Wednesday, 22 August 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pornography 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 supercede 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 24 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 55 citizens), Durack (from 38 citizens), Giles (from 34 citizens), Robertson (from 107 citizens) and Scott (from 394 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 Robert Ray (from 34 citizens), Robertson (from 195 citizens) and Zakharov (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australian in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Giles (from 18 citizens) and Robertson (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flag Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That: the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; 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 for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people 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 MacGibbon (from 61 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 Senator Robertson (from 102 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe that tertiary students and their welfare are critical to the economic and cultural future of Australia and that students are currently condemned to living at little more than half the poverty line. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That Members acknowledge that an increase in higher education participation and in the quality of the learning process will not be achieved without an overhaul of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. 2. That, as a consequence of item 1, a substantial rise in the level of T.E.A.S ., at least to the level of the single adult unemployment rate, be a primary priority in the 1984 Federal Budget. 3. That instead the principle of student dependancy on parents to the age of 25 currently at the foundation of T.E.A.S., students be recognised as independent of parents from age 18. 4. That the regulations surrounding T.E.A.S. which make the allowance amongst the most difficult of all Government payments to obtain, be overhauled significantly as soon as possible in consultation with student groups. 5. That tribunals, consisting of student and community representatives be empowered to grant T.E.A.S. in cases of particular hardship which may fall outside the T.E.A.S. regulations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 283 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitions most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 259 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we are totally opposed to any legislation which allows video films, films, and books dealing with sex, drugs, crime, cruelty and revolting phenomena, to be imported, produced and dealt with commercially in Australia. We, the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 113 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 or 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 74 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ''first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The ''joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ''joint Australian-U.S.'' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Primmer (from 79 citizens) and Zakharov (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piece-meal, 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 Senator Martin (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate 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 has been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitudes to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 60 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 hard-core 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 3,062 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, being citizens of Australia, respectfully submit that the Government- 1. Clearly and unequivocally condemns the continuing breaches of the international Covenants on civil, political and human rights by the Government of Poland; 2. Demands from the Polish authorities an immediate end to torture, beatings, physical coercion and psychological maltreatment of people remaining in prison for their political beliefs and attitudes; 3. Acts immediately for the release of all people who remain in Polish prisons for their attempts to exercise civil, political and human rights guaranteed to them by Polish Constitution and the international Covenants; 4. Sends an official legal observer to the trial of the four KSS-KOR defendants : Mr Jacek Kuron, Mr Adam Michnik, Mr Zbigniew Romaszewski and Mr Henryk Wujec. The defendants are going on trial on July 13th 1984 on charges of plotting to overthrow the Polish Communist State. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: A. 1. Amendments to the Customs Regulations have removed legal barriers to the importation of hard-core pornography into Australia; 2. The introduction of X classification in the ACT, by the Prohibited Publications Ordinance, has removed legal barriers to the sale of hard-core pornography within the ACT; and 3. The distribution of pornography degrades women, injures children and undermines family life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: B. 1. Disallow the Prohibited Publications Ordinance and the amendments to the Customs Regulations; and 2. Introduce legislation which adequately reflects community standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 203 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned that the world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since World War II. That in a nuclear war all life on this planet is in danger of extinction. That there are foreign bases on Australian Territory that, far from adding to our security make us a nuclear target. That Australia can influence the superpowers by refusing to harbour or help deliver their weapons. That Australia can influence the superpowers by actively working to improve the understanding and relationships between their peoples. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. End all port-of-call landing rights for foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry. 2. Remove all military installations on Australian Territory that contribute to the ability to conduct nuclear attacks. 3. Legislate to bring any purely surveillance bases on Australian Territory under the control of the Australian Government or the United Nations. 4. Allocate at least five percent of the Defence budget to peace education activities, including social defence (non-violent) training for Australian citizens, and programs designed to improve understanding and acceptance between the peoples of the US and the USSR. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 687 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 in relation to the parliamentary departments, the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984 be referred to Estimates committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the committees consider proposed expenditure and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates committee groupings agreed to by resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1983. (4) That the committees report to the Senate on or before Tuesday, 9 October 1984. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the actions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board in seeking to rewrite Australian Laws and community standards on marriage, and rights and entitlements thereto, by extending to ABC staff in homosexual relationships the same staff rights, privileges and entitlements currently attaching to married couples; and (b) calls on the Minister for Communications, and the Government to immediately disband the current ABC Board and to reconstitute it with members who are prepared to attend, responsibly, to matters within the ABC's charter to maintain and improve service and standards in an Australian national radio and television broadcasting service, rather than concentrating on matters such as moral judgments and community family standards outside its jurisdiction. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labour Government for the imposition of a tax on wine and the lowering of protection for Australian wines against imported produce and in so doing notes: (a) the promises of both the Prime Minister and Minister for Primary Industry during the 1983 election campaign not to impose any tax on wine during the term of a Labor Government; (b) that 60 percent of Australia's wines are produced in South Australia and that the imposition of the tax on wine will adversely affect the South Australian economy and the local economies of the Riverland, the Barossa and Clare Valleys, the Southern Vales and the South Eastern wine districts in particular; (c) that the tax will result in a fall in demand for wine which in turn will cut production and demand for grapes at a time when the Industries Assistance Commission has found that the industry is in a difficult position; (d) the failure of the South Australian Premier, the Minister for Primary Industry or South Australian Labor members of Federal Parliament to protect the interests of South Australia's wine industry; (e) that once again it is being left to South Australia's Liberal Party members of Federal and State Parliament to fight for the interests of the wine industry and the South Australian economy. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) having had time to consider the effect of the Assets Test; (b) conscious of the increasing awareness of pensioners and those approaching pension age of the adverse effect of the Test; (c) bearing in mind that the Department of Social Security will be empowered to enter into a pensioner's home to check their assets; and. (d) taking into account the small amount of revenue to be raised by the test after its costly $30m introduction; is convinced, for those and other reasons, that the whole idea should be dropped immediately. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses growing concern over the national debt implications of the current Budget as illustrated by the following examples: the education commitment is estimated to have increased by 11.2 per cent to $4544m this year and the health commitment has been increased by 2 per cent this year to to $ 6184m, whereas the interest payment on the public debt-most of which is paid to overseas institutions, has increased by an alarming 29.4 per cent this year to $ 5601m. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for ignoring the plight of women working in their home caring for children by not increasing the Dependent Spouse rebate or family allowance. Senator MESSNER(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to address the needs of the aged and notes that the Government- (a) has failed to establish an Office of Aged Care as promised during the 1983 election; (b) has failed to raise pensions to 25 per cent as promised during the 1983 election; and (c) has consistently attacked the income security of the aged through a means test on the over-70s pension, an assets test on all pensioners, and the introduction of a savage new tax on lump sum superannuation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Southern Bluefin Tuna-IAC report 2. Rural Adjustment-IAC report 3. Agricultural Wheeled Tractors and Certain Parts- IAC report 4. Computer Hardware and Software; Typewriters, Calculating and other Office Machines: Parts and Accessories; Recording Media, Metal Working Machines Tools, Robots-IAC report 5. Industrial Overalls-IAC report 6. Electric Motors-IAC (Interim) report 7. Tableware and Other Goods of Ceramics-IAC (Interim) report 8. Agricultural Wheeled Tractors and Certain Parts-IAC (Interim) report 9. Filament Lamps-Temporary Assistance Authority Report 10. Australian National University 1983 Report Part 1-Pursuant to Section 33 (3 ) of the Australian National University Act of 1946-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 11. Evaluation of Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service Part 1-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans Affairs relating to the report. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Button, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.14) — I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill, and its companion, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill, which I will table shortly, propose changes to the petroleum retail marketing legislation package introduced in 1980. That legislation aims to provide lessee service station operators, called 'Franchisees' in the Bill, with certain basic protections, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act, and to limit the number of oil company direct-operated retail sites, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act. A review of the legislation was announced on 18 May last year. This review was necessary because, since the introduction of the legislation, many problems have arisen in the operation of both Acts. An important feature of the review conducted by the Department of Industry and Commerce has been the close consultation with all groups affected by the legislation-oil companies, dealer groups, consumer groups and State government departments. All parties displayed a very constructive attitude in addressing the many problems which have come to light during the operation of the legislation. The amendments to the Franchise Act contained in the Bill now before the Parliament are quite extensive. Many of the amendments have arisen from the consultations and have the general agreement of the industry. However, I must emphasise that this Bill does not seek to alter the basic policy direction of the franchise Act, which is to confer basic rights on lessee service station dealers. Rather, it seeks to simplify the Act, and make it more effective and balanced between the parties. The current legislation was introduced by the previous Government following sustained criticism of marketing practices and the highlighting of serious problems in the industry by the royal commission on petroleum in 1976. The commission drew attention to alleged unfair price discrimination, increasing vertical integration by the major oil companies and unfair leasing arrangements between the companies and their lessee dealers. The oil industry marketing consultative committee which was subsequently formed and the national oil industry conference failed to find agreed industry solutions to the serious problems in petroleum marketing. It would be helpful at this stage if I were to outline briefly the main features of the current franchise Act. The Act provides basic protection for certain dealers, both in the pre- franchise period, and during the currency of a franchise relationship. An important condition for this protection, however, is that there is a franchise relationship in regard to the retail sale of motor fuel. Such a relationship demands three basic elements: the first involves the use by a franchise dealer of a Franchisor's Trademark in connection with the retail sale of motor fuel; the second relates to a right granted by that franchisor permitting the franchisee to possess, occupy or use premises for the retail sale of motor fuel; and the third entitles the franchisor to supply motor fuel for retail sale at those premises. Where such a relationship is contemplated, the Act requires that information known to a potential franchisor, which is material and relevant to the operation and profitability of the relevant marketing premises, be made available to the potential franchisee. Once a franchise relationship is entered into, the Act protects a franchisee's tenure by guaranteeing a minimum term of three years and providing an entitlement in most circumstances to two three-year renewals. Termination of such a relationship by a franchisor is prohibited except on specific and limited grounds. The Act generally prohibits a franchisor from discriminating between its franchisees in the price of motor fuel supplied to them, or in any discounts, allowances, rebates or credits given or allowed to them in respect of such fuel. I should stress that the Act is not restricted to the franchise relationships of the major oil companies. It may also apply to the relationships involving any other companies engaged in petroleum retailing. The important condition for the Act's application is the existence of the three basic elements of a franchise relationship I mentioned earlier. I now turn to the problems identified with the current legislation and the amendments contained in this Bill. A major problem that has arisen with the operation of the Franchise Act is that it has applied to a wider range of franchise relationships than was originally intended. I understand that it was intended, and still is intended, that the Franchise Act would apply only to those relationships where a franchisee operates a typical ''retail service station business'', making retail sales of motor fuel on his own behalf, and not as an agent or employee of an oil company/franchisor. Wholesale fuel establishments, referred to in the industry as depots, are the most obvious example of the Principal Act having a broader application than was intended. A significant number of lessee depot operators, in addition to their normal bulk and wholesaling functions, have historically engaged in some retailing, though usually as a minor part of their normal functions. I also understand that it was intended that the Franchise Act would apply to franchise relationships in respect of depot or bulk sites if retail sales constituted a significant proportion of total sales. On the other hand, if retail sales were only a minor and incidental part of total sales, the Act was not intended to apply. The reason the Franchise Act has inadvertently applied to many depots is attributable to the current application test which is based on the percentage of retail sales to total sales made at a particular site. This test has been found to be inappropriate as it applies the Act to some marketing premises which have only minimal retail sales, and yet fails to apply it to others which have significant retail sales. The Franchise Amendment Bill introduces a new application test-a 'volume threshold' test. This new test will apply the Act only to franchise relationships where retail sales of motor fuel at the marketing premises, effected by a franchisee on his own behalf, exceed 360,000 litres per annum. The objective behind the new test remains the same-the amended Act is not intended to apply to franchised premises with quite minimal retail sales. While the volume threshold level of 360,000 litres per annum is acknowledged to be well below the minimum economic throughput of an average lessee service station, the level was chosen following consultations, to ensure that the maximum number of franchise relationships will continue to have the protection of the Act. The government proposes to review the level of the volume threshold test periodically. Because of this important change in the application of the Act, some transitional arrangements are required to cater for premises whose status under the current legislation may change when the amended Act comes into effect on 1 January 1985. These arrangements are contained in clause 25 of the Bill and concern essentially two major categories of marketing premises. The first relates to existing franchise relationships pertaining to retail service station type premises. These will continue to have the protection of the amended Act from the date of its commencement, 1 January 1985, irrespective of whether or not retail motor fuel sales at those premises during 1984 met the new volume threshold. All such relationships will be accorded full protection of the Act for at least the year 1985. In effect, a one year transitional period is to be allowed, during which time a franchisee will have the opportunity to meet the new test. For most true retail service station-type businesses, the threshold should present no problem, for as I have already mentioned, the threshold level has been set below what is regarded in the industry as the minimum economic throughput of an average lessee service station. For those franchised premises, however, which do not meet the volume test in the year 1985, there will be no obligation on the franchisor to renew the franchise relationship when that relationship is next due for renewal. Failure to satisfy the volume threshold in 1985, or any subsequent year for that matter, will become a possible ground for non-renewal under the amended Act but, as such , it will be subject to the express safeguards of the Act relating to renewal. The second major category of marketing premises dealt with in the transitional provision, clause 25 of the Bill, relates to franchise relationships pertaining to predominantly wholesale fuel establishments or depots. The Bill clarifies the unintended application of the Act to such outlets by expressly removing them from the Act, in the following manner. A definition of a 'bulk site agreement' is provided to describe establishments to which the amended Act will not apply. In essence, marketing premises will be regarded as bulk wholesale sites where not more than 25 per cent of the total petroleum products dealt with at the premises during 1984 consisted of retail sales of petrol. This definition has attempted to capture the totality of the operation of a bulk site by recognising that products, in addition to being sold from the site, may also be transferred through the site to other storage places or marketing premises. The amended Act will not apply to such sites for the remainder of their fixed lease periods. This temporary exemption is necessary to permit oil companies the opportunity to renegotiate their agreements relating to their own bulk sites to ensure the Act does not apply, if they so wish. Otherwise, a relatively small amount of petrol retailing might bring a predominantly wholesale business under legislation designed to regulate franchise relationships involving the retail marketing of motor fuel. To allow companies the opportunity to renegotiate their agreements relating to bulk sites, it has been necessary for the Bill to provide for an amendment to section 7 (1) of the Act to permit what in effect might be described as ' contracting out' of the Act. This amendment, set out in clause 5, is, however, confined to agreements in respect of marketing premises which meet the test of a bulk site. It cannot be used by franchisors to deny the application of the amended Act to retail service stations to which the Act would normally apply. I will now outline the other important amendments in this Bill. Clause 8 introduces a new section into the Act to provide that payments required to be made by a franchisee during the currency of the franchise relationship, other than payments for motor fuel or other stock in trade, must not be increased unreasonably by the franchisor. At present, this protection only applies at the renewal stage of a franchise relationship. The new section will extend to the consideration of any rebates, waivers, discounts, allowances or other like arrangements which affect the actual amounts required to be paid by a franchisee. Clause 15 introduces several additional grounds for termination of a franchise relationship. These cater for situations which are beyond the control of either party to the relationship, notably where the marketing premises are to be compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth, a State, Territory or local government, or where the sale of motor fuel at the marketing premises is no longer permissible due to a change in a law relating to the use of the land. Clause 16 deals with renewal of franchise relationships, including the mechanical and administrative procedures relating to renewal and non-renewal. I do not propose to talk about these procedures here, except to say that the reordering and clarification of section 17 of the current Act should assist all parties in their future renewal dealings. There are however, several important new grounds for non-renewal which are worth mentioning. The first concerns the requirement that a franchisee achieve the volume threshold level of 360,000 litres per annum in each year of the three -year agreement. This amendment will ensure that the basis for entitlement to the protection of the act at the commencement of a franchise relationship is continued throughout the renewal stages of the relationship, guaranteeing a minimum volume throughout for a franchisor before requiring a renewal of the relationship. A further important ground for non-renewal concerns redevelopment of a site. Under clause 16 a franchisor will be able to refuse renewal where it proposes, in good faith and in the normal course of business, to occupy and use the marketing premises wholly for purposes other than the retail sale of motor fuel, or where it proposes to redevelop the premises wholly or principally for purposes other than the retail sale of motor fuel. This amendment is intended to broaden a franchisor's ability to refuse franchise renewal in order to obtain vacant possession of premises, and should assist in orderly rationalisation of sites in the industry. It is not the Government's intention to entrench uneconomic sites and this amendment should clarify our position in this regard. Clause 18 introduces certain protections for a franchisee made necessary because of the new redevelopment ground for non-renewal, which I have just mentioned. Situations may arise where a franchisor has not renewed a franchise relationship due to the planned redevelopment of the premises, but the redeveloped premises are to be used, in some capacity, for the retail sale of motor fuel. The franchisor will be required in most cases to offer the former franchisee the opportunity to remain at the premises under a new agreement, on terms no less favourable than those offered to other persons. This amendment should ensure that the redevelopment ground for non-renewal is not used as a means of denying an existing franchisee's security of tenure. Clause 20 makes an important clarification to the prohibition of certain price discrimination in section 20. The act is presently unclear as to whether the prohibition of price discrimination by a franchisor amongst its franchisees relates only to motor fuel supplied for retail sale or whether it also covers wholesaling. This prohibition is being clarified to confine it to motor fuel supplied for retail sale. On a more general note, the Government has given careful consideration to submissions on alleged price discrimination in the industry and to suggestions that the scope of section 20 should be broadened to include other classes of resellers, for example, owner-dealers. The Government is of the view, however, that the original intention of the franchise act in only regulating the relationship between a franchisor and its franchisees should be preserved. The Government considers it would be inappropriate to extend the franchise act to prohibit a franchisor from supplying motor fuel to its franchisees at different prices from those offered to other classes of resellers. Clause 21 amends section 21 to allow franchisors to seek court relief to enforce provisions of the act or restrain contraventions of it. Section 21 in the act is currently restricted to franchisees, and this change should give franchisors an equal opportunity to protect their position under the act. Similarly, the clause amends section 22 to allow franchisors to be compensated by franchisees where the franchisor suffers loss or damage by reason of the franchisee contravening a provision of the act. Clause 22, relating to the jurisdiction of courts in matters arising under the act, clarifies the intent of the government not to restrict the exercise of federal jurisdiction by the inferior courts of each state and territory in respect of all matters arising under the act, where those lower courts possess the authority to deal with such matters. It is the Government's belief that this amendment will permit parties to pursue remedies under the act which involve more speedy and less costly litigation. This Government will continue the previous policy of having the franchise act enforceable by private action only. The government considers that the measures contained in this bill will clarify the intention and application of the act and redress a number of the imbalances which have become evident in its operation. The changes will remove a number of the present restrictions on oil companies in rationalising their retail networks , at a time when the desire of the industry is that such rationalisation should occur. In proposing the amendments, the Government has also been conscious of the need to preserve certain protections for, and rights of, franchisees. It is the Government's belief that the franchise act has done much to improve many of the problems in petroleum marketing relationships. We feel there is a greater understanding and tolerance now by all parties as to each others' problems and perceptions. As a result we believe that fairness and good relations will continue to prevail in dealings amongst all parties in the industry. The act when amended should provide the basic ground rules for this to occur. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT The measures introduced by this Bill will require no additional financial outlay by the Government. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Button, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 to make it simpler and more effective in meeting the Government's objectives. The Sites Act was introduced by the previous Government to effect, through the allocation of site quotas, a 50 per cent reduction in the number of retail service stations operated directly by the major oil companies in Australia. In this Government's pre-election statement on business regulation, we undertook to continue the policy of restricting the involvement of the major oil companies in the retail petroleum market by a process known throughout the industry as divorcement. We acknowledge that there are price competition advantages in permitting the majors to have some share of the retail market but consider the involvement of these corporations should be restricted to protect small businesses operating in the market. The Government has undertaken to closely monitor the process of partial divorcement now occurring under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act to ensure that a satisfactory balance is struck and maintained between the interests of consumers, service station dealers and oil companies. In my speech introducing the related Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill 1984 I outlined briefly the background to the Government's policies and the reasons that have led the Government to continue with the petroleum retail marketing legislation package. I believe it would be helpful if at this point I were to outline the background to the current sites Act and the Government's proposals under this Bill to continue a partial divorcement policy. Prior to the introduction of the legislation in 1980 there was an acceleration in the trend on the part of some oil companies to move away from marketing motor fuel through lessee and independent service station operators to direct selling of motor fuel to the public. Generally these direct sales were made at stations operated for an oil company by a commission agent. Figures provided to the previous Government indicated that total company operated site numbers, that is, sites operated by company employees or commission agents, had increased from 578 in June 1978, to 670 in June 1979, and to over 800, not counting special purpose sites, in May 1980. In the same period total service station numbers declined from 14 281 to 12 411. The movement to oil company operated sites caused some concern in the community because of its effect on small businesses in the industry, and gave rise to claims of unfair competition. There were also fears that if the trend continued the resultant increased vertical integration by the major oil companies would have had long term, anti-competitive effects. When in opposition, we supported the previous Government in the particular and unique circumstances of the petroleum industry, in its belief that the time had come to arrest this trend. We also generally agreed with the previous Government's position that total divorcement, that is, a complete prohibition on oil company direct retailing, was not necessary to achieve the stated objectives in this area. It was considered that a reduction of about 50 per cent in the number of retail sites directly operated by the companies at 30 May 1980 would be adequate. This reduction was to 401 sites overall. A further concern of the previous Government, which we shared, was that the practical effect of the franchise Act might be nullified if there were no restrictions on oil company direct operations, as a number of companies would not elect to retail through lessee-franchisees, and therefore be subject to the franchise Act, if they could retail directly without any legislative restraints. The Government does not wish to depart from the policy of partial divorcement. Nor does it consider that a departure from a 50 per cent level of divorcement in either direction has been shown to be in the long term interests of the industry or consumers. Rather, the Government's proposals, contained in this Bill, will provide for an effective 50 per cent divorcement level, by clarifying the intent of the current Act and closing a number of loopholes. The corporations subject to the restrictions of the sites Act are those listed in the Schedule to the Act . In 1980 these were the nine major oil company groups operating in Australia. The schedule currently lists the following companies: Ampol, Amoco, BP, Caltex, Esso, Mobil and Shell. Mergers and takeovers which have occurred since 1980 have seen H. C. Sleigh (Golden Fleece), Total, and recently Amoco, disappear as separate entities from the retail market. On 18 April 1984, the Government's decisions on changes to the Act were announced following a review of the legislation by the Department of Industry and Commerce. There has been increasing pressure on the Government to bring independent oil companies, that is, companies other than the current majors, within the ambit of the sites Act. The Government has given this careful consideration, as it recognises the important competitive influence of independents in the retail market. On the other hand, it is important that one group of competitors should not be unfairly disadvantaged by legislation as opposed to another group. The Government has decided not to change the Schedule to the Act to include independents as prescribed corporations. It is considered that the current independents' lack of refining capacity, and their dependence on the major refiner-marketers for the majority of their supplies of refined product, distinguishes them in a fundamental way from the corporations presently subject to the Act. However, in the future, should independent oil companies acquire the fundamental refining characteristic of the major oil companies, or should they import more than half their refined product, they may become subject to the Act if they also choose to direct-operate sites in the retail market. The Government 's decision in this regard has been taken in the interests of fairness to all groups in the industry so that the same rules may apply to all corporations possessing the same essential characteristics and is embodied in clause 3 of the Bill. The present Act makes available, in addition to each corporation's quota of sites, certain special purpose sites. Each corporation is currently able to operate one training site in each State or Territory and one market research site in each State. In addition, diesel fuel sites are not included in quotas as these are sites which are principally used for the sale of diesel fuel for heavy vehicles and not for the retail sale of petrol. Provision is also made for temporary operation of sites in special circumstances for a limited period. Clause 3 removes the current exemption for market research and training sites. While the Government does not deny the necessity for companies to conduct legitimate market research and training to improve services to consumers, it believes these are ongoing activities, which can be, and ought to be, accommodated within a corporation's overall quota. Further, clause 3 continues the exempt category status for diesel fuel sites, but replaces the current principal use test with a volume based test. Diesel fuel sites will continue to be exempt only if they are clearly diesel oriented. The new test prescribes that a minimum of 100,000 litres of diesel fuel per month must be sold from the site and, at the same time, that no more than 100,000 litres of petrol per month may be sold by retail. The exemption for the temporary operation of sites in special circumstances will be continued for a maximum four-month period. On the basis of the proposed changes to the current Act's exempt category special purpose sites, the Government has decided to set the total quota of retail sites at 425, which is the original 401 plus half the market research and training sites in operation in late 1983. As these latter sites had not been previously subject to divorcement, the Government has decided that this should now be reflected in the final total quota. The total of 425 may be varied marginally in future, due to rounding, during any reallocation of quota. The previous Government devised a formula for allocating the total site quotas amongst the corporations. This allocation, however, has resulted in many inequities and has been widely criticised by several companies who argue that it does not adequately reflect their share of the market, nor does it reflect commercial reality. The Government considers this criticism to be valid and believes a more equitable method for the allocation of quotas is to base each company's quota on its comparative market share of total petrol sales over a three-year period. A review of the market shares will be conducted every three years, and quotas adjusted accordingly, to reflect current market positions of the affected companies. Experience has shown, however, that market shares, aside from those combined due to company mergers, change only marginally over a period such as three years. Failure to use a quota will not lead to a reduction in that quota and, because of the market share allocation, quotas will not be transferable between companies, unless mergers occur. The Government's decisions permit oil companies to achieve their final quotas in six-monthly phasing periods to 1 July 1986. This is necessary to give the companies sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their retail operations. The first changes will occur on 1 January 1985 when this amending Act comes into force. Turning to the question of which company operated retail sites the Act should apply to, the Bill proposes a new application test to clarify the application of the current Act to predominantly wholesale or bulk fuel establishments, that is, depots. Companies for the last three years have been given additional temporary quotas to cater for wholesale depots which have been subject to the Act because they also engage in some level of retailing. This problem was not fully appreciated until after the 1980 legislation was introduced and, as a result, additional quotas have been allowed by regulation, pending amendment of the legislation. An additional 348 depot site quotas have been made available on top of the 401 service station quotas, resulting in a combined total of 749 site quotas. As this Bill does not distinguish between depots and other oil company operated sites, the quota phasing arrangements provide for a total movement downwards from 749 available quotas to the new 425. However, this is not quite as severe a reduction as first might appear. Not all of the 348 additional depot sites covered by the extension to quotas engage in significant retailing of petrol and, therefore, not all will be caught by the measures in this Bill. Furthermore, the companies have been on notice for some time that these additional depot quotas have a limited life and I understand that they have been reducing retailing from these sites. Companies have also been rationalising their depots, particularly in country areas. Clause 5 introduces the new application test, replacing the current uncertain percentage test with a volume based test similar to that in the franchise Bill. Sites operated by the corporations, where direct retailing of petrol by or on behalf of them in any month exceeds 30,000 litres, will be included in quota. This monthly test is less cumbersome administratively for both the Government and oil companies and is more definitive than the current percentage test. The Bill provides for sales to government account customers to be exempt from the volume test. The volume threshold test has been set low enough so as to provide sufficient disincentive for an oil company to direct-operate a retail site outside its quota allocation. The Government proposes to review the level of the volume test periodically. Clause 5 also embodies the Government's policy that the sites Act and the franchise Act should not be capable of applying concurrently at any one site. Submissions have rightly presented the view that the application of the franchise Act to a site to which the Act sites applied would be illogical, as it would virtually render ineffective an oil company's right to direct-operate that site. This clause, together with the transitional clause in the franchise Bill, should prevent this occurring. Clause 7 makes certain amendments to the returns provisions of the principal Act to reflect the change in the application of the Act from a daily to a monthly basis. This change accords more closely with the industry's own sales monitoring arrangements and should reduce the administrative work load for affected companies. Clause 9 clarifies the existing penalty provision of the Act and increases the pecuniary level for one type of contravention. A corporation will continue to be subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 for a breach of the quota provisions, but it will now be specified that a separate contravention will result from each site operated in excess of quota. For a breach of the reporting requirements of the Act, the maximum penalty is to be increased to $5,000 per contravention, on the basis that adherence to the returns requirements is essential for the effective administration of the Act and the integrity of the Act itself. These two Bills that I have just introduced amend a package of measures designed to assist the continuation of a viable, vigorous and competitive small business sector in the petroleum retail market. They will continue the objectives of the previous Government in promoting greater fairness and ensuring that future rationalisation in the industry, having regard to the history of the industry, will continue to take place on an equitable basis. At the same time, by encouraging diversity at the retail level, the Government believes they will continue to promote competition in the short and long term. We are confident that the new measures will not prevent the rationalisation, investment or innovation already taking place within the industry. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT The measures introduced by this Bill will require no additional financial outlay by the Government. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: 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. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Chipp-Mr President, I seek leave for the Senate to call off this division and propose that the matter be resubmitted tomorrow after the parties have had a chance to look at the implications of it. Leave not granted. Question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Maguire, G. R.Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Hearn, J. M Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F.Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E.Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R.Chaney, F. M. MacGibbon, D. J.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Collard, S. J. Martin, K. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Mason, C. B. J.Durack, P. D. Messner, A. J.Evans, Jack Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Reid, M. E. (Teller)Haines, J. Scott, D. B.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Townley, M.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Georges, G. Watson, J. O. W.McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Childs) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: 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 PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.27) —I move: That the Nursing Homes Fees Determination Principles 1984, formulated under sub -section 40AA (7) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. This motion concerns a matter of subordinate legislation and the proper application of administrative law. The Opposition accepts without cavil or dissent the necessity and right of government to make administrative law, regulations and ordinances for government. However, on this occasion the Opposition believes that the Nursing Homes Fees Determination Principles are inappropriate, and that it is necessary for the Senate to exercise its right to disallow the principles to enable the Government to go back and reformulate them . The Opposition believes that a matter has arisen in which the needs of government have interacted adversely with the rights of citizens to a fair go from government in administration. Because there is not a fair go, the Opposition seeks to move to disallow the principles. We think that the Government will be able to re-examine the position and we hope that the Government can come up with a different way of trying to regulate the matters that it needs to consider in the administration of nursing homes. There is considerable disquiet in this whole area both from those who use nursing homes and from those who own and who are trying to run nursing homes. I remind the Senate of several matters that have given rise to concern during the past couple of years. First, after 17 months in office the Hawke Government has still not redeemed its election promise to set up an office of aged care. The Government has not followed a consistent policy of providing care to the aged. Secondly, despite the fact that the Hawke Government has had for some time the results of the work of a joint working party set up under the chairmanship of Mr Daryl Dixon and in spite of the fact that it has had the results of private consultant's report, the Government still has not produced any solution to the problems of nursing home funding and fee setting, and no solution seems to be in sight yet. Thirdly, the Government, through its application of the so-called 35-day rule which limits the number of days during which people can claim hospital benefits in certain circumstances, has caused grave distress to the aged and their families. There is a lack of alternative accommodation available to those who are affected by the application of this rule. Fourthly, for some 15 months the Government froze nursing home approvals. Since then, it has issued guidelines for new approvals that make it virtually impossible to set up a new nursing home . The result is, of course, that it is very difficult to provide the extra places that may be required for those Australians who need nursing home accommodation. Fifthly, the nursing home industry and many people who use nursing homes and who have followed the debate feel that we have in the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) someone who is opposed to the private operation of nursing homes. What worries us is that the gazettal of the principles, which are the subject of this motion, seems to confirm that attitude. The case for disallowance is made not on the basis of assertions by politicians alone and not just because the Opposition has a view on these nursing home guidelines; nor is it made solely on the basis of what the industry itself claims. Several court judgments have been available to us. In one of the judgments the learned judge stated that the guidelines which are the subject of this disallowance are unfair. It is on the question of fairness, of a fair go, that we are moving for the disallowance. The case I shall first mention is that of the Alexandra private nursing home. I do not know where it is; all I know is that it started an action that was heard by Mr Justice Woodward and related to the guidelines. I shall summarise what went on. First, I give some background. It has been found over several years in a number of Federal Court of Australia and High Court of Australia judgments that the Federal Department of Health applied guidelines for the determination of nursing home fees in breach of section 40AA (7) of the National Health Act. That section requires the Department of Health to have regard to costs necessarily incurred when it sets fees. Rather than comply with that section of the National Health Act and rather than proceed down the road of making determinations having proper regard to costs, the response of the Department and, I suppose, of the Government was to amend the Act to remove that section and the requirement to have regard to costs necessarily incurred. In their place, the Department substituted a requirement to have regard to what were called 'principles' which were to embody established departmental practice. The Government, instead of listening to what the courts had said and instead of continuing to apply a requirement to have due regard to costs, decided to alter the rules of the game, to validate what the Department had done and to do so by means of some new principles. As a result of all these actions, the Alexandra private nursing home challenged the Department in court on the basis of the old provisions of the National Health Act. It did so for a technical reason, that is, that its fees had been determined at a particular moment before the new principles had been gazetted, even though it was after the time that the amendments to the National Health Act had been passed through the Parliament. As a result of the case that was heard and the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward we are today seeking disallowance of those principles. Mr. Justice Woodward found that the Department had acted within the law, and there is no complaint about that. But Mr Justice Woodward went to some lengths to make it clear that the decision, to use his word, was a 'hard' decision. He went further. He said that the Department's decision was 'unfair', again Mr Justice Woodward's word. He said that the Department 'seemed to be squeezing the profits of private nursing homes just short of the point causing the enterprise to fail'. I will read a bit more of what His Honour said: I agree that it is from the applicant's point of view quite unfair that it should have to accept a profit in 1984 that is little different from that which it was accepting in 1972 . . . In the light of this evidence there can be little doubt that the Department is taking a hard line with the proprietors of established nursing homes. What he said further gives a bit of comfort to the Government: I do not believe that the use of historic costs by the delegate is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power' to fix fees in such a way. With the passage of time, and depending on the levels of inflation, the situation may eventually be reached where such a decision could be so described, but the wording of the ADJR Act- that is, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act- on this point, which I have just quoted, is very restrictive. I have already said that I think the applicant is entitled to regard the decision as quite unfair. It is this question of fairness or unfairness that we are concerned about today. Mr Justice Woodward, a respected judicial figure, has said not once but on several occasions that the application of the principles in this case was unfair . Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill I will explain what the argument was about: Under the principles the Department had allowed a nominal profit of 10 per cent on the assets which were valued in 1972 at $140,000; that is to say, it allowed about $14,000 profit although the value of the assets was then $760,000 and the interest rate which the nursing home was having to pay to service debts was around 14 per cent to 15 per cent. In fact, on the profit margin allowed the nursing home simply could not continue . It certainly found that it had an asset it could not sell in the market because the Department was proceeding in a way which, while it may have been legal, was quite unfair. I must say that new nursing homes whose capital costs have been assessed recently would be in a better situation than some of the old nursing homes, but even they, if these principles applied after several years, would be subject to the same hardship and to the same conditions which Mr Justice Woodward came to describe as unfair. The consequence of allowing these principles to apply is that the provision of nursing home beds and their continued provision for people in need will be placed in jeopardy. I return to the words of Mr Justice Northrop, who, giving a judgment in an earlier case in respect of Nagrad Nominees Pty Ltd-and he was talking about the departmental guidelines that preceded the principles-said: As a result, no person properly advised would consider purchasing an approved nursing home business. As a corollary, existing proprietors are saddled with a business producing a diminishing financial return and are unable to sell that business for anything like its current value. Likewise, no account is taken of capital actually invested by a proprietor in a nursing home business, but profitability is determined on an artificial amount of capital expended at an earlier and irrelevant time by the proprietor of premises in which a nursing home business is conducted. It is clear that the principles just reinforce the earlier guidelines. It has been an administrative trick to endorse and validate what the Department has done. It is clear that these principles are not logical. It is clear that they are not fair, and that several judges have said so. If this Government wants to say to the Australian people that it is a government of consensus and fairness, it should be the first to want to examine what the judges have said, to examine the consequences. The problem, of course, is that the losers in the end, if we do not fix this up, are likely to be the aged and infirm who need nursing home accommodation. It is on the basis of Mr Justice Woodward's comments and on the basis that we believe that the Government can do the job more adequately, that it can bring back guidelines that will not be subject to these criticisms, that I moved for the disallowance. This is a proper exercise of Senate power. I have tried to present the case as calmly and as reasonably as I can. I hope that the Senate will see its way clear to support this motion. Debate (on motion by Senator McIntosh) adjourned. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Senate take note of the paper. (Quorum formed) Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.44) —The Senate is debating the report of Mr Black, QC, on the matters which involved the Hon. Mick Young, the recently reinstated Special Minister of State, and the circumstances surrounding his making of a Customs declaration which, in the event, was shown to be inaccurate. I should make it clear that in the Opposition 's view we should not be debating this report, because the report should not exist. The report was not required. The facts of the matter were fairly clear. Indeed, they are clear in the basic sense that it is established beyond any doubt at all that the Minister, Mr Young, filled out a Customs form in a way which was incorrect, in a way which put him in breach of the law and in a way which involved penalties being imposed upon him. It is the view of the Opposition that that simple fact is one which requires his removal from the Ministry. It is also the view of the Opposition that were the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) genuinely in control of his Cabinet, that would have occurred. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister on a prior occasion has been shown to be unable to keep Mr Young out of the Ministry because of the votes of the Caucus. Once again we have a situation in which a Minister who has made errors of a sort which should have removed him from the Ministry remains in place. One does not have to go very far to establish the facts. I will examine the form which was filled in by Mr Young and which clearly establishes that he put his name to and declared to be true statements which he knew not to be true or at least statements of matters of which he was unaware. Secondly, we do not have to go very far to look for the standards that ought to be imposed in this matter . Thirdly, we are dealing with a situation in which this is not the first transgression of the Minister. I do not think anyone in Australia has forgotten Mr Young's long lunch. I do not think anybody in Australia has forgotten that Mr Young allowed his loose tongue to talk of matters which went to Australia's national security. I do not think that anyone in Australia has forgotten that he showed an inability to control his tongue in a way which a Minister ought to be able to do. We find that on that occasion, when the Prime Minister was forced to take Mr Young back, the Prime Minister said: It is clear that these-Mick's-actions were based on an error of personal judgment from which he has now learnt and which I am sure will not be repeated. It is quite clear that Mr Young did not learn and that his errors of judgment have in fact been repeated. As recently as 28 July the Prime Minister spoke very boldly on national television about the standards which would be applied to Mr Young. Mr Hawke said: Well, I think on the questions of standards Mick will have to live by the standards which he himself set in his speech to Parliament last year-1982 I mean -on MacKellar and Moore. Again, the statements of Mr Young at that time are pretty fresh in the minds of many Australians because, of course, they have been trotted forth, particularly since the Prime Minister endorsed them as the relevant standards. Mr Young in Parliament on 27 April 1982, when he was talking of the standards that he expected of Liberal Ministers, said: What an extraordinary episode we are being told of . . . The former Minister for Health . . . was trying to sneak through Customs with a lousy television set . . . He said he did not know about it . . . Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. That is an important quotation because it is a reminder that we are here dealing with a situation which is not satisfactorily dealt with simply by the application of the law and the imposition of what is termed an on the spot penalty of double duty. We are here dealing with vagaries of behaviour on the part of a man who is one of the most senior people in government in this country . He himself has said that this is a matter of fundamental importance. