intend to review the charges about which the Yalleroi subscribers complain. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: I refer to the honourable senator to my reply to question No. 483. A review has been carried out in the Yalleroi area and Telecom has found it practicable to restore local call access to Blackall for Yalleroi subscribers until such time as the Yalleroi exchange is converted to automatic working. (Question No. 627) Senator Chipp asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: Has the Prime Minister received a satisfactory response from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, after his request for reconsideration of a number of provisions in the new Northern Territory Criminal Code; if so, does the Government intend to advise the Governor-General to disallow the Code before 1 January 1984 when it will take effect unless this action is taken (see answer to question No. 461, Hansard, 30 November 1983, page 3080). Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I refer the honourable senator to the reply I provided to Senator Robertson on 29 March 1984 (Senate Hansard, pages 876-877). (Question No. 629) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) What are the criteria used by Australia Post in changing the boundaries of a postcode area. (2) How regularly are these boundaries reviewed and are they reviewed on a needs and case by case basis for particular areas or is there a periodical national State and Territory review. (3) What branch or section of Australia Post is responsible for the organisation of postcode boundaries and who are the officers managing the branch or section and in which cities are they located. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided, from information supplied by the Australian Postal Commission, the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The postcode system was introduced to facilitate the sorting and distribution of mail. Boundaries for each postcode area were selected with the objective of achieving an efficient mail delivery service. Precise boundaries were set having regard to postal operational needs and to practical considerations including local conditions such as barriers formed by creeks and highways. Once set and in use for postal operations and by the postal consumer, stability in postcode boundaries becomes important for the efficiency of the mail service. It is Australia Post's experience that acceptance of changes to postcode boundaries has proved to be difficult to achieve in practice, with operational problems of incorrectly addressed mail and missorting persisting for some time after a change. Accordingly, boundaries may be changed only when such change is necessary to maintain or improve the efficiency of mail delivery. For example, a new postcode area would be introduced, and boundaries of existing areas adjusted, when a new delivery office is established. Postcode boundaries would be altered also where the mail delivery area of a post office in a developing region is extended, for service reasons, into an adjoining postcode area. (2) Postcode boundaries are reviewed on a case by case basis only. There is no periodic national, State or Territory review. In addition to the reasons in (1) above for stability in postcode boundaries, Australia Post is aware that the business community would resist strongly regular reviews of, and extensive and avoidable changes to, postcode boundaries, because of the costs involved in consequent changes to stationery, mailing lists and other business applications of the postcode. (3) Operational responsibility for postcode boundaries for each State rests with the State Manager of that State*. The actual area in each State administration overseeing the postcode differs between the States. Details of the branches involved, which are located in the capital city of each State, are set out below: New South Wales: Manager, Network Development Branch Victoria: Manager, Customer Services Branch Queensland: Manager, Planning Branch Western Australia: Manager, Planning Branch South Australia: Manager, Operations Planning Branch Tasmania: State Manager *(Note: The State Managers of New South Wales and South Australia have responsibility for postcode boundaries in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory respectively.) (Question No. 673) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) What is the total of the 'offset' debt owing to Australia for defence purchases made overseas. (2) Which countries owe an 'offset' debt to Australia, and what is the approximate amount of each debt. (3) What are the ranks of the people directly concerned with handling Australian 'offsets' in the United States. (4) What qualifications have these persons in marketing. (5) Has the Department of Defence Support made any projections of what percentage of the 'offset' debt will have to be written off, and what amount does that percentage represent. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The value of the outstanding offsets commitments arising from defence purchases cannot be stated with precision as the recording system in use until recently did not distinguish between offsets and other elements of work undertaken locally under the Australian Industry participation (AIP) procedures. it is impracticable to identify the ineligible elements. recently initiated changes in record keeping should correct this problem. the total current outstanding obligation for civil and defence purchases, including AIP, is approximately $1,000m. However, a substantial part of this amount is subject to agreements which still have several years to run. The Government is taking steps to ensure these will be substantially fulfilled. (2) Offsets obligations are perceived primarily as a contractor-specific rather than a national responsibility. In addition the identification of outstanding offsets on a national basis tends to reflect the value of purchases made from that country rather than the degree of compliance with the policy. The following figures are the most recent available and include offsets against both civil and defence purchases and some non-offsets elements of AIP. $m U.S.A. 854 U.K. 6 Germany 58 Japan 28 France 56 Other 3 (3) The Department of Defence Support has one Engineer Class 4 who handles offsets and other departmental interests in the Australian Embassy in Washington . Defence have a substantial presence in Washington led by the Head of Australian Defence Staff, and involving a number of senior service officers and defence civilian staff, many of whom are involved to a greater or