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is one of Mr Young's colleagues, at the same time made his views clear. He said: Let us not dismiss this as a trifling matter, an error of judgment, because this Minister as he was then was tired and failed to fill in his declaration form. This is not acceptable. We simply remind the Senate and the people of Australia of those clear statements by now Labor Ministers and of the standards which the Prime Minister says should be applied to Mr Young. Because the facts are clear, because it is clear that Mr Young filled in a form inaccurately, because it is beyond any argument that the filling in of that form in that way involved the payment of a double penalty, an on the spot penalty for the breach which occurred, we know that Mr Young has broken the law and we know that he should have been removed from the Ministry. But the sad fact is that the Prime Minister had to find for himself a shield against the political pressures which were on him. The Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration was described by Michelle Gratton in a recent comment in the Age as: An inquiry as much an exercise in protecting the Prime Minister and Senator Button, who is in charge of Customs, as in sorting out what happened. In the view of the Opposition that is a very accurate statement. It is also the view of the Opposition that in the end result Mr Young has not been judged by the high standards he laid down for the Liberals. And the fact of the matter is that the breach which occurred has now been glossed over and Mr Young has returned to the Ministry. Today we are debating the Black report which report we say is unnecessary. It is important to note that this report was compiled after inquiries which were held in secret. The Senate does not have the benefit of the evidence which was given to Mr Black. That evidence has not been disclosed; all that we have is some description by Mr Black of some of the evidence. Principally we have a description of Mr Black's conclusions on the evidence and on the discussions which he held. That means that the Parliament and the people of Australia are at a considerable disadvantage in assessing the value or otherwise of Mr Black's report. His is a report which in a way deprives us of the raw materials needed to make many of the judgments. It is fundamental to note that in no way does the Black report exonerate Mr Young from the fact that he filled in a form incorrectly and that that rendered him liable for penalties and that those penalties have been imposed. As I said, what we have from Mr Black is a report which gives his conclusion. I have to say that on the face of it it is a disappointing document. I suppose that everyone stands the risk at some time or other in his lifetime of being judged before a legal tribunal. I have to say that if that falls my way I hope that whoever composes the legal tribunal is as kind to me as Mr Black has been to Mr Young. I will explain in some detail why I believe that to be a fair statement on a reading of the report. It is rather sad that Mr Black has failed to answer the fundamental question. He has failed to answer in a direct way the fundamental question posed by the Prime Minister in his direction to him. I refer to the report itself and to the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to Mr Black. The Prime Minister said in part: You are requested to inquire into and report upon the circumstances surrounding the making of a customs declaration by the Hon M. J. Young . . . and in particular whether any breach of a law of the Commonwealth . . . may have occurred in the actions of (a) the Hon M. J. Young It is disappointing to turn to page 133 of the typescript report-I do not have the printed report before me-to find that Mr Black states: I express no conclusion as to whether any breach of a law of the Commonwealth may have occurred. My reasons for taking this course appear in Part XII of this report. It should not be inferred that I make any finding that a breach of the law of the Commonwealth may have occurred in the actions of the Hon M. J. Young. That really is a rather surprising passage given that Part XII of the report makes it quite clear that the penalty duties which were imposed on Mr Young involve the superseding of the other penalty section of the Act referred to in the report. In other words, on the spot penalties were imposed and the imposition of those on the spot penalties preclude prosecution under a different section of the Act. It seems to me to be as clear as the nose on anyone's face that these penalties could not have been imposed if there had not been a breach of the Customs law by the Hon. Mick Young and by those on whose behalf he was acting. I will explain why I think the report is very kind. I will explain why I think that Mr Young should bend on his knees and thank God for the attitude which was adopted by Mr Black. In the report I find that all individuals who came before Mr Black are judged honest. Of course, that may be an utterly appropriate finding. It may well be that everybody who appeared was utterly honest and straightforward. I do not make any judgment on that because I have no access to the evidence. I have no reason to cast a doubt on anyone, be it a public servant or any other person involved. My point simply is that if we look at what Mr Black actually found we will find a consistent version of the facts which, as I have said, is kind. It is a version of the facts which says 'I am really going to give people the benefit of the doubt'. I will give the simplest possible illustration of this. There are differences of evidence. These are described by Mr Black at a number of points in his report. Some of the witnesses told him different things about the same incident. That can occur. I have been in enough courts to know that a court can respond in different ways from that. I have seen judges and magistrates often say that the differences of evidence of people party to the same conversation or witnesses to the same act are a clear indication that one or other of the witnesses is lying. On the other hand, I have seen judges and magistrates prepared to say, as Mr Black says in this report, 'Well, that is clear evidence that that is just the normal conduct of human affairs and is evidence that there was no collusion'. Therefore, one finds that at a number of points in this report there have been differences of account. According to Mr Black's own account conflicting evidence has been given to him. He takes those conflicts to be an indication that he is dealing with honest people because if they were not honest they would have got together and cooked up a story. When talking of Mrs Young and her sister we find Mr Black saying that like most travellers they had some concern about luggage. We find Mr Black telling us he has been given evidence to the effect that Mr Young's office altered the Customs form. After it became clear the Customs form was inaccurate somebody whited out one of the answers and put in a different answer that was subsequently changed back. Again, that is given quite a benign interpretation by Mr Black. Of course, that might be quite appropriate. We do not have the access to the information to know. I say again that here we have a disclosure by Mr Black of a suspicious circumstance-the sort of circumstance which may have given rise to the concern of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) who is sitting opposite. I hope in this debate he will give us some more of the facts which might throw light on this. Had that come before me that is the sort of fact which as a lawyer I would have found very suspicious. I am prepared to say that it is open to an innocent explanation. Let us say again that we have no way of judging whether Mr Black is right or wrong in saying 'here again is just another innocent, to be expected form of action.' I find Mr Black's kindness on the significance of the $500 another surprising feature of the report. It is quite clear that Mr Young's position would have been significantly worse had the goods been valued at more than $500. I will come back to the question of valuation later. There are a lot of strange things about the valuation of these goods. Senator Button —Senator, you cannot debase kindness as a virtue. Senator CHANEY —I do not debase kindness. However, we are dealing here with an inquiry supposed to determine whether people have been doing something which is wrong, whether they have been guilty of impropriety or whether there have been breaches of the law. All I am suggesting is that consistently through this report we find a very benign view of facts which another tribunal may have taken a very suspicious view of and might have been prepared to put a different interpretation on. We in the Parliament and the people of Australia are hard pressed and cannot know whether those judgments are fair because the inquiry was held in secret, the information is not available and we have no basis for checking the conclusions of Mr Black. That amount of $500 is very significant. It became apparent that in those bags that had been brought in by Mr Young as unaccompanied baggage. These were goods which were not supposed to be gifts, but which turned out to be so. The report makes it quite clear that if the value of the goods had been more than $500 then quite different effects would have flowed. There would have been no room for on the spot penalties but there would have been need for prosecution and imposition of criminal penalties in the more usual sense. That valuation of $500 is critical. As I said I will look at that in a little more detail later. There are oddities in the list which have been exposed by the report. I simply say that when we look at the doubts raised and the way Mr Black describes his dealing with those doubts we can only say again that he acts with very great kindness. Did people really understand the significance of the $500? Anyway they could not have added up quickly enough to fake the valuation. That would have been impossible. There are all these different currencies. That again might be absolutely true. However, I say only that I find my credulity a bit strained when I find that every page of the report contains a concession and a benefit of the doubt. I say again, in particular when we look at the list of $ 500, that there are some very strange questions that do not appear to have been posed in the mind of Mr Black. If they were posed in the mind of Mr Black, he did not bother to put his pen to paper on them. I am concerned about the fact that Mr Black places some heavy emphasis on the fact that, after all, had Mr Young attended the Customs office, had he been asked whether he packed the bags and had he said 'No, I did not pack the bags' an inspection would have been required but no form would have been required. So what? The fact is that Mr Young chose to follow a procedure which did not involve his going to Customs, having to answer questions and having to have the bags in his presence for that purpose. Mr Young followed a course which involved his advising Customs of the position by a form in writing, which, on the face of it, was incorrect. Again we get what I regard as a very kindly point made by Mr Black. We find Mr Black concluding that Mr Young believed that he had to answer yes or no to the questions that were asked. Let me pause and look at the Customs form because, on the face of it, it says that that is not the case. It is not a form on which all Mr Young had to do was to make some ticks. It includes these words: I declare that the statements made on, and the answers to questions in this form, are to the best of my knowledge true and correct in every particular. The form is then signed by Mr Young. On the same form a box which is headed ' IMPORTANT' says: IF YOU TICK 'YES' TO ANY QUESTION 3 TO 6 OR IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR EFFECT SHOULD BE DECLARED, PLEASE GIVE DETAILS IN THE SPACE PROVIDED UNDER EACH QUESTION OR ON A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT. So, quite clearly, it was made clear on the face of the form that Mr Young was under a very heavy obligation. All I say is that when a Minister of the Crown signs a form over the following words: 'WARNING-A FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT TO A CUSTOMS OFFICER IS AN OFFENCE AND MAY INVOLVE HEAVY PENALTIES INCLUDING FORFEITURE OF ANY GOODS CONCERNED', which Mr Young did, he is behaving in quite a cavalier fashion when he ponders on the fact that he does not know what is in the bags and yet chooses to answer these questions 'yes' or 'no'. We find again that the Commissioner very kindly says that Mr Young may have been affected by the fact that he was handed a partially completed form and that that may, therefore, have reduced the application of his mind to it. Yet at the same time we know that Mr Young, in conversation, had his mind directed specifically to the question of whether he knew what was in the bags. I find it very kind, too, of Mr Black to say that Mr Young was entitled to rely on what he knew of his wife's habits and to say that for that reason she would not have brought cigarettes or alcohol in the bags. I have known many non-smokers and non -drinkers to bring in to Australia as presents cigarettes and alcohol. I find that a most extraordinary conclusion for Mr Black to have made. I find his failure to find any problem in the Gilbert and Jennings conversation where there is a clear difference in the versions of what was said as to whether or not the Minister had given any warning, again, an act of kindness. The simple reality about this report is that it is clear, even on the best construction of the facts and even if Mr Black is correct in being as kind as he has been, that at best Mr Young was guessing when he filled in the form and declared it to be true. That is a matter which we believe is serious and goes to the whole administration of Customs in this country. I have limited time left to talk. Senator Peter Rae will be speaking during this debate and I know that he will address himself to this issue. The issue was raised during Question Time yesterday with the Minister, Senator Button. Is the Customs Service now to assume that, when other Australian travellers come into Australia and hand Customs officers forms which purport to show what is in their baggage, those customers, those clients, those Australians going through the Customs Service are entitled to be guessing? That is the central question which Mr Young's treatment and the Black report raise. What is the basis now for administering Customs in this country, if people are entitled to come through Customs and say: 'I do not really know what is in the bags but I have given you these answers because, to the best of my knowledge . . . Well, I know my wife does not smoke or drink so there could not possibly be any cigarettes or alcohol in there'. It is an absurdity. It poses an administrative difficulty for the Customs Service which we believe is in itself a demonstration of how unsatisfactory is the Government's approach and, indeed, is Mr Black's approach to this matter. Let me go back to the question of valuations. As I said previously, the way Mr Young was treated was only possible because the goods were valued at less than $ 500 and, therefore, on the spot fines or penalties could have been imposed. The imposition of those on the spot penalties precluded a prosecution under the other section. That is quite important, in terms of the way Mr Young was actually dealt with. On the face of the report it was known to the people involved that the value of the goods was a significant factor. The amount of $ 500 had been mentioned. It was known to the people who were a party to this exercise. Let us look at the form. The only evidence we have is what Mr Black has chosen to disclose to us. Mr Black has chosen to give us the form which was actually signed by Mr Young. That confirms that he was in breach of the law. He has given us as appendix 'B' the list of valuations which were made by Customs. We are dealing here not with a Customs officer but with a Queen's Counsel, a man of considerable reputation and no doubt a man of considerable forensic skills. I would have thought that the sorts of points which I am about to make would have raised significant questions in his mind. Let us take the simplest possible example. Two bottles of Nina Ricci French perfume are identified on the form, one of 108ml and the other 75ml. There is a fair difference there. I am not a great perfume buyer but I find, with most things I buy, that a big packet costs more than a little packet. I find, however, that, according to the valuation of Mrs Young's effects, one can buy 108ml of Nina Ricci perfume for the same price as 75ml. They are both valued at 200 French francs. I would have thought that one would at least ask a question. Why is it that two items are shown at exactly the same price, are of exactly the same description-in fact the small figures that show repeat are used- and yet are a different price? I would have thought that would put one on an inquiry. We also find that nine items on the form are all valued at $A20. Maybe I do not do enough shopping, but during a meeting I was at the other day somebody said: ' I think Mrs Young must have gone to a $20 sale'. I know that such things exist, although I do not think that one would find a $20 sale in France, Great Britain or wherever. However, nine items are listed to the value of $20. Let us look at them. A variety of items are listed and for some extraordinary reason they all cost the same amount. A grey clasp shoulder bag cost $20. A cerise leather purse cost $20. A blue leather handbag cost $20. A red, grey and black striped dress cost $20. A brown and purple dress and belt cost $20. A blue dress with spots cost $20. A textile handbag and purse cost $20. A dark blue leather clasp handbag also cost $20. A textile handbag with matching purse cost $20 as did a lace dress. I am not saying that one could not buy any of those items for $20. I am saying that I find it extraordinary that nine items are all given the same valuation, yet that did not put Mr Black on inquiry as to whether he should go beyond the ad hoc, fair judgment of a Customs officer who is used to dealing with these things, and whether Mr Black should not make some closer inquiry. Senator Button —What would he do if he did? Senator CHANEY —I think that would disclose whether, in fact, there was a case which was properly dealt with under that section. The only other item I mention- and there are many-is that a two-piece chamois skirt and top, 'Christian Cuvelier' was listed as costing $50. Again, I do not know much about women's fashion but I hope that some people who do know something about women's fashion will examine the list with care because I suspect that a few wholesalers and retailers might say: 'They sound like pretty good values to me'. What I am saying is that the most obvious indication of the benign way in which this matter has been approached is that in a list which seems to me to cry out for closer examination we get an acceptance of a procedure which permits, obviously, the greatest degree of approximation. Let me put a benign view on the matter. The benign view is that which is set out in the Black report-that people , in the course of a discussion with a Customs officer, will put some approximation of value on an article. Honourable senators should remember we are dealing with a situation in which the approximation was within a few dollars of the $500 limit. I can only say that in circumstances in which I am not allowed to have access to the facts, because the Government has not disclosed them, I am entitled to ask the questions that I have asked and, I believe, the Australian people are entitled to ask the questions that I have asked. We have here a debate which, in a sense, is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is: Should Mr Young have remained a Minister when, for the second time in 12 months, he failed to meet the standard of conduct which he had laid down? That is the question, and the clear answer to that question is that he should not be tolerated as a continuing Minister in the Government. For the Government's own internal political reasons he is still a Minister. For the protection of the Prime Minister we have, at great public expense, this report. We have a refusal to give the Opposition access to the facts on which the report is based and the Opposition believes that if the Government is not prepared to live up to its responsibilities and wishes to shove the responsibility on to an independent inquiry the simple requirement should be that the independent inquiry is open so that the people of Australia can see what is going on. This report is simply a shield for a Prime Minister who does not have the strength to make the decisions himself. This report is not an adequate response. If the Prime Minister wishes to pass over the responsibility let us have out in the open the facts on which this matter can be judged. Let us not have simply the opinion of one man based on the facts that he and he alone has been allowed to examine. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.12) —I support the remarks made by my Leader, Senator Chaney, in relation to this matter. I will take certain aspects a little further, although I believe he dealt comprehensively with a large number of the matters of concern which arise in relation to this extraordinary affair. One of the first questions I raise, to which I believe we are entitled to hear an answer later today, at the conclusion of this debate if it is concluded today, alternatively without concluding the debate, is: What was the matter which caused the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration to take place? Press reports indicated that some new information had come into the hands of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, the Minister responsible for the administration of the Australian Customs Service; that upon that information coming into his hands, to his knowledge, he had further consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); and that as a result of that Mr Black was instructed to undertake the inquiry. Reports in the media state that Senator Button said yesterday that he would have given evidence to the Black Inquiry on the Mick Young affair if he had been asked to do so. However I have looked through the list of witnesses who were contacted by Mr Black and I do not find Senator Button's name on it. I wonder why Mr Black thought that it was not necessary to call him when we have been given information that it was something that came to the knowledge of Senator Button which caused the very inquiry to be made. Why, one wonders, would one not ask of the person who received the knowledge which caused the inquiry to be made something about that knowledge? I find that extraordinary and a matter which requires an answer. I find is equally extraordinary that yesterday during Question Time when the Minister was repeatedly asked certain questions he deliberately avoided answering the questions. A long established concept in relation to the administration of Customs law is that there is an onus on the person making the declaration to tell the truth. There is an onus which is imposed by law, there is an onus imposed in the form itself and there is an onus imposed in the general morality of the community. By law it is a form of statutory declaration. It is a declaration which is required to be made under the Customs law. As Senator Chaney has already mentioned, the form concerned, which is set out at the back of the Black report, refers to Michael Jerome Young and gives his address, date of birth, passport number and what have you. It states that he arrived on flight QF002 on 29 June 1984 and that the packages which arrived on that flight and were consigned to Mr Young 'contained my bona fide unaccompanied baggage for the above mentioned voyage.' I stress the words 'my bona fide unaccompanied baggage'. The statement continues: I declare that the statements made on, and the answers to questions in this form, are to the best of my knowledge true and correct in every particular. A large warning on the form states: A FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT TO A CUSTOMS OFFICER IS AN OFFENCE AND MAY INVOLVE HEAVY PENALTIES, INCLUDING FORFEITURE OF ANY GOODS CONCERNED. However apparently if one is a Minister in the Hawke Government making a false statement does not incur any penalties. That is the difference between what happens to an ordinary citizen and what has happened in this case. On the form this advice on clearance of baggage is given to passengers: Unaccompanied baggage may be cleared by the owner, his nominee or a licensed Customs agent. I checked to find out what would happen if a licensed Customs agent were to clear baggage for a person and I was told that a similar unaccompanied baggage statement would need to be completed and handed in by the licensed Customs agent . The advice continues: Agents and removalists normally charge for this service. If the owner wishes to clear the baggage or to nominate a relative or friend to do so, he or his nominee should seek advice from Customs at the port or airport of importation. On the following page of the illustration of the form in the report, in a box with the heading 'Important', in large print, this appears: YOU MUST ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY PLACING TICKS . . . IN THE APPROPRIATE BOXES. IF YOU TICK ''YES'' IN ANY BOX IN QUESTION 3 TO 6, OR IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR EFFECTS SHOULD BE DECLARED, PLEASE GIVE DETAILS IN SPACE PROVIDED UNDER EACH QUESTION OR ON A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT IF THE SPACE IS UNSUFFICIENT. UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE MAY BE EXAMINED. PLEASE ENSURE THAT KEYS ARE AVAILABLE AT TIME OF CLEARANCE. I emphasise that part of the form in particular because I think it is of the utmost importance that Mr Black failed to deal with that matter. What is said there in the form is that if one is in doubt about whether any particular effect should be declared, please give details. What was found by Mr Black was that Mr Young did not know, was in doubt, about what was in the baggage. In fact there is reference after reference to this in the report. I will start at page 55, where Mr Black states: I conclude that Mr Young's approach to the whole problem that the form posed was to answer the question to the best of his belief . . . At page 56 Mr Black states: I consider that Mr Young turned his mind quite specifically to the question about gifts and made a conscious choice as to how he should fill in the question . At the bottom of page 56 he states: I consider that he honestly sought to come to grips with the problem the question posed to someone without direct knowledge of the contents of the baggage. Yet here we have in the form itself the express suggestion that people in such a position of doubt should give details and seek assistance from Customs. The form also says-Senator Chaney referred to this-in question 6 in particular: Does your unaccompanied baggage contain any of the following goods: . . . . . . . . . . . . Goods you are importing on behalf of any other person Clearly, within Mr Young's own knowledge, the answer to that was yes. Yet he ticked no in what Mr Black finds was his own handwriting, his own pen. Everybody knows and everybody accepts that the goods did not belong to Mr Young, yet he said that they did. The form also states: Goods intended as gifts. According to Mr Black, he again applied himself to the question of whether they were gifts. Extraordinarily Mr Black said that he was satisfied that Mr Young had no knowledge that there were gifts in the bags. Equally he had no knowledge that there were not any gifts in the bag. As I said yesterday-I believe it is extremely important-does that mean that somebody can act as an unknowing courier for the importation of drugs by not knowing specifically that a bag is loaded with drugs? Senator Button —It doesn't mean that at all. That is just a silly question you got out of the Australian Financial Review. Senator PETER RAE —I am glad that the Minister is coming round to the point of answering the question. I would be most interested to know his answer to the question. The finding of the Black inquiry is that it apparently does not matter if one does not know what is in one's baggage and one takes no steps at all to find out what is in the baggage and then one misstates on the questionnaire what is in the baggage. Finally, there is a note on the form which states: Customs concessions do not apply to gifts, souvenirs, household goods less than 12 months old and other dutiable goods unless you have come to Australia to take up permanent residence for the first time. Right through the whole form warnings are repeatedly given as to the importance of accuracy. Warnings are given that one may be involved in heavy penalties for misstatements. Advice is given about how to clear baggage and how to answer the questions. Advice is also given about the fact that concessions do not apply to gifts. There is a whole lot of specific questions which I would have thought someone with a very moderate education and a moderate form of literacy would have been able to understand and answer, in particular this question: Does your unaccompanied baggage contain any of the following goods: . . . . . . . . . Goods you are importing on behalf of any other person. When one knows and everybody agrees that the goods that one is bringing into the country are not one's goods how can one still say that they are not? I find, as Senator Chaney said, that Mr Black was extraordinarily generous. Mr Black, at page 66 of his report, after referring earlier to two departures from normal Customs practices which had occurred-I will not go into the detail of those at the moment-said: Mr Young told Mr Jennings that the luggage belonged to his wife and that he did not know what it contained. Mr Jennings is a Customs officer. Mr Jennings had the form which had been filled out with the misstatement to which I have referred. Yet apparently no concern was expressed by Mr Jennings to the Minister that the form was inaccurate. No concern was expressed by Mr Jennings that perhaps Mr Young should make some other sort of statement, such as an accurate one, as to what was contained in the bags, that he was importing the goods for somebody else, namely, his wife, that he did not have any knowledge of the contents of the bags and if he made reasonable inquiries he would have been able to find out what was in them. He did not contact his wife to find out after the matter was first raised because, as Mr Black finds, he did not want to worry her. I would have thought it would have been a fairly simple thing, if Mr Young was genuine, if he had to fill out the form he could have found out from his wife what was in the bags or he could have left the goods until she returned knowing that they were her goods, that she was coming back in a few days and she could fill out an accurate form. But no, that did not happen. If we go a little further through this extraordinary report we find, at page 69 , a reference to Mr Jennings's diary: Mr Jennings' diary refers to a telephone conversation with Mr Young at approximately 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 5 July. The relevant part of the diary note is in these terms: 'I spoke to Mr Young again. Explained breach of Customs Act . . .' I stressed the words 'explained breach of Customs Act'-- had occurred and most probably penalty rates would apply. Mr Young explained that it was his wife's baggage and he wasn't aware of contents. He said that he had completed the declaration. He asked whether he could complete another declaration. I said No as we had accepted the declaration.' That is the end of the diary note. The report continues: Mr Young has no specific recollection of any conversation about another form. He told me, however, that it may well have been that he asked if Mr Jennings wanted him to fill out a form with all the dutiable items on it. What on earth was going on as far as the Australian Customs Service was concerned? Members of the Service tell Mr Young that he has committed a breach of the Act. They know that he has made a false declaration, yet there is no suggestion that any action will be taken other than that the goods will be assessed in value in the extraordinary way to which Senator Chaney has referred, the $20 store operation whereby all the items cost $20, to keep them below the amount where there would be an automatic prosecution. We then find, at pages 78 and 79 of the report, that Mr Black says: I have already referred to the fact that there were two departures from normal Customs procedures. The unaccompanied baggage form was not stamped with the Adelaide Customs stamp and the form left the possession of Customs and was returned to Mr Young's office. One hates to say this, but one wonders why the form should not have been stamped . Why should it have been sent back to Mr Young's office? Was it, in effect, an invitation for him to submit a different form or was it a trap to see whether he would submit a different form? It may be that the Customs Service was being very smart. It may be that it was being very negligent. But for Mr Black to say that it just did not matter and that it was a matter of no real consequence I find quite extraordinary. Mr Black just said: Mr Mundie was asked to explain the departures and his explanation was inadvertence on his part. How inadvertent can one be about something where a furore is already going on, where to-ing and fro-ing has been taking place in relation to the various sections of the Customs Act and, in particular, section 209 of that Act? A file has already been opened which refers to section 209. That is the section which talks about the power to impound certain forfeited goods and release them upon payment of duty and penalty. All these things have been taking place, yet Mr Mundie was apparently inadvertent in not stamping the Customs declaration form and he was inadvertent in letting it go back to Mr Young's office. The matters which have been dealt with contain an extraordinary series of events, none of which is satisfactorily explained by the Black report. The Black report is another extraordinary part of this extraordinary series of events. It is inexplicable and unjustifiable. It finds in favour of Mr Young on every single point where there is any dispute as to credibility. It finds in favour of Mr Young in every way in relation to aspects of doubt. As Senator Chaney said, one could only believe that Mr Young should be grateful indeed to Mr Black for the generosity of the approach which he adopted. I do not wish to take an undue time of the Senate at the moment because I wish to make a second suggestion. I wish to suggest that this matter be debated fully after requests, which have been made by various members, in particular, Mr John Spender and Mr John Howard, members of the House of Representatives, and by me, for various items under the Freedom of Information Act have been dealt with. They have to be dealt with. There is a time limitation. I do not know why it has taken so long so far, but I was curious to find that the freedom of information legislation and procedures manual of the Department of Industry and Commerce is about two inches thick. That may be part of the reason it takes 45 days or 60 days to be able to comply with a fairly simple request for freedom of information access to the registers and diaries which have got to be kept. The requests which I made were quite simple. The Minister will recall that in October last year he tabled the Government's response to the Mahoney report. The Mahoney inquiry was a Review of Customs Administration and Procedures in New South Wales. The report made a significant number of recommendations as to changes in practice and procedure that should be made. The Government accepted that in relation to some of those changes a register would be kept where a search was undertaken and the register would include the reasons for the Customs officer forming the opinion that it was desirable to search the particular goods. It may be that just one out of every two or one out of every 10 unaccompanied baggage slips are stamped for inspection, but it may not be. The Opposition and the Australian public are entitled to know what is in the register as to why the opinion was formed that the baggage should be examined. I would not have thought that it would take a great length of time to be able to provide that sort of information. There is fairly simple access to the records. As a result of the receipt and examination of the Black report Mr Spender has requested a large number of documents be made available under the Freedom of Information Act. I find it curious that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has been so silent in relation to the Freedom of Information Act on this particular matter when he was so enthusiastic about the Freedom of Information Act when it was being introduced. The people of Australia are entitled to see the Freedom of Information Act at work and speedily at work, not held up until long after the inquiries have been concluded and the matter swept under the carpet. The Government is attempting to delay this matter for as long as it possibly can until after the election has been called in the hope that it will all be forgotten. I believe that this debate should continue after the requests under the Freedom of Information Act have been complied with when many more matters will be dealt with in detail. We are not satisfied that the Black report exonerates Mr Young. We are not satisfied that the Black report has made a thorough investigation. We would like access to the information to which we are entitled under the Freedom of Information Act so that we may then make a better assessment of what happened in the extraordinary Paddington Bear affair, as it has become known. I will seek to have my colleague, Senator Sir John Carrick, who wishes to speak, adjourn this debate so that when the information is available under the freedom of information legislation we will be able to return to the matter and debate it in more detail. At the moment there are many unanswered questions. I believe the people of Australia will be sold out unless the matter is pursued and pursued to a much greater depth than was done by Mr Black. I thank the Senate for the opportunity of raising and expressing a degree of concern about the extent to which there are still so many unanswered questions. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.35) —Today I do not intend either to attack Mr Young or to defend him. I think that the time for that has passed. This has been a long, drawn- out, tedious attack. Day after day and week after week politicians, journalists, interviewers and editors have been dragging it out, putting it on the front page of newspapers and using it as lead items on television news programs to try to get something out of what has become known as the Paddington Bear affair. Yesterday this was continued when the bulk of the Opposition questions were related to this particular issue. I think it needs to be drawn to the attention of this Parliament, because it does not seem to have sunk in yet, that apart from the politicians and the media the rest of Australia is bored stiff with this affair. It has been closed, there is nothing more left in it to drag out. Nobody around Australia, apart from the politicians and the media, has made a public comment. That should surely demonstrate to all of us that the public wants us to get on with governing, with running and legislating for this country and not dealing with trivialities that have been dragged up in this whole event. Politicians have become very upset about what are known as media beat-ups; that is, when the media grabs hold of a minor issue, a minor slip-up by a politician from anywhere in this Parliament and beats it up into a major event. On this occasion the politicians have been the guilty party. The politicians have been the ones to beat this up into an event and the media have found that, because there is nothing else coming out of the Opposition, it has no alternative but to follow the lead of the politicians. I am not criticising today's debate. We have the Black Report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration before us and the Senate has to debate that report, but for goodness sake let us not be distracted forever by comparative trivialities. We are not debating the Combe-Ivanov affair which seems to be the only issue of any consequence in what Mick Young has done over the last few months. In my opinion, that was a much more serious affair. What is happening simply is that members of the Opposition have gone on a fishing expedition and this is what they have found. The evidence is in Hansard from what has been revealed this morning. Members of the Opposition have discovered Mrs Young's and her sister's shopping habits. That was the total result of the fishing excursion. They might have discovered a bit more about their fashion tastes. All that has come out, apart from that, from this whole inquiry, has been that Mr Black is quite satisfied that Mr Young did not attempt to coerce anyone to cover up. I think therein lies the rub. That is the problem and that is what is hurting. Up until recently this matter was compared with the MacKellar colour television affair. Of course, there is only one significant difference; that is, there was an attempt to cover up. I think it is fair to say that, out of this whole inquiry Mr Black has found, with justice, there was no impropriety by Mr Young, Mrs Young, her sister, the Australian Customs officers, officers of the Department of Administrative Services or any other employee of the Commonwealth. That is what this Parliament wanted to find out. Our answer is contained in the report tabled in this Senate. There have been a couple of other benefits from the report. The Customs forms will be changed, one hopes, to benefit all international travellers. I have trouble with the forms and I bet Senator Peter Rae, a former shadow Customs Minister, has trouble with them-indeed, I bet everybody in this Parliament has trouble with Customs forms. I guarantee that if one were to conduct an inquiry through the freedom of information procedure into every Customs form filled in by a parliamentarian returning to this country, one would discover errors in 90 per cent of those forms. Senator Walters —You speak for yourself. Senator JACK EVANS —I have spoken to many Liberal members on this topic and I find that I speak for most of them. There is a need to clear up that form and to make it obvious when somebody is deliberately misleading a Customs officer. That will happen as a result of the inquiry by Mr Black. I would like to think that following this debate we can wrap up the Paddington Bear affair and get into much more important issues that should be of concern to the Parliament. I have deliberately restricted myself to five minutes of my allotted 30 minutes on this topic because I want Parliament to get on to discuss more important issues, such as the growth of the multibillion dollar organised crime syndicates in Australia and their effect on our various parliaments. Let us look at that matter. If one wants to find where there are problems with parliamentarians, I suggest one should start there. Do not start by looking at a piece of paper that was filled in erroneously. Let us examine issues such as unemployment and the problems of three million Australians who are living in poverty, and at the difficulties of 800,000 children who are destitute in Australia. Let us examine why Australia is falling behind its neighbours and competitors in science, technology and tertiary education levels. Let us look at all the areas of future development, instead of looking backward at somebody's clerical error. Let us examine the massive decline in manufacturing industry. Let us also examine the question of survival, disarmament and nuclear-based targets in Australia. For goodness sake let us sort out our priorities and discuss issues of real significance for the people of Australia. Let us stop wasting their time and the time of Parliament on this affair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.43) —The Senate is debating the report by a Melbourne Queen's Counsel, Mr Black, into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration on 5 July 1984 by a senior Minister of the Hawke Government, Mr Young. Senator Jack Evans suggested that this matter was of no significance. I put it to the House that the questions of standards of behaviour of Ministers of the Crown are of great significance. I reject the kind of rhetoric that suggests that we should be looking at crime in Australia, especially when it is uttered by a man who speaks for a party that rejected a number of amendments that would have strengthened the National Crime Authority. Let us not hear that kind of rhetoric from Senator Jack Evans. I make the clear point that there should have been no inquiry at all on this matter. The question of the standard of conduct of a Minister is a matter for the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had indicated that he believed in high standards. There was a debate in this Parliament not more than a few years ago on the questions of Customs forms, declarations and errors therein. Every Minister and every member of this Parliament was acquainted with all the details and nuances of this subject. This was not an accidental case. We are not dealing with an ordinary citizen who might have been confused. Indeed, we are dealing with a Minister who several years ago set himself up as an expert on the subject of standards. There is no question that he did not know all the wording, the meanings and nuances in the Customs form. He himself in this Parliament had indicated the standards. Indeed, the Prime Minister had said that such a standard should be enforced. The fact is that the Prime Minister should have looked at this matter and said to himself: ' What do I expect as a standard from my Minister? Do I expect him to behave in a way above the ordinary conduct of an ordinary citizen? Do I expect him to know more than the ordinary citizen about the Customs regulations?' The Prime Minister could have answered that question clearly because debate on this matter had already take place in this Parliament. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) had set himself up as an expert. The question that arose was simple enough-namely, what was the standard of conduct of a Minister who signed a form and said that to the best of his knowledge the answer he gave was true and correct in every particular? The evidence was that the Minister had indicated to Mr Jennings that he had no knowledge at all. The Democrats appear to suggest that it was a trivial matter that a Minister signed a form indicating that he had knowledge; in other words, that the information was given to the best of his knowledge and belief and was a true statement. But the Minister said to Mr Jennings: 'I had no knowledge'. The Minister knew that it would be wrong to bring in anything on which there was not a true declaration. He knew on his own admission that he had no knowledge at all of what was in the luggage. What he should have done was to say: 'I have no knowledge of this matter. Let us stand over the luggage until I find out'. Clearly, either the Minister said to his wife: 'What is in the luggage? Is there anything to declare-- Senator Button —Clearly he didn't say that to his wife. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am grateful to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because he has changed his mind on this matter. At first when the matter arose, he said that there was nothing to it, but then he said that, in view of certain information that had come before him, there ought to be an inquiry. But the Minister needed no such information. He knew that a Customs form had been signed in which a person had said that, to the best of his knowledge, the statement was correct. He knew that the person had said he had no knowledge at all of the matter. What kind of a standard is it when a Minister does something like that? The Special Minister of State knew when he was at that Customs point that his statement was false. It was not an incorrect statement by inadvertence, but a false statement. The Minister knew, as he said afterwards, that he had no such knowledge at all. Therefore, he knew that inside that luggage there might have been dutiable articles. What more did the Prime Minister need? The fact is that the Prime Minister has shown himself again and again to be weak in handling his Ministers and Cabinet. The Prime Minister is the captive of his Cabinet, his Caucus and his national conference. As has been shown recently, he is incapable of acting. Prime Minister Hawke knew what it was right to do and he did what was wrong. In setting up the inquiry into this matter, the Government deliberately narrowed the terms of reference, and invited the Queen's Counsel to inquire into impropriety, whereas the question was: What is the standard of conduct expected of a Minister? That is not a matter for a Queen's counsel at all. It is a matter for a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister also knew that he could not use his authority; he had failed in his authority on other occasions. This was not the first case involving this Minister. There was the Combe affair and a royal commissioner, Mr Justice Hope, made stringent findings about the Minister and his conduct. In other words, the principle governing the standard of conduct expected of a Minister in the past had been clearly shown to be seriously breached. The Prime Minister knew, as we know from his statements, that the Minister should be judged according to the standards set in past debate in the Parliament. The Prime Minister knew that he had one job to do-stand the Minister down permanently. However, the Prime Minister did not do that. He used the inquiry to defend himself from his Caucus, his Party and his national conference. The Prime Minister was the man who said publicly that there is one action that is right-if we are to keep to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, observe its terms and not have trade sanctions imposed on us, it is right for Australia to export uranium to those countries that are signatories to the Treaty and not be selective in our exports. However, pressure came from his Caucus and his national conference. Before the conference, the Prime Minister reduced his policy to an emasculated compromise and then claimed a victory. That is what he does all the time. The Prime Minister, who poses as a strong man, is, in fact, the complete captive of his national conference and his Party. Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats says that this is not an important matter ; it is a trivial matter. We are dealing with the whole question of the standards not just of Mr Young but also of Mr Hawke. The report stands as an indictment of Mr Hawke's standards and value judgments. For the reasons I have given, I do not want to canvass the report. The report is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is not whether there was impropriety or a breach of the law-that matter is for other times and other decisions. It is necessary to clear up this issue. The Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button) has a grave responsibility in this regard and will, no doubt, act on it. The real question is the standard of Ministers. I cannot help but say that it is outrageous to read in the report that the Special Minister of State was compelled to answer yes or no-of course, he was not. Only four for five days ago while coming through Customs I had a query about some foodstuffs, so I wrote 'query' on the form. I asked whether the goods were admissible and dutiable. The Customs officer had discussions with me on the matter, because I could not say to the best of my knowledge- Senator Button —Because you knew about the Young thing; that is why you did it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is very interesting. Senator Button said that I did that because I knew about the Young thing. Mick Young knew about the colour television set incident, did he not? Senator Button —We all did. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Button has hooked himself with his own expediency. There could not have been a more opportunist and expedient interjection. If it is right to say-and it is not-that what happened to me the other day and previously was an expedient action because of the Young thing, how much more so is it right to say that the Minister should have known because of the colour television incident? I invite the public to note that what the Leader of the Government in the Senate just said has condemned Mr Young on his own values. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, just said that Mr Young should have known, and should have been more cautious and should have written on the form that he did not know because he was aware of the colour television incident. One cannot buy a more opportunist situation than the one just put by Senator Button. Senator Button —Admirable interjection though, Senator. It worked like a charm. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It worked to show the Government's standards and values. Senator Robertson —Watch your halo; it is starting to choke you. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I welcome interjections. Senator Robertson —You thrive on them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes. Why should I not do so? Interjections disclose the Hawke Government's soft underbelly, particularly those of its senior Ministers, the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Senator Gietzelt —You had nine Ministers tarnished in your Government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I love to hear these interjections. Honourable senators opposite should keep going. The more interjections there are, the more opportunities there are to show the Labor Party's fragility, it captivity to its Caucus and conferences and the opportunism and shallowness of its principles. I thank honourable senators opposite, through you, Mr Deputy President, for their interjections. The Prime Minister should never have called for a report. The report was designed by him and his Government as a cover-up and a defence for the Prime Minister's inaction. The test was not the standard of an ordinary individual but the standard of a senior Minister. The test was: Is this the standard of conduct of a person whom Australia would want to have as a Minister making very serious judgments all day, one who is understood to know of these matters? Is this the standard of conduct of a man who in the House of Representatives had debated the question of Customs forms, admissibility and Customs avoidance and who had set himself up as judge and jury on that matter? Is this the standard of conduct of a man who cannot claim that there was some confusion about the form? We heard all that nonsense about the form's ambiguity, but that has been discussed before . No wonder we are discussing the Black report. The Special Minister of State could not claim any of those alibis because he had asserted that he knew all the nuances of the form. The Minister said that what he had stated was to the best of his knowledge and belief but he admitted afterwards that he had no knowledge of the cases' contents. The Minister had, therefore, made a culpably false statement. It was culpably false for him to say that he made that statement with knowledge of the contents and then to say that he had no such knowledge. That action should have been sufficient for the Prime Minister to act; but the Prime Minister did not do so because he is a weak man. The Prime Minister hides behind his massive narcissus complex as a weak man who is the absolute captive of his Caucus and his Party. The Prime Minister did nothing. The Black report is the weakest of reports because its terms of reference were deliberately narrowed and designed to reach a certain conclusion. The Black report is irrelevant, but the Prime Minister's action in this matter is very relevant. He showed that he was unwilling to assert that his Ministers should have certain standards such as those he demanded of the coalition when it was in government. The Prime Minister has run from that demand. There are now poor standards of conduct for Ministers. I understand that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said to Senator Peter Rae that there will be an opportunity to continue this debate. I understand also that the Leader of the Government in the Senate now wishes to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.57) —All sorts of suggestions have been made during this debate. We will, undoubtedly, have an opportunity to deal with the matter again if honourable senators wish. I share Senator Peter Rae's concern that the debate should be adjourned so that the discussion is better informed than it has been so far. In spite of the absence of knowledge which the Opposition senators claim and their glorification of ignorance, all sorts of extraordinary and outrageous comments have been made by members of the Opposition about the sequence of events. I believe that an outside observer who has listened to this debate would say that the Opposition has established nothing except the fact that Mr Young incorrectly filled in a Customs form. Opposition senators have established that fact beyond reasonable doubt in an extraordinary piece of debating skill. Mr Young admitted that fact on 5 July 1984 and it has been public knowledge ever since. The whole purport of today's debate has been to establish that fact, because there is no other consistency in what has been said. Of course, it is admitted, and was from the beginning. That is the rub as far as the Liberal Party of Australia is concerned. It was admitted from the beginning, and that is the thing that hurts. Mr Young admitted from the beginning the filling in of an incorrect declaration and he paid a penalty prescribed by the Customs Act. Senator Peter Rae —The penalty is under section 234, a fine of up to $1,000. Senator BUTTON —The Customs Service determines what course of action should be taken in relation to this matter and it determined that section 209 should apply . Senator Peter Rae —The penalty for a false declaration is under section 234. Senator BUTTON —I understand that, too, but I am saying that Mr Young, by having to pay double duty, paid a penalty in respect of his actions. Senator Peter Rae —He paid the duty he had to pay but he did not pay a penalty for the mistake. Senator BUTTON —I do not want to debate the Customs Act with Senator Rae. If he thought that point was important he might have made it while he was speaking. I was making the point that the Opposition has been very excited about this issue for a number of weeks and all sorts of silly statements have been made. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —I think you were a bit worried too. Senator BUTTON —Of course I was worried. It was a matter which concerned one of my colleagues, and I do not retreat from that. The Opposition was very concerned about it for weeks and made all sorts of silly statements about it, culminating in the meeting of the Opposition shadow executive in Townsville where they assembled to see the sun go down on Cleveland Bay and, as a result of that meeting, put out only one statement, which said: 'We will establish an inquiry into this matter but we do not know what to inquire into. So we will have to get further information'. That is what emerged from the meeting in Townsville. Senator Peter Rae —That is not true. Senator BUTTON —It is true. Is the honourable senator denying what was in the newspapers? Senator Peter Rae —You said 'one statement'. It was more than one statement. Senator BUTTON —I am told that the people of Townsville waited with bated breath for a statement from the Opposition arising from its meeting about any of the issues which concerned the people of Townsville. Senator Peter Rae —Such as coastal surveillance. Perhaps you would like a copy of the statement. Senator BUTTON —I am told that they waited with bated breath on that issue. The Opposition became very excited about this matter because it thought from the beginning that this Government would apply the same sleazy standards as were applied by the Fraser Government in relation to a similar matter. Senator Walters —Oh! Senator BUTTON —Mr Young paid the penalty within seven days. Mr MacKellar paid the penalty seven months later when he was flushed out. That was the difference. Those opposite expected right from the beginning that this Government would embark upon a course of conduct to conceal what happened. Senator Sir John Carrick said in his remarks today that he expected us to behave in the way in which the Fraser Government did and to say: 'We will look at this issue on Monday when we see the Press. When we see the editorials on Monday we will make a decision about it'. This was what was said in relation to Moore and MacKellar by the Fraser Government: 'Let us look at it on Monday when we see the editorials and then we will make a principled decision about it'. That is the sort of thing that went on in the period of the previous Government and that is what led to the excitement among members of the Opposition about the course which would be followed by this Government in respect of this matter. Let me turn to some of the facts which are important. It is admitted, and was from the beginning, that Mr Young incorrectly filled in his Customs declaration. That has been dealt with by Mr Black. Let me just make this point about whether an offence was committed: No duty was evaded by Mr Young and no Customs officer was misled. In dealing with that issue Mr Black concluded that the only law of the Commonwealth that required to be considered was section 234 (e) of the Customs Act. Page 125 of the Black report deals with that question. That section , as Senator Peter Rae pointed out by way of interjection, provides that it is an offence to make an untrue declaration but, as Mr Black further points out, the Parliament enacted section 209 whereby, if a person is offered the provisions of section 209 by the Customs Service, as it is in its discretion to do, no prosecution can take place. If the provisions of section 209 are offered, no proceedings, as Mr Black points out, as a matter of law can be instituted. Senator Peter Rae —That is a dubious interpretation of section 209. Senator BUTTON —Senator Peter Rae attacked Mr Black in the course of his remarks this morning. He will no doubt have an opportunity to do it again on the basis of a comparison of his forensic skills with those of Mr Black. Mr Black went on to conclude that there is difficulty in establishing whether there was an offence under section 243 (e). That is dealt with on page 126 of the Black report. The point is that, given the operation of section 209 of the Customs Act , the question of whether an offence under section 234 was committed becomes hypothetical. Mr Black says that there is no need in those circumstances to deal with that question further. Of course, the declaration made by Mr Young did give rise to a penalty, and that was paid under the provisions of section 209. Because it is clearly not established in the minds of members of the Opposition , I want to touch briefly on the question of why the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration was appointed. From the point of view of the Government, from the first occasion on which this matter was drawn to the Government's attention on 5 July the Customs Service was instructed that Mr Young was to be dealt with like any ordinary passenger. That instruction was given on 5 July. From then on it was a matter within the control of the Customs Service to deal with Mr Young as any ordinary passenger would be dealt with. On 20 July the Comptroller-General of Customs reported on the steps which had taken place, on the interviews which had taken place, on the payment of the duty and, in concluding his report, on the fact that the matter was now closed as far as the Customs Service was concerned. There was no attempt to hide any of that. On 22 July, at the earliest possible opportunity, Mr Young made a statement about that matter publicly. He did not need to do that. He made a public statement setting out what had taken place. I will deal with the question of why the Black inquiry was appointed. On 24 July new information became available in Adelaide. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —What was the new information? Senator BUTTON —I am about to tell the honourable senator. I said that members of the Opposition had been very enthusiastic about this, and I am about to tell them. On 24 July allegations were made by way of hearsay that the circumstances surrounding the completion of the declaration by Mr Young were not as had been stated. That was the first new allegation that became available. Allegations by way of hearsay evidence were being made that these things had been said. Senator Lewis —By officers of the Customs Service? Senator BUTTON —Yes, and by officers of other departments. Senator Lewis —Other departments? Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator reads the Black report he will find out all about that. Senator Lewis —I just wanted to get it into Hansard. Senator BUTTON —Well, the Black report is there. The honourable senator can read it. He need not be concerned. On 24 July that information became available. The second piece of information which became available was that there could be allegations that a change had been made to the Customs declaration by whiting out in the Minister's office. They were new bits of information which came to the Government's knowledge following the closure of the proceedings by the Comptroller-General of Customs. They were matters which went beyond the Customs process, which the Government had said should be applied to Mr Young as with any ordinary passenger. They went beyond the Customs process, and it was as a result of this that the Government decided that those matters should be investigated, first, as to whether they were being alleged and, secondly, as to whether the allegations had substance. Those were the matters dealt with by the Black report . Because they were matters of fact which had to be determined, they were not matters with which the Government felt it appropriate to deal. Is it appropriate for Ministers to go around interviewing all sorts of Customs officers and people of that kind? The Government did not feel so. It felt that this was a matter to be handled by an independent inquiry presided over by Mr Black. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —What was the conflicting information? Senator BUTTON —It is all set out in the Black inquiry. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —That does not answer it. Senator BUTTON —Yes, it does; it is all set out in the Black inquiry what the conflicting information is. For example, the circumstances surrounding the making of a declaration are set out. Senator Peter Rae —What do you mean? The changes by the secretary? Senator BUTTON —No, the circumstances surrounding the making of a declaration. The Black inquiry sets out what the conflicting information was; evidence by Mr Jennings conflicting with evidence of Mr Gilbert, an officer of the Department of Administrative Services, and different from what the Minister had said. That is in the Black inquiry. With respect, I am not seeking to make any point about that, but it is all there. That is what the inquiry was set up to examine. That is the material which Black examined and about which he made a determination. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I understand that because of an electrical fault it would be inappropriate to draw your attention to the state of the House. Consequently, I just point out that there is only one Labor senator in the chamber apart from Senator Button, Senator Button is not doing too well, and he needs support. I suggest that he calls his colleagues behind him. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not a point of order. However, I should inform the Senate that during the power blackout we are not being broadcast, the clocks are not working and the bells cannot be rung. If there is a call for a quorum or a division, I shall have to suspend the sitting. Senator BUTTON —I am indebted to Senator Walters for her concern about me. The first point I make is that I expected all those Opposition senators who are present to be here, because they have a salacious interest in this topic, which they inherited from the MacKellar-Moore times. As I have said, it is logical that they ought to be present, because they remember the sort of sleaze of those days which applied to their Government. I understand the reason for their presence, and I am very grateful to them. Senator Walters —Why don't you ask Mrs Young where she does her shopping? Senator BUTTON —I was coming to the question of the valuation of the goods. Senator Chaney made some point about the valuation of goods and he displayed his knowledge or otherwise of shopping in Europe. At this stage I draw the Senate's attention to pages 117 and 118 of the report, and to page 119 where Mr Black says: I formed the view that such a valuation-- that is, an independent valuation- was not necessary, even if it had been practicable. I should like honourable senators to think about that seriously, because the suggestion has come forward that there ought to be an independent valuation. There is probably someone imaginative enough on the other side of the chamber who could tell us how, in the context of a Customs Act, that sort of process could work. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —This is not a normal one; this is different. Senator BUTTON —No, with respect, because we said that Mr Young should be dealt with in the same way as everyone else, and he was, in respect of those matters. It is just the same with any other ordinary citizen. One cannot have in the Customs Act a provision that the discretion to determine a valuation shall be in the hands of the Customs Service, but because of a request by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, if it happens to be a Labor Minister who is having his goods valued, the Liberals can ask for an independent valuation. Senator Lewis —Do not worry about the Customs officer. What is the use of having it at all? Senator BUTTON —There are so many wits on the other side of the chamber that I should like to opt out of this scene and let them exchange fripperies and banalities amongst themselves. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In view of the remarks of the Leader of the Government, I ask the Opposition to refrain from interjections. Senator BUTTON —Mr Black went on to deal with the question of valuation. The point to be made is that the primary issue is not whether the valuation was correct as a matter of objective fact, but whether the opinion as to the value formed by the Customs officers-which is their discretion, their function-was properly formed and whether there was any impropriety on the part of those involved in the process of valuation. They are the questions which Black says ought to be addressed. They are the questions which I agree ought to be addressed and were addressed in the context of this matter. In respect of both of those matters, whether a proper opinion as to the value was formed by the Customs officers and whether there was any impropriety, Mr Black found in favour of the Customs officers. As I have said, is the Opposition saying that it queries Mr Black's integrity in respect of that matter, or the integrity of the Customs officers concerned? As I said at the beginning, this is an unfortunate matter in which a Minister made an error in relation to a Customs form. Senator Missen —Especially with his interest in the MacKellar-Moore thing; he was very keen and arrogant about that. Senator BUTTON —That is something about which Senator Missen is entitled to be critical. I recall that he was critical at the time. Senator Withers —Different people, different standards. Senator BUTTON —The right honourable senator would be an expert. Senator Withers —Oh, yes, I am. Senator BUTTON —Absolutely. Senator Withers —Absolutely. Senator BUTTON —That is why I concede that. I want to deal with the final point that Senator Sir John Carrick made, which seems to be an attack on the terms of reference of the Black inquiry because they were directed to the question of impropriety. Senator Sir John Carrick says that that is not the issue; the issue is standards of behaviour of Ministers. He cannot have it all ways. The word ' impropriety' crept into the language in terms of standards of behaviour for Ministers under his former Prime Minister, who laid down those standards with great vigour-with rhetorical vigour; not so much in practice. It was in all the circumstances of his Government that the question of impropriety became the crucial issue in determining standards of behaviour of a Minister. That is why the word 'impropriety' was used in the terms of reference relating to Mr Young's filling in of the Customs declaration. In respect of the freedom of information matters which were raised by Senator Rae and others let me just say that honourable senators are aware of the freedom of information legislation and the time factor involved. We will not rely on that time factor in terms of giving answers. Senator Walters —That will come not long after the election? Senator BUTTON —No, not long after the election. I am sorry; I did say that honourable senators were aware of the time limits but Senator Walters clearly is not. Senator Walters —I am not aware of the election time. Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants it next week I will see what I can do, but I may not be able to help. The freedom of information requests will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I think it is extraordinary that Mr Spender, for example, wrote to me on, I think, Monday 8 August and required an answer to everything by 5 p.m. four days later. I am not saying that I was unwilling to accede to that request, but it was difficult to do that. Senator Peter Rae —Will you answer the other question in relation to the form and what the finding means? It would be helpful to have your view on record. Senator BUTTON —I read that question in the Australian Financial Review when it was first raised by it. As I understand Senator Rae's question, it is whether, if somebody who is bringing in a bag of heroin puts 'No', 'I don't know' or whatever in the boxes in answer to the questions, that makes a difference to the treatment that person will get. Of course it does not. If he gets caught, he gets caught. The declaration does not go to that. Section 234 (e) of the Act deals with the declaration and the making of false declarations. But the question of what is in the bags and the penalty in respect of illegal materials such as heroin or other matters is the question of whether the person is apprehended. As to the question which Senator Rae or somebody else asked, as to why the bags were opened in Mr Young's case, the answer is that they were marked 'inspect' as soon as they arrived in Adelaide. Senator Peter Rae —At Melbourne, I think. Senator BUTTON —No, I thought it Melbourne originally. I think the honourable senator will find that Mr Black says it was at Adelaide. It is not a material point, anyway. The answer is that a very substantial proportion of unaccompanied baggage is marked 'inspect'. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —I point out that, to the best of my understanding, the electricity is back on again. The speech timing clock is working. However, eastern standard time is not as indicated on the clocks. We will suspend for lunch according to my wrist watch if the clocks have not been fixed by lunch time. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Senate take note of the report and statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.24) —The Senate has before it today the final report from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, in respect of his appointment as a Special Prosecutor on 21 February 1984 in which appointment he was asked to consider the great reel of material which has become known popularly as the Age tapes and transcripts. He was asked to consider whether any activities which were illegal under Commonwealth or Territory law had taken place in relation to the possible interception of telephone conversations which were referred to in the material and tapes and whether any other activities, illegal under Commonwealth or Territory law, are established as a result of these investigations. It is important to understand that Mr Temby was looking at what we call the authenticity of this material to determine whether anybody who had been or may be guilty of any interceptions should be charged with any offences under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and also whether there was any evidence on which people should be charged under any other Commonwealth laws. I emphasise this because a good deal of political pressure has been brought to bear in regard to the first question, in particular by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran. I think at one stage he said that he was going to ensure that a whole lot of police in New South Wales were put in gaol because of the activities that had been revealed. It is probably fair to say that a good deal of Mr Temby's time in relation to the special role that he was given under the Special Prosecutor's Act has been devoted to the question of the authenticity of the tapes and the commission of offences under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act as against offences under Commonwealth law generally. But there were clearly matters for investigation as to breaches of Commonwealth law. The contents of the tapes, as against the question of who made them and why they were made, is a very serious matter. I stress this also because of the comment by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the statement which he put down last night and which we are now debating. He said: 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; . . . the profound indifference, even cynicism, with which illegality and privacy invasion has been greeted by some members of the media and Opposition spokesmen. This is a very strange and a very false statement to be made by the Attorney- General. In the course of the extensive debates which took place in this Senate during the early part of this year the Opposition emphasised at all times the need for an investigation as to whether there had been breaches of the Commonwealth Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act and was conscious at all times of the invasions of privacy and the illegality that that would amount to. We supported the investigation of this matter by the Special Prosecutor. Indeed, in the first public comment that I made on the Age tapes-it was probably the first public comment to be made on the matter-I referred to the likely breaches of the Act. So I completely reject that quite unworthy and false accusation that the Attorney-General has made in his ministerial statement on Mr Temby's report. The Opposition has certainly always said, says today and will continue to say that it is deeply concerned about the possible extensive breaches of Commonwealth laws. If any evidence can be obtained from the tapes and transcripts and certainly if those tapes and transcripts lead to or are helpful towards any other investigation and the obtaining of evidence about these various breaches of Commonwealth laws that are likely to be revealed by these tapes and transcripts, that evidence should be the subject of investigation as well. Indeed, that power was given, as I have said, to Mr Temby. It was appropriately given to Mr Temby. Unfortunately, Mr Temby has not been able to take the matter very far, but that is another question which I will deal with later. What I am emphasising-the Attorney-General himself very early in the piece recognised this publicly-is that there was a real issue here as to what Mr Temby I think has called the provenance of the tapes, that is, how they were made, who made them and whether they were in fact made. These are all the questions he has had to look at. They are very serious questions. He has also had to look at the contents of the tapes and the possible indications of criminology which those tapes revealed. Certainly they do reveal quite extensive illegality in regard to breaches of Commonwealth and State laws. Mr Temby, I think in his original opinion which led to his appointment, detailed some of the laws which may have been breached. He comes back to those in his report. The Attorney-General in his statement recognised that such matters were dealt with by Mr Temby in the course of his investigation. In again referring to the statement the Attorney said in relation to Mr Temby's conclusions: . . . he has sought to detect all offences against Federal laws . . . there is nothing that warrants a charge or further investigation. Of course some material arising out of parts of these transcripts has been sent to Mr Justice Stewart which he is investigating. Of course, Mr Justice Stewart will have coercive powers and may be able to take the matter further than Mr Temby has been able to do. Mr Temby also reports that he had taken the investigation of certain of the other possible breaches of federal law as well and found that some of these have been dealt with by the police and that no further work was required of him. He detailed these. Mr Temby has emphasised the fact that he has no coercive powers. In fact some matters dealt with in the tapes and transcripts have been referred to Mr Justice Stewart. Of course, as the Senate is well aware other matters have been referred to a committee of the Senate which has not yet reported. Therefore, it is probably premature at this stage to propose any action called for arising out of Mr Temby's report. As I have said however, his report is of very considerable importance although he has been frustrated by a lack of coercive powers and lack of co-operation of a number of people. It is rather surprising to note some of the people he reports as lacking co-operation. Certainly one gentleman who was thought to be able to help him considerably-a gentleman by the name of Mr Jock Hawthorn formerly a member of the New South Wales police-refused to be interviewed by either the Federal or New South Wales police. Other people were approached to assist-I cite these from the report-namely, Mr Justice Murphy and Mr McHugh, QC, Mr B. Miles and Mr T. Christie, all of the Sydney Bar and Mr Ryan himself. The report stated: Each of these persons, with the exception of Justice Murphy, either personally or through his legal representative declined to be interviewed or to comment on the matters sought to be raised. As I understand, Mr Temby had a response from Mr Justice Murphy to the effect that the judge informed the Australian Federal Police by letter on 25 May that: . . . what is on the tapes is a tampered-with telephone conversation, or more likely, an amalgam of tampered-with telephone conversations between (himself) and Mr Ryan. As to the authenticity of the transcripts he was unable to confirm any of the transcripts and said that he did: . . . not believe that they are genuine and accurate records of conversations between (himself) and Mr Ryan. As Mr Temby pointed out, if that were evidence before a court it would not be of any assistance on the question of authenticity. Mr Temby was forced to the conclusion that it was not possible to prove that the tapes or transcripts or any part of them represented actual conversations. The voices on them cannot be proved save to the extent that Mr Justice Murphy gives an acknowledgment, which I have just mentioned. Mr Temby comes to the conclusion when in fact he says finally: The matter could be taken further by the materials generally being referred to some body . . . having coercive powers. I have already indicated this. However, the conclusion that Mr Temby has had to come to is that he cannot really say at all whether these tapes and transcripts came into existence as a result of the interception of telephone conversations, although he says that he has some fairly firm belief that they do. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of who did the taping and how it was done. Also there is not sufficient evidence for him to form an opinion as to whether the tapes are what they purport to be. As I said, Mr Temby was left in the situation of having very little assistance from a number of people who may well have been able to give that assistance. That is a very unsatisfactory and unfortunate state of affairs in respect of those who have not been helpful and who, in fact, have declined to be interviewed. As I said, these people include several members of the Sydney Bar and Mr Morgan Ryan, a Sydney solicitor. As I said, this report is one of great interest and importance from a number of points of view. I think that one of its main areas of significance is the contrast between Mr Temby's report and some of the things the Premier of New South Wales has been saying in recent months. I think it was as recent as 19 August-last Sunday-that Mr Wran was interviewed and asked about the statement. The interviewer Robert Haupt asked: You were going to track down the perpetrators of this inside the NSW police, how's that investigation going? Mr Wran replied: Not badly as a matter of fact. It's at a very interesting stage. Mr Wran made those statements which in fact were made a month after Mr Temby had given his report to the Attorney-General. This is an indication that Mr Wran cannot determine whether these transcripts and tapes were based on interceptions made by anybody in the New South Wales police force. Some of the sorts of pressures that were brought to bear by the public statements of Mr Wran earlier this year at about the time the Age tapes came to light concerning what he was going to do to New South Wales police and also the pressures that he put on the New South Wales police may well have accounted for the difficulties that Mr Temby has had. That may be one reason why Mr Temby has been frustrated in his inquiries. However, that does not excuse the other people who were not placed under that pressure for not being more helpful to Mr Temby than they were. I believe that this matter is of very deep, continuing concern. It is another example of what is happening in regard to the administration of justice in New South Wales and of the attitude of the Premier of New South Wales to these problems. Regretfully, I must say that the conclusion of the report by the Attorney, who seems to be continuing to express more concern about the possible illegalities under the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act and the invasions of privacy and so on than about the broad problems of crime, particularly in New South Wales, gives some concern. Hopefully there will be other means of resolving the problem. I mentioned Mr Justice Stewart who has been looking at some aspects of it. I do not believe that anything more can be done at this stage. However, I think this report should continue to be kept very much alive and to the forefront of the deliberations of the Parliament. Unless somebody else wishes to speak at this stage, I propose to seek leave to continue my remarks later. Senator Gareth Evans —What if I want to speak to wind up the debate? Are you proposing to adjourn the matter? Senator DURACK —As some of these matters are the subject of a reference to a committee of this Senate which has not yet reported, I think that it would be preferable-- Senator Georges —Perhaps you ought to ask why the Committee has not reported. Senator DURACK —The Senate has given extensions of time to the Committee. I believe that this debate should be adjourned, for the time being at least. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I understand the course taken by Senator Durack. I certainly do not resist this matter being brought on for debate again, perhaps simultaneously with the consideration of the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge if that, indeed, is Senator Durack's intention. All I simply want to say while the matter of the Temby report is still current is this-and I will say it in a couple of sentences: Mr Temby has done a good and thorough job in his report. He has done everything that could reasonably have been expected of him. I am very glad to note from Senator Durack's remarks that the quality of that report and the character of the recommendations in it are not being challenged by the Opposition. I am further glad to note that Mr Temby's personal integrity and capacity has not been impugned by the Opposition on this occasion as it has been in the past and no doubt will be again if he comes up with conclusions in some investigation that, however justified, do not appear politically palatable to the Opposition at the time. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate confirm that the figures on Budget receipts in Budget Paper No. 1 show that under the Budget brought down last night the Hawke Government is now taking more in tax from every dollar earned in Australia than any government in the country's history? Senator BUTTON —I cannot confirm that in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has put the question. Certainly there has been a substantial rise in tax receipts as a result of increased employment following the Government's policies in that area. There has also been increased tax receipts as a result of improved company profits and improved professional incomes. It is true to say that in all those areas there are substantial increases which maybe put the situation in the terms which Senator Chaney asked his question. But I cannot confirm it beyond that. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Minister to the table on page 364 of Budget Statement No. 1, which shows that the Government expects receipts in 1984-85-that is, its total taxes-to equal 27. 9 per cent of the gross domestic product. Does he agree that that is the highest figure attained in the history of Australia? Senator Peter Rae —This Government does not know what it is on about. Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae says that this Government just does not know. I am referred to a table on a particular page of the Budget statements and I am asked how it compares with the figures for every other year since Federation. Probably the implications in Senator Chaney's question are correct but in answering the question earlier I went to some length to explain why, and I will do it again. In terms of improvement in employment, in terms of improvement in company profits-- Senator Chaney —This is gross domestic product. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. In terms of all those factors the total tax receipts are substantially up. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Attorney-General seen the report in the late edition of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning in which it is stated that 'numerous people refused to be interviewed by Mr Temby's investigators, including the Sydney lawyers Mr Michael McHugh QC, Mr Bruce Miles and Mr Terry Christie'? For what reasons might these people have refused to be interviewed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen that report, which is presumably based on paragraph 19 of Mr Temby's report into the Age materials which I tabled last night. I should point out that there could be a number of perfectly understandable and unexceptional reasons for the reluctance of practising lawyers in particular to be less than fully forthcoming to an inquiry of this kind. For example Mr McHugh, QC, contacted my office today after he had read the newspaper report to say that he disagreed with Mr Temby's description of what occurred as reported, at least in the paper. Mr McHugh said that after being approached by Mr Temby in the course of his investigations he, Mr McHugh, formed the opinion that such conversations that may have involved him were the subject of legal professional privilege, but that apart from that aspect he remained quite willing to assist the investigators. I cannot comment on the circumstances of the other individuals but no doubt there may well be perfectly justifiable reasons for their having declined to comment. I should repeat in that respect what was said in the tabling statement last night, that the Government in tabling the report in full, as it did, with a number of individuals named in it had to consider the fact, and I will quote from the tabling statement: . . . 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 went on to say in the tabling statement, quoting the Commissioner of Police: . . . 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. I think that needs to be reiterated and emphasised. The Government, as I say, had very much in mind those sorts of considerations but, on balance, thought it appropriate that the desires of Mr Temby, as an independent statutory officer, be fully respected, and his desire was clearly for that report and the accompanying police document to be tabled in full. The difficulty about doing that is always that adverse inferences, justifiably or quite unjustifiably, may be made about individuals caught up and named in one way or another in these inquiries. I hope that members of the Opposition-or indeed anyone else-do not unfairly utilise the Government's candour, as it were, and Mr Temby's candour in putting on the public record in the way that he did and the way that we did in tabling it in Parliament, the full text of Mr Temby's report. Senator MESSNER —Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate confirm that people with incomes of between $700 and $800 a week will receive reductions in income tax greater than the rises granted to pensioners and beneficiaries in the Budget? Is this an example of the commitment of this Government to redistributive policies or simply an acknowledgement that it does not attach a high priority in planning to that section of the community? Senator BUTTON —I confirm that, if Senator Messner is seeking an intelligent reading of the Budget Papers, which I would have hoped he would have been able to make himself. I think the point of his question is: Do the tax cuts to people in employment which are provided in the Budget in a sense provide greater benefits to those people than to welfare beneficiaries and what are the Government's priorities in respect of those matters? The strategy of the Budget- in a different sense from that of the last Budget-was to pursue economic growth and to make sure that it continues. This matter has been articulated by the Treasurer on a number of occasions. The increases granted to welfare recipients in this Budget were significant indeed-not as significant as the Government might have wished, but significant-in terms of pensions, unemployment benefit and particular payments in respect of particular welfare schemes. If those payments are to continue and be increased in the future as the Government would wish and if a process of redistribution is to take place in favour of that section of the community it can only be done on the basis of continuing economic growth. The tax cuts to employees in the tax brackets referred to by Senator Messner are provided-the Government has been quite frank about this-in pursuit of its objective of maintaining the prices and incomes accord. The prices and incomes accord, of course, has been a matter of great discussion in the Senate over a period, but the important point from the Government's viewpoint is that it is working. It is working not only in terms of restraining inflation but also in terms of a quite dramatic decrease in industrial unrest in this country which has been manifest in the past 15 months since this Government came to power. I mention that because it is particularly related to the question of economic growth to which I referred earlier. I hope that Senator Messner is able to follow the argument that has been put on a number of occasions. I am putting it again in answer to his question. However, insofar as the raw figures in the Budget papers are concerned, I confirm what he asked. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Is the publication News and Views (Queensland) a publication registered by Australia Post? If so, for how long has it been so registered? What advantages accrue from such registration? What requirements have to be fulfilled before a publication can be registered by Australia Post? Is it permissible for a fascist, untruthful smear sheet such as News and Views ( Queensland) to be granted registration by Australia Post? Senator BUTTON —I have a surprising degree of wisdom on this matter, Senator Colston having given me advance notice of his question. News and Views ( Queensland) is registered under Australia Post's registered publications service . It was first registered in July 1983. Of course, the advantage which publications of this kind and other kinds gain from registration is reduced postal charges. Guidelines are applied in determining whether a periodical shall be registered. In essence they are: A publication is eligible for registration if its proprietors or persons controlling the editorial content and distribution of the paper intend to produce no fewer than four issues throughout the year; do not intend to produce or distribute the publication from outside Australia; are not, except for educational establishments, the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a statutory body; and do not intend to produce during registration a publication with more than 50 per cent of the written and pictorial content devoted to the activities or concerns of a department or departments. They are the essential guidelines which allow a publication to be registered or otherwise. In short, News and Views (Queensland), the publication to which Senator Colston refers, is eligible for registration under Australia Post's guidelines. I think the judgmental decisions which have to be made by people are best made by individuals in society. Senator Colston has clearly made them. Not being a regular subscriber to or reader of News and Views (Queensland), I am unable to make my own, but I am sure that Senator Colston's have some merit. Senator MASON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment: Has the Australian Heritage Commission recommended that the Daintree rainforest be placed on the World Heritage list? Is such a recommendation imminent? If so, what steps have been or will be taken by the Government to protect the region immediately under section 6 (2) (e) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act? Finally, in view of the major and totally unjustified damage to this region through construction of the Bloomfield -Cape Tribulation road and the Government's declared policy of rainforest preservation, why has the Government delayed action as long as it has on this matter? Senator RYAN —I do not know that I can agree that there has been a delay in the Government's handling of this matter. I am advised by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment that the Australian Heritage Commission has commissioned a study of the conservation significance of the wet tropics of north-east Queensland. This report has been referred to eminent referees in Australia and overseas. Following receipt of advice on the study report, the Government will consider the matter of possible nomination of the region to the World Heritage Committee for World Heritage listing. This will include consultation with the Queensland Government. It must be stressed that there will need to be the most careful consideration of any World Heritage nomination by Australia to the World Heritage Committee of the Cape Tribulation, Daintree or any other region of Australia to ensure that the extremely high standards involved in this matter are maintained. Even if the Government makes a nomination after satisfying itself that a nominated area has outstanding universal value to satisfy the stringent requirements of the World Heritage listing the final decision as to whether or not the area should be listed rests with the World Heritage Committee. Senator Chipp —By then the road will be finished. Senator RYAN —After receipt of a nomination for possible World Heritage listing from a state party the World Heritage Committee could be expected to take a full 12 months of careful scrutinising before accepting or rejecting it. I understand from the interjection that Senator Mason and Senator Chipp would wish to shortcircuit the process that the Australian Government must go through if it seeks to make a nomination to the World Heritage list. It seems to me that it is not possible for the Australian Government to do all that is required to uphold the stringent standards of the World Heritage listing in a shorter time than it is taking. It seems to me, from the information that has been provided by the Minister, that a thorough and careful examination of all the issues involved has been undertaken speedily and will be processed as rapidly as possible, while still doing justice to the importance of the World Heritage listing. Senator MASON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Would she agree this would probably mean that it might be anything up to 15 months, possibly even two years, before any action is taken on this matter? I think she should indicate whether the Government has any other action in mind or whether it proposes simply to allow this matter to slide for at least another year. Senator RYAN —It is rather difficult to answer directly a question phrased in such a tendentious manner. I do not believe that the Government is letting this matter slide. I think the information I have just given the Senate shows that the Government has been active and conscientious in this matter. As to whether there are other steps that are open to the Commonwealth to take, I will refer that matter to the Minister and advise Senator Mason accordingly. Senator MAGUIRE —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to the elections for President, Vice President and National Assembly to be held in Nicaragua early in November. Has the Australian Government received an invitation to observe the elections? If so , will Australian personnel be sent to Nicaragua to monitor the electoral process there? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been told by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the position of the Government is that it welcomes the announcement of the Nicaraguan Government in February that elections will be held in that country on 4 November for President, Vice-President and constituent National Assembly. The Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Trade, Dr Martinez, told the Foreign Minister in February that international observers would be welcome to visit Nicaragua at the time of the elections. The Nicaraguan Minister is reported to have also mentioned to the media the possibility that an Australian parliamentary delegation could observe the elections. Our Government has said to the Nicaraguan representatives that Australia wishes to see political pluralism established in that country. To that extent the Government would expect the elections to allow any opposition to the present Government to be meaningfully expressed. To date there has not been a follow-up approach to the Government by Nicaragua inviting Australia to send observers or to provide assistance for the elections. However, I note that Mr Hayden will visit Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica from 10 to 25 September. This visit reflects the decision of the Government to address the problems of the region more directly and the interest Mr Hayden has had to assess the situation in the region and in Nicaragua first hand. I note that this is only part of a continuing demonstration of increased interest by Australia in that country and the region. In that respect a parliamentary delegation, led by the honourable member for Hotham, Lewis Kent, and of which Senator Maguire was a member, visited Nicaragua and other countries in the region in July. No doubt continuing interest of this kind will be welcomed. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs whether it is not a fact that, since the Australian Labor Party took office, the increase in the unemployment benefit for those over 18 years has been nearly twice that of the increase in the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance ? Does she not agree that there has been a widening of the gap between these two benefits to the disadvantage of students? Is this not a repudiation of yet another clear election promise? Did not the Minister, when in opposition, describe such a disparity as 'totally irrational and totally indefensible'? I ask whether the Minister stands by this statement she made in 1981, when in opposition: Whilever there is such a disparity between the level of payment available for unemployment benefit and the level of assistance available for full time students, students from modest backgrounds will from time to time be forced out of universities and tertiary institutions and onto the dole. The word 'dole' was her word. She further said: How the Government can possibly defend and maintain that system really defies rational understanding. How does she defend the ever-widening disparity between these two benefits for students aged 18 years or more? Senator RYAN —Even though that very garbled series of accusations is quite off the point and totally inaccurate, I quite welcome the question from Senator Baume as to our decisions with regard to tertiary education assistance because it does give me the opportunity to point out a few things with regard to our record in this matter that have obviously escaped the attention of Senator Baume or whoever writes his questions for him. First of all I should point out that the increase announced last night, an increase of 10 per cent in the level of TEAS, is the largest increase in TEAS for several years. I should also point out that the question of the relativity between unemployment benefit and TEAS has been addressed very constructively in the decisions I announced last night. For example, the gap which was nearly $5 a week between the TEAS at home rate and the unemployment benefit for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds will be almost closed by last night's decision. That particular gap at the point of leaving school for a 16-year-old or 17-year-old will now be less than a dollar. The rate for TEAS at home is now in excess of $44 and the youth dole is $45. The additional benefit for the youth dole of $5 will come after six months unemployment. So at the point when the comparison is most relevant, the point at which 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds leave school, that gap has virtually been closed. I thought that Senator Baume might have been able to address himself to that significant step forward. With regard to the 10 per cent decision last night I point out to Senator Baume , who seems unable to comprehend these things without assistance, that the 10 per cent is significantly in advance of the movements in the consumer price index which have been at 3.9 per cent recently. Also, the income test has been liberalised by 10 per cent. In addition, simplified and revised procedures are expected to assist more than 2,000 students at a cost of more than $5m in a full year. The cost of the new measures is expected to amount to some $48m in a full year. Growth in student numbers and increased benefits will see expenditure on TEAS rise from $232.5m in the last financial year to an estimated $268.9m in 1984-85, an increase of almost 16 per cent. That is a record that this Government is quite happy with. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the Minister my question was not about 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, it was about students aged 18 years or over. I ask the Minister: Why did she misstate the facts? Why did she not recall that TEAS was increased 20 per cent in the life of the last Fraser Government? Is she not aware that the Budget Papers contain the figures which-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Other matters are now being raised by Senator Baume. I ask him to ask his supplementary question. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister: Why will she not come clean upon the gap which exists and which has widened under her Government? Senator RYAN —I suppose I had better address myself to the ranting of Senator Baume. If one takes into account the increased numbers who will be eligible for TEAS under our liberalised scheme and our increase in the family means test, the actual dollar increases in the amounts flowing to beneficiaries of TEAS, it is quite clear that there has been a record increase in the overall expenditure on TEAS. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs . I refer to the answer he gave me on 13 June relating to the underpayment of service pay and of repatriation benefits to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ex-servicemen involved in World War II. I ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to an article on this subject by Peter Hastings in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald in which it is claimed that this discrimination was widespread throughout Australia. Can the Minister advise the Senate on progress to date in identifying and compensating those who have entitlements as veterans? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I do recall the question Senator Robertson raised with me in the last week of the previous session. I did undertake to see that some progress would be made with respect to our obligations to those who served Australia during World War II, namely the Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines , particularly in the Northern Territory. I have also seen the article referred to by Senator Robertson which was written by Peter Hastings. As the article has suggested it is true that discriminatory pay rates, conditions of service, repatriation entitlements for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were widespread during World War II, particularly for the Islanders who were recruited to the Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion. That information has become available as a result of Major Hall's research into conditions that existed during World War II. In the same article Mr Hastings also refers to Aborigines in the Northern Territory Special Reconnaissance Unit. Senator Robertson asked me about the underpayment of service pay. A total of 803 Aboriginal and Islander ex-servicemen who were underpaid have been identified from Army records and, to date, claims have been received by 747 of these ex-servicemen. Of those claims, 165 have been paid totalling $1.5m and an extra $3m has been allocated in the current Budget to meet the additional payments as a result of the assessments of those outstanding claims. Regarding the underpayment of repatriation benefits between the period 1943 to 1962, 10 claims have been accepted. Of these, seven claims have been paid and those amounts range from $162 to $25,000. The other three claims are currently being re-assessed. Senator Robertson's question of 13 June related specifically to Aborigines from Milingimbi in the Northern Territory who, it was claimed, served during World War II with no payment at all, receiving only tobacco and rations. I advise Senator Robertson and the Senate generally that I have sent correspondence to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seeking formal substantiation of these claims and of the military status of those people who have performed a particular service during that period of reconnaissance. These are currently being assessed, but I point out that there are some difficulties in identifying them because these activities took place over of 40 years ago. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether it is a fact that the Medicare levy is estimated to raise $1,191m in 1984-85 while the estimated cost of Medicare is $2,050m. Is it also true that the cost of administering Medicare has risen by over $100m this year to almost $300m for 1984-85? Does this mean that the one per cent levy will have to be at least doubled to pay for the Government's extravagant program of socialised medicine? Senator GRIMES —I would assume that even-- Senator Walters —You won't have to increase the levy, just take it all out of Consolidated Revenue. Senator GRIMES —Before Senator Walters makes remarks like that she should declare her interest in matters like this. I understand that Senator Jessop's figures as to the amount of money raised by the Medicare levy and the total amount of costs of the health insurance scheme would be accurate. I assume the honourable senator can get those figures from the Budget Papers as anyone else can. The honourable senator makes what I would like to think was a mistake, but what I know is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the situation when he says that a one per cent Medicare levy was introduced to pay for the whole of the health scheme and the health insurance scheme. He knows that is not so. If he does not he had better ask Senator Baume, his colleague, who knows that is not so. The levy was introduced to pay for the costs of Medicare on top of the costs of the health scheme as it existed before. Under the previous Government, the Liberal National Party Government, there were costs of health, even though from the rhetoric we get from the other side one would never imagine that. When people like Senator Chaney and Senator Jessop talk about socialised medicine they are talking through their collective hats. Under Medicare private practice exists and thrives. Under the national health insurance scheme private hospitals continue to thrive as does private practice in hospitals. Senator Walters —Rubbish. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Walters takes the contrary view, she can again declare her interest by bringing in figures from practices with which she has an association and demonstrate otherwise. I bet now that she cannot do so. The simple fact is that there will be no need to double the Medicare levy. There has been no need to do so in the past. I have been asked a political question, and I shall not grace it with any further answer. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications aware that many Australians are starting to refer to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as the Sydney Broadcasting Corporation because of some proposed policy directions which disregard regional listeners and viewers in favour of Sydney-based priorities? In view of the 12 1/2 per cent Budget increase announced last night, will the Minister seek an assurance from the ABC Board and management that these increased resources will be spread equitably so that the many Australians who live beyond the Sydney metropolitan area will have their share of ABC funding? In particular can the Minister seek details of ABC policy in regard to its review of regional television news programming, its policy in regard to the future of the ABC FM service, which has only recently been transmitted to many regional areas and which apparently is under some sort of proposal for dismantling in favour of a Sydney-based service, and finally staffing and resource priorities for regional ABC offices? Senator BUTTON —I have no detailed information, but I am aware of the sort of suggestions implicit in Senator Reynolds's question about fears of concentration of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation activities in Sydney. I recognise how such matters are seen, particularly in Queensland. The question conveys concern that the resources of the ABC, supplemented generously as they have been by the recent Budget, should be spread equitably across the Australian community. I was asked about particular ABC policy matters and some of these items have received a good deal of attention in the Press. Much of that attention has been devoted to speculation, rumours and discussion papers emanating from within the ABC. Much of that speculation does not deal with matters of fact or concluded policy by the ABC. I shall obtain a detailed answer from the Minister about regional television news, but in respect of newspaper reports on the future of the ABC FM service, particularly as it relates to listeners of classical music, no decision has been made. It has been discussed within the ABC. Further, no decision has been made to substitute for the classical music service say an under-30-years- age service based on the 2JJJ station in Sydney. I understand that again has been a matter of discussion within the ABC. Senator Reynolds also asked about policy in the allocation of resources to regional broadcasting centres of the ABC, and I presume she had in mind Townsville. Again, no final policy has been determined on that question. It is important to make the general point that the ABC has been going through an admittedly difficult period of restructuring and reorganisation of senior staff. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Re-writing the language as well. Senator BUTTON —And also re-writing the language, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle complements my answer. In all those processes many of these policy issues which have been lying dormant for many years are undoubtedly being vigorously discussed and reported on in the newspapers. It is appropriate that they should be matters of public debate. Finally, they are matters to be determined by the ABC and not by the Government. I shall seek elucidation of some of the specific matters pursued by Senator Reynolds and try to provide her with a more detailed answer. I do not think it will be a conclusive answer at this stage because these matters have not been finally resolved. Senator COLLARD —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Is it a fact that the Budget granted pensioners an increase of only 35c a week after the medifiddle factor is taken into account? Senator GRIMES —If the Government had followed the policy of the previous Government, pensioners would have received nothing on 1 November. In fact, single pensioners will receive an increase of $2.50 a week and a married couple will receive an increase of $4.20 a week. If in rented accommodation they will also receive an increase of $5 a week on the supplementary allowance, an increase of $2 a week if they have children, and an increase of $2 a week if they qualify for the guardian allowance. The Medicare effect, which I and others in this place have talked about, would probably account for about $2.15 a week, which means that the Government has added at least 35c, plus all the other increases. Senator Walters —Thirty five cents! Senator GRIMES —I ask Senator Walters and Senator Collard, who are so keen on cutting deficits and government expenditure, how much they would have increased the pension beyond the Government's figure, bearing in mind that an increase of $1 in pensions increases the Budget deficit by $100m. Senator Button —We should look at the total deficit. Senator GRIMES —If the present Government did everything that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place suggests, it would add $8,000m to the total deficit. However, people such as Senator Collard and Senator Walters are always extravagant when sitting on the Opposition benches. That is why they will be sitting on those benches for a lot longer. Senator PRIMMER —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Government has said a great deal about its commitment to reordering and upgrading the services provided to the aged, including the establishment of an Office of Aged Care to maximise their independence within the community. Will the Minister advise what steps have been taken to implement this commitment for the aged veteran community? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that the Government is committed to establish an Office of Aged Care. The Budget documents indicate that a sum exceeding $300m will be spent by the Commonwealth in this sphere in the next three years. Planning for that expenditure will depend to a great extent on the co-operation and consultation with the States and Territory governments. The Government has not been able to finalise those proposals, even though the Government accepts that there is an important and primary obligation to consider forward planning in respect of aged persons. The aged care program, which is under the personal direction of the Prime Minister, involves a degree of co-operation between the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security and myself. An additional sum of $3m is allocated specifically in this year's Budget to my Department to improve the effectiveness of and take the next steps with respect to the establishment of the geriatric assessment units, which were agreed to in last year's Budget, to formalise and make permanent the pilot scheme that we began under the Community Employment Program for home help and domiciliary units . That aspect will now be a permanent feature of my Department's activities and, as I say, $3m has been allocated for that purpose. Of course, again that will require a great deal of co-operation with and consultation between the States and local government authorities which already perform that function for non- veteran communities. In addition, the Government has accepted that we should carry out some development with respect to the Anzac hostel in Brighton in Victoria, in which Senator Primmer is specifically interested. Overall, in the current Budget there has been an increase of 14.48 per cent in outlays for the Department. As that amount exceeds the 13 per cent for Commonwealth spending generally in the 1984-85 Budget and as the great majority of beneficiaries are in excess of 60 years of age, that increase indicates the Government's commitment to aged persons in Australia. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the growing concern among women and their doctors about the restrictions currently applying to mammography under the medical benefits schedule? At the moment, for a patient to qualify for a rebate for a radiographic examination of either or both breasts, there must be a reason to suspect the presence of malignancy in the breast or breasts, because of the past occurrence of breast malignancy in the patient or members of the patient's family or because symptoms or indications of malignancy were found on an examination of the patient by a medical practitioner. At the moment, it appears that the patient has to have very visible signs of cancer before radiographic examination of her breast or breasts attracts a rebate. Given the high personal and medical costs of cancer and the fact that it is a very common form of cancer among women, will the Government move urgently for a revision of the medical benefits schedule so that a more realistic set of referral criteria applies to items 2734 and 2736? Senator GRIMES —The Government and the Minister for Health are aware of the restrictive nature of the present medical benefits schedule item for mammography , which was introduced at the suggestion of the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee, because it was felt that we did not want the position whereby mammography was used as a routine screening procedure in otherwise well people. Senator Jack Evans —Why not? Don't you like preventive medicine? Senator GRIMES —I can suggest two reasons: First, the routine exposure of people to mammography in this way is not necessarily a good thing and secondly, it is an expensive procedure. I can obtain a more detailed answer for Senator Jack Evans if he is interested. A recent statement by the National Health and Medical Research Council on breast health and mammography identified what it considered were more reasonable indications for the conduct of the procedure. It suggested: Mammography is not commonly necessary under the age of thirty years. Women not at increased risk should have a base-line mammogram at the age of forty years. The frequency with which mammography should be repeated will vary with each patient. Those who should have annual mammograms are: women with increased risk women with very large breasts women whose breasts are difficult to examine women whose breasts are highly nodular. The Council recommended that other women should have a mammogram every three to five years. It is thought that yearly mammography will be necessary in less than 50 per cent of women. The Council stated: In the light of this report it is planned to raise this matter at the next meeting of the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee (22 September 1984) with the view to amending the current item descriptions and adopting the following criteria: where the patient is 40 years or over where the patient is under 40 years and there is reason to suspect malignancy because of past occurrence of breast malignancy in the patient; occurrence of breast malignancy in patient formerly; indication of malignancy found on examination; nodularity of the breast; large size of the breast. The matter will be taken up by the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee on 22 September with the expectation that the item will be changed in that regard. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. My question concerns the continuing civil strife in Sri Lanka and has been prompted by representations from the Ealam Tamil Association of Australasia. Is the Minister aware of the violent actions of Sri Lankan soldiers on Sunday, 12 August in the town of Mannar? Has the Minister made any statement in response to that flagrant and well-publicised breach of human rights? Will the Minister condemn the Sri Lankan Government for its failure to control its troops? Will the Minister exert diplomatic pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that there is no repetition of such actions? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is certainly aware of the recent deterioration in communal relations in Sri Lanka and the concomitant increase in violence there. We are most concerned at the situation that continues to develop . The present crisis seems to have been precipitated by terrorist attacks in northern Sri Lanka. Those attacks have been met by what might be described as firm action by the Government. It is clear that the Government's security forces have, on several occasions at least, gone well beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. Reprisals have been directed at innocent Tamil civilians and numbers of Tamils have been killed, including in Mannar. I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we have registered our concern about the communal situation many times with the Sri Lankan Government. Most recently, on 14 August, our High Commissioner in Colombo spoke with Sri Lankan President Jayawardene, the Foreign Minister, the National Security Minister and several officials. Since then, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has written to his Sri Lankan counterpart. In that letter, he again expressed our Government's concern over the state of communal relations and reiterated our hope that all groups in Sri Lanka will eschew violence and will work together to achieve a lasting solution to Sri Lanka's communal difficulties. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, my question is addressed to you because it relates to an appointment of a Senate committee but you may feel it more appropriate that it be directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to section 53 of the National Crime Authority Act, which has been in operation for two months, and its requirement: As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act . . . a joint committee . . . on the National Crime Authority shall be appointed . . . As the committee is empowered to monitor the Authority's performance and functions, I ask several questions. First, when will the Senate proceed to appoint its five members to the committee? Secondly, when will the joint committee be fully operating and monitoring the adequacy or otherwise of the briefing and taking over of new and existing inquiries by the National Crime Authority? Thirdly, why is the matter not on the Senate Notice Paper? The PRESIDENT —The matter is not one for my jurisdiction; it is a matter for the attention of the Senate. I call on the Attorney-General to respond. Senator GARETH EVANS —As the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, I can advise that the Government intends to move quickly to initiate the appointment of members from both Houses of Parliament to that committee. With that in mind, the process has been set in train within our own party room to call for nominations at the next Caucus meeting when Parliament resumes. I had understood that there had been some communication to the non-government parties to similar effect. Senator Kilgariff —None at all. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that that has not occurred, I will ensure that it does in order that, on the resumption of our respective party meetings, appropriate steps can be taken to put the representation together and quickly establish the committee in the first week of the resumption of the Parliament. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements by the Minister for Information in the Malaysian Government wherein he stated that the Malaysian Government was against the screening, portrayal or musical presentation of works of Jewish origin? Will the Minister take action to indicate to the Malaysian Government our abhorrence of the anti-semitic statements by that Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention had not been drawn to that matter, but I will certainly draw it in turn to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and see what reaction he thinks is appropriate in all the circumstances. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to standing order 402. Senator WALTERS —My question relates to the Attorney-General's about-face on the need for a parliamentary committee to investigate the problem of X-rated videos. Given that only 10 weeks ago Senator Evans dismissed the Opposition's move for such an inquiry as unnecessary and undesirable and given that the Prime Minister has a gun pointed at the heads of Ministers who rock the boat before the election, I ask: Firstly, what compelling evidence came forward in the last 10 weeks that was not advanced daily by the Opposition and the public in the previous 10 weeks when Senator Evans was obsessed with his attempts to convince us all that this X-rated stuff was good for Australia? Secondly, how will Senator Evans answer the tens of thousands of petitioners who say that his announcement was all about steadying the violently rocking boat and regaining lost votes and not one whit about his changing his libertarian attitude to video violence? Thirdly, will he at least acknowledge the sincerity of the public's protest, reconsider his answer to Senator Reid yesterday and declare an immediate moratorium on the sale and hire of X-rated material pending the committee's inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS —The essence of my response in the Senate at the end of last session to the yelps from Senator Walters and elsewhere demanding a Senate inquiry was not that such an inquiry was and would forever be inappropriate but that it was premature given the relative shortness of time in which the system had been in operation in the Australian Capital Territory and so far as Customs regulations are concerned. With the further passage of time I have readily accepted the argument that it is now possible to review with some sense and on the basis of some data the operation of the system in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Customs administration and with that in mind have quite cheerfully supported the proposal that a joint select committee should be set up with precise terms of reference, directing its attention both to the operation of the existing law and to the effects of pornography and violent and otherwise obscene material on people generally and in particular young children and to some other possible aspects of the way in which the present law might be improved. That course of action will take place. As I said yesterday in answer to Senator Reid, I do not believe there is anything fundamentally misconceived in principle about the way in which the present system has been put together. One would have hoped that some other State jurisdictions around Australia had moved more quickly to put into effect the point of sale controls which are a necessary accompaniment to the new restrictions which apply at the import barrier if there is to be a rational system. But by and large I continue to adopt the view, and answer all my correspondents who put these oppositions to me to the same effect, that we have a rational and principled system now in force. Although there might always be a case for fine tuning of such legislation and although there are very important questions on which there is still a very great paucity of serious data about the effect of a certain kind of material on children, there is nothing at all to be defensive about in our present system. I mention further, because the claim is made over and over again and reiterated by Senator Walters in the interstices of her question today, that violent and sexually violent material is prohibited outright now by the Customs regulations which have been endorsed in this place. Such material is also of a character that would be refused classification for domestic sale and hire and as such is ruled out in those jurisdictions where the Australian Capital Territory model legislation is in force. To that extent the so-called video nasties are not circulating pursuant to the authority of this or any other government's law in this country. I hope that Senator Walters and all her friends out there who insist on making this an issue will be just a little more honest in the way in which they present the reality of the present law. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, follows on the question from Senator Reynolds which arose out of the suggestion that the ABC FM network is to be reoriented and moved from its current Adelaide base. I refer the Minister to the fact that the ABC consultative committee network is not meeting frequently and will in fact not meet before any decisions are made in this matter. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that these committees, intended to represent community attitudes within the ABC decision-making process, have been curtailed by a lack of funds. I further ask: Will the Government intervene to ensure that the situation is remedied and that the consultative committees can operate effectively at what is obviously a vital period in ABC policy making? Senator BUTTON —Following my answer to the earlier question from Senator Reynolds I can only add that such information as I have from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation suggests that there will be a full opportunity for discussion within the organisation itself before any final decision is made on the policy proposals which are being considered and which have been the subject of public discussion. Whether that general description implies the consultative committees to which Senator Bolkus referred I am not able to say at this stage, but I will inquire regarding that matter. I emphasise once again that it is not the Government's business to give any direction to the ABC about that matter. One would have views about it and express hopes that those procedures would be followed, but I will certainly make the inquiries. I am sure they can be made in such a way that they would indicate the concern expressed by Senator Bolkus and others in their questions. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware that Australia has been left out of the friendly nations list as nominated in the Republican Party platform to be approved shortly in Dallas at the Republican Party Convention, whereas four years ago the platform talked warmly about a long friendship and pledged to cultivate and strengthen diplomatic and trade relationships with Australia? Does the Minister admit that this change of attitude is because the United States Administration now judges that Australia has veered too far to the left to be included as an ally of the United States largely due, if I might say so, to the actions and attacks of Mr Hawke's socialist Government? What does the Government intend to do to remedy this most serious matter.? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no idea what Australia's standing with the United States Republican Party is. I hope that it is not especially high. However, what I am clear about is that our standing with the United States Government continues to be very high indeed as a response not only to the long history of relationships between our countries, but also to the very close personal and professional relationships that have developed between the senior Ministers and office-holders of both our countries. I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for such further answer as he may care to make to what is a both provocative and nonsensical question. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and refers to the Family Court of Australia. Can the Attorney advise what the current situation is regarding the new security measures to protect Family Court judges, their families and court staff? Is the Attorney able to say what progress has been made in finding out who was responsible for the attacks against the Family Court? In investigating this matter have the police screened information, particularly that gained from the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, to check any connection between organised criminal groups and the crimes committed against the Family Court? Senator GARETH EVANS —For obvious reasons, I do not think it is appropriate for me to discuss publicly the security measures that have been taken in response to the recent outrages so far as family courts are concerned, at least so far as matters of detail are concerned. I can say, however, that security has been thoroughly reviewed and very substantially strengthened following those recent violent incidents. Those measures include the protection of the courts, the homes of judges and judges themselves when in transit. In addition to specific security measures, the Government has approved-this was announced in the Budget last night-substantially increased staffing levels for the court. We have also initiated a long term building program to cover Parramatta, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, which is already well in train in the case of Brisbane and Perth, to provide suitable and secure accommodation for the courts, which is a difficulty in the absence of custom built buildings. Shorter term physical security measures in the courts are taking place in a number of areas, particularly Sydney, as I have mentioned publicly in the last few days. So far as the investigation of attacks upon members of the court and their families are concerned, the Joint Commonwealth-State Task Force continues its investigations. I am afraid that I am simply not at liberty to disclose the stage that that investigation has reached or to give any details of the leads being followed by the joint task force. Senator KILGARIFF —I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Bearing in mind the Government's promise to fund and promote a large scale tourist industry in Kakadu National Park to compensate traditional Aboriginal owners of the region for the loss of uranium royalties incurred by the Labor veto on uranium mining at Koongarra and Jabiluka, why is there no mention in the Budget Papers of any specific funding for this purpose? Does not the Government remember that an amount of approximately $30m, or more, was mentioned to subsidise this tourist development ? Does it not consider that such funding is desirable in order to encourage financial independence from government for Aboriginal people of the Kakadu National Park area? Senator RYAN —I cannot give any detailed comment on the matters raised by Senator Kilgariff. I shall refer the matter of the Government's policy on Kakadu National Park and its development as a tourist facility for the Northern Territory-a move which, I think, will be supported by all honourable senators-to the Minister to see whether he has anything he wishes to advise to Senator Kilgariff. Senator GARETH EVANS —A few moments ago Senator Townley asked me a question about the Republican Party's platform statements about Australia. I have now to hand a brief from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which I wish to read into the record. It is as follows: As the text of the Republican Platform is not yet available, I am not in a position to comment on the way in which foreign policy matters are dealt with in the document. I can say the Reagan Administration has affirmed on more than one occasion the importance it places on relations with Australia. Such statements can be taken as an authoritative expression of the views of the United States Government. President Reagan spoke warmly of the relationship with Australia when the Prime Minister visited Washington shortly after this Government took office. This was reaffirmed most recently by Secretary Shultz during his recent visit for the ANZUS Council meeting. The Republican Party Platform is a non-binding document concerned with party politics. I would not be concerned at the omission of a liturgical commendatory reference to Australia. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Nationwide program of 20 August 1984, at the end of a segment of the program titled, in the transcript which I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library, 'Special Background Report on Mr Justice Murphy, and Morgan Ryan, the ''Age'' Tapes, Temby Report, Briese Allegations, Etc', in a comment by Ian Cross, the reporter, on the likely outcome of the deliberations of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, among other things, it is said: But it looks as though political loyalties, so prevalent during this entire affair, will continue to prevail. I wish to protest most strongly at any suggestion-I believe this to be more akin to an assertion than a mere suggestion-that political loyalties have swayed the assessing and weighing of evidence at any stage during the deliberations of the Committee, on terms of reference given to it by the Senate. Naturally, I speak on behalf of myself in denying most strongly any influence by political loyalty on any decision that I have made in the progress of that inquiry or in coming to any conclusions. But as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, I hope that I may be allowed by the Senate to say in this personal explanation that the viewers of the Nationwide program would have been very badly misled if they concluded from it that the Committee as a whole or any individual members of it were approaching their task in any spirit other than that of a most honest, scrupulous, non-partisan assessment of the evidence presented. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 22 August, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing between Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments.' Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.06) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing between Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments. When the Senate rose on 15 June, it left behind it as a final debate the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. On the final Friday's sitting, there was a quite lengthy debate, in which the Opposition made it clear that it was opposed to this legislation for a range of reasons. It is important that I should immediately again place on the record the fact that the opposition to the legislation was not based on any failure to realise the importance of protecting sites of particular significance to Aboriginal people. As I said in my speech at that time, one of the welcome features of the debate was the universal affirmation by honourable senators from both sides of the chamber that they were in favour of the protection of sites which are sacred to Aboriginal people. I mentioned that I and those other Opposition speakers who had spoken before me-Senator Messner, who led for the Opposition, Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Boswell-were at one in asserting the importance of that objective. But our concern was that the form of legislation which had been put before us was, for a range of reasons, the wrong legislation, inappropriate legislation and legislation which should not be passed. As I said in that debate, the Opposition is opposed to the legislation because we think that it is bad for Australia, bad for the Aboriginal people, and, in particular, potentially bad for the relations between Aboriginals and other Australians. I think that the events of the recent two months have really borne out the accuracy of our concerns about the legislation. As is said in the motion we have brought before the Senate today as a matter of urgency, it is not only the problem of causing difficulties for Australia and for Aboriginal people; it is not only a matter of creating bad relationships between Aboriginals and other Australians; there has even been clear evidence of additional conflict between governments, and in particular between the State Government of Western Australia and this Federal Government, a conflict which, I hasten to point out, occurred notwithstanding the fact that both of those governments are Labor governments. We were concerned about this legislation because, in our view, it was clearly defective. Again I refer to something that I said in that earlier debate. We were concerned that the breadth of definitions in the Bill would put the Minister in a totally impossible position in terms of denying or acceding to particular claims. I said: Unless the Bill is meant to protect the generality of land which is of significance to living Aboriginals, there is no way one can spell out from it the particular thing that gives land significance which would demand attention. Again, the events of the last few months indicate very clearly that the fears that we expressed then in that regard have been amply borne out. In the course of this debate I want to describe some of the things which have occurred with respect to this legislation over recent months, things which I think clearly indicate that the legislation has been counterproductive in the ways that we suggested it would be. I intend in this debate to quote mainly from Aboriginal and Labor spokesmen. I understand that there are some political divisions on this but I think the significant fact is that out of the mouths of Labor spokesmen themselves and senior Aboriginal spokesmen is the proof of the concerns which we expressed some months ago. I believe that in this delicate area the Government, rather than pursuing this interim legislation for two years , ought to be prepared to admit that on the basis of early experience it was wrong to pass the legislation and it should remove it. The general concern that I and the Opposition expressed about the width of the definitions is in a sense borne out by Mr Holding's remark when he was commenting on the fact that the Government had refused the first three applications for protection brought under the Act. The three applications lodged involved firstly the Harding River Dam project in Western Australia-that is a matter which would be very familiar to you, Madam Acting Deputy President-and the others involved road construction through the Daintree rainforest in Queensland and sand mining on Stradbroke Island. In each case the Minister-in one case it was the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) who may have been involved in others, but I know that Senator Ryan was concerned in the Western Australian decision-and the Government rejected the applications. I quote from a newspaper report of what Mr Holding said and I have not seen any denials of it. He said: . . . the legislation would not be used to achieve the wider objectives of the conservation movement. ''We are not in the business of misapplying legislation to suit the needs of an applicant, just because he or she happens to be an Aborigine.'' That statement from Mr Holding really encapsulates the difficulty that I was trying to indicate and which led me to say in the previous debate that this legislation is bad not only for Aboriginal people and for this country but even for the Government. The legislation is so widely drawn that applications can be brought legitimately before the Government across a range, which really means that the Minister is always faced with what is fundamentally a political choice, a political decisions because the Act itself is not specific. I think it is quite clear from the reactions there have been from the Aboriginal community quite apart from anyone else, over the attitude which has been adopted by the Government, that what the Government has done is to put itself in an impossible position and it ought to be prepared to withdraw gracefully. I have referred to the earlier debate because it is the easiest thing in the world for this sort of debate to get off course. I assert very strongly that it is totally consistent with the desire to preserve Aboriginal items and places of particular Aboriginal interest that this legislation should go. It is quite clear that there are senior Labor Ministers who agree with that proposition. It is not a partisan proposition; it is a proposition which I think can be asserted on the basis of the reality of the facts and the reality of the system of government that we have in Australia. I do not believe that it is good enough to do as Senator Ryan did in the previous debate, to hide behind the fact that this is two-year legislation with a sunset clause and that there is an opportunity for review at the end of that period. I believe that two years is a long time in Aboriginal affairs in the mid-1980s. I do not believe that the sort of performance that we have had over recent months should be allowed to go on for two years. The matters that I want to refer to, as I have said, are particularly concerned with the statements of people who are not from my Party. I do that because I wish to demonstrate that this is a matter which goes beyond the sorts of basic fundamental federalist policies of the Party of which I am part, which have always led us to oppose the idea of national legislation. It goes beyond any question of its being a simply partisan dispute between governments of the day and oppositions of the day. It goes in fact, as I said before, to the realities of this matter. As I have said before in this place, the Australian Labor Party approach at both the State and Federal level is having an effect on Aboriginal expectations and indeed has already raised those expectations beyond the point at which they can hope to be realised. That, of course, has raised the level of demands which are made by Aboriginal people. That in turn has turned off many of the public from sympathy for the Aboriginal cause and now, when Aboriginal expectations raised by the Labor Party are not being met, we see a dashing of Aboriginal hopes and a new element of bitterness in the public debate and discussion. I think the Government recognised very early that it had bitten off a very difficult issue. I think the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) intervened and gave assurances to some of those who made representations that the Minister would have the assistance or the surveillance-I am not sure which-of some of his colleagues in dealing with these difficult matters. But I say that as long as this legislation remains on the books with its very broad form we have a formula for further difficulty which I believe the Aboriginal issue can do without. Madam Acting Deputy President, many of the people that I will be quoting in this debate are well known to you and I believe that none of those that I quote would be regarded by you as people of malice, ill-will or bad faith. The fact is that they have responded very strongly against measures which have been taken under this legislation. Let me, in looking at the application which was brought in Western Australia to protect sites which were said to be affected by the Harding Dam construction, turn to a statement made by the Acting Premier of Western Australia, Mal Bryce, which he made on 2 August. Mr Bryce issued a news release. I will table it but I will quote part of it. It stated: The State Government's worst predictions of the Federal Governments Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage legislation were substantiated by an absurd and ill-advised attempt by an Aboriginal group in Roebourne to stop work on the Harding River Dam . . . Mr Bryce said the Minister with Special responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs had been advised by a lawyer form the Aboriginal Legal Service that an application under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 1984 was to be made to stop the work. Mr Bryce said the application made a mockery of the Seaman Land Inquiry and undermined genuine efforts to develop a land policy which took into account conflicting interests. At the end it stated: . . . it was particularly regrettable that the Aboriginal Legal Service had chosen to act in such an irresponsible fashion and that such action only gave credence to critics of the service. That statement was made by a senior Labor politician from our State of Western Australia. His worst predictions were realised. The claim brought on behalf of those Roebourne Aboriginals was described as 'absurd and ill-advised'. The facts of the matter may be, Madam Acting Deputy President, that to bring the claim at that time had an element of absurdity about it given the advanced nature of the work, but you would know how strongly Aboriginal people have reacted against that description of what was done. As an ex-supporter of the Aboriginal Legal Service, and as one who was on the board of that body for many years, I find it a sad thing that when a service acting in a legal capacity for a client seeks to assert rights given under Commonwealth legislation it is described as acting in an irresponsible fashion. It may be that Mr Bryce has evidence that the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia set out to create this difficulty, that it did not act on the instructions of its clients but rather incited its clients to bring this action, but unless Mr Bryce has evidence of that, that is an attack on a body which simply puts it into disrepute. I think that if Mr Bryce was going to make that sort of statement he should either give the foundation for it or withdraw it. The next step we find was publicity about a flurry of phone calls between the angry Mr Burke and Mr Hawke and the Acting Federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Senator Susan Ryan, with a complete rethink promised about the way in which Aborigines can apply to have sacred sites protected under the heritage legislation. There are to be changes which, it is suggested, should require applications to be made to the State authority. Nothing much seems to have come of that but it was all part of the public flurry of concern and publicity which occurred following this application. We find the Western Australian Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr Wilson, urging the Federal Government not to proceed any further with the claims, which he says should be referred to the State's own heritage legislation. Yesterday Mr Wilson-I now quote from a Western Australian report-said: . . . that the matter should not have been referred to a Federal Minister. 'If the Minister seeks to appease these applicants then we could have a whole spate of similar applications . . .'This would have severe implications for other projects . . . . . . . . . . . . The Western Australia Labor Party initially opposed the dam . . . but it announced last year that the project would go ahead because work had gone too far to be stopped. We find that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is opposed to the fact that this matter was, and could be, referred to the Federal Government. Yet under this legislation these people, of course, had a perfect right to come to the Federal Government, even though that was perhaps most unwise in a political sense. The situation is complicated because at the same time we have reports that the elders involved had no complaints about the position that had been reached. Again a day or so later we find further reports to the effect that the State Government had challenged the Prime Minister to reject the claims and promised open confrontation if those claims were not rejected. In a sense that again illustrates perfectly why we objected to the form of this legislation. The Minister has been given the responsibility for determining whether there should be protection in making his decisions in the face of warnings that the State Government is: . . . 'prepared to man the barricades' rather than face defeat by Canberra . . . On what basis can we say that this is the appropriate context of debate within which one should determine these delicate matters? In the limited time I have I do not believe that I can deal with very many more of the references which I wish to put before the Senate. However, the Western Australian Government has made it quite clear that what it wants is for its legislation to take precedence and effectively for the Commonwealth legislation not to apply. I think if we look at the reaction of Aboriginal people to the Government's refusal to act under the Commonwealth legislation it becomes even clearer that the Commonwealth should extricate itself from the mess it has got itself into. Madam Acting Deputy President, it can have given you no pleasure to read in the papers statements by National Aboriginal Conference representatives to the effect that there had been a betrayal of Aboriginal trust and a demonstration that the Government's posturing on sacred sites is a sham. I refer to the statements of Mr Peter Yu who is reported to have said: 'Federal posturing on the protection of sacred sites has been revealed for the sham it is.' The decision compromised the heritage legislation merely to accommodate the anti-Aboriginal philosophies of a renegade Labor State Government . . . 'What possible faith can we have in Federal legislation now that sacred sites have been ruled expendable?' The reality is that this is a matter in which the politics of Aboriginal affairs and the politics of confrontation will assert themselves over and over again if we maintain the wide and undefined framework of this legislation. I say to the Government that I believe that it is serving no interest at all. It is not serving the interests of Aboriginals; it is not serving the interests of the Government itself; it is certainly not serving the interests of Australia to maintain the position that it is now in. I now refer the Senate to statements made by members of the Labor Government of Western Australia in the extensive Assembly debate on this matter. I think it becomes quite clear that the Government has got itself in a position where there is no support even from its own bodies and organs. The Acting Premier, Mr Bryce, was quoted in the Daily News as saying: Before the Federal Government can implement Aboriginal land rights throughout Australia they need the co-operation of State governments and there is a maze of formulae we could use to frustrate national aspirations in this area. Madam Acting Deputy President, I know that you and your colleagues would have been on your feet complaining bitterly if that statement had been made by a Liberal, by me or any of my colleagues. In fact, the statement reflects the legal opinion published in one of the Senate committee reports years ago about the difficulties of national land rights legislation. However, the reality of what we are saddled with now is the sort of division evident in the statements which I have been quoting. I will quickly refer further to the Hansard of the Western Australian Assembly where Mr Wilson stated: . . . I stress the point that the Government is of the opinion . . . that mirror legislation is probably a reasonable aspiration on the part of the State and Federal Governments. However, this Government will continue to oppose strongly the thought that any Federal legislation should override existing State legislation. We have continually advanced our opposition to the Federal Government in this regard. Later he said: When I spoke about mirror legislation, I was making the point that we would be prepared to accept mirror legislation, but only on the basis that any complementary or mirror Commonwealth legislation respected the pre-eminence of State legislation. There are other statements. Perhaps the last I will quote is a statement of Mr Peter Dowding whose views are well known to you, Madam Acting Deputy President. On this matter he said in the Legislative Council: The Government takes the view that the issues of Aboriginal heritage and the protection of sacred sites are State matters. That is the position we have taken all along. The Government has accepted that responsibility and sees no point in supporting a motion of this kind. The motion was one that sought the repeal of the legislation. I ask the Government to consider this matter with care. In terms of the great national issues which face Australia this is but one and some would say a minor issue. I say with very strong personal conviction that the Government is heading down some dangerous paths in this area. It is causing concern and resentment and it is not achieving its objectives. I believe the Government should be prepared to repeal this legislation and to accept the offer which is so readily available outside to approach this matter through the State organs which are available but also to deal with all of the bodies that have indicated their support for the protection of the sites and have indicated their absolute and irrevocable opposition to this way of doing it. Madam Acting Deputy President, I thought in fairness I would table the first Press release I quoted from. There are a couple of paragraphs I thought irrelevant but other senators might think them relevant. I seek leave to table the Press release of 2 August 1984 of the Acting Premier, Mr Bryce. Leave granted. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.26) —Senator Chaney in bringing forward this urgency motion on behalf of the Opposition has over the last 20 minutes with apparent moderation and apparent concern put forward something which on the face of it appears to be a reasonable and moderate approach to a complex and delicate issue. In fact, I think Senator Chaney used the phrase 'delicate area' to describe the matter under discussion. Unfortunately, Senator Chaney's real intent and the real intent of the Opposition in bringing this matter forward as an urgency motion today is neither moderate nor sincere. In fact I think that what we have just heard is a rather deplorable exercise in hypocrisy. Let us look at the terms of the urgency motion before us today. We have been told that there is an urgent need: for the government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing between Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments. That urgency motion is phrased in a way which suggests to me that it was drawn up some time before the first application under the legislation was made because it certainly does not relate in any way to what has happened since the first application was made under the legislation. I remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and other honourable senators of what has happened. In fact, three applications under the Act have been processed by the Federal Government. None of them have been proceeded with. There are two other applications, one from Victoria and one from South Australia, currently being considered. In the case of the first application, the application to stop the Harding River Dam, as it happened by a matter of coincidence I was the Acting Minister who had to deal with the application on behalf of the Government. I can assure honourable senators that there was no frenzy of angry phone calls between the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, my Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and me. Indeed, there were telephone conversations of course from the Premier of Western Australia and his deputy, Mr Bryce, who were concerned about the possible hazard to a major resources project in the Pilbara area. Of course, they were concerned. No one would expect them not to be concerned. Of course, they made their concerns known to us. Of course, we had conversations with them because in fact the Act requires the Minister to seek information from the State government in question-in this case Western Australia-and to seek assurances and an account of what steps that government has taken under its own legislation to deal with the sacred sites in question. Therefore, of course, there were telephone conversations and other communications. They were carried out in a most proper and decorous fashion. In fact, for what it is worth, I record here that the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Brian Burke, expressed to me his appreciation of the way in which the matter was handled between the two governments. As it turned out, of course, the matter was resolved in a way that was acceptable to the State Government and acceptable and proper as regards our Federal responsibilities. Of course, it was a way which caused disappointment to some Aboriginal groups-inevitable but inescapable disappointment given the nature of the application that was made. How this proper procedure can be described as bringing Federal and State governments into some sort of intolerable conflict is perfectly incomprehensible. Senator Chaney —Do you understand the front page stories day after day and the impact they have? Senator RYAN —If Senator Chaney likes to inform himself by the more melodramatic exercises in the daily Press rather than address himself to what really happens and what is on the record as having taken place between governments, that is his concern. Two other applications have not been proceeded with. They have both been from Queensland, one in respect of the Daintree River area and one in respect of Stradbroke Island. In neither case did the Minister find that those applications could be accepted. Has there been any complaint from the Queensland Government about the way in which those applications were dealt with by the Federal Government? There has been no complaint. Yet again there were proper applications under the Act, the matters were considered by the Minister and by the Government, and communications took place between the Queensland State Government and the Federal Government in a most proper and amicable fashion. The Queensland Government has expressed no criticism of those decisions. So Senator Chaney, despite his moderate tone and demeanour during this debate, is actually trying to stir up trouble, perhaps trying to give the Queensland Government the message that the Opposition wants a bit of a fuss, that it wants acrimony between the two governments over this delicate issue. We do not want acrimony. We want co-operation. The legislation provides for co-operation and in the three cases in which applications have been dealt with there has been full and harmonious co-operation between the Federal Government and the two State governments involved, one of which, of course, is not a State government of our political complexion. So it is a spurious charge that Senator Chaney brings before us today, a disappointingly spurious charge, given his previously good record in regard to the matter of the rights of the Aboriginal people in this country. Senator Chaney also expressed, with, I believe, a less than sincere motive, his concern that the existence of this legislation- Senator Chaney —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. That is a clear breach of the Standing Orders. I will not have my motive questioned in that way. It is disorderly. It should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I was listening very carefully to what the Minister was saying- Senator Chaney —I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President, but the Standing Orders specifically say that imputations of improper motives are disorderly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under those circumstances, Senator Ryan, I ask you to withdraw that statement. Senator RYAN —Madam Acting Deputy President, I comply with your request. I can understand Senator Chaney's super-sensitivity on this issue- Senator Chaney —I want no words between me and the Minister. I want a simple withdrawal in accordance with the Standing Orders. I mean that, Madam Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ryan, I ask you to make a simple withdrawal of the statement that you made and continue with the debate. Senator RYAN —I comply with your request, Madam Acting Deputy President. Let us look at what Senator Chaney said. Senator Chaney said something to the effect that he was concerned or he believed that the existence of this legislation was causing public sympathy for the Aboriginal cause to decline. Let me comment on that. It seems to me, and I think to any fair observer of the public debate over this issue during the last 12 months, that if there has been a falling away of public sympathy for the Aboriginal cause-and if there has, that is something which we on our side of the chamber regret very much-it is not because we have enacted and proceeded to implement emergency legislation which could protect sacred sites under some circumstances from desecration. It is because of the vile, anti-Aboriginal campaigns being waged in this country and, in particular, being waged in Western Australia by Senator Chaney's political colleagues. I bring forward and I will shortly table a pamphlet officially published by the Liberal Party of Western Australia headed 'Land Rights: The Frightening Facts', which makes all kinds of melodramatic and exaggerated claims about what the implementation of land rights in Western Australia will mean to Western Australians. I table the pamphlet. So there has been a concerted campaign, an exaggerated and dishonest campaign, by the Liberal Party in Western Australia to stir up public concern on this issue and to undermine public support for the Aboriginal cause. If there has been a falling away of public sympathy for the Aboriginal cause, as Senator Chaney claims, then it is to his own Party colleagues that he needs to look for the reason, and not to our legislation. Madam Acting Deputy President, Senator Chaney quoted a Press release from one of our political colleagues, Mr Mal Bryce. He quoted a statement which Mr Bryce made on 2 August, made in prospect of an application with regard to the Harding River Dam, I might say and not as a criticism of what actually ensued. Mr Bryce did make a statement in which he expressed concern that a major resources project might be jeopardised by the application of this Act, but he made that statement prior to the application being considered by our Government. Since that application was considered and since the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Government, it is rather misleading to bring before the Senate a statement made by Mr Bryce long before matters were properly dealt with. Senator Chaney also referred to the fact that there has been Aboriginal criticism of the legislation. Of course there has been Aboriginal criticism of the legislation. We understand that. Aboriginal disappointment has been expressed because the legislation was not able to do what three groups of Aboriginals wished it to do. We were not able to protect the sacred sites in the Harding River Dam area under the legislation, nor were we able to protect the areas under question in the Daintree River or Stradbroke Island areas. Naturally there is disappointment from those Aboriginals who had hoped, perhaps a little too optimistically, to achieve a result. They did not achieve that result, so they are disappointed and so there is criticism. But it is entirely wrong to infer from those criticisms that the Aboriginal communities themselves do not support Commonwealth legislation to protect sacred sites. Of course they support it. They just want it to be stronger and perhaps even more wide-reaching than it is. We do not believe that at this stage it would be proper to have the legislation more wide-reaching than it is, although, as Senator Chaney has acknowledged, the legislation has a two-year sunset clause and there is opportunity for review of its operation. Let me remind honourable senators what the heritage legislation is there to do. It is not there to provide land rights by stealth, as some of Senator Chaney's political colleagues have claimed. It is not there to protect all sacred sites under all circumstances. It is there to give an emergency power to the Federal Minister based on proper constitutional authority to protect sacred sites against a sudden threat of desecration. The particular example used so often when we were debating this legislation and, indeed, the most appropriate example because it was indeed an example of why we needed Commonwealth emergency legislation was the example of Noonkanbah. It was said many times in the course of that debate and, indeed, many times by you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that there should not be and there would not be under this legislation another Noonkanbah. It is not legislation which gives unfettered ministerial discretion. The Minister has an obligation to consult with the relevant State governments. He has an obligation to investigate to what extent the relevant State legislation is effective in protecting the sacred sites and to what extent the State governments have taken steps to protect the sacred sites. The Minister has to take other issues into account, as I had to take into account the importance of the Harding River Dam project for the people, black and white, of the Pilbara. Even when the Minister does make a declaration, that decision is not his alone to make on a permanent basis. That decision comes before both Houses of Parliament and can be disallowed by either House of Parliament if the Parliament is not in agreement with the decision that the Minister has taken. Of course, the application can be varied by the Minister or withdrawn if circumstances change or new information comes to light. So it is minimal emergency protective legislation. Perhaps because it is legislation of that character there has been some disappointment in some parts of the Aboriginal community in Australia. Nonetheless the legislation is none of the things that the Opposition has claimed it to be, it has caused none of the trouble that Senator Chaney today claimed it had caused. In my view it certainly has not contributed to any less of an understanding of or sympathy for the need to provide protection for Aboriginal sacred sites. If the Opposition were prepared to be honest and objective about what has happened it would admit that all of the fears and anxieties it expressed during the second reading debate on the legislation, all of the predictions that it made about conflicts, problems and resources projects being destroyed by this legislation, have proven to be unfounded. As I have said, there have been three applications processed by the Federal Government. None of them has succeeded because none of them has met the particular terms of the legislation. There has been no interruption of any resources project or any other project. The very fact that inappropriate applications have not been successful ought to have caused any fears of a frivolous or vexatious use of the legislation to dissipate . Of course it does not suit the Opposition to admit that it was wrong. It does not suit the Opposition to admit that the Federal Government has behaved responsibly, that it has carried out its responsibility to all of the interested parties in each case when an application has been processed. It does not suit the Opposition to admit that the relationship between the Federal Government and the State Government of Western Australia in the case of the first application, and the relationship between the Federal Government and the State Government in Queensland in the case of the next two applications, have been entirely harmonious. There has been no State government to Federal Government conflict. There has been no unexpected or immoderate criticism, generally speaking, by Aboriginal communities. There has been disappointment. We admit that and we understand it. I suggest that the Opposition should get off this train. The Government will not repeal this legislation. We do not accept the criticisms, stated and implied , in today's urgency motion. We believe that we, as a Commonwealth, given our special constitutional responsibility for Aboriginal citizens of this country, do have a responsibility to have Commonwealth legislation which can fill the gaps in any existing State legislation and be a backstop for ineffective State legislation. We were right to legislate in the terms in which we did. That legislation, I remind the Senate, was the product of lengthy and thorough consultation between the Federal Government and State governments and between the Federal Government and Aboriginal communities. We will not accept these spurious and inaccurate criticisms of the legislation. The Canberra Times editorialist on 9 August wrote: The Federal Government has made a difficult but correct decision in rejecting an appeal from the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Service to declare as significant the sacred sites threatened by the State Government's Harding River Dam project in the Pilbara region. The editorial went on to state: There is little scope for the Act to reassess projects under way, but importantly the Federal Government must continue to give consideration to wider community issues, such as a water supply, that are important to the health and comfort of entire populations. While most Australians can sympathise with the strong spiritual attachment of Aborigines to specific areas, there must be times when other aspects have to be considered. The Canberra Times editorial further stated: . . . the Act remains a valuable piece of legislation to protect sacred sites under threat from potential development. That is a conclusion that any fair-minded observer of the use of the Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act over the last few weeks must come to. It is there; it remains. I believe that in all probability it will be used to protect a sacred site, to stop damage to a sacred site. That is what it is there for. It has not achieved that particular objective yet but no doubt it will and when it does I believe the confidence of Aboriginal communities in the legislation will be greatly increased. On the other hand, if we take into account the misleading, trouble-making criticism of the legislation, both prior to its enactment and since, nothing has occurred since its enactment which in the slightest way gives any basis to the claims that Senator Chaney has made before us today. It is of great concern to the Government and I believe to the people of Australia generally that the Opposition has chosen, both here in the Federal Parliament and in Western Australia, to use the issue of Aboriginal justice, including the issue of land rights, as a way in which it can stir up community discontent and get votes. I believe its strategy is not only immoral; it is wrong. The Opposition will not attract political support as a result of this mischievous behaviour. All of the evidence of which I am aware is to the effect that over the last 10 or 15 years the Australian community has become progressively more sympathetic to the Aboriginal cause. There are pockets of backlash here and there but overall I believe that the Australian community has a much better understanding now than it did, say, prior to the election of the Whitlam Government, of the nature of Aboriginal culture, of the nature of the relationship between Aboriginal people and their land and of the historic injustices that we must take some steps at least to try to remedy. For that reason the Aboriginal heritage legislation which we enacted so recently and which we will continue to keep in place is an important and historic piece of legislation. It will do good; it will not do evil. The only mischief that can come from its existence is the mischief which Senator Chaney is trying to cause today. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.47) — The matter of urgency moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) is in the following terms: The need for the government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing between Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments. I assume that this motion was meant seriously and in that case I presume that what we are talking about is the operation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act since it was enacted by this Parliament. It is therefore pertinent, I think, to look at what has happened with respect to the Act to see whether it is the wrong or the right way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites. I must admit, I am rather confused by the stand of the Opposition. I am confused on the basis that I thought it would probably move an urgency motion congratulating the Government and suggesting that the Opposition had been wrong all along. If one reads the record of the debate that took place when this Act was passing through this place one could be forgiven for thinking that the following day the sun would not come up and indeed the end of the world was nigh. One member of the Opposition claimed that an extraordinary number of sacred site claims would be made in the first week after this legislation was passed. What have we had over the months that have passed? Three Aboriginal sites have been declared by the Government and two claims are still outstanding-one in Victoria and the other in Queensland. Senator Ryan —South Australia. Senator MACKLIN —I thought it was Wallaroo station, the gas pipeline in Queensland. Senator Ryan —No. Senator MACKLIN —The Hattan Lakes in Victoria-- Senator Ryan —And South Australia. Senator MACKLIN —And South Australia. Of the three claims that have been moved through so far-the Harding River Dam in Western Australia, Stradbroke Island in Queensland and Daintree in north Queensland-the first came as an oral submission which was later changed to a written submission. Provision for that to be done was one of the points raised during the debate. Since that claim was dealt with in the way in which it was-allowing first an oral claim and translating it into a written claim-that procedure seems to have worked well. Indeed, the Opposition has not levelled any criticism at that aspect of the Act. The second major criticism put forward by the Opposition was the enormous delays that would occur in relation to these claims. On the Harding River Dam claim there were 12 to 13 days between the date of the submission of the claim on 24 July and the date of decision on 6 August; on the Stradbroke Island claim there were 25 days, between 20 July and 15 August; and on the Daintree claim there were 12 days, between 3 August and 15 August. Again this is not what one would call an excessive claim. There was no statement from Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Opposition, that he thought that that part of the Act, which he roundly criticised during the debate, has not worked. The Opposition presumably does not see that as wrong. Let us look at the results. The Harding River Dam, Stradbroke Island and Daintree claims were rejected. I would have thought that the Opposition would be very glad about those results. I would have thought that the Opposition was thinking that the Act was working perfectly well as none of the claims had been accepted. That is the position that the Opposition has been taking and took during the debate. It seems to be that the Opposition's urgency motion is not based on substantive operations of the Act since that time but is merely a reiteration of its previous opposition to that Act. That hardly seems to me to be a matter of urgency for this place. I do not mind if the Opposition continues its opposition to that Act but it can hardly be said to be a matter of urgency. I submit that it can become a matter of urgency only if we are dealing with the operation of that Act since it passed this place. Let us look at the reasons given. We are talking about conflicts between Aboriginals and governments and State and Federal governments. I believe that there has been conflict. But one asks whether or not that conflict becomes a reason for a repeal of an Act. Surely there must be more substance to a claim about the nature of a conflict which arises and whether or not that conflict goes to the very heart of the Act itself. The conflict that has arisen between the Aboriginals and the Government is over the fact that the Government has not seen fit to acknowledge any of the claims made concerning sacred sites. One would imagine that such conflict would be inevitable. Indeed, the very nature of a claim that is made means that there will be disappointment either on behalf of the Aboriginal people or the people who are opposing a claim. A claim cannot be accepted or rejected without somebody losing. If anybody thinks that will not be the case I do not know what type of world he is living in. We in Australia are 200 years down the track in relation to this matter. It will not be overturned in six months, two years or 10 years without a great deal of pain and sacrifice. We have to acknowledge that. Unfortunately we have to accept that. There will be difficulties in the operation of this Act. Conflicts will arise. All that we can urge, I would hope that all anyone in this place would urge, is that we seek to resolve those conflicts within the community in such a way as not to give support to the types of racist comments which are currently being made in the community on this issue and on the immigration issue . I go back to 1976 in this very place and refer to a motion which was passed unanimously in the following terms: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. That motion was passed unanimously. On 7 December 1976 Senator Chaney said: It would be my personal hope that we in the Government Parties would direct our attention in the future to further steps we might take to live up to Senator Bonner's resolution. I emphasise that Senator Chaney said that the coalition might take further steps . He further said: My personal view-I stress that it is a personal view-is that we ought to try to get Government assistance to Aborigines on to the basis that it is regarded as something received as compensation for the dispossession of the Aboriginal People. Unfortunately that was said in 1976. Times have certainly changed. On 6 August, prior to the decision being made on the Harding River Dam-it was made late in the afternoon-I sent a telegram to the Acting Premier of Western Australia in the following terms: Your reported comments today do a grave disservice to Aboriginal advancement in Australia. The Heritage Protection Act which you criticise allows any Aboriginal to lodge a claim. You have been badly advised in attacking this Act on the basis of claims currently presented. The Act may only be tested when the claims have run the full gambut of tests provided for by the Federal Parliament. Until the Western Australian claim has been so processed any criticism, let alone that of a State Government, is premature. Traditional owners may allow the dam to go ahead. If not, your State legislation may suffice. If not, the report provided for under the Act may be against the claim. If not, the Federal Cabinet may decide not to act. If not, the Senate may disagree with the determination. Please allow the Act to be tested in the interests of racial harmony and Aboriginal advancement in Australia in 1984. It seems to me that we have the Opposition piggy-backing on what was a disgraceful exercise by the Australian Labor Party's Acting Premier of Western Australia at that time. He obviously had no idea of what was in the Act or he could not have made the types of claims that he made publicly. I would be interested to have clarified some points that may be made in relation to the urgency motion, since the claim has been made that this is the wrong way to do it, on how to stop claims being made, even under the current State Acts that the Opposition has supported. If the Opposition wished to review those Acts it would discover that Aboriginals can make those claims in an identical fashion to those provisions contained in the Federal legislation. There is no other way. We have to allow the process to get started. Somebody has to be allowed to make a claim. Surely the Opposition is not claiming that claims should not be allowed to be made on Aboriginal sacred sites. Aboriginals have to make the claim. Then we have to be able to test whether or not they are bona fide claims. But somehow or other we have to start the operation. That is all that had happened when the Acting Premier of Western Australia got into the act; that is all that had occurred to that point. A claim had been made. It seems to me that that is an extraordinary admission of ignorance on the part of somebody who ought to know how legislation operates. The Act has operated in the way which was predicted. Senator Messner —The way you predicted. Senator MACKLIN —The way I predicted, yes. It has operated in that fashion. The only thing I am concerned about is the rejection of those claims. I have not had a chance to read the detailed reasons for the rejection of those claims. I hope that those reasons will be provided to us in a short time. It seems to me that members of this Parliament are entitled to read the reasons for rejection so that they can understand how the Minister is administering this Act. I predicted that there would be very few claims. Indeed there have been very few. Not like the absurd propositions put forward by some members of the Opposition, there have been very few claims. If honourable senators knew the Aboriginal people and were to talk to them they would say: 'We just do not have the basis for this wholesale number of claims that people keep talking about'. The enormous time lags we projected did not occur. The enormous disruptions we have been talking about did not occur. The types of doomsday prophecies have not yet occurred. If one is saying that it has gone wrong, I think it is encumbent on the people who are saying that it has gone wrong to point where precisely it has gone wrong since the enactment of that Act. Undoubtedly State governments are going to conflict with the Federal Government . I understand Senator Messner will be speaking in this debate. As a former Minister, if he did not have any conflicts with State governments I would be very pleased. I am sure that he was dealing in an area where he did not even talk to State governments which would be the only way that the Federal Government Minister could not have a dispute with State governments. It is the very nature of the federation that such disputes take place, but it is also the nature of the federation that these disputes are resolved in an amicable fashion . It is interesting that two of the claims occurred in my own State of Queensland and there was absolutely no noise. The disgraceful part of this whole exercise is that the only noise came from a misinformed and mischievous intervention on behalf of the Acting Premier of the Labor Government of Western Australia. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.03) —In this debate we need to address ourselves to the very basis of Senator Chaney's motion, which is clearly set down, that the legislation that was enacted by the Parliament in June on the protection of Aboriginal heritage is in fact the wrong way in which to protect Aboriginal sacred sites. I would like to explain that because I do believe that in the course of this debate we have left the main thrust of that motion. It is fairly clear from the reaction of the Government and indeed of the Australian Democrats that they misunderstand the true motives of the Opposition in bringing this matter forward. All of us on this side of the House have very grave concern for the relationships between black and white and between Federal and State with the background to this particular draconian legislation which we have debated on another occasion. This legislation empowers the Government with enormous mantles of power in order to take over land against the interests of Australians other than Aboriginals. In that way it debases and degrades relationships between all Australians. For that reason we take the stand that we have. We see the degrading, and debasing of the relationships between Australians as being the core of the difficulty in trying to address ourselves to the problem of the Aboriginal people. From discussions with Aboriginal people all over Australia in recent times on this very matter it is clear that they feel that this legislation by its very existence threatens their ability to put forward their arguments for raising up their own interests as against and in relation to all other Australians. There can be no nobler motive on the part of any government or of any parliament than to seek to alleviate poverty and certainly the deepest poverty that exists amongst the Aboriginal people. The core of the Opposition's concern is that we do get it right when we seek to elevate, as much as possible, the circumstances of the Aboriginal people. We believe that by focusing Australians' attention on legislation which this Government brought forward two months ago with its draconian provisions does indeed bring into question in the Australian mind the rightness of that particular motive. For that reason we express our concern today in this matter of urgency. I think Senator Ryan will regret having said earlier that Senator Chaney, in bringing forward this motion, displayed neither sincerity nor moderation. Indeed , I thought his speech was remarkably moderate and sincere for a man of such known credentials in assisting and working with, and for, the Aboriginal people. There was no sense of trying to stir up this issue in the public mind. Quite the contrary. It was seeking to lay before the Government the important concerns of the people of Australia about the directions of its policies with regard to Aborigines. Senator Ryan sought to introduce emotional arguments into the matter by displaying pamphlets which she claimed were produced by the Liberal Party in Western Australia with regard to Aboriginal land rights. Those pamphlets draw attention to some difficulties that could arise in circumstances with particular legislation unless it follows the models which we know have been set down by this Parliament with regard to the Northern Territory. Those pamphlets are one way of drawing attention to the problem and are, in a sense, valid to a certain side of the argument at this particular time. It is in no way an attempt to stir up a debate on the issue, but rather bringing attention to the very real concerns of the people in Australia. Again, I make the point that in doing so it focuses attention on a matter which, unfortunately, is at the core of the Opposition's concern; that is, trying to ensure that the problems of poverty amongst Aboriginals and their very circumstances are addressed in the best possible way. Senator Macklin has drawn our attention to his position on the legislation. He claimed that the legislation does not go far enough. In fact I think he made the point clear in responding to the recent Government decision on the Harding River Dam case by saying that he would be consulting with Aboriginal groups to see what amendments could be brought forward in order to extend the powers of the Government in this way. If that is so I would be very interested to see his justification for it because I fear that this legislation is so draconian and that the Government itself perceives that in its heart of hearts that it has, therefore, chosen not to exercise the powers that it provides in the cases that have already been before us. The reason that it has chosen not to exercise those powers are both practical and pragmatic. But, to give the Government some credit in this matter, obviously it has some concern to the very point that I make which is that this legislation in the hearts and the minds of all other Australians may well rebound against the Aboriginal people. I do hope that the Government perceives that. Certainly it has had plenty of opportunities to consider that in the light of the attention that has been drawn to the matter by the Western Australian Government. We have had numerous quotes from Senator Chaney, including quotes from the Acting Premier of Western Australia who reacted very strongly in opposition to the Federal Government on the question of the Harding River Dam and of course earlier comments from the Western Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Wilson, who drew our attention to the legislation and claimed that it was unnecessary. Senator Macklin during his speech drew our attention to the fact that this is unnecessary legislation. As he said, a great part of the legislation is covered by State legislation already. In fact, Queensland is reviewing its legislation on sacred sites at the very moment. Indeed, there is the example of the resolution of the conflict at the Cane Grass Swamp near Roxby Downs between the Aboriginal people and the State Government. This was brought about not under Federal legislation, not under any coercion on the part of the Federal Government, but by and with the full co-operation of the State Government under State legislation. All the State Labor Premiers and Ministers in Western Australia were attempting to do was to draw attention to the fact that the powers do exist for proper protection of sacred sites. What was the Government's intention in bringing forward this legislation some two months ago? Clearly, it has become impracticable and unworkable and for that reason alone should be repealed. The original purpose was simply political. We have been promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) an election some time this year. The Minister who has performed worst-he promised so much before the election but has made no attempt to get any runs on the board-is none other than the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). In the dying days of the autumn session of Parliament, the Minister rushed in a piece of legislation containing the draconian powers that we debated on the very last day of our sittings in June. We all remember the disgraceful way in which the House of Representatives was forced to ram through the legislation by the use of numbers and the guillotine. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs perceived that he had to get some runs on the board so that the Government could go for an election on the claim that it had done something for Aborigines. Therefore, the Minister pushed through this legislation against all considerations and even the wisdom in his own Party, particularly the State Labor Premiers, including the Premier of Western Australia and his own back bench colleagues in that State, as Senator Giles knows. This legislation certainly did not receive the consideration it deserved within the Labor Party. For that reason alone it deserves to be withdrawn. I hope the Government will take note of this motion when it is carried in a few minutes time and will act urgently to introduce a Bill to repeal this horrendous legislation. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.12) —I am pleased that Senator Messner has somewhat moderated his speech on the heritage legislation. If honourable senators cast their minds back to June when we last debated this important piece of legislation they will recall Senator Messner using words such as dangerous and confrontationist and, if I remember, raising his voice if not his fists in claiming that this legislation would bring about dire results throughout Australia. At least today he has moderated his attitude. I believe he is being extremely cynical. We all know that if he really believes there is genuine need for concern about the way in which the Government is dealing with Aboriginal policies at present, it is about time he began to deal with the reactionaries in his own party. He used the word 'draconian' at least four or five times-a word that aptly describes the attitudes of many members in the Victorian and Western Australian branches of his party. It is indicative of the Opposition's hypocrisy on the subject of Aboriginal policy, particularly the heritage legislation, that it is prepared to raise this issue in the Senate today as a matter of public importance. I would challenge the mover of this so-called matter of urgency to deny that had the Government agreed to the three claims brought to date we would have seen an equally vociferous and high-minded debate on the basis that the Government was going too far in granting recognition of Aboriginal rights and heritage. It seems that the Opposition is determined to have its cake and eat it too. We did not proceed to accept the three claims, and in a few moments I shall go into the reasons for that decision in regard to Queensland. Therefore, as the Opposition is determined to campaign on this issue, it seeks to criticise the Government because for eminently good reasons it has knocked back the claims. The Opposition is determined to make the two issues of land rights and immigration emotive platforms on which to attack the Hawke Labor Government. The Opposition knows that the Government is faring so well in many areas across the board that its members can find no issue on which to criticise the Government. After two-and-a-half months in recess and a Budget aimed at assisting Australians for the next 12 months, the Opposition can only dream up this issue- an issue that was fully debated at the end of the autumn session. We now have a rerun of the heritage legislation debates that occurred in June. I was tempted to bring out my speech of 15 June and give it a rerun, but I would not be guilty of misusing the time of the Senate. The Opposition is devoid of any issue to debate in this place. It indicates how lacklustre is the Opposition's performance that it seeks to raise this issue today. The Opposition is divided on its Aboriginal policy, as it was divided in the original debate when some of its members praised aspects of the heritage legislation while others condemned it as dangerous and confrontationist. I agree with Senator Macklin that the Opposition is most confused on this issue. The Opposition is merely using the Aboriginal issue in an attempt to mislead the Australian community and to play on the fears of the racists in that community. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has changed his mind about Aboriginal policy and land rights to suit the reactionary elements in his Party. I am waiting for him to announce his support for the Queensland Premier, who said last night that the Budget must be bad because it gives too much money to Aborigines and ethnic television. I do not know whether Mr Peacock supports those remarks, but on his past performance it would not surprise me. I wish to deal with the real issue that should be dealt with in this debate- namely, the two applications in Queensland. I refer to Daintree and Stradbroke. In regard to Daintree, application was received from Mick Miller, the Chairman of the North Queensland Aboriginal Land Council, for a declaration to be made to prevent further work on the controversial Daintree-Bloomfield road on the ground that certain sites of significance were under immediate and serious threat. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), through his Department, instituted inquiries to establish the views and feelings of the local Aboriginal community at Bloomfield. Those inquiries resulted in the Minister receiving advice that the Aboriginal people to whom the various sites identified were significant did not consider those sites to be under serious or immediate threat. The Minister was also advised of arrangements which had been made by the Douglas Shire Council to engage an Aboriginal consultant guide, who was himself a custodian of certain sites within that area, to ensure that sites would not be inadvertently intruded upon or desecrated as a result of roadworks. That arrangement was supported and confirmed by the Chairman of the Aboriginal Community Council at Bloomfield along with other Aboriginal people whose sites had been the subject of the original application. Given all these circumstances, the Minister could not be satisfied that the sites were subject to serious or immediate threat and declined to make the declaration requested by Mr Miller. Again, it must be stressed that the Minister acted in a way totally consistent with his undertakings given in his second reading speech. He did not rely solely upon the advice of the applicant, but made sure that the local Aboriginal people who had direct affiliations with the area were given the opportunity to put their point of view and it was on the basis of that point of view that the subsequent action was taken. The engaging of an Aboriginal consultant guide by the Douglas Shire Council is a positive and direct consequence of actions taken as a result of this legislation. Secondly, an application was received from Mrs Kath Walker seeking a declaration in respect of a number of areas of North Stradbroke Island, including an area covered by mineral lease 1180. That lease covered an area of sand dunes which were to be the subject of sand mining by Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd. The application asserted that the area of sand dunes contained middens which were significant to the Aboriginal people of Stradbroke Island. Prior to the application being made objections to the mineral lease had been heard in the Mining Warden's Court in Queensland and had been upheld by the Mining Warden. Notwithstanding that ruling, the Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy overturned the Warden's ruling and granted the mineral lease to the mining company. Following that action, Mrs Walker, who had given evidence in the Warden's Court, made an application under the Commonwealth heritage legislation seeking protection of the area which would be subject to sand mining. One of the very first steps taken by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was to contact his counterpart in Queensland, Mr Katter, Jr, and ask what action, if any, the Queensland Government proposed to take under its legislation to protect any sites of significance which were being threatened by sand mining. Mr Katter responded by advising that, following preliminary archaeological examination of the area, the area was not considered to contain sites of significance but the mining company would be required to engage the services of an archaeologist during the operations. The Minister then convened a meeting involving Mrs Kath Walker, other local Aboriginal residents of Stradbroke Island, the mining company and his Department. That meeting was held on Stradbroke Island on 8 August. The Minister requested also that an anthropologist attend that meeting, and she subsequently made a report to the Minister. It was evident, not only as a result of the meeting held at Stradbroke on 8 August but also as a consequence of representations made to the Minister, that a significant proportion of the Aboriginal community living on Stradbroke Island did not support the application which had been made on their behalf and did not support the assertion that the area which was the subject of the application was of any particular significance to the Aboriginal people according to Aboriginal tradition. The company made it clear that it was prepared to employ an Aboriginal overseer and an Aboriginal bulldozer driver to co-operate with an Aboriginal consultative committee in conducting its operations. Again, this proposition had the support of a significant proportion of the Aboriginal people concerned. Again, it can be seen that the Minister, in declining the application, ensured that appropriate consultation had taken place with the Queensland Government prior to making his decision. Senator Macklin has already noted that we have heard absolutely no criticism from the Queensland Government on either of these issues. We know that if the Queensland Government does not complain about the Federal Government it must be happy. It can be seen that adequate action had been taken to gain advice concerning the attitude and views of the relevant Aboriginal people. That case again demonstrates the fact that arrangements were entered into ensuring the participation of the Aboriginal people and ensuring that their interests were properly considered-all as a direct consequence of actions taken under the Commonwealth's heritage legislation. It is clear that every possible step was taken with those two applications and that Aboriginal interests were placed foremost with regard to the ultimate rejection of the applications. I am not convinced that the Opposition speakers have, to date, brought into this debate any new information to support their call for the repeal of the heritage legislation. The Opposition has simply used this afternoon as an opportunity to grandstand. One needs only to look at the Opposition benches at the moment to see how seriously Opposition senators regard this matter of urgency. If it were as important as Senator Chaney would have had us believe earlier in the debate, I would obviously have expected to see all Opposition senators present. As it is, there is only one Opposition senator in the chamber and that proves that this afternoon's exercise is simply a cynical misuse of a matter of urgency. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.25) —I shall speak to the motion, which states: The need for the government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing between Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments. It has been said that it is only eight weeks since the passing of the heritage legislation. That legislation passed through the Parliament in considerable haste during the last hours of the autumn sitting, despite the Opposition's request that more time be given to enable some consultation with the governments of the States and the Northern Territory and-this is of considerable importance- consultation with the Aboriginal people. When I refer to the 'Aboriginal people' , I particularly mean the traditional people, the tribal people who still relate very much to their own culture, traditions and law. The reason for bringing back this matter so soon for further debate-as a move to repeal legislation-is that the legislation has heightened the degree of fear, anxiety and confrontation. It has done nothing to bring about amicable agreement and understanding. Indeed, Federal intervention has brought about ill will and suspicion. The Opposition still believes that, to safeguard sacred sites properly, the process should be carried out at the grass roots level-in the State and Territory legislatures. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, has once again in her address to the Senate talked about the consultation that took place prior to the introduction of the legislation. We have gone through all that discussion before, and I have repeated the strong statements of Mr Bob Little who is an Aboriginal alderman on the Alice Springs council. Mr Little represents many people, and has sent many telexes and made statements to the effect that the Aboriginal people did not understand the legislation at the time it was debated in the Senate. In fact, some Aboriginal people did not know that there was such a Bill, although some Aboriginal organisations did know of it. I suggest that those Aboriginal organisations may have been closer to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) than others and that they may have been situated in towns. As I said in the previous debate, it is strange to note that on other occasions when such matters came up the Aboriginal people spoke out very loudly in the community; yet on this occasion there was not one word from some of those organisations. I know that they had copies of the legislation, but the traditional people, who were very much affected by the legislation, knew nothing about it. Today I again received comments from Bob Little about consultation. He says that he has received a hundred or more complaints from people in the western Macdonnell ranges. He feels that that number could be multiplied by 10 to allow for people in other areas. He says that the people are still dissatisfied; there has been no consultation with the traditional people. The Bill was not taken around and discussed with those people. He says that anyone can now approach the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and declare a sacred site. If one looks carefully at the legislation, one finds that that is the case. Mr Little continues to make the point that, according to Aboriginal custom, only traditional owners can talk about sacred sites and objects. That appears to be a situation that many people do not realise. I will not go over what I discussed in the second reading debate. I am talking about sacred sites and objects and, as I mentioned before, they are subject to forms of tribal retribution. Mr Little feels that the legislation was motivated by people wishing to retrieve the Strehlow collection and similar items; but that is another matter. Because Senator Ryan has brought up the matter of consultation with the States, I must make my point again, and I shall do so as quickly as possible. On 29 May 1984, a telex was sent to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Everingham. That telex discussed the proposed national Aboriginal heritage legislation. He said: In your telex of 30 April you asked for my comments on the draft Bill which had been separately despatched to my Department on the same day. You sought my reaction by May 4. It is extraordinary that after discussing such legislation for months with Aboriginal groups without any reference at all to the relevant State and Territory authorities you should suddenly produce the Bill and seek my considered opinion on it in less than a week. I gather that you placed my State counterparts in the same position. Apparently, you have forgotten the assurances you gave at the last AAAC meeting in Melbourne when the subject of national sacred sites legislation was raised that you would give all governments ample opportunity to consider the legislation and comment on it. So far as the protection of significant or sacred sites and areas is concerned, the Territory Government sees no need for Commonwealth legislation in this field . I might remind you that Judge Toohey-- who was made responsible for an inquiry- also felt that the matter was best covered by Territory legislation. And of course in the States by State legislation. To continue: I agree that there is a need to empower either the sacred sites authority or the relevant Territory Minister . . . to take immediate action when sites are threatened. I am quite prepared to amend the Territory Act to provide the kind of rapid protection you envisaged in your Bill. Nonetheless, it should remain Territory legislation. To summarise, therefore, the Territory Government reaction is that your Bill should not proceed. Protection of sacred sites should be left to the appropriate State and Territory authorities. Commonwealth legislation should be introduced to protect sacred objects and remains. Let us have no more of this talk of consultation. There was no consultation. The problem that the Opposition has with the legislation was clearly stated in the original debate by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, when he said: The difficulty that the Opposition has with the legislation is that, like many Acts of Parliament, it could be used to do good, but, like many other Acts of Parliament, it could also be used for purposes which would not achieve good. It is the view of the Opposition that the legislation in this form at this time is not in the interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia, nor is it in the interests of the broader community. Indeed, also of some considerable importance is Senator Chaney's further point. This is interesting. He said: The Opposition would be most reluctant to rely upon the limitations which the Minister has laid down for himself in his second reading speech when in fact the Bill would permit him to go further than that speech indicates. In effect, when one examines clauses 9 and 10 relating to the declaration of areas, one sees that the Minister has taken unto himself extremely wide powers which are obviously unacceptable to all those who find themselves interested in the realms of sacred sites, objects and so on, for in the brief few weeks the legislation has been in force, we have witnessed confrontation between the Federal Minister and State Governments, particularly Western Australia, Aboriginal organisations and the factions of his own Party. In a few brief moments I would like to go over some of the comments made in the media in the last eight weeks to indicate just how wide the feeling in this matter is. First of all, I will quote from a letter written by Clyde Holding, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and published in a newspaper under the heading: 'Land rights explained'. In part, the Minister said: In the Harding Dam case, there was no possibility that a declaration would be made without consultation with the State Government. In fact, the legislation requires it and I made my commitment quite clear during the debate in the Parliament. He did that, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty it is quite easy to refute the assertion that there is a requirement for him to consult State governments. Senator Coleman —It is in the Act, Senator. You have not even read it. Senator KILGARIFF —The honourable senator should look at it herself. Perhaps she is like Mrs Child whose public comments on this matter were reported in the ' Comment' column of the Australian under the heading: 'The risk in making Minister Good Fellow's word law'. That article stated, in part: Under this bill, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs need not be limited to, but can receive an oral application on behalf of an Aborigine, and after receiving and considering a report from a person nominated by the minister concerning an area orally nominated by the applicant, can make a declaration concerning the area. That is well and good. To continue: Any person who contravenes a provision of a declaration which can prohibit anything the minister wishes to prohibit, is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine of $10,000 or five years' imprisonment . . . That is a quite hefty penalty. The article goes on, referring to the Minister: His word is law and he can vary or revoke a declaration at any time under Section 13 (6). There is no part of the Australian land mass or waters which is exempt from his authority. A minister vested with such discretionary powers, where the law is the minister 's discretion, will be subject to unprecedented pressures-- we have seen this-- from interest groups and he will be unable to plead lack of authority. Perhaps we have seen that too. The columnist takes issue with what he calls ' Joan Child's essay', and continues: She tells us: The minister must consult the relevant State or territory minister. This provision is set out in section 13 (2) of the bill. However, section 13 (4) states baldly in direct contradiction that ''any failure to comply with sub-section (2) does not invalidate the making of a declaration''. Mrs Child tells us: The minister must call for, and consider, the report of an independent person. But the bill states in section 10 (1) c: ''Where the Minister has received a report from a person nominated by him. . .' ' She says: ''He (the minister) must also consult with his Cabinet colleagues before making any declaration.'' There is no such provision in the bill. She tells us: The legislation has been drafted in consultation with the Aborigines. No such boast can be made of other non-Aboriginal Australian groups. . . I think I have dealt with this situation of consultation, consultation that has not come about with State governments, with the Territory Government or with the Aboriginal people whom this legislation is all about. Let me continue with one or two quotations. In the Australian Financial Review of 10 May 1984 there was an article which stated, in part: The substantial powers of interpretation placed in the hands of the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs under the Government's Aboriginal Heritage legislation will open the way to intense lobbying over controversial heritage declarations. In the Age of 17 August, under the heading 'Talks collapse so blacks will lobby Caucus on Holding', there appeared an article which stated, in part: The NAC has stepped up its attack on Mr Holding's handling of the portfolio accusing him of ignoring the ALP platform on Aboriginal Affairs. The NAC is angered also by the Government's hard-line interpretation of new legislation to protect Aboriginal sacred sites. The first three applications by Aboriginal groups have all been rejected. We know all about that. We have been told many times this afternoon. In the Australian of 8 August, under the heading 'Prompt action is needed on land laws' , the editorial stated, in part: Nonetheless, it is evident that the Commonwealth Government has been induced to act so decisively because of its fear that it could become involved in a dangerous dispute with the West Australian Labor Government. Despite assurances that the Acting Minister has exercised her own discretion, it seems highly unlikely that she has not been subject to the prompting of her Cabinet colleagues. I could go on at length. If we want to get the viewpoint of the nation, of the media and of the people in the country, I suggest the Senate need only open its ears and heed the advice. We are saying that, for the benefit of the sacred sites, the legislation must be repealed. The onus, the responsibility, for such legislation is a State responsibility. I do not believe that a Federal Act, as if from a god living up in the clouds, can decree what the little people will or will not have to do. It is quite obvious that this legislation is controversial. It is quite obvious that it is causing considerable pains within the community. It is causing considerable pains among the Aboriginal people. I request the Government to review the matter. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.40) —It would be hard for anyone who might be listening to this debate to believe that they were not hearing a rehash of the debate in which we all participated on 14 and 15 June. On the last two days of sitting in the autumn session we debated the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill, and all that we are getting today is a rehash of that debate. One can only assume that Senator Ryan as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, when making her response to Senator Chaney's urgency motion, was correct when she assumed that the Opposition had this matter of urgency already drawn up prior to the end of that session and had been unable to think of anything else that it might be able to put before this chamber today. It is certainly not an up-to-date matter of urgency. I put it into the record again: The need for the Government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing between Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments. This is an exercise which is designed to set Australian against Australian, black Australian against white Australian. Senator Chaney referred to it in his speech. He said that the legislation is bad for Australia, is bad for Australian people and is creating bad relations between Aboriginals and other Australians. The only bad relations that exist between Aboriginals and other Australians is that relationship which has developed as a result of the controversy between the Liberal Party of Australia here in the Federal Parliament and the Liberal Party in Western Australia. This exercise is designed to get the headlines in the West Australian tomorrow and to endeavour in some way to prop up the Leader of the Opposition in that State. The Liberal Party has somehow read headlines such as that in today's Australian, which I understand suggest that the Budget brought down last night was an election Budget-no one has denied that there will be an election in the near future-and this is one of the areas that the Liberal Party sees as being ' the issue'. The Liberal Party tried to make an issue out of immigration, but it discovered that the Australian people were not prepared to accept that as 'the' election issue. The Liberals are now endeavouring to create this racist situation in Australia and make that the issue. The Australian people are adult and they will recognise it for what it is-an exercise in futility. However, a moment ago we heard Senator Kilgariff say that it was not a requirement of the Act that there be consultation between the Federal Minister and the State Government. I suggest to him that he read the Act in totality and recognise that it is set down in the Act in a specific manner that nothing can happen under the heritage Act unless there has been that prior consultation. Let me refer him to a news release by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Clyde Holding, in which he says: This Bill is a response to requests from Aboriginals for priority to be given to enacting legislation which can counter the real, and at times sudden, threats to significant Aboriginal sites and objects. Senator Chaney, Senator Kilgariff and, I have no doubt, Senator Messner-although I must admit that I was not available to listen to his speech; I was downstairs discussing other matters with Aboriginal people-questioned whether in actual fact the Federal Government knows the meaning of the phrase 'sacred sites or sites of significance'. That was another exercise that we went through during the original debate on the Bill. Senator Kilgariff —That is not the point. Senator COLEMAN —It is quite clearly defined in the Act, Senator Kilgariff. If Senator Kilgariff had read it, he would recognise that it is defined there for all to see. If he cannot read words of more than two syllables, I am sorry for him; but surely it must be possible for someone to interpret for him the meaning of the phrase 'sites of significance or Aboriginal sacred sites'. Mr Holding, in his news release, went on: It will enable protection to be granted where State laws do not apply, or are ineffective, and provides a means whereby parties can be brought together to work out a solution when all other avenues have failed . . . The Minister will need to be satisfied that the area or object for which protection is sought is significant in accordance with Aboriginal tradition . . . Before making a declaration, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be obliged to consult with his State or Territory counterpart to ascertain whether the law of that State or Territory offers effective protection. If it does, a declaration will not be necessary. I should have thought that that was quite clear to anyone who bothered to read it. It was issued on 9 May, after the legislation had been introduced into the House of Representatives; but obviously the members of the Opposition did not bother to read it then, and they are not bothering to read it now. The matter of urgency that has come before us is, as I said, a purely political exercise. It is designed to fan the fires of what might be seen as a racist attitude which could be developed in the Australian community. It is an exercise designed to ensure that if there is a racist attitude to be adopted, the Liberal Party wants to be right in there adopting that attitude. These prophets of doom who saw what the legislation was designed to do when it was introduced should have been doing exactly what Senator Macklin suggested. Let us not fail to recognise that those prophets of doom on the Opposition benches were the people who were saying: 'It will work only in the interests of Aboriginal people. The mining companies will be distraught, and they will be disadvantaged. Oh, horror of horrors, all of these things will happen'. That has just not been the result. What has happened is that there have been only five applications-not the 750,000 that I think was the figure that Senator Bjelke-Petersen, on the advice of the Premier of Queensland, one presumes, suggested would be coming before the Minister at some stage. Really, Senator, 750,000 applications; even you must have realised that someone had added more than three zeros. But there have been five applications. Three of them have been heard, two are pending. It is time that we looked at the other reasons for this matter of urgency being brought in today. It is obvious that the Liberal Party has no confidence in its Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr James Porter, because, if it had, it would have brought it into the House in which the Minister sits, and not in the upper chamber. Senator Kilgariff —Mr Porter is going well. Senator COLEMAN —Why bring it in here? It is because the Liberals know that he could not stand the heat. I will tell Senator Kilgariff why he could not stand the heat in just a minute. The honourable senator should not get his knickers in a twist. I shall explain why it is not difficult to understand why the Liberals have no confidence in their Shadow Minister. I refer to his very own words, put out on his own letterhead, with his face at the top and making the statement that he is, indeed, the Federal Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I do not know whether he will stay that way. He will certainly stay 'Shadow', but whether he will be the Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs after the next election or subsequent elections is another matter. Senator Kilgariff —He will not; he will be the Minister. Senator COLEMAN —No, he probably will not even be in the Parliament, so we will not worry too much about his future. Let me tell the Senate what he had to say on 5 August. His media release said: Fears regarding the future of a $1m tourist venture involving Aboriginal employment have been raised with James Porter, Federal Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The media release quotes him as saying: Development of a new National Park in North West Queensland involving the expenditure of nearly $1m will be thrown into jeopardy if the powers of the Federal Heritage Act are used. On 5 August, he was saying: 'For goodness' sake, Federal Government, please do not use your powers under this legislation'. But what did he say on 7 August? It was still under his letterhead, still with his smiling face at the top. He said: The Federal Government's rejection of the Harding Dam application under the Heritage Act adds to Aboriginal disillusionment with the Canberra Labor Government. The Labor Party has unrealistically raised Aboriginal expectations only to repeatedly let them down. The Federal Government promised to develop effective heritage legislation in co-operation with the States but when the Heritage Act was proposed, the Western Australian Government admitted it was taken by surprise. On 5 August Mr Porter was saying 'Please do not use it' and on 7 August he was condemning us for not using it. He is a bit twisted in some way. One minute he wants it one way, and one minute he wants it the other way. The Liberals must learn, and the National Party of Australia, too-Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Boswell are sitting there smiling at me-that in this life there is no way one can have one's cake and eat it, too. There is no way that they can condemn legislation and then condemn the fact that it is not being used. If they are to be taken by the Aboriginal community and the Australian community as having some credibility, no matter how little, they should at least be consistent. Let me look at the question of the Harding River Dam. As a Western Australian I have been involved in this area. It is a matter of great importance. The situation there was that an application was made by the Aboriginal people when the Liberal Government was still in office. Mr Ray O'Connor was then the Premier . That application was refused by the Liberal Government and nothing more was done. The agreement was made that the Harding River Dam would go ahead, even though it was perfectly obvious to anybody who visited the area that there were magnificent works of rock art at that site. The Aboriginals had already made their complaint to the State Government and it had been rejected, that is, the Liberal Government had rejected it. It was not until this legislation was brought in that the Aboriginal Legal Service decided to endeavour to have the project stopped, recognising that it was at a late stage. Whether or not it did it at the behest of the Aboriginal community concerned is not the issue. It was nevertheless an exercise to test the Federal legislation. It is my view, and I have to say it quite sincerely to both the Aboriginal people and to the people who were constructing the dam, that I had some difficulty with the decision that was taken because I recognised the value of the cultural products that were there and the feeling of the Aboriginal people towards the land but I also had to recognise that a great deal of money had already been invested in that project and it was going to benefit all of the people in the area. Having taken that step myself and having acknowledged that, I made no contact whatsoever with the Minister's office or with the Acting Minister's office because I felt that it was a decision that had to be made by them. I would have been quite happy to do so had I been approached; I was not from either side. But let me say that whilst there were sites of significance to Aboriginal people in that area, a great deal of money had been expended and 75 per cent of the project had already been completed before the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia brought that matter to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Federal Parliament. I just point out that when the legislation came in it was not designed to be anything other than prospective. It was never designed to be retrospective. That was made quite clear during all of the debates that took place in the Parliament and in this chamber. I made mention of that fact in my speech at the second reading stage. Senator Peter Baume —That the application was prospective. Senator COLEMAN —The application was not retrospective. Senator Peter Baume —Prospective. Senator COLEMAN —The application was prospective, and the application of the Act had to be prospective. That was all it was ever intended to be. Senator Baume, as a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, would be very conscious of the fact that Aboriginal matters are not easy for any government, of whichever political colour it might be. I think it is important for those people who may be listening, and certainly for those people who are participating in this debate, to recognise just what is happening. As I said, members of the Opposition have suddenly come to realise that there will be an election. They are devoid of leadership, they are devoid of issues and they are finding it extremely difficult to find something on which to hang their hat. They thought Aboriginal affairs might be that issue. It is a very small hat and it is a very small peg that the Opposition is trying to hang it on. The Australian people basically are not racist and honourable senators opposite are not going to engender that racism in them by bringing in a matter such as this matter of urgency. I move: That the business of the day be called on. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a short statement about the matter of urgency that is before us. I believe that I have an unblemished record of support for the aspirations of Aboriginal people and that those aspirations are able to be achieved without undue pressure or manipulation. I believe that record has been shown not only within this Parliament but also outside the Parliament and, indeed, well prior to my coming to the Parliament. I do not propose at this point to tarnish that record in any way. I say what I was going to say quite deliberately, however. I have become somewhat concerned that strains are developing within the society which could react against the desire of those who, like me, wish to see the aspirations of the Aboriginal people achieved. I consider that the way in which the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act was brought into this Parliament was not conducive to a proper appreciation of the concerns that are expressed not only amongst the Aboriginal people but also amongst other people who, whilst genuinely concerned about the Aboriginal people , have other considerations to bring to bear to these matters. I point particularly to the concern of those people who believe quite strongly in the principle of neodemocracy, those who believe very strongly in the principles of federalism in this nation. I feel that the States and Territories, particularly those States of Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, were not adequately consulted prior to this measure being brought before the Parliament. People can say that the horse has bolted but I believe that the horse has not yet bolted. In these circumstances, I feel that the Government should have another look at this question and undertake the appropriate consultations with those who have expressed concerns. I wish to make a very brief comment about the imputations that have been made against Senator Chaney. I am not here to support or oppose Senator Chaney but I say in all fairness on this matter that, having seen Senator Chaney's work in the field of Aboriginal affairs, I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who would reflect on his integrity in these matters or impute unfair motives to him in that regard. The terms of the motion are: The need for the government to repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act because it is the wrong way to protect Aboriginal sacred sites and because of the conflict it is causing Aboriginals and governments and between State and Federal governments. Because of these terms I propose to support the urgency motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —The question is that the motion of urgency as moved by Senator Chaney be agreed to. Senator Coleman —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: That is not quite the question. The question that I put was that the business of the day be called on. I was prepared to allow Senator Harradine, by leave, to make a short statement but I believe that my motion before the Senate is the one that stands. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —My understanding, Senator Coleman, is that your motion is out of order. We are not discussing a matter of public importance. It is a motion of urgency which is before the Chair and as such the motion of urgency must be put. Senator Coleman —If they want to take it to a vote, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will satisfy them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not a matter of anybody wanting to take it to a vote, Senator Coleman. There is a motion of urgency before the Chair. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Reid, M. E. Hamer, D. J. Scott, D. B. Harradine, B. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Georges, G. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Townley, M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Industries Assistance Commission report on the southern bluefin tuna is very significant, but for only a very small segment of the Australian community. It is a segment which is based on the south coast of Western Australia an area which will be hurt if the Government adopts the recommendations of the report. For that reason I make a few comments in the hope that the Government will consider very carefully how it handles this report and the recommendations that flow from it. There is no doubt that there is a real threat to the southern bluefin tuna of the south ocean region around Australia. That threat will be exacerbated if steps are not taken in the very near future. Because of that threat this report will have to be considered urgently by the Government and steps taken very quickly. One would hope that although those steps may be taken hastily they will be taken with a great deal of compassion and consideration for the people who will be caught up in a situation resulting from overfishing in this industry. What has been happening is that there has been a tendency to fish for tuna which are too small. Therefore, due to this abuse of the catching of these smaller fish the survival of the fish has been threatened. We will put at jeopardy not just an industry in Western Australia but also the very livelihoods of a lot of people. For that reason and particularly because this happens to be the second time that many people in this group have been hit-the first having been when the Government took the decision to cease the whaling industry in that area-we will have to consider the economic survival of the people in the industry and, literally, their livelihoods. We cannot, just with a wave of a biro, sign out of existence the livelihoods of these people. The Industries Assistance Commission report recommends that the Australian quota for 1984-85 be reduced to 14,000 tonnes. That in itself is not such a serious problem. What is serious is that Western Australia will have to phase down from 4,000 tonnes to 1 ,000 tonnes, a 75 per cent decrease. That is going to mean that the people in that industry will be forced out literally overnight. There will be a loss of 280 direct jobs and a total loss of 650 direct and indirect jobs. That needs to be borne in mind when the type of adjustment assistance is determined by the Government. The report comments that it is going to be difficult to justify adjustment assistance, either to offset personal hardship experienced in the fishery or to encourage a faster rate of adjustment. But, Mr Deputy President, I put it to you that a government with any compassion in its heart has to assist in making that adjustment possible. We have to recognise the personal hardships of these people . We have to provide retraining. We have to give incentives to lead the industry . We have to provide assistance, not just to the fishermen but also to other people who are going to be hit if this report's recommendations are adopted. In general terms there certainly are necessary steps to be taken. The report suggests that we need to take into account likely Japanese fishing activity. I agree with that. We need to get the Japanese to agree to quota levels. But we also need to recognise that if we adopt the suggestion of the report that the cash grants suggested by certain people who made submissions to the Committee should not be used by the Government, we are going to abandon these people. We must give assistance to them. It must not be limited to the fishermen; it also needs to take into account the others who are going to be affected by the rationalisation of this industry. We also need to take into consideration the fact that there is going to be a boost to the people of this industry on the east and that needs to help to compensate those in the west. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.12) —The concern which has been expressed by Senator Jack Evans has been made known to a wide cross-section of members of the Parliament. It is a legitimate concern for the people of the area. However, there is also a very legitimate concern for the future of the southern blue fin tuna fishery. I felt that that was perhaps not put as strongly as it should have been in balance in the comments that were made. I want to add the concern that action should be taken urgently to get the Japanese and others involved in a quota control system which will enable a maximisation of Australian participation in the exploitation at reasonable levels of the southern blue fin tuna fishery. I see Senator Jack Evans nodding agreement. There is no disagreement between us. I make no further comment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Agricultural wheeled tractors have long been a troublesome area. The Industries Assistance Commission has made a number of reports in relation to it. Only one manufacturer of agricultural wheeled tractors, Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, is now left in Australia. It receives a very significant bounty which it is proposed to continue. However, at the same time a discounting war is taking place in Australia between various importers and distributors which has led to the situation whereby, notwithstanding the very significant bounty given to Chamberlain John Deere last year, it made a net loss of $17m with some 18 per cent of the market share. In other words, every per cent of the market share it gained cost the company $1m. An apparent unreality has crept into the marketing of tractors. The television program Sixty Minutes dealt with the Russian Belarus tractors, their defects and the fact that servicing of them has not been able to be maintained. A whole series of problems was described during that program. Six hundred and five different models of tractors were imported into this country last year with 55 different distributors. It seems that the existence of a bounty is not really helping to preserve an Australian industry. It is not really helping to enable Chamberlain John Deere to remain profitable or even to remain in existence. The bounty is merely enabling it to play a part in the discounting race that is going on between all tractor distributors in Australia. The net result is that only two such distributors who apparently have not been engaging in the discounting war-Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd is one of them-have been able to make any sort of profit. I am told that the profit of the Ford tractor division last year was about $6m. That is because Ford has been prepared to accept a lowering of the market share but not a lowering of price. It has kept up its distributorship because of the Ford name and because of the wide section of distributors throughout Australia of Ford products. People have continued to buy and to rely upon a good product which is well serviced from the point of view of both servicing and parts. I do not want to take a lot of time-I do not have a lot of time-to debate the matter in detail. However, I think it is important to refer very briefly to the fact that a bounty does not necessarily solve a problem. If Chamberlain John Deere continues to lose $17m per annum it will need a very much bigger bounty than it is getting at the moment to remain in business. Perhaps some of the suggestions that have been made by some members of the industry should be followed. One such suggestion is that a form of self-regulation should be introduced into the industry to get some semblance of order in the industry before we have complete chaos which could lead to a situation whereby many farmers could be harmed if there were no servicing or spare parts arrangements. There would not be the follow-through which is necessary, because even if farmers were temporarily to gain an advantage by buying a cheaper tractor it could wind up as a very expensive tractor if it could not be used. I think this is a matter of some concern and should be looked at by the whole of the industry and not just ignored. It is an area in which perhaps fairly urgent steps need to be taken to prevent chaos from taking over and spreading to the agricultural implements area where somewhat the same sort of procedures seem to be developing . Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I refer briefly to the effect of the Government's decision in relation to the Industries Assistance Commission report on computer hardware and software, typewriters, calculating and other office machines, parts and accessories, recording media, metal working machines tools and robots. The report was made in February this year. On 5 July this year the Government announced a decision which was stated in these terms: The Government has taken action to reduce the price of computers to industry and consumers . . . A decision, which takes effect tomorrow, also will reduce the cost of office equipment and recording media such as video and audio cassettes. The Government also took steps to reduce the duties which had previously been payable on various items of computer hardware, electronic microcircuits, office equipment and other such items. It took steps to protect the Australian industry and Australian manufacturers and to assist them in the development which is taking place. Some of it is taking place in a very significant way. I was impressed to find that one of the factories I visited recently was selling back its technology to its big parent company in the United States of America. This is an interesting stage of development. What is happening is a 25 per cent value added bounty will be payable by the Government to Australian manufacturers. The bounty is for systems design and systems software as well as production, for domestic or export sale, and is expected to cost about $7m. It is an interesting approach. It is one which the Opposition would not necessarily take, but it is certainly one which will reduce costs to consumers and still provide some encouragement to manufacturers to continue to develop in Australia. I hope that the stage will be reached, by the application of the sort of positive measures which we will introduce in government in relation to more flexible wages policies and other forms of encouragement to manufacturing industry, when the bounty will not be necessary in the longer term. However we will have to wait until after the next election before we have an opportunity to do that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Peter Rae) agreed to: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I refer honourable senators to the earlier comments I made in relation to the report on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts. The same comments apply to this interim report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Peter Rae) agreed to: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am one of two senators who are members of the Council of the Australian National University and I take this opportunity to refer to a number of the matters referred to in the Australian National University 1983 report and to commend it as interesting reading to honourable senators and others in the community who are interested in the very wide variety of work which is being undertaken particularly in what is one of the world's leading research institutions. The Australian National University is a university of which I believe we can be extremely proud. The research function, which is one of its major functions-far more so than is the case with most universities-is so broad that I think a lot of us tend not to hear very much about it and not to realise that we have in our midst one of the leading institutions in the world. It has everything from research into cancer to the finding of possible links between risk factors and heart disease, which is a completely new discovery made by a team at the John Curtin School of Medical Research. I will not go into the detail of what it has been able to do in relation to that link. However, it is of considerable importance. Work is being done in relation to the extremely exciting discoveries at Lake George, not very far from Canberra, which prove the history of the planet going back for millions of years in a very way which has not been able to be done anywhere else in the world. The finding that the small magellanic cloud is not one galaxy but two is another illustration of the startling variety of research work that is going on at the University. I do not want to itemise each and every one of the University's achievements. I merely commend to people a reading of this report so that they can understand a little more of the sort of work the University is performing, of which we can be proud- ranging from the development of Synroc, a major breakthrough in nuclear waste disposal techniques, through to discoveries to do with the stars, to do with medicine, to do with almost every aspect of life. A huge grant has just been received for further work in relation to influenza research, a field in which, again, people at the University are regarded as world leaders. A solar plant has been developed and the University, in conjunction with the New South Wales Electricity Authority, now has an experimental station in full operation, playing an important part in the development of solar energy. We should be proud of the variety and eminence of the work which is being done by a large number of the people at the Australian National University and the standing which that University is steadily achieving throughout the whole of the academic and scientific world. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.27) —I support the motion moved by Senator Peter Rae and do so from a slightly different viewpoint. The Australian National University is a very special university by virtue of its location, its special mission and the fact that it is the only university in Australia which reports directly to this Parliament, for reasons which are good and proper. We have in the annual report of this University our only chance to look at the functioning of a university over the past year. Therefore now is not an inappropriate stage to say something about the role of universities and the role of the ANU in relation to other Australian universities. It is not, of course, the only university in which we have an interest. Some of us have close links with the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and with the campuses of a number of universities in each State, as I know my colleague Senator Peter Rae does. We travel extensively visiting the universities around Australia and have discovered that we have a variety of universities. There is no other university exactly like the ANU, but each of them makes some contribution to Australian life. If the purpose of universities across the world is three-fold we can test our universities on the extent to which they satisfy those goals. The first goal is to collect the knowledge and wisdom of mankind, the second is to work to extend that knowledge and the third is to help to transmit the culture and knowledge from one generation to the next. The Australian National University is unusual in this country in that it was conceived and established as a research-based university, a postgraduate school, concerned particularly with the first two functions I mentioned and less with the function of transmitting culture. Of course it has changed in recent times. It now has a vigorous undergraduate school as well as its postgraduate activities. However, it is fair to say that when people look to the ANU or think about the ANU it is its postgraduate work and its postgraduate responses that people are most concerned about. I like to think of the ANU in terms of its achievements and the many things it has contributed to Australian life. I like to think of it as a jewel in a mosaic which is Australian university life. While I would want to see this University prosper and continue to receive the support it receives from Government, I would like to do that against the pattern of other universities which take a more prominent role in the teaching and transmission function as well as in their research and scholarly functions. I think the crisis, if there is one facing universities today, is the crisis of working to maintain excellence in all that they do. The pursuit of excellence in university life is something that most Australians want to see maintained. I agree with what Senator Peter Rae had to say when he was drawing attention to some of the areas of excellence within the university of which he is a member of council, but I would like to see across Australian academic life an emphasis on excellence that is unremitting and continuous. One of the other factors which we look to in universities today is the maintenance of integrity in all that they do. That applies particularly in terms of the teaching function. In turn that implies integrity in the way in which the universities deal with students. An incident was raised in an Estimates committee, which was confirmed by one of the tertiary institutions recently, where students had cause to complain on one campus last year-its name does not matter; I will not identify the campus-that factors other than academic merit were being taken into account in the assessments being made of students. That is just one aspect of integrity to which we would like to see universities, colleges and technical colleges address themselves as being of particular importance. I suppose that the third thing we want to see is the maintenance of the most vigorous approach to all that they do as a continuing feature of Australian universities. We can all be proud of our university sector and the Australian National University. I have much pleasure in complimenting the university on the report which has come down. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.33) -I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. 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. They are peculiar perhaps in the sense that it was a conflict in which there was not unanimous support at home for the people involved. It was a conflict which took place in unusual circumstances; 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 opportunity to talk to members of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service 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. I commend the report to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated by Sessional Orders for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Assent to the following Bills reported: National Crime Authority Bill 1984 National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 Copyright Amendment Bill 1984 Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 1984 Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Self-Determination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1984 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1984 Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984 Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Bill 1984 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1984 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1984 Public Service Reform Bill 1984 Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984 Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1984 Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill 1984 Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984 Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984 Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1984 States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1984 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1984 Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984 Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill 1984 Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 Insurance Contracts Bill 1984 Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the seventh report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Biological Control Bill 1984 and the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —I also lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 9 dated 22 August 1984. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of the Commonwealth Government Centre, Currie Street, Adelaide, South Australia. I seek leave to speak to the report. Leave granted. Senator FOREMAN —I would like to make a few brief points in regard to the report . Existing accommodation is widely scattered throughout the city of Adelaide, with something like 23 departments being located in 43 different locations. It is of variable standard and accommodation arrangements for senators and members in leased space create security problems. Current annual leasing costs to the Commonwealth in Adelaide are approximately $6.54m. Rental levels have been rapidly escalating in recent years owing to an under-supply of office accommodation and are expected to rise to at least $11m by 1987. As I have said, existing Commonwealth office accommodation in Adelaide is widely dispersed and unsatisfactory. The Committee agrees that maximising collocation of government activities in a Commonwealth centre will result in savings and efficiencies and be more convenient for the public. The proposal is for the construction of a 12-storey building plus a basement and a rooftop plant area. There will be parking for something like 102 cars, bicycle racks and bulk stationery and office equipment stores in the basement. There will also be provision for the disabled. In this respect, an additional toilet facility for the disabled will be provided on each floor of the building. Access to the stage will be provided and removal seating will be installed in the first three rows to permit access by wheelchairs. It was also expected that the design would have the ability to achieve 100 per cent fresh air cycle when the ambient conditions allow. In Adelaide this could be as much as 50 per cent of the time. The site selected is suitable and the design of the proposed building which should provide energy savings is commendable. Ordered that the report be printed. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that contingent on the adoption of the report from the Committee of the Whole on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984, I shall move: That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a call of the Senate being made forthwith in connection with the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I give notice that, contingent on the adoption of the report from the Committee of the Whole on the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984, I shall move: That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a call of the Senate being made forthwith in connection with the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984. Consideration resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Missen: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.42) —I wish to continue my remarks on the report that has been presented to the Senate. The report contains comments and recommendations by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs following a study of the first year report of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the operations of the Freedom of Information Act. I made comments then about the report. While we are rather pleased with the way in which the Act has been operating I point out that this report is only on the first seven months. Since that time the second year has passed and we expect a further report shortly. The information that I have received and which I have had the opportunity of discussing with audiences in London in recent months indicates that the operation in the second year indeed is an improved one, both in the amount of usage of the Act and also in the fewer rejections of applications that are made. At this stage, I hoped that some debate would arise from this report. In fact, we put down our report to try to encourage debate but, like the Attorney-General , we also appear to have failed to evoke any debate. I think it is a pity that honourable senators who took a very active role in freedom of information are not showing a little bit more interest in the reports as they are presented. If we are to see this Act used more effectively-I think it is getting used more effectively-it is important for members of parliament to point out the rights of citizens that are incorporated in this Act and which need to be used and I think will be used more in the future. Attention has been drawn to one matter in the report which I put down in June about which I am speaking now. I think that Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Committee, may have made a mention of this in the Senate, when I was not present . Paragraph 5.7 of the report refers to the conclusive certificates which are granted under the Act. In part, the paragraph states: 'Granted by the Attorney- General'. I do not think the Attorney-General was very pleased with that. In fact, that was a typographical error. It should read: 'Granted by Ministers'. The Attorney-General had not granted any conclusive certificates in that year. He has rather a long record of not being very friendly disposed to the idea of conclusive certificates. I apologise to him for the error in the report. I hope that it will be corrected in the copies and that justice will be done. In conclusion, I hoped other honourable senators would have commented on this matter, but that does not appear to be so. When the second year report is presented I hope we will be able to induce some debate on the part of honourable senators and that we will have more up to date information about the working of the Act. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.45) —Might I simply say very briefly in reply that I am indebted to Senator Missen and the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for the very thoughtful and comprehensive report they have produced at this stage. We look forward to a further substantial report when it comes to the full scale view of the Act which many of us are looking forward to. I thank him for the correction he has made in the original report to set the record straight and for his continuing support of effective freedom of information legislation in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTERCHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.47) —We are debating the referenda questions which will be put to the Australian people quite soon with the next election which I think will be probably on 1 December, only three months away. So this becomes a matter of some importance and concern to the Australian people. I must stress that this referendum for simultaneous elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives had been cunningly designed to deceive the Australian people. That is its purport. It would not surprise me in the least if the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not go to the Australian people with the claim that if they support this referendum for simultaneous elections there will be fewer elections. Of course everybody wants fewer elections, but the fact of the matter is that normally elections for both Houses of this Parliament are held together anyway, as indeed the election to be held in December will be. The truth is that if this referendum is carried and if the Australian people are deceived into carrying it, it is likely to result in more elections, not fewer elections and more cost, not less cost. That is because the new power will allow the Prime Minister to throw out the Senate with the House of Representatives at any time he wishes. If the Prime Minister thought he was plagued by what he saw as an obstructive Senate, we might see elections for both Houses every 18 months or so. That is not outside the bounds of possibility. The real answer is to provide for fixed terms of parliament, as many countries have. In those countries elections are held on the same day every three or four years. Everybody knows when to expect them, there is no difficulty or uncertainty in business and it is a rational and sensible way to do things. That system cannot be manipulated by an unscrupulous or an opportunistic Prime Minister. Ironically enough the Labor Party of Australia, while it was in Opposition, supported the proposition of fixed term parliaments but now it is in Government it has changed its spots on that matter, as with so many other matters. Now Mr Bob Hawke also wants the power to call an election as and when it suits him to do so. But he wants more. Mr Hawke does not only want the opportunity to call an election when he wants to-because of his own narcissistic views of things, as we know he has at times, or his own view of the Senate perhaps, which will cause the Australian people a great deal of expense-but he also wants that power so that he can involve the Senate, which is the watchdog of the Australian people, in this process and destroy it if he can. This would create a most unstable and damaging situation for the Australian people. The Senate's powers would be taken from it and it would become the same sort of toothless creature, the rubber stamp of the Executive, that it was while the Government controlled both Houses. Hence, I repeat that the real motivation of this referendum, which is alleged to be the innocent means of simultaneous elections, is to damage or destroy the Senate and its usefulness to the Australian people as a House of review. When one looks at the matter in this way, it clearly emerges that the referendum is part of a long-standing campaign against the Senate by the Labor Party. This has gone on for many years. The Labor Party feels that the Executive must be the be all and end all and that there is no reason or justification for any control over its activities in the Senate. The Labor Party sees such a thing as obstruction. The Senate, of course, and certainly the Australian Democrats, do not see the matter in that way. We see it as a role which is wanted by the Australian people and which they have indicated clearly they want. They do not want to see that role destroyed. I repeat that given a fixed term for parliament the Democrats would probably support this referendum, but as it now stands it is really just a mechanism for manipulating both Houses to let the Executive Government control the Senate, just as it does now the House of Representatives. Senator Martin —You are not surprised though, are you? Senator MASON —I am not surprised, because over the years it has been the trend followed by the Labor Party. Once having relegated the Senate to a rubber-stamp for the Executive, it then becomes easy for governments to use their numbers to gag and guillotine a dozen Bills through late at night without more than the merest sham of debate and consideration. It is called the politics of exhaustion . By use of these methods, one knows that the most outrageous things can happen without people even becoming aware of them. As many as six or seven Bills are forced through without debate in the early hours of the morning. It is not possible for the media to cover those Bills properly. This technique has been used-let me not be unduly unkind to the Labor Party-as a convenient technique by all major parties in government in the past. With those matters in mind, let us look at the Senate. Has the Senate, in the view of the Australian people, been exercising its powers improperly? Is it a House which deserves to be curbed in the way the Prime Minister proposes? I do not think that is the case and nor do the Australian people. At every election in which the Australian Democrats have held the balance of power in the Senate, there has been a significant difference in the votes. The Australian Democrat vote has always been much higher in the Senate than it has been in the House of Representatives, because the Australian people understand, and are understanding increasingly with every year that passes, the value and importance of the Senate as a House of review and its absolute value to them as a watchdog on the Executive. I think the point has to be got through to governments that the people will not again tolerate a situation where the mere use of numbers can gag and guillotine material through and where issues are not properly debated. By and large, matters are now debated freely in the Senate. It is the only House of this Parliament in which matters are fully debated. In the other House, the House of Representatives, debate continues only as far as the Government and the Executive are prepared to allow, and then it is cut off. Is that democratic? Of course it is not. It is dangerously approaching the dictatorial. It is allowing people who think they are always right to assert that view and press it on other people regardless of whether there might be another point of view. I have already said that Australians want fixed term parliaments. There is no doubt at all about that. The feedback from thoughtful people in the community via letters, and so on, shows that they do want fixed term parliaments. They want that degree of certainty. Why, then, will the Government not let them have the chance to make that choice if they wish? That is the key question. It 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 on which it agrees. That is not democratic either. It is an absolute farce of democracy. It is a reason why the Australian people do not vote for referenda. They are tired of the garbage that is constantly fed to the public solemnly in the guise of serious propositions by government. It is no good the Government coming back here and saying that the Australian people always throw out referenda. They are wise to throw out propositions which are of no serious consequence. It is part of the Democrat philosophy that we would never subscribe to the situation where we would prevent a matter being put to the Australian people to decide for themselves. As a result we shall vote for this Bill. We shall not vote against it, even though we do not approve of the proposition. We believe that the Australian people in their wisdom will make the decisions for themselves and I think they will see through the Government's deceptiveness in this matter. The second vital point is that the Australian people could have the opportunity of voting for the things they really want to vote on and of having referenda on matters of importance that really concern them. That procedure has been enjoyed for many years by people in other modern democracies. Even more significantly, the people should vote on issues which the people themselves put forward. The Australian Democrats have always pressed for a maximum of consultation of the people and special powers by which the people can limit the untramelled powers of politicians, especially the Executive government. One such thing is called citizen initiative. It is very simple. If a petition of sufficient numbers is received by either House of Parliament putting forward a proposal, that proposal must be put to an annual referendum and, if passed, becomes the law. That is a modern democratic method which has long been enjoyed by the people of Switzerland and many of the American States. It is a mechanism of a true democracy which Australia lacks. The Labor, Liberal and National Parties are so arrogant, so highhanded, so dictatorial, so deeply suspicious of the Australian people that they will not even allow the people to decide for themselves, by referendum, whether they want this new power. It is not a question of saying whether one approves or not, but a question of saying that the Australian people are not to be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want such a thing to happen. When my private member's Bill which would have offered the people that choice came recently to a vote in this place only the five Democrat senators voted for it. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), and his Liberal shadow, Senator Durack, who are truly birds of a feather, trundled out the same tired arguments used against universal suffrage, against women's suffrage. That argument is basically that the people cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves. So this December the Australian people will again be treated with contempt by being offered a referendum as phoney, deceptive and lacking in real substance as is this one, when they could easily have been offered something of more substance. Indeed, they could have been offered something which would have given them the opportunity to decide where they wished, and at times when they wished, large matters of serious consequence in the community, matters politicians find hard to deal with and duck out of. I refer to abortion and to marijhuana control, which we all know no government feels it can tackle for itself. These are matters which the community itself should decide, and which the community itself should have the right to put forward. Although my private member's Bill was defeated, I was able the next morning to get it back on the Notice Paper. It will stay there as long as there are Australian Democrats in this place. Every week that passes I receive letters from people or I am contacted by representatives of radio programs interested in this subject. The word is getting about. I suggest it will not be long before the Australian people will insist on a modern democracy and not a strange nineteenth century representative democracy which the Attorney-General and Senator Durack seem to believe is best for this country. I think most Australians believe that, by and large, the Australian Democrats try to act honestly and sincerely in the interests of the Australian people. We are a citizens' party. We are not beholden to big business, the unions, or any outside pressure groups. I say that as a preface to a personal plea to anybody who may be listening to my remarks, to the voters of this country. I ask them in the national interest to think most carefully about simultaneous elections. I also ask them not to believe every simplistic thing they will be told about the issue in the next three months. If they are in any doubt about the matter, in the interests of the nation and in their own interests I ask the electors to vote against it. Certainly I will be doing that. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.00) —I rise to speak to the two referenda proposals in the Constitutional Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984. Last night and today there has been considerable debate on this legislation. It is interesting to note the amount of interest in and support that the Government is giving to these proposals. It is clear from the list of honourable senators who are to speak in the debate, that no Labor Party senators will speak, apart from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who will valiantly reply at the end of the debate. Unless, of course, in the meantime, as a result of my words, a Labor senator is dragooned into speaking, no Labor senator will support him. One feels almost sad about the Attorney-General. On looking across the chamber during Senator Mason's interesting speech, one would have thought that there would be some interest by the Labor Party in this subject. The Attorney-General now has an adviser with him, but he did not even have that person before. Apart from the Attorney-General, there is not one Labor senator sitting in the chamber and taking any interest in the debate, and the position was almost the same last night. Practically no interest was shown by Labor senators. That action is indicative of the fact that this is just one of the procedures through which they are going. This is the last stage of a betrayal of constitutional change and decline of interest in the subject. I am afraid that the present Government must take responsibility for that decline. No senator on this side of the chamber, and even some senators such as myself who have encouraged and supported the Government's earlier initiatives in this regard and who have thought that those initiatives should have multi-party support-and they had that support-could now do other than feel that there is no reason why we should bother to follow the Government down this burrow. As I shall show, the Government has had three choices for proper constitutional change, and this is the third and worst and weakest. What the Government has done with regard to constitutional change is shameful. The result has been a complete loss of interest by the community in constitutional change. Some years ago, Senator Gareth Evans, Senator Chipp and I were appointed patrons of an organisation called the Committee for Constitutional Change. The idea was to promote-- Senator Gareth Evans —It was the Campaign for Constitutional Change. Senator MISSEN —That is right. Senator Gareth Evans —We were joint patrons. Do not let us forget that. Senator MISSEN —One can be correct about the title, but the Attorney-General and Labor Party members have probably lost all interest in the organisation's operations, and that is the problem. The problem is that, because of the twists and turns which the Hawke Government has performed with constitutional change and because of its betrayal of election undertakings, the Campaign for Constitutional Change has lost its membership. Interest in it has been lost, and its promoters have had to put the organisation into what could be called receivership. It is in receivership now. We are patrons of nothing. Unfortunately, the blame must lie largely with the Attorney-General and, more particularly, with his Party because of what they have done to constitutional change in the last year and a half. I remind the Attorney-General, as have other senators, that the Government's first choice was a fixed term parliament proposition. Frankly, I think that is the only real solution to the problems of quick elections and the opportunity that Prime Ministers have to decide the date of elections. I am sorry that some of my colleagues were not so supportive of that idea when it was proposed last year. A number of Opposition senators were keen to see a fixed term proposition adopted so that Prime Ministers would not have the right to go before the people ahead of time and continue the cycle of elections every two years or so, with all the consequent effect of interrupting business and causing a lack of confidence in business and in the community. That interruption means that Parliament fails to get on with its work and to achieve properly. The decline in the Parliaments committee operations has been noticeable in the past year or two . Parliaments do not last long enough for people to become properly involved. The idea of fixed terms for parliament, which has long since been abandoned by the Labor Party, appealed to the Attorney-General when he was in Opposition. He introduced Bills to bring in such a change. Senator Gareth Evans's second reading speech in 1981 on his Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill concluded: . . . I remain reasonably confident that when its implications are fully absorbed and understood-and even more importantly when the alternatives are considered-a new fixed term parliament system will be seen by most Members and Senators as the only presently realistic solution to the institutional problems inherent in our present Constitution. Senator Martin —Who said that? Senator MISSEN —That was said by Senator Gareth Evans, then the shadow Attorney- General, but when he emerged from the shadows and became the Attorney-General that belief fell away. Senator Gareth Evans —I still believe that. You can put that in Hansard if you like. Senator MISSEN —I have here the Attorney's second reading speech. It is not the Hansard copy, but I do not think that it is wrong. My copy was presented to me by the Senate Records people, and I believe that they do so competently. I draw attention to the fact that the present Attorney-General said: 'When the alternatives are considered'. The alternatives are, of course, the things with which we are left today. The honourable senator said that the only presently realistic solution was fixed terms. He was right, of course. Unfortunately, he has been rolled many times by his Cabinet and hard-nut friends in the New South Wales Right. I feel very sorry for him in the situation in which he finds himself. But if he wants to stay in office, I am afraid that he must put up with the humiliations involved. Senator Gareth Evans agreed to certain proposed amendments to his legislation. The Senate will recall that Senator David Hamer, I and others comprised the original propounders of the fixed term scheme. We insisted on alterations to the Bill because it was not good enough. Senator Gareth Evans agreed to amendments. As he said: I hope that the proposed amendments will now ensure that the Bill receives clear majority support in the Senate. Even more importantly, I hope that they will persuade the Government of the Labor Party's genuine desire to find a compromise, consensus solution to what is obviously a crucially important constitutional problem, and will encourage the Government-- that is, the Fraser Government-- to reconsider its general attitude to the proposed constitutional amendment accordingly. I do not know the feelings of honourable senators, but I do not think that today there is much belief in the genuine desire of the Labor Party in these matters. I should give other quotations, but I do not want to be tedious about that. The fact is that during the election campaign the Labor Party pledged that there would be no talk about simultaneous elections and the matters that we had debated in previous years-no, the talk was about fixed terms. When the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, went for a hurried election and used the powers available to him under the Constitution, the Labor Party screamed blue murder and said that that was a terrible thing for him to do. Labor Party members were, of course, glad when his plan failed, but they regarded it as monstrous that Malcolm Fraser should go to an election long before time. The Labor Party undertook-and it did so soon after gaining office-to bring in a fixed term proposal. That was its solution to our constitutional problems and the problems of quick parliaments and elections to suit the convenience of Prime Ministers. The Labor Government brought in a Bill, and it was not long before some members of the Labor Party decided: 'Perhaps, this is not a good idea. Perhaps, we want to reserve to the Prime Minister the right to pick a nice time after a soft cushy Budget, which will confuse the people and make them think that they are getting a tax reduction when in fact they are losing much more money than they are getting back from the Budget. While they are in that state of delusion, we can have an early election'. So, the Labor Party pulled out the provision for fixed term parliaments. That proposal had considerable support from those on this side of the chamber and, according to gallup polls, had very strong support throughout the country. However, it was not satisfactory to those members of the right wing of the Labor Party, the people under whose control Senator Gareth Evans is and on whom he must depend if he is to go off to the House of Representatives, which he now threatens to do. That might be a difficult jump, and he obviously must have the support of the people who are pragmatists in the Parliament, not men of principle who said: 'No fixed term; out it goes'. So the first choice was gone. Later, a second choice was put forward. This time , five different referenda proposals were advanced. They were not as good because they had some difficulties about them. Senator Mason pointed out some of the problems that can occur with simultaneous elections. There is a possibility that the Senate might lose some of its control. I do not actually have the same fears as Senator Mason. I think it unlikely that governments will clean out the Senate in that way and, by calling very early elections, take the risk that overtook Malcolm Fraser-the risk of losing government altogether. One of those proposals was for simultaneous elections along the lines of what is now proposed and another was for four-year parliaments. Together those two proposals appeared to have some importance. It appeared that we would have longer parliaments and perhaps reasonable terms. We might not have had terms of more than three years, because governments could still go to the people early, but the probability was that we would have had something more like a decent term of parliament. There were three other important proposals, including one concerning advisory opinions. All those proposals had the official support of the Liberal and National Parties. There were people in some of the peripheral States who dissented, I readily agree, but those recommendations had the support of the party organisations and of the parliamentary parties. Some of us thought that they were not the best choice, that they were the No. 2 choice. Nonetheless , they certainly would have meant a considerable improvement on the current situation. Of course, a little later they also were withdrawn. There was trouble over the financing. The Government wanted to finance those referenda with public funds and, because of a problem in the Senate, it took the opportunity of removing them altogether. Yet now the Government has come forward with a third proposition. It proposes that there will not be a separate vote by the people dealing with a referendum by itself. That would have happened in February of this year had the Government gone ahead with its earlier proposals. Those proposals, I am afraid, would ultimately have lost for Mr Bob Hawke the opportunity of having the early election which he wants in about December; consequently, they went by the board. It was decided to stand them over and to have them jumbled up in an election campaign where they might not be seen or debated properly and where, the Government will find, opposition will be more intense, which is one of the substantial reasons that my colleagues have decided to oppose them. Of course, in an election campaign attitudes to referendum proposals are not dispassionate. They become linked with the party political struggle. It is a very unsatisfactory time to deal with those matters. The Government has decided to rush these proposals forward now into this election for the purpose, I suppose, of getting them through without too much discussion. One very interesting thing is that the referenda proposals now before us are not the five that were thought last year to be excellent. The Government has picked and chosen among them. It has decided: 'Yes, we will have simultaneous elections. No, we will not have four-year parliaments'-that has gone. It has decided: 'Yes, we will have the proposal for the interchange of powers'. I will say something more about that later. That in my opinion has always been quite a good proposal. The Government has decided: 'No, we will not have advisory opinions or the last proposal, to remove some outmoded and surplus provisions from the Constitution'. Who chooses? The Government chooses. The people did not choose. No, the Government decided that these are the two proposals it will put to a referendum. One interesting thing about this is that, while the Labor Party got into office by pledging among other things to have fixed terms, lo and behold what has now been translated into its constitutional and legal policy? I will read points 2 and 3 on constitutional reform. The support of the Australian people will be sought for amendments to the Australian Constitution-- . . . 2 To provide for four-year terms for the House of Representatives. That has pride of place. To continue: 3 To provide for the simultaneous elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives. We are going to No. 3; we are not going to put up No. 2 and we do not even choose the order-- Senator Harradine —Not yet. Senator MISSEN —Not yet. The Government might do so later, but it makes this choice. The public finds that it elected a government on a certain platform of policies and that now there is a new one. I must say that it is understandable that there is a lot of cynicism about this. It is not surprising that most of my colleagues now think that they cannot support such proposals in view of the way it is proposed that they be handled and in view of the way in which the interests of the Government party only are to be served. This string of changes reminds me very much of the happenings in George Orwell's Animal Farm. I had the privilege while in London of seeing the magnificent production of the play based on that book. This situation reminds of the way in which the animals who quite innocently took over control of the farm from the farmers found that commandments were laid down, like Labor Party commandments. The first was: ' Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy'. The second was 'Whatever goes upon four legs or has wings is a friend'. Only a few months later they found that the sheep who were actually bleating away-- Senator Harradine —The poor old chooks. Senator MISSEN —The chooks did not do very well either, but the sheep, who of course were loyal supporters of the Government of the farm, were bleating: 'Four legs good, two legs bad'. But quite soon after this another doctrine is sown and we find the sheep saying: 'Four legs good, two legs better'. So in this and other areas one finds that one can reverse oneself. Senator Mason —Some animals were more equal than others. Senator MISSEN —I thank the honourable senator for reminding me of that. They finally wiped out all the rules of the farm and had just one saying: 'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others'. Of course, in this Parliament some members of parliament are more equal than others. All that consensus rubbish which we were told was going to happen but which does not happen as far as members opposite are concerned and all those lovely promises Bob Hawke made on the night he was made king have been forgotten. I hope that the people will remember them. He was going to bring all members of parliament into these things. Of course, we have to wait to hear what comes from the rich man's table, from the rich government's table, and what we are then expected to follow. The fact is that the Labor Party has dis- honoured its electoral promises and its undertakings on constitutional reform, which I regard as disgraceful. It has done so for purely pragmatic reasons and the Attorney-General has had to follow his right wing masters in going through these humiliating changes all the time. Of course, I campaigned in 1977 in favour of the then Government's proposal for simultaneous elections and for three other referendums. I remind the senate that that was a high point in successful constitutional change. Three of the proposals were adopted. The fourth, for simultaneous elections, received 62 per cent of the vote throughout Australia, but three of the peripheral States did not give it a majority: It received 48.5 per cent of the vote in one, 47 per cent in another and was badly defeated in Tasmania, of course. Senator Harradine —Less populous, not peripheral. Senator MISSEN —Peripheral geographically and also, for the honourable senator's benefit, I would say 'less populous' not 'less popular'. It is a pity that we did not take that chance to get on with the spirit of co-operation in constitutional matters. Of course, I accompanied the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser up and down the country through most of that campaign and I expressed the view then that the simultaneous election proposal, although not as good as we might have, was quite a sound proposal. Of course, four-year terms do not afford the Parliament the same protection. Nonetheless, I think on balance they would be better than the present position. But that proposal was the third choice, and the worst of the three choices is now to be put before the people. I could not feel very keen to campaign for something that is so much of a political choice. The other proposal, that for interchange of powers, has always been supported I think by people on this side of the chamber. Because it is now proposed to force it through as an election matter, they have changed their minds. I must say that this idea to give the States and the Commonwealth power to make flexible arrangements to interchange powers with each other, and to do so temporarily, takes away the fears of the States that, once they give away powers, they could not do so temporarily or get them back. That proposal, which was formulated by the Constitution Convention and supported by all parties at that time, still has great merit. If these Bills get through this chamber-it is up to the Government to see whether it can manage that-and the proposals are put to the people at the election, we shall have to make our choices on the matters. I will probably vote for them, certainly with some reluctance on one. The interchange of powers proposal is a highly desirable one because the family law of this country has been prejudiced and held back for years because of the States' fears about transferring rights over ex-nuptial children and over property. So there is a fragmented jurisdiction. There are, therefore, quite important reasons why this Bill should be carried. There are important reasons why the Government should not be prejudicing it by bringing it forward during an election campaign when all the other things which are raised will mean that it will receive a lack of attention. One could not think of campaigning for these proposals in this way. The Government has done a very grave disservice to the Australian people and to the cause of constitutional reform by the way in which it has handled these matters since it has been in office. It has betrayed its undertakings to the electorate, which it made before it was elected. It deserves the utmost condemnation of the people for the way in which these matters have been handled. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.21) —I find myself, once again, opposing a move by the Government to undermine the stability and power of the Senate with this so- called simultaneous elections referendum. Tonight I shall speak primarily on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984, to which I am vehemently opposed. The people of Australia have already spoken twice on it, in 1974 and 1977. As we go through, I think that we shall find that the people will be very much opposed to the Prime Minister having complete control over the Senate, which is what is behind this Bill. The title of the Bill is very deceiving. The simultaneous dissolution of both Houses can be undertaken by any Prime Minister at any time that he wishes, so long as he does it within the period during which the Senate should go to the people. The Australian Labor Party's policy in 1977, when we previously had this referendum, was clear. Indeed, Senator McLaren told us at that time that it was the first step in abolishing the Senate's power and that the sooner that was done, the better. Senator Button assured us that the Labor Party would take every opportunity to delimit-that was the word he used-the Senate's powers. The aim was quite clear. Let us not forget that at that stage it was the Labor Party 's policy to abolish the Senate. It was written into its Party policy. The present Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, saw the problems associated with that. He understood, at least, that the people were not behind that particular policy, and he moved within his Party to have that policy removed from the Labor Party's written policy. But it is certainly very clearly still the Labor Party's intention. Let us look at what the Attorney-General now says are the reasons for holding this referendum. He said in his speech: The average term of Parliaments post-war has been 2 years 5 months. He was saying that Parliaments do not go their full time and that there have been too many elections. Yet we find that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he had been in power for just over 10 months, said that we would be going to an early election. When that is held, it will certainly bring that average down. He is not concerned about that. Senator Evans said: There has been increasing community dissatisfaction about the lack of sufficient continuity and stability in government, with a resultant atmosphere of uncertainty and controversy and strong pressure on governments to adopt short term expedient policies to ensure electoral success. We have certainly seen that with the Budget that was delivered last night. I agree with Senator Evans that that was short term expediency to ensure electoral success. The Prime Minister will not, as Senator Evans indicated when he was speaking on that previous occasion, go his full term. He will take advantage of what is his prerogative and will call an early election to fit in with the times that the Senate can go. Of course, this is the exact point of why the referendum is not needed. In calling this early election, the Prime Minister will bring both Houses into unison. Both Houses will be going to the people together. From then on, every three years, any Government can call an election, and as long as it keeps the election in time with when the Senate can go, it will be able to undertake simultaneous elections. What else did the Attorney-General say? He said that it would avoid separate elections. I quote him: The simultaneous holding of elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate will avoid the need for separate elections. We have already seen that the Prime Minister has, at the moment, avoided the need for separate elections. Senator Evans says that they are again out of phase now following the double dissolution. As I say, the Prime Minister is overcoming that problem so there is no need for a referendum. The Prime Minister has already stated that he will overcome that problem. So why he needs a referendum I have no idea. What surprised me most about the Attorney-General's second reading speech was that he quoted his own idea or, I gather, the idea of his Party that the move to simultaneous elections will ensure that the Senate's composition at any given time will more accurately reflect the current wishes of the people. We have only to look at what the Founding Fathers decreed and the reasons why they decided to have half Senate elections every three years and an election for the other half every six years. It was because, they decided, the Senate needed stability, and the Government should not do what Senator Evans says it should do. Large swings should not be shown in the Senate. The swings can occur in the House of Representatives, but because only half of the Senate goes to the people every three years, this would give continuity, and the Senate would not have to reflect the extremes of swings; the large swings would not be shown in the Senate. This is vital to the stability of government in Australia, and it is one of the reasons why this country has such a stable government. Senator Crichton-Browne —Had. Senator WALTERS —It still has a stable government, because the Government today does not control the Senate. While there was a swing against the present Opposition in the House of Representatives, the numbers in the Senate do not reflect that swing, and the stability of the government in this country is ensured. It also covers the situation of a rogue government. I am not suggesting that Senator Evans belongs to a rogue government, but I suggest that we consider what happened to the Whitlam Government. There was a very short lived euphoria on the part of the people about the Whitlam Government. The Senate's stability stopped the large swing that Mr Whitlam then had in the House of Representatives from occurring in the Senate, and the Senate was able to undertake its essential role of guardian of the people, and we came to the situation where the Whitlam Government was thrown out by the people at the instigation of the Senate, by the Senate being able to give them that choice. We turn now to the history of this Government. We find that the States are becoming more and more disenchanted with what this Federal government is doing. I know that the people in my State of Tasmania are already fed up to the back teeth with the grab for power that Mr Hawke has undertaken since he has been in government. We have had the Federal Government use its external affairs powers in my State to such a detrimental effect that the State Labor Government lost power overwhelmingly. We have a situation in which the Attorney-General, to get his way, sent spy flights over our State using powers that had never been used by any government previously. We have the situation in which the Premier of Western Australia, which has a Labor Government at the moment, said that he would lead a revolt of Premiers if the Federal Government interfered any further and used its Aboriginal affairs powers to stop the building of Western Australia 's Harding River Dam. The States are beginning to realise just what this Government is all about and they are not likely to fall for any further loss of powers or for any smart or swift talk by the Attorney-General. Let us look at how far the Attorney-General was prepared to go to get this sort of referendum through. We have heard a lot of talk by the Attorney-General and, indeed, by the Government today about freedom of information, democracies and the rights of people. Yet we find that the Attorney-General brought in two swift , sleight-of-hand moves when he tried to introduce the referendum last year. What he did was to hide away in the slush fund of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) additional money appropriated for the funding of the Yes case only. It was not until the Additional Estimates were passed that the Attorney-General then came clean and said that he had appropriated the additional money for the advertising of the Yes case only. In answer to my question as to why he had not at the time of the Estimates divulged where the money was, he said: 'You didn't ask me. I would have told you if you had'. That came from this great libertarian , this great freedom of information fellow, the fellow who wears his human rights on his sleeve. Would we trust that man? Never would I trust that man with anything at all. Senator Gareth Evans —I couldn't hope to probe the dark labyrinth of your mind. Senator WALTERS —It certainly was a dark labyrinth that Senator Evans entered in his efforts to get the referendum through. Senator Crichton-Browne —He is a devious devil. Senator WALTERS —He did not only do that. As Senator Crichton-Browne says, he is very devious. What he also did was to change the voting paper. Senator Evans decided to change the voting paper for the first time since Federation. No previous government going to the people with a referendum had tried that lurk before. Indeed, he did not even table the regulations until he was forced to do so by questions from the Opposition. That is the truth. He decided to hang on to them and not table them until he was forced to by questions. He told us it was all a big mistake. But, of course, he did not even claim that the hiding of the money that he had appropriated in the Minister's slush fund was a big mistake. He admitted he had hidden it and that I would have had to ask the questions before he would have divulged it. Let us look at what section 14A (1) of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act states. Senator Gareth Evans —Spare us. Senator WALTERS —I do not think Senator Evans has been interested enough in the Act to attempt to abide by it. He now says: 'Spare us'. I believe that it would do him good to listen to just what the Act says. It says: The ballot-papers to be used for the purposes of a referendum may be in accordance with Form C in the Schedule. Form C in the Schedule to the Act sets out very clearly what multiple question ballot papers should be like. It is all very clear. Under the directions on how to vote, the ballot paper states: DIRECTIONS: Mark your vote on this ballot-paper as follows: If you APPROVE the proposed law, write the word Yes in the space provided opposite the question. If you DO NOT APPROVE the proposed law, write the word No in the space provided opposite the question. Senator Evans changed all that. Let us bear in mind that we did not even know he had done so because it was not tabled in this place. He changed all that. He said: 'You just have to indicate yes or no. Use a tick or a cross; just indicate yes or no'. Apart from that, there were other changes. He proposed an alteration to the original ballot paper. Do not let us forget that every government since Federation which has gone to the people with a referendum has used the ballot paper as described in the Act. He altered that ballot paper. Let me tell the Senate what the original ballot paper said, because I think it is important to find out just how the Attorney altered it. The original ballot paper asks: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled . . . Then it states the title of the proposed law. The voter is meant to answer Yes or No. The title of the law was not given any interpretation. It was not given a Yes interpretation or a No interpretation. It was purely the name of the proposed law. Senator Evans changed that. He changed it to make a description of that proposed law. Whose interpretation was it? It was certainly not that of those supporting the No case. He changed it so that the name of the law had a description that was put by him, by the Yes case, so that the people as they voted were under pressure to change their minds and to vote according to the way the Attorney described and interpreted that particular piece of law that he wanted to get through. During the debate on whether the additional funding for the Yes case alone should be passed, Senator Evans's excuse for using the money was that those honourable senators who supported the No case were an eccentric minority. I remind him that that eccentric minority of senators on two previous occasions were so eccentric that they were able to convince the majority of the States-or three of the States, an equal number of States-that they should not pass that Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —Not a majority of people. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans keeps telling us that it is not the majority of people. He underlines that because he comes from one of the more populous States . He does not like this small State nonsense, of those States having any say at all. He thinks that it should only be the majority of the people. Of course, if that occurred, Madam Acting Deputy President, you would be most upset. Western Australia, the State from which you come would also be most upset. The less populous States, indeed, would demand their rights because the only reason they joined the Federation was that they would have equal rights with the more populous States at a referendum and that in this place they would have equal rights with those States as all the States would have an equal number of senators. Senator Evans is rather keen on democracy when it suits him. He is not so keen on democracy when it is liable to go against him. He is keen on democracy for the more populous States, but not so keen on democracy for the less populous States. As I said, his form of democracy is one he can hide and not have to divulge unless he is asked; that is the sort of democracy he will go for. Other senators are to speak in this debate. We have indeed debated this referendum proposal on many occasions. Since I have been in this Parliament it has been debated umpteen times. Despite the devious methods used by the Attorney -General this Senate will survive. The Opposition will go to the people and once again the people will knock back this referendum proposal because they understand that the Senate is the guardian they want it to be and that no Prime Minister must control it. The independence of this chamber is absolutely vital. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.42) —I consider that one of the most important principles of democracy is the principle of subsidiarity. That principle underlines and underpins-or should underpin-a true democracy. The principle could be stated thus: Power should reside with the smallest group capable of efficiently performing the functions for which the power is required so that those over whom the power is exercised have closer, more direct control over those who exercise the power. That is called neo-democracy. The amendments to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and cognate Bill posed by the Government are an attack on neo-democracy. They are an attack on the principle of subsidiarity so important to the exercise of neo-democracy. I have been a consistent opponent therefore of what is deceptively called the simultaneous elections proposal. Of course, this proposal was put before the people in 1974 and again in 1977. I voted against it in this chamber in 1974 and I campaigned vigorously against the proposal in 1977. As has been stated, the people rejected this proposal. Under the provisions of the Constitution it was defeated. I cannot see why the Government is now pressing forward on this proposal at this time unless it is for some political purpose. We are discussing this matter in quite a different atmosphere from that atmosphere in which it was discussed late last year. It is now a different ball game. Today the Opposition officially announced, through its Shadow Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, that it will oppose the referendum on the simultaneous elections and the interchange of powers to be put to the electors at the next Federal election. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you think anyone will notice, Senator? Senator HARRADINE —Well, it should be noticed in the Senate. It should be noted therefore that if the Opposition is opposing these measures they will be passed only by the votes of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrat senators. Therefore, it will be up to the Democrats as to whether these measures are passed-depending, of course, on whether the Democrats split on this issue. If all the Democrats vote with the Government it will be passed. However, today we heard the Deputy Leader of the Democrats, Senator Mason, say that the Democrats are opposed to the simultaneous election provision. As I understood it , in the next breath he said they were going to support the Bill. Why? According to him this is so we can get the people's determination. According to the Democrats anything and everything should go to the electors for their determination. Senator Gareth Evans —Let 100 flowers bloom. Senator HARRADINE —Some flowers indeed would fade. I believe that democracy would fade as well if that were carried through. Citizens initiatives indeed! That attitude of the Democrats I wish to raise right here and now because I believe that would also be an attack upon genuine representative democracy. After all it can be argued that one of the first responsibilities of the majority in a democracy is the preservation of the rights of the minority. Of course, if we adopted the attitude of the Democrats of sending everything to the people for their determination we would end up with the rights of the minority being subjugated. I will give an example. Much has been said about the immigration debate. Therefore, according to the Democrats, it would be perfectly okay for a citizens initiative to be developed for a referendum stating that there be no more Asian immigrants into Australia. According to the Democrats-whether they agreed with the issue or not-that would be quite an appropriate measure to go to the Australian people. Once the people have determined that issue by referendum it would become law. Of course, a climate of racism could be developed and a referendum could result in a decision in the affirmative. Therefore, the rights of the minority, including those whose families are separated and whom they are seeking to bring to Australia, would be denied. We just cannot have that. Why do people elect us to the Parliament? They expect us to act in a genuinely representative character, to assess the various arguments and, if necessary, to consider in committee the points that are raised for and against a particular proposal, preferably in a calm and intelligent manner. I ask: What is one of the major functions of the Senate? One of its major functions is to be a House of review where debate should take place in a calmer, more intelligent atmosphere than the debate that takes place in the House of Representatives which, in most cases, is affected by political point scoring. Senator Gareth Evans —Unlike anything that happens here. Senator HARRADINE —Of course it occurs here from time to time but I believe that it would be well recognised throughout the Senate that the debates in this chamber are normally characterised by a calmness that is not evident in the House of Representatives. Another major reason for this chamber is that it is supposed to be the chamber which upholds the rights of the States. I believe that on both of those counts the proposal that is now before us fails because the rights of the minority are likely to be seriously prejudiced by the simultaneous elections proposal and, I believe, also by the interchange of powers proposal, although probably less so. The reason I say that the simultaneous elections proposal is an attack on the smaller States is that it is an attack on the Senate and undermines its constitutional independence. In fact, it would make it easier for any Federal government to reduce the Senate to just a rubber stamp because of the threat that the Prime Minister of the day, whether it be this Prime Minister or any subsequent Prime Minister, could hold over the Senate to take it to an early election whenever he chose. One might say: 'Within certain boundaries he can do it now'. That is quite true. For example, he could take half the Senate to an election in December of this year. But the salient fact is that the terms of honourable senators do not expire until 30 June next year. Under the Constitution the Senate now has a fixed term. What this referendum will do, amongst a number of things, will be to strike out of the Constitution the concept of fixed term parliaments, despite the fact that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) is on record as supporting the concept of fixed term parliaments. I know that you, Mr Deputy President, are in that situation as well. This proposal will strike out the only reference to a fixed term in the Constitution and make the term of the Senate coincide with the term of the House of Representatives which, of course, as we all know does not have a fixed term and depends very largely on the whims of the Prime Minister. Mr Deputy President, I do not wish to go over the arguments that have been clearly advanced in respect of the interchange of powers proposal. I say only that a great deal of work was done by a committee on which I served and which was chaired by Senator Jessop in preparing information for the electors on the No case. I believe that that committee acted very quickly and very ably during the discussions held late last year. I hope that we will be able to resume the work of that committee and advise the electors of the reasons why these proposals ought to be rejected by the people as being an attack on our democracy and an undermining of the constitutional independence of the Senate and of the States. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(6.55) —We are debating the Consititution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984, and not for the first time. The Constitution alteration proposal intended to provide for simultaneous elections of both Houses of Parliament is nothing more than an absolute sham. It is a cynical exercise in political expediency. It is a confidence trick of the worst kind, cast by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Hawke, thanks to a temporary aberration in the minds of the voters. It is seeking to make virtue out of a constitutional reform for the purpose-- Senator Gareth Evans —Why did your Party support it in '74, '77 and '83? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I never have, and so far I have not lost. I am on the side of the angels and if Senator Evans were so satisfied that the majority of the people of Australia supported his proposition, he would not have needed to put away in a slush fund, as it was described by Senator Walters, an amount of $ 2 1/2m to seek to brainwash the people by deception and confusion. Senator Gareth Evans —You can't wash many brains with $2 1/2m. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Gareth Evans was doing his very best. The truth of the matter is that the Attorney-General has suspended his integrity. He has suspended his real and serious pursuit of constitutional reform for the purpose of, as I say, political expediency. He is seeking now not to achieve what he pretends to be achieving but to achieve absolutely the opposite, that is, to ensure that there are more elections and not fewer elections. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being almost 7 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.59 p.m. The following papers were presented: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Appointments-Department of Health-T. Corbett, A. Taylor. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1984- No. 21-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chairman, Foreign Investment Review Board and others, dated 29 June 1984. No. 22-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chairman, Foreign Investment Review Board and others, dated 29 June 1984. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment Nos 46, 47. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 38. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 720) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) What is the total number of overseas students currently being educated in secondary schools and in the tertiary sector. (2) How many of that total number are in the tertiary sector. (3) What is the total, state by state, of overseas students, and how many tertiary students from overseas are currently studying in each state. (4) What tertiary institutions throughout Australia currently have overseas students enrolled, and how many students are at each institution. (5) What are the five main areas of study in which overseas tertiary students are engaged while in Australia. (6) What is the average length of stay for overseas students studying in Australia. (7) How many of those students are considered to come from families, who in their home country are considered to be below the poverty line. (8) How many overseas students who gained their qualifications in Australia actually applied to remain in Australia once their studies were completed in the years 1972-82. (9) How many of those who applied were successful in their attempts to remain in Australia. (10) What institutions in Australia in the tertiary sector: (a) have a quota on the total number of overseas students accepted by them, and what are those quotas; and (b) have a quota on the number of overseas students accepted into each individual faculty, and what are those quotas. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Statistical information about overseas students in Australia is collected by various agencies, each with a different interest and a different definition. The Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy noted in its report the difficulty it had in obtaining reliable and/or compatible statistical information. On the basis of the available statistics, the answer to the honourable senator' s question is as follows: 1. 17,164 2. 11,767 3. State- Tertiary and Post- Secondary Total Overseas Overseas Students Students New South Wales 4,319 6,058 Victoria 4,172 5,923 Queensland 795 1,497 South Australia 707 1,051 Western Australia 962 1,445 Tasmania 267 489 Northern Territory 1 5 Australian Capital Territory 544 696 Total 11,767 17,164 Notes: (i) the information provided in answer to questions 1, 2 and 3 is obtained from statistics collected separately in the administration of the private and sponsored overseas student programs. It includes all students admitted under either of those programs to formal study in secondary schools, TAFE colleges, CAEs and universities. (ii) data about private overseas students (16,053 of the 17,164 total) is not collected by institution. The answer to the following question (question 4) is therefore obtained from returns to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission by individual universities and CAEs as part of its general statistical collection. Definitions of ''overseas student'' used by universities and CAEs include students who are outside either the sponsored or the private overseas student program (for example, New Zealanders). This accounts for the additional 3,907 students identified in the following table. 4.- (a) Overseas Students in Australian Universities Adelaide 525 Australian National University 597 Deakin 281 Flinders 134 Griffith 65 James Cook 92 La Trobe 543 Macquarie 459 Melbourne 913 Monash 1,739 Murdoch 32 Newcastle 368 New England 329 New South Wales 2, 483 Queensland 630 Sydney 633 Tasmania 283 Western Australia 557 Wollongong 134 Total 10,797 (b) Overseas students in Australian colleges of advanced education Cumberland 16 Hawkesbury Ag College 14 Kuringai 16 Mitchell 36 Nepean 12 NSWIT 106 Riverina 59 Sydney CAE 12 Sydney College of Arts 11 Avondale 47 Moore Theological 12 Ballarat 42 Bendigo 84 Chisholm 123 Footscray 127 Lincoln 22 Phillip 61 RMIT 654 Melbourne CAE 17 Swinburne 96 Victoria College 39 Victoria College of Pharmacy 59 Victoria College of Arts 28 Warnambool 168 Brisbane 14 Capricornia 19 Darling Downs 30 Qld Ag College 18 QIT 48 Roseworthy Ag College 16 SA CAE 166 SAIT 49 WA CAE 76 WAIT 386 Canberra CAE 113 Other* 81 Total 2,877 * Institutions with less than 10 overseas students Notes: (i) there were approximately 400 students in TAFE colleges-a breakup by individual institution is not available. (ii) the answers to questions 1-4 are based on 1983 figures-the latest available. 5.- (a) Economics/Commerce/Business (b) Engineering/Technology (c) Science (d) Humanities/Liberal Studies (e) Building/Architecture (6) For overseas students sponsored by the Australian Government the average length of stay is 3.1 years. This information is not available for private overseas students. (7) This information is not available. (8) and (9) The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs records show that applications to remain in Australia were received and approved or not approved as follows: STUDENTS AND DEPENDANTS Year(1) Lodged Approved(2) 1974-75 521 378 1975-76 1,107 625 1976-77 1,112 1,051 1977-78 1,370 (3)1,440 1978-79 643 (3)780 1979-80 876 808 1980-81 639 501 1981-82 484 (3)507 1982- 83 637 477 7,389 6,567 September quarter 1983 140 173 December quarter 1983 133 99 (1) Data for 1972-73 and 1973-74 not available. (2) Number does not include 148 approved under the Regularisation of Status Program July 1980 to June 1982. (3) The number approved in each of these three years was greater than the number lodged because of a carry over from the previous year. 10 (a) and (b)- (i) All medical faculties have quotas or restrictions on overseas student entry . (ii) The following universities have no formal quotas apart from medical faculties (where applicable). Australian National University Flinders University James Cook University La Trobe University University of New England University of New South Wales University of Newcastle Wollongong University Macquarie University (except for the external law course). (iii) The University of Adelaide has faculty quotas for overseas students which are determined late each year; in 1983 quotas ranged from 3 for dentistry to 20 for science. (iv) Deakin University has quotas of 30 per cent for architecture and 10 per cent for commerce. (v) Griffith University has a quota of 8 per cent of full-time enrolments. (vi) The University of Melbourne states that overseas applicants admitted to any course should not normally exceed by more than 10 per cent the average percentage of such students admitted over the last 3 years. Quotas vary from approximately 40 for economics and engineering to 1 for veterinary science and agriculture. (vii) Monash University has a quota of 80 for first year engineering. It has no other quotas on overseas students. (viii) Murdoch University has a quota of 4 overseas students in veterinary science. Otherwise, no quotas. (ix) The University of Queensland currently accepts 30 overseas students into undergraduate courses. From 1983, it will apply a quota of 10 per cent to overseas student enrolments in any course. (x) The University of Sydney has an overseas student quota (90 places in 1984). (xi) The University of Tasmania does not accept overseas students into medicine and has a quota for pharmacy; no other quotas apply. (xii) The University of Western Australia has a quota of 125 overseas students which includes 40 for engineering, 30 for Commerce and 1 for architecture (No overseas students are accepted for medicine or dentistry). (xiii) The South Australian Institute of Technology has a quota of 10 per cent on all courses. (xiv) Newcastle College of Advanced Education, the Victorian College of Pharmacy and the Western Australian College of Advanced Education apply general quotas. (xv) Warnambool Institute of Advanced Education has a quota on its Bachelor of Business course only. (Question No. 723) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Is it the case that Medibank Private members who take a hospital insurance table and an extras insurance table are being charged twice for ambulance service cover; if so will the Minister for Health take steps to ensure that Medibank Private members are not charged twice for ambulance service cover. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The position is that all registered health benefits organisations operating in New South Wales are required, in pursuance of the New South Wales Health Insurance Levies Act 1982, to pay a levy at the rate of 64 cents per family membership and 32 cents per single membership a week to the State Government in respect of persons insured under the basic private table. This in turn entitles such contributors to free ambulance services. Uninsured persons wishing to be covered for ambulance services may contribute to the ambulance subscription scheme through one of the agents for the State Government. To cater for persons in New South Wales who do not have basic hospital table private insurance, Medibank Private has included a benefit towards the cost of subscriptions to the ambulance scheme in its Special Extras Table and its Supercover Table. I understand that because the ambulance service is one of a number of services for which benefits are payable under such tables, the contribution rate components are very low. For example in the Supercover Table, which offers higher benefits than the Special Extras Table, the component is a mere 1.5 cents a week (78 cents a year) for family members. The rate is even lower in the Special Extras Table. It is true, in a sense, that a person contributing to both the basic private table an one of the 'extras' tables is paying twice for ambulance services. However, it is the overall package of benefits in the tables that makes them attractive to contributors and viable for the fund to offer. Given the insignificant cost in relation to the 'extras' tables, coupled with the fact that the provision of benefits available under 'extras' tables is essentially a matter for individual funds to determine, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in this matter. (Question No. 728) Senator Watson asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Is it possible that people telephoning shareholders of companies subject to take-over, at weekends or of an evening inducing people to sell their shares, is a breach of the Take-over Code. (2) What steps, if any, can the National Companies and Securities Commission take to stamp out this practice if a breach has occurred. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Takeover Code provides that it is an offence to make false or misleading statements, to offer benefits which are outside the terms of the takeover offer, or to make profit forecasts of either the target or bidding company without the consent of the NCSC. The Securities Industry Code provides that it is an offence to induce (or attempt to induce) someone to deal in securities by means of false, misleading, deceptive or dishonest conduct. While there is no express prohibition in the Takeover Code against a person telephoning shareholders of a target company in an attempt to induce them to sell their shares, if the inducement fell into one of these categories, the NCSC could prosecute for a breach of these provisions of either Code. The particular practice referred to by the honourable senator was recently the subject of an order made by Mr Justice Needham in the New South Wales Supreme Court in relation to the take-over bid for Email Ltd. The order was made by consent of the parties and no reasons were given by the Court. Whilst the order does not prevent the bidder or his agents from telephoning Email shareholders, it restrains the callers from giving advice to the shareholders on the financial merits of the offer. (Question No. 737) Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) How many people are known to suffer Alzheimers disease and related disorders. (2) What percentage of these sufferers are accommodated in nursing homes. (3) What assistance is available to families and self-help groups who provide care and support to people who suffer the disease. (4) Has the current disabled persons review covered the needs of people with Alzheimers disease. (5) What research has been funded and/or carried out by the Federal Government into the disease since 1980. (6) Are the findings of this research available to the public; if so, in what form is this information available. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No figures are available from statistical data within my Department on the number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. (The group of disorders is commonly referred to as 'senile dementia'.) Statistical publications from the Australian Bureau of Statistics take into account 'mental disorders' in the elderly or disabled but are not specific to Alzheimer's disease or related disorders. The Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Society estimates that some 100, 000 people have dementia. This figure is based on work by Dr Scott Henderson, from the National Health and Medical Research Council's Social Psychiatry Research Unit and the Australian National University, and a world authority on Alzheimer's disease. Dr Henderson, in his college address 'The Coming Epidemic of Dementia' which was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (1983) 17:117-127 indicated that, on the basis of overseas studies, conservatively 5 per cent of people aged between 65 and 75 suffer from dementia, rising to 20 per cent in people aged 80 years and over. Based on these figures, in 1982 there were 110,000 people suffering from dementia in Australia. (2) I do not know the percentage of dementia sufferers accommodated in nursing homes. Statistics on the number of people accommodated in nursing homes who are suffering from dementia are not maintained by my Department. The report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure (In Home or at Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged, 1982', chaired by the Member for Grayndler, indicates that, from information available, between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of nursing home patients have some degree of senile brain disorder, i.e. between 22,000 and 36,500 people. (3) No special assistance is available to sufferers of dementia or their carers . However, the full range of Commonwealth benefits and services available to all frail aged, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups is available to dementia sufferers, according to their eligibility. (4) The terms of reference of the handicapped programs review being undertaken by the Minister for Social Security, cover the needs of physically, developmentally and psychiatrically disabled people. The needs of sufferers from Alzheimer's disease have been raised in submissions to the review. (5) The Government supports medical research primarily through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC). Such research is funded using a peer review system which assesses the scientific merit of proposals to determine whether support is warranted. The following projects related to Alzheimer's disease have received support in the period 1980-1984. NH & MRC Research Support for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders 1980- 1984. 1980-Savage Prof. R. D., Dept of Psychology, Murdoch University. Abnormal personality in the aged at risk pyschologically $15,983. 1981-Broe Dr G. A., Huang Dr C. Y., Department of Neurology, Lidcombe Hospital. A study of normal brain ageing in senile gait disorders, senile dementia-$19,715 Masters Dr C. L., Department of Neurological Research, University of W.A. Alzheimer's disease and related degenerations of the ageing nervous system- $39, 339 1982-Masters Dr C. L., Department of Neurological Research, University of W.A. Alzheimer's disease and related degenerations of the ageing nervous system- $46, 201 1983-Masters Dr C. L., Department of Neurological Research, University of W.A. Alzheimer's disease and related degenerations of the ageing nervous system- $67, 045 1984-Masters Dr C. L., Department of Neurological Research, University of W.A. Alzheimer's disease and related degenerations of the ageing nervous system- $70, 989 McDonald Dr B. L, Masters Dr C. L., Department of Pathology, University of W.A. Amloid and intermediate filaments in Alzheimer's and Cruetzfeldt-Jacob disease-$ 24,384 It is interesting to note that the National Health and Medical Research Council recently undertook a study to determine the extent of biomedical research into the ageing generally and has found that the present level of research in this area is neither commensurate with the national needs and capabilities, nor at a level of activity comparable with research in other areas of contemporary social significance. Accordingly, the NH and MRC is currently seeking applications from members of the research community who wish to utilise funds to conduct research in this area, some of which will no doubt relate to Alzheimer's disease. (6) The findings of projects supported by the NH and MRC are made available to the public in a number of ways, for instance: through scientific journals; through national and international conferences; by sighting grantees' reports located in the NH and MRC Secretariat, Canberra, or obtaining a copy of individual reports from the NH and MRC. (Question No. 742) Senator Macklin asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) Are there any investigations currently taking place by the Trade Practices Commission with regard to sections 46 and 49 of the Trade Practices Act? (2) Is Kalamazoo (Australia) Pty Ltd subject to any such investigation? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Trade Practices Commission is currently making inquiries of a preliminary nature into certain allegations which have been made against Kalamazoo (Australia) Pty Ltd. Those allegations have been denied by Kalamazoo ( Australia) Pty Ltd and the Commission should not be taken as having reached a conclusion that any breaches of the Act have occurred. (Question No. 745) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1984. What plans does the Government have to provide funds to help students from isolated parts of the Northern Territory to find suitable accommodation in Alice Springs and Darwin during the terms of their studies, in view of the extreme difficulties these students from the outback have in finding accommodation in the Northern Territory as there are only four student hostels. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Commonwealth Government is providing funds for both student allowances and capital works to assist students from isolated parts of the Northern Territory to find suitable accommodation in either hostels or private dwellings, while studying in Alice Springs or Darwin. Under the tertiary education assistance scheme, students who must live away from home to undertake tertiary study are provided with a higher rate of allowance to assist with the additional costs involved. In 1985 the maximum annual rate of allowance for students living at home is $2,110 and for students away from home is $3,255. Parents of isolated children living away from home to attend school may receive benefits under the assistance for isolated children scheme. Maximum allowances range from $2,067 a year for primary students to $2, 572 a year for those in the senior secondary years, and include an income-test- free basic allowance of $927 a year. Residential accommodation for students at the Darwin Community College is currently being constructed with Commonwealth funds and is expected to be completed this year. It is understood that the Northern Territory Government is proposing additions to this accommodation in 1985. Residential accommodation facilities are also under construction using Commonwealth funds for students at the Katherine Rural College. The Commonwealth Government has provided capital assistance to non-government schools for boarding facilities since 1976. In November 1982 the Commonwealth Schools Commission produced a report entitled 'Study of Living Away from Home Facilities for Isolated Children' which examined the needs of students from remote areas for hostel accommodation. Subsequently a decision was taken that from 1984, hostels serving students who attend government schools would be eligible for assistance under the Commonwealth Schools commission's capital grants program for government schools. However, it is the responsibility of State and Northern Territory governments to determine their own funding priorities. Thus, whether the Commonwealth funds available are actually used for hostel accommodation or directed to other building projects in government schools is an individual State or Territory decision. Provision of further assistance to hostels for isolated students will be among matters considered for possible inclusion in the Commonwealth Government's program of assistance to schools in 1985. (Question No. 753) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) What plans does the Government have to protect consumers from computer salesmen, who, in taking advantage of the dramatic developments in computer usage in industry, schools and the home, are operating unethically in order to make a quick dollar. (2) What avenues are available for legitimate complainants to seek redress against a salesman or distributor who has literally not 'come up with the goods' or who has refused to provide after-sales service. (3) What action will the Government take to combat the 'computer conman', if it is found there is insufficient control of the computer industry. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government considers that Parts V and VI of the Trade Practices Act 1974 already cover the rights of consumers to the limit of Commonwealth constitutional power, and proposed amendments to the Act which were announced in February 1984 will, if passed, extend the protection afforded to consumers. In addition State legislation operates to protect consumers from unethical conduct outside the area of Commonwealth power, and the Commonwealth and State Governments are working towards the introduction of uniform consumer protection legislation. (2) In addition to contractual remedies available to consumers, the Trade Practices Act provides for sanctions and penalties to be imposed on corporations and certain individuals who fail to deliver goods or to provide after-sales service. The Act also gives consumers a private legal remedy in such cases. These provisions extend to the supply of computer hardware and software where it is supplied with hardware. The legal status of software is currently being examined. (3) The Government continuously monitors the operation and effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act and will take remedial action should any deficiencies come to light. The nature and extent of any action would depend upon the circumstances of the alleged practices. (Question No. 760) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) What was the total value of sponsorship of cigarette and tobacco companies for international cricket last summer in Australia. (2) Is it possible to estimate the cost of advertising equivalent to that received by tobacco companies sponsoring cricket; if so, what is the amount. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total value of sponsorship provided by cigarette and tobacco companies for international cricket in Australia last summer is not publicly known. (2) No. (Question No. 765) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) Is there a limit below which businesses do not pay sales tax in Australia; if so, what is that limit? (2) Are there limits below which businesses do not pay similar taxes in Canada and New Zealand; if so, what are those limits? (3) Would the viability of local, small business improve if the Australian limit was raised to levels applying in Canada and New Zealand? (4) What would be the cost to revenue in a full year of raising the Australian limit as in (3)? Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that there are provisions in the sales tax law which exempt otherwise taxable goods where the manufacturer has a relatively small turnover or is liable to pay only a small amount of tax per year. Item 100 (1) in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act exempts goods manufactured and sold by a person if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the average annual value of sales of all goods is not, or would not be, in excess of $12,000. Item 103 in the First Schedule exempts goods manufactured by a person where the amount of sales tax that would otherwise be payable is not, or would not, exceed $250 per annum. Because of the various rates of tax applying to different types of goods, the application of this item depends on the kinds of goods produced by individual manufacturers. For example, a manufacturer with a large turnover of mainly exempt goods and small quantities of taxable goods could be covered by this item and be relieved from collecting a small amount of tax. The Commissioner emphasised that items 100 (1) and 103 apply only to manufacturers of taxable goods and not to other classes of businesses, such as wholesalers who purchase or import goods for sale to retailers, or to those who import goods for sale to users. The intention of items 100 (1) and 103 is not to confer a special sales tax advantage on a select group of manufacturers but rather to eliminate the necessity for manufacturers with small turnovers to become registered for sales tax purposes and to collect and remit small amounts of tax on monthly returns. It also has the important effect of reducing the costs of sales tax collection. (2) There are wide differences in the forms of taxation on goods and commodities of various countries, that is, the scope of the tax, the transactions on which tax is applicable, rates of tax applied and exemptions available. Any comparison of particular aspects of Australian sales tax with legislation covering similar taxes imposed in other countries needs, therefore, to be approached with caution. Broadly, it is correct to say that there are similar provisions to items 100 (1 ) and 103 in the laws relating to commodity taxes in Canada and New Zealand. In Canada, sales tax is not payable unless annual sales exceed $C50,000. In New Zealand sales tax may not be payable in some cases unless annual sales exceed $ NZ5,000 although special provisions exist for certain industries under which the threshold is $NZ50,000. (3) Proposals to increase the exemption limits in items 100 (1) and 103 are not new. The levels were last raised in 1979. Similar proposals were considered in connection with the preparation of the August 1983 Budget but it was not found practicable to do so in the prevailing circumstances. Taxpayers whose manufacturing and other businesses are such that their products do not enjoy the benefits of items 100 (1) and 103, but whose goods compete in the market place with goods exempted by these items claim that the present limits are too high and that, in the interest of equity and unbiased market conditions, tax should apply to all similar goods in the same manner. (4) On the basis of available data it is not practicable to provide a reliable estimate of such a raising of the limit. (Question No. 776) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) What are the reasons for the Philippines Government's decision in 1976 to undertake the construction of its first nuclear power plant. (2) Did the Philippines Minister for Energy, Mr Geronimo Velasco, on 22 February this year, state that the still unfinished nuclear power plant will be a losing venture because of continued escalation of costs and the need to extend the repayment. (3) Did he also state that interest charges alone during construction were enough to build an 800 megawatt geo-thermal plant in much less time and that no permanent disposal for the resulting nuclear waste has been found. (4) Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate whether there is any claimed benefit of such power and technology to the Filipino people in the light of these statements. (5) Why has Australia agreed to supply uranium to a plant established in such circumstances. (6) Is not Australia's decision to supply uranium to such a plant implied approval of the Philippines Government's decision to impose undesirable and expensive technology on the already needy Filipino people. (7) Is this decision consistent with the Foreign Affairs policy decision that Australian aid to the Philippines must be maintained to assist the people of that country despite the repressive conditions imposed by the Marcos Government' s regime. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As indicative of the Philippines Government's thinking at the time, its representative to the Nineteenth General Conference of International Atomic Energy Agency in September 1975 is reported by the official record to have noted that the developing countries had suffered from the increases in the price of oil: the Philippines, for example, had been obliged to spend $700m on petrol in 1974 and the expenditure would reach $2,000m in 1980. In order to overcome that difficulty he said, the Philippines intended to use nuclear energy to cover 30 per cent of the country's electric power requirements in 1985. (2) and (3) I am advised that on 22 February 1984, the Philippines media carried statements attributed to the Philippines Minister of Energy, Mr Geronimo Velasco, in the context of his 20 February visit to the Bataan nuclear power plant site. The Metro Manila Times quoted Mr Velasco as saying the project was a losing venture, pointing to an urgent need to restructure the entire $2.1 billion nuclear power plant loan because of the current economic crisis in the Philippines as a relevant consideration. Mr Velasco is also reported to have stated that the interest charges during the plant's eight year construction were sufficient to build an 800 MW geo-thermal plant in less time. On the nuclear waste disposal question, the Metro Manila Times quoted Mr Velasco as saying that construction of an additional radioactive waste building at the Bataan site ' would ensure that wastes from the plant are properly stored'. He is also quoted as canvassing several options for ultimate safe disposal, and management of the radioactive waste produced by the plant. (4) This is an assessment which must be made by the Philippine authorities. (5) The 8 August 1978 agreement between Australia and the Philippines concerning co-operation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the transfer of nuclear material-which entered into force on 11 May 1982-does not represent any specific agreement by the Australian Government to supply uranium to any specific nuclear power plant. It does provide a framework for possible nuclear co-operation between the Philippines and Australia, including for Australian uranium mining companies to compete with other suppliers for uranium supply contracts with the relevant Philippine operator and the controls that would apply to that co-operation. No Australian company has negotiated a contract to supply uranium to the Philippines and no Australian uranium has been shipped-nor can it be so shipped until an administrative arrangement pursuant to Article IX. 3 of the agreement is concluded. Whether the Government will be prepared to approve any new sales contracts and authorise shipments of uranium under such contracts to the Philippines or other countries is a matter for future decision by the Government. (6) and (7) See my answer to (5) above. As no decision has been made, these questions do not arise. (Question No. 780) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Is it the Government's intention to include the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases in any plans for the expansion of the Kakadu National Park; if so, can the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment advise on what rationale such an expansion is based. (2) Can the Minister confirm, especially in light of the recent article of 6 March 1984 in the Bulletin, whether the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has the resources to monitor and develop effectively an expanded national park of over 19,000 square kilometres. (3) What level of expansion of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is contemplated to effectively control 'greater Kakadu', and is the Minister convinced that the Gimbat and Goodparla areas are of such intrinsic scenic and ecological value as to justify further expenditure of taxpayers money. (4) Did a 1982 land use study find no evidence that the region had special value as a national park. (5) Are the Gimbat and Goodparla leases a part of the mineral rich Alligator Rivers Region and have potential for further discoveries, and that the availability of the area for mineral exploration is arguably better land use than as a national park of little intrinsic value. (6) What proposals does the Commonwealth favour and what action does it propose to take. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Expansion of Kakadu National Park to include the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases, which encompass a considerable part of the South Alligator River catchment, is important for the protection of the unique natural, cultural and recreational values of the Alligator Rivers region. (2) An appropriate level of staffing to enable the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to manage the enlarged Park will be sought in the normal Government process. (3) See (1) and (2) above. (4) I am unaware of the land use study referred to, and equally unaware of any study which purports to find no evidence that the region has a special value as a National Park. (5) The greater part of the pastoral leases fall within the Alligator Rivers Region as defined in the Ranger Uranium Environment Inquiry. It is the judgment of the Government that the Region's intrinsic values are such that they should be protected by reservation as a national park. (6) See (1) above. Public notices of intent to prepare plans of management for the whole of Kakadu National Park were issued on 22 May 1984 and public comments are being sought. (Question No. 788) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Has the Minister for Health considered including universal dental cover in the Medicare scheme in the near future; if not, will he detail the obstacles to implementing such a scheme and give an indication of whether the Government is prepared to investigate its feasibility and what increase in the existing levy, if any, would be necessary to provide dental cover. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have initiated a major review of the Medical Benefits Schedule and the question of extending benefits to provide universal dental cover under Medicare will be considered in this review. I hope to be in a position to announce details of the review shortly. (Question No. 819) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What proportion of: (a) goods; and (b) services used by Government departments, tertiary institutions and statutory authorities acting as consultants, managing agents and supporting authorities in the Australian aid program are sourced from : (a) Australia; (b) recipient countries; and (c) third world countries. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The overall proportion of goods used and directly purchased by all government departments (including State departments), tertiary institutions and statutory authorities in the Australian aid program during the 12 months period ending 30 April 1984 was sourced as follows: (a) 81 per cent-$36.4m (b) 11 per cent-$5.0m; and (c) 8 per cent-$3.6m. (b) The overall proportion of services is close to 100 per cent (estimated value $66m). All services are sourced from Australia; with very few exceptions the personnel would be either Australian citizens or permanent residents of Australia. Services take the form of consultancies for Australian-funded aid projects in developing countries. They are provided by private consultants, tertiary institutions and individuals as well as Federal and State government bodies acting as managing agents. (Question No. 823) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) How many Health Fund employees in Queensland were retrenched in the period after the Medicare program was announced up to the inception of Medicare. (2) How many Health Fund employees have been retrenched since 1 February 1984. (3) Was any agreement made with the Health Fund to reserve Health Insurance Commission jobs for those people made redundant due to the introduction of Medicare; if so, how many positions were to be reserved. (4) How many employees who were previously employed with the Health Fund are now employed in Medicare offices. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is not known how many Health Fund employees were retrenched in the period after the Medicare program was announced up to the inception of Medicare. It is understood that there were no retrenchments. (2) It is understood that 83 employees of the Medical Benefits fund in Queensland and the Northern Territory were retrenched with effect from 12 April 1984. (3) The Health Insurance Commission (with the approval of the Minister) has adopted a policy of preference in recruitment for health fund staff, subject to applications from that source meeting basic selection criteria. The number of positions which fell within this policy in Queensland and the Northern Territory is 229. In addition, I advised the honourable senator's colleague Senator Martin on 3 August 1983, that 'if people want to move out of the private health funds in February or March 1984, they will be able to do so and take up employment with the Commission'. (Hansard, page 743) (4) 118 former employees of health funds have been recruited by the Health Insurance Commission since November 1983 and 110 are still employed by the Commission. Approximately 50 of the 83 employees retrenched by the Medical Benefits Fund in April 1984 have applied for positions with the Commission and their applications are under consideration. (Question No. 830) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, 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 Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are three statutory authorities within the Minister's jurisdiction, and details of the persons appointed to the Boards are as follows: Name and position Terms of appointment Salary per annum $ Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Chairman Sir Eric Paul McClintock 23 November 1981-22 November 1984 14,712 Deputy Chairman Mr Ivor Maurice Lloyd 23 November 1981-22 November 1984 8,849 Directors Mr Arthur Desmond Chenery 23 November 1981-22 November 1984 5,917 Mr William Harold Clough O.B.E. 11 May 1984-10 May 1986 5,917 Mr Graham John Kelly 11 May 1984-10 May 1987 5,917 Mr Stewart Laurence Wallis 11 May 1984-10 May 1986 5,917 Dr John Douglas White 11 May 1984-10 May 1987 5,917 Managing Director Mr Kenneth Alexander McKechnie 1 January 1979-31 December 1983* 66,557 (full-time) Export Development Grants Board Chairman Mr A. L. Paltridge 1 February 1983-31 January 1986 11,369 Deputy Chairman Mr N. P. Jackson 1 February 1983-30 June 1984 7,588 Members Mr J. M. Gothe 1 January 1982-30 June 1984 5,684 Mr V. J. Danilo 1 February 1983-31 January 1986 5,684 Executive Member Mr R. A. Daly 1 July 1981-30 June 1984 50,481 (full-time) Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Chairman Mr P. J. W. Cottrell O.B.E. 4 April 1984-3 April 1987 14,133 Deputy Chairman Mr A. B. Avery 4 April 1984-3 April 1986 8,500 Members Mr A. J. Denham 4 April 1984-3 April 1987 5,684 Ms K. B. Spooner 4 April 1984-3 April 1987 5,684 Mr K. C. Huntingdon 4 April 1984-3 April 1987 5,684 Ms J. R. Broadbent 4 April 1984-3 April 1986 5,684 Mr B. C. Wilson A.M. 4 April 1984-3 April 1986 5,684 Mr V. T. Christie 4 April 1984-3 April 1986 Mr Christie's position as Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation precludes him from receiving a salary. Mrs S. L. Kaye-Kucharzewski 4 April 1984-3 April 1986 Mrs Kaye-Kucharzewski's position as a NSW public servant precludes her from receiving a salary Managing Director Mr S. Burton O.B.E. 3 March 1979-2 March 1985 66,775 (full-time) Deputy Managing Director Mr D. C. W. Hill 1 November 1982-31 October 1988 61,129 (full-time) * Mr McKechnie's term of appointment expired on 31 December 1983. However he has been appointed Acting Managing Director from 1 January 1984 pending a decision on the filling of the position. (Question No. 835) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, 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 Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Date Term of Salary Authority Office holder appointed appointment (p.a.) $ The Pipeline Authority- Chairman R. Coulton 24.7.81 3 Years 15,689 Deputy Chairman R. N. Townsend 13.7.83 2 Years 8,849 Executive Member T. R. Baker 13.5.80 5 Years 66,557 Member A. Morgan 1.2.83 2 Years 7,899 Member J. W. MacBean 17.1.84 2 Years 7,899 Joint Coal Board- Chairman G. J. Tredinnick 22.8.77 7 Years 69,869 Member T. A. Squires 22.8.77 7 Years 57,261 Member A. C. Girard 22.12.80 7 Years 57,261 Australian Atomic Energy Commission- Chairman M. H. Brennan 27.5.83 3 Years 17,698 Deputy Chairman A. J. Woods 11.4.78 7 Years Nil (Commonwealth Officer) Member J. G. Morris 31.5.83 3 Years 7,899 Member D. G. Walker 26.5.83 3 1/2 Years Nil (AAEC Officer) Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electricity Authority- Commissioner T. A. O'Brien 29.2.84 3 Years Nil (Commonwealth Officer) River Murray Commission- Commissioner T. A. O'Brien 14.3.84 3 Years Nil (Commonwealth Officer) Deputy Commissioner A. Manderson 12.8.83 2 Years Nil (Commonwealth Officer) (Question No. 836) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: STATUTORY AUTHORITIES APPOINTMENTS LIST Minister for Foreign Affairs Expiry of Date current Authority Position Name appointed Term term Australia-China Council Chairman Prof. G. N. Blainey 1.7.83 (R) 1 year 30.6.84 Australia-China Council Member (Chairman Designated) Prof. W. Gungwu 1.7.83 6 years 30.6.89 Australia-China Council Member G. B. Feakes 25.6.82 3 years 24.6.85 Australia-China Council Member Ms S. Baker 25.6.82 3 years 24.6.85 Australia-China Council Member Dr B. I. Aldrich 25.6.82 3 years 24.6.85 Australia-China Council Member L. J. Martyn 25.6.82 3 years 24.6.85 Australia-China Council Member Dr W. J. Tegart 12.8.82 3 years 11.8.85 Australia-China Council Member Prof. V. P. Chang 12.8.82 3 years 11.8.85 Australia-China Council Member B. Watson 1.2.83 3 years 3.2.86 Australia-China Council Member Dr S. A. Fitzgerald 1.7.83 (R) 3 years 30.6.86 Australia-China Council Member Mrs C. Launitzschorer 1.7.83 3 years 30.6.86 Australia-China Council Member G. Hogg 1.7.83 3 years 30.6.86 Remuneration (Other than Officers of the Australian Public Service): Chairman receives a sitting fee of $136 per day; Members receive a sitting fee of $110 per day; approximately four meetings per annum. Australia-Japan Foundation Chairman P. H. Sleigh 1.7.81 5 years 30.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Deputy Chairman H. A. Gordon 12.11.79 5 years 11.11.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member Prof. R. T. Appleyard 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member D. J. Asimus 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member R. W. L. Austin, O.B.E. 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member H. R. Bonyton, A.O., D.F.C., A.F.C. 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member G. J. Brealey, A.O. 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member Ms H. Marriott 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member Sir L. Price, O.B.E. 14.6.81 5 years 13.6.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member F. E. Peterson 12.8.81 5 years 11.8.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member K. Rosewall, A.M., M.B.E. 15.12.81 5 years 14.12.86 Australia-Japan Foundation Member Ms M. Schubert 10.2.83 5 years 9.2.88 Australia-Japan Foundation Member Ms C. Menadue 14.6.83 5 years 13.6.88 Australia-Japan Foundation Member A. R. Parsons 14.6.83 5 years 13.6.88 Australia-Japan Foundation Member Dr A. Rix 14.6.83 5 years 13.6.88 Remuneration (other than Officers of the Australian Public Service): Chairman and Members receive a sitting fee of $110 per day; approximately 4 meetings per annum. Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Chairman Sir R. Carnegie Jan. 1984 3 years Dec. 1986 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member J. R. Bennett Jan. 1982 3 years Dec. 1984 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member A. Coates Jan. 1984 3 years Dec. 1986 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member Prof. P. J. Boyce Jan. 1983 3 years Dec. 1985 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member S. F. Crean Jan. 1982 3 years Dec. 1984 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member A. T. Dix, A. O. Jan. 1983 3 years Dec. 1985 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member W. L. Dix Jan. 1984 3 years Dec. 1986 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member M. L. Newman Jan. 1984 3 years Dec. 1986 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member H. C. Schmidt, C.B.E. Jan. 1982 3 years Dec. 1984 Consultative Committee on Relations with Japan Member P. H. Sleigh Jan. 1982 3 years Dec. 1984 Remuneration (other than Officers of the Australian Public Service): Chairman receives a sitting fee of $240 per day; members receive a sitting fee of $214 per day; approximately 4 meetings per annum. Australia-New Zealand Foundation Chairman D. Willesee Sept. 1983 3 years Sept. 1986 Australia-New Zealand Foundation Member Sir W. Vines May 1979 3 years June 1984 Australia-New Zealand Foundation Member R. Burnett Sept. 1983 3 years Sept. 1986 Australia-New Zealand Foundation Member D. Burns Nov. 1981 3 years Unspec. Australia-New Zealand Foundation Member Sir L. Francis (NZ High Commission) May 1979 Ex Officio Australia-New Zealand Foundation Member P. G. F. Henderson (Secretary, DFA) May 1979 Ex Officio Remuneration (other than Officers of the Australian Public Service): Chairman receives a sitting fee of $142 per day; members receive a sitting fee of $115 per day; approximately 4 meetings per annum. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Director Prof. J. McWilliam 25.7.82 5 years Ex Officio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research President, Policy Advisory Council Sir J. Crawford, A.C., C.B.E. 3.6.82 3 years 2.6.85 Chairman, Board of Management Sir J. Crawford, A.C., C.B.E. 3.6.82 3 years 2.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC/BOM Dr N. Boardman 3.6.82 3 years 2.