lesser degree in offsets activities. There is also a staff group in the US dedicated to the F/ A-18 new tactical fighter project similarly involved in offsets aspects of the project. Australia is also funding the employment of a US Government officer located within the US Department of Defence to identify bid packages capable of being quoted against by Australian industry under the offsets policy. (4) None. However they do have the technical and engineering qualifications essential for assessment of offsets proposals in the context of Australias's industrial capacity. The marketing expertise to take advantage of the offsets opportunities is seen to properly rest with Australian industry. (5) No such projections have been made as it is not the practice to write off such commitments. An offsets obligation once incurred remains current until fulfilled. Offset performance against existing obligations will play an increasingly important role in the award of future contracts. (Question No. 674) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: Do any Commonwealth Government departments use envelopes carrying the initials 'OHMS'; if so, what departments and what is the necessity for having these initials printed on envelopes. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Envelopes carrying the initials 'OHMS' are used by the Departments of Defence, Resources and Energy, Trade and Transport, and by some regional offices in the Departments of Administrative Services, Education and Youth Affairs, Science and Technology and Veterans' Affairs. There is no necessity for using envelopes carrying these initials. Departments continue to use the envelopes for one of two reasons: (a) following historical precedent; or (b) using up old stock, or stock obtained through longstanding contracts. WESTERN AUSTRALIA Chairman Professor R. M. C. Lourens 19.2.82 18.2.85 1,385(a) Members Mr I. Court 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr W. S. Latter 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr J. P. McKiernan 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr R. Catoni 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Ms D. White 28. 2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr W. J. Brown 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr J. F. Currie 19.2.82 18. 2.85 (b) Mr P. H. Forrest 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Deputy Members Ms B. Baker 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr A. R. Beech 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr H. Bluck 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr H. R. Purvis 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Ms K. Ralph 28.2.82 27 .2.85 (b) Mr R. F. Thorogood 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) TASMANIA Chairman Sir George Cartland, C.M.G. KS.t.J. 19.2.82 18.2.85 1,385(a) Members Mr R. J. Watling 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr P. A. Imlach 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr P. J. Noonan 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr P. A. Lennon 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr B. L. Risely 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr D. A. L. Harlem 28.2.82 27.2.85 (b) Mr D. Batchelor 17.6.83 18.2.85 (b) Mr T. F. Knight 1.7.82 27.2.85 (b) (a) Annual salary. (b) No daily sitting fee payable. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE Chairman Mr G. Polites, A.C. C.M.G. M.B.E. 24.1.79 (d) (a) Members Mr R. Gradwell 21.6.82 (d) (a) Mr P. Munro 20.9.83 (d) (a) Mr G. Rees 26.8.80 (d) (b) Mr P. M. Jenkins Ex officio appointment (d) (c) (a) Members are not entitled to any remuneration; however, in appropriate circumstances they may receive travelling allowance to attend meetings. (b) Paid in his capacity as First Assistant Secretary, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. (c) Paid in his capacity as National Director, Commonwealth Employment Service. (d) No set term of appointment. CENTRAL TRADES COMMITTEES Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr J. Woodrow (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr B. Purnell (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. P. Cronly (1) (3) Employers Representative, Mr G. Walmsley, M .B.E. 20.9.46 (2) (5) Employers Representative, Mr I. Little 10.4.77 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr T. Addison 10.7.76 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr W. Martin 30.8.78 (2) (5) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr J. Woodrow (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr B. Purnell (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. P. Cronly (1) (3) Employers Representative, Mr I. Little 10.4 .77 (2) (5) Employers Representative, Mr R. J. Down 29.11.72 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr R. J. Perriam 16.10.80 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr J. R. Devereux 25.11.83 (2) (5) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr J. Woodrow (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr B. Purnell (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. P. Cronly (1) (3) Employers Representative, Mr G. Walmsley, M .B.E. 20.9.46 (2) (5) Employers Representative, Mr I. Little 10.4.77 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr P. Johnson nominated (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr R. T. Scott 25.10.73 (2) (5) Sheet Metal Trades Chairman, Mr J. Woodrow (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr B. Purnell (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. P. Cronly (1) (3) Employers Representative, Mr G. Walmsley, M .B.E. 20.9.46 (2) (5) Employers Representative, Mr I. Little 10.4.77 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr G. Harrison 8.8.80 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr E. J. Scott 8.8.80 (2) (5) Blacksmithing Trades Chairman, Mr J. Woodrow (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr B. Purnell (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. P. Cronly (1) (3) Employers Representative, Mr I. Little 19.4 .77 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr P. Johnson 4.4.77 (2) (5) Boot Trades Chairman, Mr J. Woodrow (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr B. Purnell (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. P. Cronly (1) (3) Employers Representative, Mr C. W. Reis 30. 8.78 (2) (5) Employers Representative, Mr K. McL Smith 30.8.77 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr S. Bitmead 26.10.71 (2) (5) Employees Representative, Mr L. Colbourne 2.8.71 (2) (5)