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC/BOM Prof R. Slatyer, A.O. 3.6.82 3 years 2.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC/BOM Dr G. Alexander 3.6.82 2 years 2.6.84 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, BOM Dr R. Dun 14.3.83 ex officio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Sir S. Burston, O.B.E. 1.7.82 2 years 30.6.84 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Dr L. Evans, A.O. 1.7.82 3 years 30.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Dr E. Henzell 1.7.82 3 years 30.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Mr G. Miller 1.7.82 3 years 30.6.85 (Resigned Jan. 1984) Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Prof. M. Nairn 1.7.82 2 years 30.6.84 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC B. Bai (PNG) 1.7.82 3 years 30.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Dr T. Bhannasiri (Thailand) 1.7.82 3 years 30.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC S. Sadikin (Indonesia) 1.7.82 3 years 30.6.85 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Dr P. Chigaru (Zimbabwe) 1.7.82 2 years 30.6.84 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Dr M. Jain 1.7.82 2 years 30.6.84 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC T. U. Meredith (Western Samoa) 1.7.82 2 years 30.6.84 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Member, PAC Dato M. Tamin Bin Yeop, K.M.N., S.M.K. (Malaysia) 1.7.82 2 years 30.6.84 Renumeration for Policy Advisory Council and Board of Management (other than Officers of the Australian Public Service): Chairman receives a sitting fee of $ 177 per day; Members receive a sitting fee of $151 per day; Policy Advisory Council: Approximately 1 meeting every 9 months; Board of Management: Approximately 10 meetings per annum. Australian Development Assistance Bureau: International Training Institute Advisory Council A/G Chairman Dr P. Martin Aug. 1982 3 years Aug. 1985 Australian Development Assistance Bureau: International Training Institute Advisory Council Member Dr S. Humphrey Aug. 1982 2 years Aug. 1984 Australian Development Assistance Bureau: International Training Institute Advisory Council Dr R. White Aug. 1982 2 years Aug. 1984 Renumeration: None. Editorial Advisory Board Chairman Dr T. Millar 1.1.81 2 years 31.12.84 Editorial Advisory Board Member Prof. F. Crowley 1.1.77 2 years 31.12.84 Editorial Advisory Board Member Prof. F. West 1.1.83 2 years 31.12.84 Editorial Advisory Board Prof. J. Poynter 1.1.77 2 years 31.12.84 Editorial Advisory Board Member Prof. J. Legge 1.1.77 2 years 31.12.84 Editorial Advisory Board Sir K. Waller 1.1.79 2 years 31.12.84 Editorial Advisory Board Member D. Sissons 1.1.83 2 years 31.12.84 Remuneration: Chairman and Members receive a sitting fee of $110 per day; Chairman receives an honorarium of $875 per annum; approximately 1 meeting per annum. (Question No. 842) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, 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 Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Remuneration Annual Annual expenses Date of Term of salary or of office Office Name of appointee appointment appointment fees allowance Australian National Railways Commission $ $ Chairman Mr L. E. Marks 16.3.81 5 years 70,846 3,800 Commissioner Dr H . F. Bell 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 - Commissioner Mr C. F. Clements 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 - Commissioner Mr D. M. Fowler 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 - Commissioner Dr D. G. Scrafton 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 - Australian Shipping Commission Chairman Mr W. Bolitho 19.1.84 5 years 23,507 - Deputy Chairman Mr R. M. Whyte 14.10.80 5 years 11,835 - Commissioner Mr C. H. Fitzgibbon 1.10.79 5 years 7,899 - Commissioner Mr E. A. Rouse 14.10.80 5 years 7,899 - Commissioner Mr S. P. Smith 11.11.83 4 years 7,899 - Managing Director Mr M. W. Moore-Wilton 26.1.84 5 years 77,089 3,800 Inter-State Commission President The Hon. Mr Justice Everett, Q.C. 15.3.84 7 years 77,633 4,345 Member Professor H. M. Kolsen 15.3.84 7 years 65,417 1,900 (Question No. 847) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 1 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 Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question as follows: The only statutory authority within the sport, recreation and tourism portfolio is the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). The information in relation to the ATC is as follows: Name Position Date of appointment Term expires Salary $ Sir Peter Derham Chairman 25.7.83 30 June 85 14,712 per annum Mr P. T. King Member 1.7.82 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Mr J. M. Gothe Member 1.7.82 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Mr J. M. Haddad Member 1.7.82 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Mr P. A. Graham Member 1.7.82 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Mr E. H. Poole Member 25.7.83 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Capt. T. Haworth Member 25 .7.83 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Mr G. J. Dean Member 25.7.83 30 June 84 5, 917 per annum Ms E. A. Graham Member 7.10.83 30 June 84 5,917 per annum Mr H . B. MacDonald Member 3.5.83 indefinite * * Public Service member-salary not applicable (Question No. 853) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 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 Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to Senator Chipp's question: The two relevant statutory authorities are the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Aboriginal Development Commission All commissioners have been appointed on a part time basis. No salary is payable, but commissioners receive a rate of fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, as shown in the following table: Date Annual rate Name Appointed Term of fee $ Shirley McPherson 15.12.83 2.6 years *11,835 Mick Miller 15.12.83 2.6 years *7,899 Martin Jambajimba 1.7.82 4 years 5,917 Eva Geia 1.7.82 4 years 5,917 Ted Simpson 22.9.83 2.9 years 5,917 Lois O'Donoghue, CBE, AM 1.7.80 4 years 5 ,917 Crossfield Ahmat 1.7.82 2 years 5,917 Elizabeth Hoff mann 1.7.80 4 years 5,917 James Bieundurry 1.7.80 4 years 5,917 * Mrs Shirley McPherson was appointed Acting Chairman (part time) and Mr Mick Miller Acting Acting Deputy Chairman from 29 March 1984 to 30 June 1984 following the resignation of Mr Charles Perkins as full time Chairman. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Members of the Council are part time and receive no salary. The following members of the Senate were appointed to Council by the Senate on 23 August 1983 for a three year term: Senator E. A. Robertson Senator B. C. Teague The following members of the House of Representatives were appointed to the Council by that House until the dissolution of the 33rd Parliament: Mr J. R. Porter, MP, appointed on 18 May 1983 Mr G. L. Hand, MP, appointed on 28 May 1984. The following members were appointed to the Council by the Governor-General on 11 November 1983 to serve until 30 June 1986: Hon. K. E. Beazley Hon. W. C. Wentworth Mr Roy Nichols Ms Kate George Mr Charles Perkins whose resignation from the Council was accepted by the Governor-General to take effect on 28 May 1984. The Principal of the Institute and eleven members of the Institute elected by the members of the Institute are also members of the Council. (Question No. 857) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Did the Minister for Foreign Affairs state in response to a question on notice concerning the nuclear freeze proposal (see answer to question of notice No. 140, House of Representatives Hansard, 26 May 1983, page 1108) that the Government was attracted to the concept of a nuclear freeze so long as it was mutually agreed, verifiable, a prelude to nuclear arms reductions and did not give advantage to one side. (2) Did the Kennedy-Hatfield resolution, as amended and passed by the United States House of Representatives cover all the conditions specified in the Minister's answer; if so, does the Government endorse the resolution passed by the United States House of Representatives calling for a nuclear freeze; if not, why not. (3) Did the Australian representative in the United Nations General Assembly in 1983 cease to vote against nuclear freeze resolutions, abstaining instead. (4) What nuclear freeze resolutions have been introduced to the First Committee of the General Assembly since the Labor Government took office. (5) What were the specific objection to these resolutions which prevented Australia from supporting them. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) It is correct that resolutions in support of a mutual verifiable 'freeze' of United States and Soviet Union forces were debated last year in the United States Congress. One such resolution was adopted by the United States House of Representatives on 4 May 1983 and an amended text was appended to other legislation in the Senate-the Kennedy-Hatfield amendment. These resolutions were directed at establishing detailed objectives for the United States delegation in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks negotiations with the Soviet Union. From the text of the resolutions and the debate it is evident that the authors of the resolutions shared the views of the Australian Government, referred to by Senator Chipp, as to the need for such a freeze to be mutually agreed, verified, directed at arms reductions and not giving advantage to either side. However, an important dimension of the debate in the United States Congress on this issue was its party political aspect, as between Republicans and Democrats. The Australian Government has not seen it appropriate to endorse the position of either the United States or the Soviet Union in the negotiations to which these resolutions relate. It would be even more inappropriate for Australia to endorse proposals to revise the United States negotiating objectives, especially as these proposals are politically controversial in the United States. Australia's approach to nuclear arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union is to call for a resumption of negotiations and the conclusion of agreements to restrain the arms race, reduce arsenals and improve relations. (3) Yes. (4) The following three resolutions have been tabled in the First Committee of the General Assembly since March 1983: (1) 38/73B sponsored by India, which called upon 'all nuclear weapon states to agree to a freeze on nuclear weapons, which would, inter alia, provide for a simultaneous total stoppage of any further production of nuclear weapons and a complete cut-off in the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes' . Specific technical objections Australia had to this resolution were that: (a) it lacked any reference whatsoever to verification, balance or the preservation of the security of each state involved in the freeze. (b) if failed to call for a halt to nuclear testing, one of Australia's principal disarmament goals. (c) its call for a cut-off of fissionable material production was restricted to 'weapons purposes' whereas Australia calls for cessation of the production of all nuclear explosive devices. (d) it failed to call for reductions in nuclear arsenals following a freeze. (2) 38/73E sponsored by Mexico and Sweden, which urged the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America 'to proclaim, either through simultaneous unilateral declarations or through a joint declaration, an immediate nuclear arms freeze, which would be a first step towards a comprehensive program of disarmament . . .' Australia's objections to this resolution, were: (a) it called only for a ban on testing of nuclear weapons, not for a comprehensive ban of the type sought by Australia, which would ban all nuclear tests, including so-called 'peaceful nuclear explosions'. (b) it confined verification to those arrangements agreed in the SALT I and ( unratified) SALT II agreements and the inconclusive trilateral (United States/ Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/United Kingdom) talks on a nuclear test ban; these verification arrangements are clearly insufficient for a comprehensive nuclear freeze agreement. (c) it also, like the Indian resolution (and unlike a Canadian resolution on ' cut-off', which Australia co-sponsored) calls only for a 'cut-off' of fissionable material for weapons purposes rather than for all nuclear explosive devices. (3) 38/76 sponsored by the Soviet Union which urged 'all nuclear weapon states to proceed to freeze, under appropriate verification, all nuclear weapons in their possession, in both quantitative and qualitative terms . . .' Australia's specific difficulties with this text were: (a) it also called only for a ban on testing of weapons rather than all nuclear tests, (b) it also restricts its 'cut-off' proposal to material for 'weapons' purposes rather than all nuclear explosive devices, (c) it lacks any reference to the need to maintain balance between the parties. (d) its reference to 'appropriate' verification is too weak and open to restrictive interpretation. (5) As indicated above none of the three resolutions provided clearly and unequivocally for the principles of balance and verifiability crucial to the stability of nuclear deterrence and confidence in arms control agreements. The major reason why Australia could not support these resolutions, however, was that they did not take account of the realities which need to be addressed if agreements are to be achieved between the countries concerned. Last year-as is still the case today-one of the principal sources of tension between the Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact was the European INF issue. To endorse a freeze resolution in this context would have been to take the Soviet side against North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in that argument. Australia does not endorse the negotiating position of either party in the INF issue but it believes that the concerns of both sides will need to be reconciled and accommodated in an agreed solution. For Australia to support the position of any one side in this matter against the other would not, in the Government's view, be constructive. (Question No. 858) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 2 May 1984: (1) What is the current situation regarding handicapped children being allowed to integrate into normal state schools. (2) Does the Commonwealth Schools Commission's policy require handicapped children to be accepted into normal state schools only if the child is fully integrated immediately upon acceptance; if so, why; if not, what is the Schools Commission's policy. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government accepted recommendations from the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1984 and provided $1.348m to support programs for the integration of handicapped children into regular state schools. This represents an increase of 20 per cent in real terms over the level of assistance provided during 1983. (2) One of the basic principles of the Commonwealth's support for special education is that each individual should have the opportunity to participate in the life of the community to the greatest extent possible. This principle suggests that handicapped persons should have access to mainstream social institutions and that handicapped children should, where possible, be integrated into regular schools, The Commonwealth Schools Commission recognises that there are differences in the extent to which integration has been achieved and that there are variations in State and Territory policies concerning the ways in which it should be undertaken. However, for both government and non-government sectors, Commission policy has recommended that funds be applied in accordance with the following priorities: The movement of handicapped children from special to regular schools. The provision of services to enable isolated handicapped children to attend neighbourhood schools. Facilitating enrolment into regular primary schools of handicapped children who are beginning their formal schooling. The funding of activities to assist in the education of handicapped children already fully or partially integrated into regular schools. Facilitating enrolment into regular pre-schools of handicapped children below school age. It is important to note that for government schools individual priorities for the use of integration grants are determined by State and Territory education authorities. State Education Departments have advised however that decisions on whether handicapped children are accepted into regular schools on full time or part time bases are dependent on the particular needs of the individual handicapped children involved. In summary, Schools Commission policy indicates that the integration of handicapped children should take place in circumstances where it is clear that it will be profitable and fulfilling for the children concerned. (Question No. 860) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) What are the designated flight paths for Brisbane Airport. (2) Have there been any reported incidents of aircraft deviating from these designated paths. (3) What are the proposed flight paths for the new Brisbane Airport. (4) Has any noise testing been conducted on existing and/or proposed flight paths; if not, why not; if so, what were the results. (5) Are there any routes which would drop noise over the Sandgate, Deagon and Shorncliffe areas. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Flight paths for departing instrument flight rules category aircraft are designated in the aeronautical information publication, 'Terminal Area Procedures', in the form of Standard Instrument Departures (SID). A total of 63 SID are provided for various destinations and are allocated initially by air traffic control as part of an airways clearance for each departing aircraft in this category. Arriving aircraft may be on either of four main trunk routes or nine other routes. Aircraft which are above 5,700 kilograms maximum take-off weight or are jet engined, are radar vectored, weather and traffic permitting, in accordance with preferred noise abatement routes which are also specified in the aeronautical information publication. (2) Weather conditions or traffic complexity and the over-riding consideration of safety on some occasions necessitate the use of other than the preferred routes for both arriving and departing aircraft. (3) Work is shortly to commence on drafting the flight paths for the redeveloped airport, following finalisation of land acquisition for the siting of navigation aids. (4) Sound level monitoring has been conducted on an ad hoc basis at the existing airport. A recent example is the tests which were carried out when the A300 Airbus commenced operations to Brisbane Airport. The results of these tests were as follows: Measured Noise Levels at the Nearest Residences to Brisbane Airport Noise Level, maximum decibels (on the 'A' weighted scale) on the general aviation parking area near the south western boundary of the airport Average noise level corrected to location of nearest residence Airbus Operation Landing RWY 22 69, 62, 67 Take-off RWY 04 85, 79, 83 Other Aircraft Types Landing B737 74 72 Take-off B727 101 99 B737 102 100 DC9 96 94 (5) Overflights of the Sandgate, Deagon and Shorncliffe areas do occur, but the small number of noise complaints recorded indicates that the use of special routes to avoid them would not be justified at present. The situation may need to be reviewed when operations commence from the redeveloped airport. (Question No. 861) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 2 May 1984: Did Mr Owen Harries submit reports to the Department of Foreign Affairs relating to his visits outside of France as Australian Permanent Delegate to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; if so, to which visits did these reports relate. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In his capacity as Australian Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Mr Harries represented Australia at the World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico City from 26 July to 6 August 1982 and provided a report on that conference to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr Harries participated in the Commonwealth expert study group on obstacles to North-South negotiations and reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs on the work of that study group. As regards the other visits which Mr Harries had outside France during his term as Australian permanent delegate to UNESCO, these were in connection with the responsibility assigned to him by the then Prime Minister for monitoring work in various research and policy institutions. I understand the reports which Mr Harries submitted on these visits were made to the then Government. (Question No. 870) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Are Australian service personnel who enlisted in the armed forces since 1972 entitled to defence force home loans, irrespective of whether they served in a war zone. (2) How many Australian service personnel, prior to 1972, were 'attached' for duty in 'special areas' as defined in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service ) Act during the Vietnam War, as opposed to service personnel who were posted for 'special duty' in 'special areas' as defined under the same Act. (3) Is the Minister for Defence aware that those personnel 'attached' to areas in (South) Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War were exposed to the same dangers to their health and lives as those personnel allotted for 'special duty' in the same areas. (4) Are those 'attached' personnel entitled to the same war service benefits as the personnel allotted for 'special duty' in view of the fact that they served Australia together in the same 'special areas' of a recognised war zone; if not, why not, and will the Minister for Defence introduce legislation to correct this unfortunate anomaly which so blatantly discriminates against a small section of service personnel who placed their lives in danger in the service of this country. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Defence service homes legislation is not within my portfolio, but I have been advised by my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that personnel who enlisted after 1972 must serve for minimum periods specified in the Defence Service Homes Act to qualify for a defence service homes loan. The service need not be in a war zone. (2) A search of service records has revealed that the number of personnel who visited Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 was about 3600 and comprised a few national servicemen, some (then) Citizen Military Force members, and the rest regular servicemen. The number is made up of: (a) the crews of Naval escort vessels which sailed in and out of Vietnam waters ; (b) the crews of transport vessels such as Sydney (including Army transport staff), Jeparit, Boonaroo and Army small ships which carried personnel and equipment; (c) the Royal Australian Air Force aircrew personnel who manned transport aircraft ferrying personnel and material; and (d) a variety of personnel from all three services who visited the area on staff duties, familiarisation visits and for various other reasons. (3) and (4) Again repatriation legislation is not within my portfolio. However, my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs advises that as a general rule, service personnel not allotted for special duty in a special area as prescribed in repatriation legislation are ineligible for repatriation benefits. Those personnel allotted for special duty in a special area were expected to live and serve under conditions entailing the prospect of continuing danger from the activities of hostile forces. There is no basis for extending full repatriation benefits to personnel not allotted for such duty. Nevertheless, it was foreseen that situations could arise in which non-allotted personnel were exposed to some element of danger. Consequently a special provision, section 7 (A) of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act, was made for veterans who were not allotted for special duty in a special area, but who were incapacitated as a result of action of or against hostile forces while serving outside Australia, to be eligible for repatriation benefits for that incapacity. The existing provisions including those in section 7 (A) are considered fair and adequate. (Question No. 881) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: What proportion of participants appointed by the Australian Government are women in international negotiations and conferences relating to disarmament, human rights, peace and any United Nations agencies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No separate record has been kept of the proportion of women included in Australian delegations to international negotiations and conferences. Members of such delegations are chosen on the basis of their qualifications, the relevance of their duties to the subject matter under consideration, and their ability to represent Australia's position in the relevant forum. In recent years women have represented Australia with distinction as members of delegations to many major international conferences, including for example the United Nations General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the Commission on the Status of Women and various disarmament and outer space conferences. The Government's commitment to the implementation of affirmative action policies within the Australian Public Service will ensure that in the future there is a larger number of women with appropriate expertise in relevant areas. (Question No. 885) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) Did Professor Ovington estimate that the population of red, eastern grey and western grey kangaroos was between 10-12 million at some time since 1981; if so, when was this estimate made and given to the Australian Government. (2) Was this information received by the Government prior to the June 1983 issue of 'Australia: Current Report'. (3) What other recent reports (if any) has the Government received of kangaroo populations since June 1983. (See answer to question No. 792, Hansard, 8 May 1984, page 1771). Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Professor Ovington has advised that the only kangaroo estimates he has provided have been based on advice from State wildlife authorities and scientists from Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and universities following aerial and other surveys. Professor Ovington is not aware of any survey which has yielded an estimate of 10 to 12 million. (2) See (1). The June 1983 issue of 'Australia: Current Report' contained the most up-to-date information available at the time of publication. (3) Since June 1983, the Government has received reports on aerial surveys of kangaroo populations carried out in 1983 in areas of New South Wales and South Australia. In the areas surveyed, the estimated populations were 3.4 million red and 2.1 million eastern and western grey kangaroos (compared to 5.7 million red and 3.7 million eastern and western grey kangaroos in 1982) on the western plains of New South Wales and 864,000 red and 208,000 western grey kangaroos ( compared to 1,365,000 red and 329,000 western grey kangaroos in 1982) in the commercial harvesting area of South Australia. These surveys suggest populations in these States fell by about 40 per cent as a result of the 1982-83 drought. Populations in other States do not appear to have been affected to the same degree. Aerial surveys will be conducted widely in 1984 and, until the results are available, any estimate of population must be considered conjectural. Pasture conditions are now excellent throughout most of Australia and kangaroo numbers are expected to increase. (Question No. 890) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) What would be the estimated cost of universalising the pensioner health benefit card. (2) What is the estimated weekly value of the pensioner health benefit card (a) in terms of Commonwealth concessions, and (b) in terms of State/Territory concessions. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I indicated in my answer of 1 December 1983 to part (5) of Senator Messner' s Question on Notice No. 116 (Hansard, 1 December 1983, page 3186), that the estimated cost of extending Commonwealth fringe benefits to all pensioners was about $116m in a full year. This would not have changed significantly since, except that most of the cost attributable to medical benefits (and much of the cost of free medical treatment in the case of veterans) has already been absorbed by the introduction of Medicare. As a result, the cost of extending Commonwealth fringe benefits to all pensioners is now estimated to be of the order of $60m in a full year. (2) See my answer to parts (1) to (4) of question No. 116. (Question No. 897) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: Does advice given to the Government confirm the assessment by the National Westminster Bank that the Australian dollar is likely to weaken markedly against major international currencies due to higher than average inflation and a worsening current account, until late in the 1980s. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: It is a well-established convention that Treasurers do not offer public comment on possible future exchange rate movements and, since I believe the convention to be well-founded, I propose to adhere to it. (Question No. 899) Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Which countries with communist governments have established airline, shipping or tourist bureaus or offices or representation in Australia. (2) How many such bureaus or offices or representation are established for each country and where are these situated in Australia. (3) How many staff from each of the respective countries not citizens of Australia, have been authorised to work in Australia in such bureaus, offices or representation. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (2) (2) (3) Employees (non- Country Location in Australian represented Number of offices/Name Australia citizens) Poland (Three) 1. Polish Ocean Lines Sydney 2 2. Polfracht Sydney 1 3. Lot Polish Airlines Sydney 1 Czechoslovakia (One) 1. Czech Airlines Sydney 1 Yugoslavia (Three) 1. Jat Airlines Sydney/Perth and Melbourne 9 2. Centrotourist Melbourne 3. Jadransla Slobadna Plovidba (McArthur Shipping- Agent in Australia) Sydney 1 USSR (One) 1. Opal Maritime Sydney 3 China (Two) 1. Five Star Shipping Sydney 3 2. China Ocean Shipping Sydney 2 (Question No. 903) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) What is the likely cost to the social security budget of the decision of the Cocos and Keeling Islands to become part of Australia. (2) Are any detailed estimates of the likely costs available, by pension/ benefit/allowance or program breakdown. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The cost of providing social security entitlement to Cocos and Keeling Islanders is estimated to be of the order of $0.3m in a full year. (2) It is expected that about $150,000 of this expenditure would be on pensions , $100,000 on family income supplement and $50,000 on family allowances. (Question No. 904) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Does the Westpac Banking Corporation advertise on the back of Trans Australia Airlines boarding passes; (2) Is TAA bound by statute to use the Commonwealth Bank; (3) Why is it that TAA has chosen Westpac to advertise in this way rather than the Commonwealth Bank? Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) TAA advise that an advertising consultant negotiated with TAA to secure the rights to the space on the back of boarding passes for advertising purposes. The consultant subsequently sold the space to Westpac with agreement from TAA. The decision to allow such advertising was made on purely commercial grounds. (Question No. 905) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 29th May 1984: (1) How many research breakthroughs of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation over the last fifteen years have led to developments by Repco. (2) What were these developments and when did they take place. (3) How much has CSIRO obtained from Repco during this period for such developments or otherwise? Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two. (2) (a) The textile yarn spinning process known as 'Sirospun' originated in CSIRO's Division of Textile Industry in 1972 and was developed by Repco Ltd in collaboration with CSIRO and the International Wool Secretariat during 1977-80. The process enables the spinning and twisting operations required to produce weaving yarns to be carried out in one stage with only slight modification to conventional spinning machines. (b) The composite wood product known as 'Scrimber' originated in CSIRO's Division of Chemical and Wood Technology in 1976 and, since September 1977, Repco Ltd, and its subsidiary Repco Research Pty Ltd, in consultation with CSIRO , has been developing the Scrimber process and machinery with a view to commercial exploitation most probably through the licensing of the joint CSIRO/ Repco technology to an interested manufacturer. The process involves the crushing of young tree stems to result in a loosely connected web which is then dried, coated with adhesive and pressed together to form structural lengths comparable to engineering grade timber. (3) Amounts obtained by CSIRO from Repco over the last fifteen years are: (a) In respect of 'Sirospun' Royalties 32,508 Reimbursement of patent costs 39,367 (b) In respect of 'Scrimber' (still under development) Nil (c) Otherwise Royalties in respect of Self Twist Spinning Machines* 1,040,634 Total 1,112,509 * The self-twist spinning process and machines were developed by CSIRO in the period 1961-67. Production by Repco commenced in 1970. (Question No. 907) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) How does the Department of the Minister for Defence intend to acquire the land it requires in the Cobar area for manoeuvre purposes and in the Dubbo, Bathurst/ Orange or Tamworth areas for a schools complex. (2) Does the Department intend to retain the land so acquired; if so, for what length of time. (3) Is the Department considering leasing any part of the land so acquired; if so, to whom would the land be leased and under what conditions? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Negotiations for land acquired would be undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Administrative Services under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. Any acquisition would be on the basis of fair compensation . (2) It would be the intention of the Department of Defence to retain the land so acquired for an indefinite period. (3) It is envisaged that, as in other Defence training areas, some land may be used for grazing purposes under leasing arrangements made through the Department of Administrative Services. (Question No. 915) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) When will the environmental impact study of the proposed manoeuvre area near Cobar be finished. (2) When will the environmental impact study of the proposed Army schools complex north of Dubbo be finished. (3) When will the environmental impact study of the proposed Army schools complex north of Bathurst/ Orange be finished. (4) When will the environmental impact study of the proposed Army schools complex north of Tamworth be finished? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A draft environmental impact statement-EIS-for the proposed manoeuvre area near Cobar is expected to be distributed for public comment in mid-1985. Following public review, the final EIS should be completed by the end of 1985. (2) to (4) I expect to receive a recommendation by the end of August 1984 on which of the three areas presently under consideration as a location for the Army Schools should be the subject of an environmental impact statement. The timetable for this statement would be similar to that for the manoeuvre area near Cobar. (Question No. 920) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) Is the import of pome and stone fruits, under Proclamation 20P, prohibited from any country where fireblight-Erwinia Amylovora-occurs; if so, why is a concession given to New Zealand for apples grown in districts in which fireblight does not exist subject to conditions set out in sub-regulation D of Regulation 21. (2) What procedures are adopted to ensure that any import of apples from New Zealand are, in fact, free of fireblight, and are these procedures sufficient. (3) Will the Government consider withdrawing this concession to New Zealand so that any risks that currently exist will cease? Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 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. Essential prerequisites for this form of certification are reliable certifying authorities and sound scientific knowledge of the particular pest or disease. (2) The distribution of fireblight in New Zealand is not known. Therefore Ministry of Agriculture officials cannot provide a certificate that certain districts are free from the disease. Consequently no New Zealand apples are presently imported into Australia. (3) As no New Zealand apples are imported into Australia, there is no risk of introducing fireblight by this means. 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. (Question No. 927) Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 June 1984: (1) Have funds been provided by the Commonwealth to the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust; if so, in what years and in what amounts. (2) Have any of these amounts been provided on the basis of a similar amount being made available by a State government; if so, what amount and which State government. (3) Is any other form of assistance provided by the Commonwealth, such as tax deductibility for private donations to the Trust. Senator Gareth Evans —The Acting Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Commonwealth contributions to the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust have been as follows: 1978-79 $400,000, establishment cost; 1979-80 $2,000,000, direct Commonwealth contribution; $1,925,642, Commonwealth grant to match dollar-for-dollar contributions by State Governments, private enterprise and individual donors; 1980-81 Nil; 1981-82 $100,000, Commonwealth Government contribution to match the Victorian Government's final contribution. (2) The former Government decided in 1979 to match all donations, including those from State governments, on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The amounts donated by State governments, which were matched by the Commonwealth, were as follows: 1978-79Queensland $150,000; Western Australia $100,000; 1979-80 Victoria $200, 000; South Australia $50,000; Tasmania $25,000; 1980-81 Victoria $100,000. (3) The Income Tax Assessment Act provides that private donations to the Trust, over $2, are tax deductible. (Question No. 931) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 June 1984: (1) Is there a discrepancy in the implementation of sales tax with confectionery currently being levied at a rate of 20 per cent while other snack foods, such as potato crisps, are exempt. (2) Does the Government have any intention of rectifying this matter by either: (a) exempting confectionery from sales tax; or (b) providing some form of tax relief for the industry. (3) Is this sales tax an unfair burden on the industry considering the confectionery industry in Australia has not relied on extensive Government assistance or protection to survive. (4) Does the Government acknowledge that the tax has appreciably limited the growth of the industry and the subsequent employment it would have generated. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is true that confectionery is subject to sales tax while snack foods such as potato crisps are exempt. Division VI of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act exempts from sales tax a wide range of foodstuffs, some referred to by name, others by category. Foods for human consumption are exempt. Potato crisps come within that category. Confectionery is expressly excluded from exemption and, as a general class of goods, is taxable at the 20 per cent rate. (2) The Government has received representations from the confectionery industry to have confectionery exempted from sales tax. The matter will be considered in the coming Budget deliberations. (3) There are many industries which produce products that bear sales tax and which do not receive extensive Government assistance or protection. The implication in the question that the incidence of wholesale sales tax falls heavily upon producers of the goods is open to question. (4) Confectionery has been subject to the general rate of sales tax for many years. There is no persuasive evidence available to the government to support the view that the imposition of sales tax has appreciably limited the growth of the industry or limited additional employment that it might otherwise have generated. A general point that is often overlooked is that, for a given revenue requirement, a reduction in the tax burden borne by a particular group requires, other things being equal, an increase in the tax burden borne by another group. In this light, arguments for tax concessions which are based on economic growth/ employment advantages but which are not explicit about how the revenue is to be made up lack a certain cogency. (Question No. 932) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) Was a new nuclear disarmament initiative launched by India, Sweden, Mexico, Greece and Tanzania on Tuesday, 22 May 1984. (2) Does this initiative involve the presentation to the five major nuclear- armed nations, the United States, United Soviet Socialist Republic, Britain, France and China, a draft agreement beginning with a freeze on weapons production. (3) Has the Government endorsed or does it intend to endorse this bold move towards nuclear disarmament. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. The joint declaration of the heads of State or Government of Argentina, Greece, India, Mexico, Sweden and Tanzania makes no mention of any draft agreement as such. Rather it urges 'as a necessary first step, the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as the United Kingdom, France and China, to halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, to be immediately followed by substantial reductions in nuclear forces' . (3) The Australian Government shares the concern about the risk of nuclear war expressed by the six heads of State or Government. It also believes that the nuclear arms race must be halted and that the nuclear disarmament talks should be renewed. A balanced and verifiable agreement amongst the nuclear weapons states-the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China-to halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear arms and their delivery systems, as advocated by the six heads of State or Government, would be a significant first step towards nuclear disarmament. The Australian Government is not optimistic, however, that such an agreement would be easy to achieve. None of the nuclear weapons states has given any indication that they are willing at this stage to halt testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, particularly as some feel that to do so would give significant military advantages to others. This situation makes it even more difficult to achieve the arms reductions which the six heads of State or Government advocate should follow the agreement described above. The Australian Government agrees nevertheless with the six heads of State or Government that, with the unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons that threatens the existence of mankind, priority must be given to nuclear disarmament. We therefore urge the resumption of the bilateral talks between the superpowers on the reduction of nuclear weapons as a major step in this regard. Australia will continue to do what it can to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on all nuclear testing, not only nuclear weapons testing, which would be another significant step towards preventing the increase and spread of nuclear weapons. Australia will also continue to work to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and calls upon those countries which are not yet parties to this treaty, including Argentina, India and Tanzania, to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or, in Argentina's case, to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America. (Question No. 934) Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: Has the Portuguese Government made approaches to Australia with a view to the setting up of a conference in conjunction with Indonesia, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and others, to discuss firstly a ceasefire in East Timor and then the future of that country; if so, what has been the response from the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not correct that the Portuguese Government has made approaches to the Australian Government with a view to setting up an international conference to discuss East Timor. The Government is aware of press reports in early April 1984 which quoted the Portuguese Foreign Minister, Mr Gama, as proposing direct negotiations between Portugal, Indonesia, Fretilin and possibly Australia over the future of East Timor. These reports are incorrect. In a letter to the Portuguese newspaper Expresso dated 7 April 1984, Mr Gama indicated that Australia was not directly involved in the East Timor issue. The Australian Government's position remains that unless bilateral negotiations between Indonesia and Portugal can produce a solution, the principal forum for the consideration of the East Timor issue must remain the United Nations. (Question No. 936) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce been drawn to radio news reports in Canberra on 24 May 1984 which reported comments to a Melbourne economic forum on the previous evening. (2) Did the Minister attack his own Government's economic policies and, in particular, its reliance on the prices and incomes accord, as was reported; if so, will the Minister inform the Senate of his concerns with the Hawke Government's economic policies; if not, in what way did the Minister attack those policies. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (Question No. 950) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) How many deaths have occurred in Australia involving the operation of ultra -light aircraft. (2) How does the Department of Aviation monitor the activities of ultra-light aircraft operators in flight. (3) What regulations govern the manufacture, sale and airworthiness of ultra- light aircraft. (4) What regulations govern the training of ultra-light aircraft pilots. (5) Will the Minister for Aviation consider introducing legislation to license ultra-light aircraft pilots after compulsory training to a prescribed appropriate standard of competence in view of the growing use of these aircraft and the growing number of fatal accidents. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In the period January 1978 to 12 June 1984 there were 48 accidents reported to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation involving ultra-light aeroplanes and 18 of these were fatal. There were no recorded fatal accidents before 1978. (2) The operation of ultra-light aircraft, that is, those aeroplanes with a maximum take-off weight not in excess of 180kg and a wing loading not in excess of 19.5kg/m2, is governed by the conditions specified in Air Navigation Order 95 .10. In general, these conditions require the separation of ultra-light aircraft in flight from other airspace users and ensure that persons and property on the ground are not placed in jeopardy. As with other sport aviation activities such as gliding, ballooning and hang-gliding, the onus for compliance with the relevant operational requirements rests largely with the individual participant in the sport. (3) and (4) No legislation currently exists governing the manufacture, sale and airworthiness of ultra-light aircraft. Nevertheless, the Department of Aviation is presently preparing legislation to permit the operation of slightly heavier and more sophisticated ultra-light aeroplanes, including two-place aeroplanes for flying training purposes. It is anticipated that this new class of ultra-light aeroplane will have greater operational freedom than the previously mentioned class and, as such, airworthiness and pilot proficiency requirements will be incorporated in the new legislation. The Department of Aviation is working very closely with the recently-formed Australian Ultra-light Federation-AUF-in these aspects. (5) No legislative action is necessary to enable or direct the Department of Aviation to license pilots in a manner appropriate to the operation in which they are engaged. However, flying training and the achievement of a certain level of proficiency will be prerequisites for pilots of the new category of ultra-light aeroplanes. This is considered necessary in view of the less restricted operating environment of these aircraft. The Department of Aviation, in close consultation with the AUF, is presently determining the syllabus for this training and will, of course, carefully monitor the results. It is proposed that the training and the granting of pilots' certificates, be delegated to the AUF in the same manner as the Gliding Federation of Australia is responsible for the training and proficiency of glider pilots. (Question No. 951) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 12 June 1984: (1) What was the value of Queensland exports to New Caledonia in the last financial year. (2) Is there scope for an increase in exports to New Caledonia from Queensland; if so, what sections of Queensland industry should be encouraged to look to New Caledonia as a possible new export market. (3) What products grown and manufactured in Queensland are currently in demand in New Caledonia. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The value of Queensland exports-excluding re-exports and state and country confidential items-to New Caledonia in the year 1982-83 was $A5,278,411. (2) Yes, although most goods exported to New Caledonia require import licences and some are subject to import restrictions, which severely restrict opportunity for Australian exporters, the possibility of exports of cattle and long grain rice to New Caledonia, in particular, are currently under investigation. (3) In the period July 1983 to April 1984 the main products being exported from Queensland (excluding re-exports and state and country confidential items), were spelt and meslin (in bulk), unmilled maize, refined cane sugar, fruit juices, sailing boats, pigmeat, oil cake and soya bean residue and mixed goods. On 10 November 1983, the New Caledonian authorities announced restrictions on imports of milk, cheese and wheat flour from traditional, non-Economic Community sources of supply. In the year 1982-83, fresh and frozen milk was the major product exported from Queensland. Representations are being made to the authorities in New Caledonia and France on this matter. (Question No. 665) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations take immediate action on one of the recommendations contained in the research study on community youth support scheme (CYSS) and young women and begin discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and employer organisations on the introduction of an amendment to current industrial legislation to render illegal the dismissal of employees solely on the ground that they have reached 18 years of age and whose performance and work behaviour cannot otherwise be faulted on reasonable grounds. (2) Will the Government also legislate to make this activity illegal through the current anti-discrimination legislation. (3) Will the Minister also set up a Departmental inquiry through Commonwealth Employment Service offices, CYSS and other services for unemployed people to invite evidence and examine this problem in greater depth and report back accordingly to the Federal Government for action. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (3) The Government is opposed to any practice by employers to dismiss young people when they reach adult wage status, and will continue to pursue options to discourage such action. The Conference of Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers in March 1984 noted that Professor Byrne's report on the community youth support scheme had dealt with exploitation of 18-year-olds, particularly in regard to the termination of their employment upon reaching adult wage status. On the basis of those discussions, the Bureau of Labour Market Research has been requested to prepare a report on evidence concerning exploitative incidences in relation to 18-year- olds. (2) The Government through its committees on discrimination in employment and occupation is able to investigate allegations of discrimination on grounds of age. The responsibility for these committees rests with the Attorney-General. The committees currently do not have legislative backing. In the context of the Government's proposals for a human rights package, the future legislative framework for its responsibilities under International Labour Organisation Convention III will be considered. (Question No. 759) Senator Colston asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) What are the essential attributes of Family Court counsellors. (2) What selection procedures are used in the appointment of these counsellors. (3) How were these procedures developed and what validity do these procedures have. (4) Are there any moves to review the selection process for the appointment of Family Court counsellors; if so, what is the nature of this review. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The essential qualifications for appointment, transfer or promotion as a court counsellor were prescribed by the Public Service Board in a section 53 Determination of 21 July 1977. A person must comply with the following conditions: (1) Has qualified for admission or has been admitted to: (a) a degree of an Australian university; or (b) a degree or diploma of an Australian college of advanced education; or (c) an award of an overseas educational institution being an award which, in the opinion of the board, is at least equal in standard to the qualifications specified in (a) or (b) above; which degree, diploma or award is recognised by the board as appropriate to the duties of the office; or (2) Has other qualifications which, in the opinion of the board, are appropriate to the duties of the office. Details of recognised qualifications are set out in Part 5 of the qualifications handbook contained in Volume 6 of the Board's personnel management manual. Specific selection criteria are used in assessing applicants for positions of Court counsellors. The criteria vary according to the level and nature of the position, but are basically directed towards experience in, and knowledge of, relevant counselling techniques together with appropriate personal attributes. (2) Standard Australian Public Service selection procedures are used in the recruitment of Court counsellors. A typical process would include advertising a vacant position in the press and the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette as open to persons inside and outside the Australian Public Service; evaluating and short-listing applications; interviewing applicants and collecting reference reports; assessing applicants in terms of the selection criteria; and recommending the appointment, transfer or promotion of the most suitable applicant. In the course of this process, applicants are required to demonstrate their professional competence and their suitability for appointment, transfer or promotion as a Family Court counsellor. (3) The procedures in (2) above were developed by the Public Service Board and are recognised as valid for the selection of people for appointment, transfer or promotion to positions throughout the Australian Public Service. The selection criteria for individual positions are developed by selection committees and/or staff of the Principal Registry and approved by the Principal Registrar. (4) The selection criteria used to assess applicants for Court counsellor positions are reviewed whenever a fresh selection exercise is commenced. The Principal Director of Court Counselling is oversighting the development of a set of standard questions for use by selection committees and is also exploring the development of objective measures of counselling skills as a supplement to the interview process. (Question No. 832) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 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 Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation is the only statutory authority under my jurisdiction. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Mr Denis Corrigan, was appointed on 2 December 1982 for seven years. His salary is $52,551 per annum. (Question No. 833) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 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 Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ President The Hon. Sir John Moore 1.9.73 4.11.85 84,690 Deputy Presidents The Hon. Mr Justice L. H. Williams 30.12.68 24.7.91 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice J. Robinson 8.8.70 20.1.96 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice P. A. Coldham, D.F.C. & Bar 18.2.71 17.2.89 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke 23.5.72 14.8.91 77 ,633 The Hon. Mr Deputy President J. E. Isaac 2.1.74 10.3.87 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice J. F. Staples 24.2.75 1.6.94 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice S. G. Alley 1. 2.77 24.11.87 77,633 The Hon. Mr Deputy President K. C. McKenzie C.M.G. 31.1.79 12.5.86 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice K. D. Marks 14.4.80 13.4.86 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice B. J. Maddern 21.4.80 9.9.2002 77,633 The Hon. Mr Justice J. J. Cohen 3.6.80 6.2.91 77,633 The Hon. Mr Deputy President M. B. Keogh 1.2.82 14. 12.98 77,633 Commissioners Commissioner N. J. Mansini 1.7.70 4.10.89 54,343 Commissioner N. A. Taylor 6.11 .72 5.10.86 (a) Commissioner F. W. J. Brown 27.11.72 6.2.93 54,343 Commissioner M. E. Heagney 27.11.72 24.8.85 (b) Commissioner A. S. Paine 18.12.72 23.6.92 54 ,343 Commissioner G. L. Walker 19.5.75 10.9.89 54,343 Commissioner P. M. Griffin 1.7.75 20.12.90 54,343 Commissioner J. W. Coleman 1.12.75 17.3.87 54, 343 Commissioner R. G. Sweeney 6.12.76 3.9.94 54,343 Commissioner V. J. Connell 30.5.77 20.11.92 54,343 Commissioner P. St G. Barnes 1.7.78 18.5.85 54,343 Commissioner K. C. Turbet 1.7.78 8.5.2000 54,343 Commissioner F. J. Neyland 10 .12.79 12.8.91 54,343 Commissioner R. F. Merriman 21.4.80 21.8.2000 54,343 Commissioner I. T. McKenzie 5.5.80 20.12.90 54,343 Commissioner E. C. Bennett 22.9.80 21.12.89 54,343 Commissioner B. R. Johnson 27.10.80 21.2.2003 54,343 Commissioner S. G. Hastings 1.2.82 5.4.85 54,343 Commissioner L. N. Bain 1.2. 82 1.6.89 54,343 Commissioner J. W. Sheather 21.10.82 25.3.2004 54,343 Commissioner J. W. Cross 15.11.82 28.9.94 54,343 Commissioner P. A. Cox 16.11. 82 1.3.2001 54,343 Commissioner J. F. Lear 10.1.83 21.1.92 54,343 Commissioner J . Maher 11.1.83 5.7.2000 54,343 Commissioner E. M. Donaldson 1.5.84 10.4.95 54 ,343 Commissioner P. I. Nolan 1.5.84 13.6.99 54,343 Commissioner J. Baird 1.5. 84 26.11.89 54,343 Commissioner F. E. Palmer 6.8.84 8.5.2003 54,343 (a) Appointed as Deputy Public Service Arbitrator. (b) Appointed to Office of National Director, Australian Trade Union Training Authority. DEPUTY PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ Commissioner N. A. Taylor 1.10.81 5.10.86 54,343 PORT CONCILIATORS Mr J. Murphy, Brisbane 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr W. D. Ryan, Brisbane 1.7.81 (a) (b) Mr M. J. McGree, Gladstone 7.11.79 (a) (b) Mr J. A. Bird, MacKay 5.12.77 (a) ( b) Mr C. Brown, Rockhampton 1.9.78 (a) (b) Mr T. M. Scott, Thursday Island 1.1. 84 (a) (b) Mr H. J. Taylor, Townsville 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr W. A. Johnston, Newcastle 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr G. Seymour, Port Kembla 1.2.80 (a) (b) Mr M. J. Clarke, Port Kembla 5.12.77 (a) (b) Captain N. Aiton, Sydney 11.9.78 (a) (b) Mr J. P. Devereaux, Sydney 6.10.78 (a) (b) Mr P. D. Allsop, Melbourne/Geelong 5 .12.77 (a) (b) Mr M. F. Lyttleton, Melbourne/Geelong 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr D. E. Buscombe, Portland 1.12.83 (a) (b) Captain W. S. Gent, Westernport 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr A. G. Parish, Beauty Point 1.7.81 (a) (b) Mr A. G. Paske, Burnie 16.5.83 (a) (b) Mr D. J. Cowan, Devonport 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr A. I. Dow-Sainter, Hobart/ Port Huon 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr J. M. Lucas, Hobart/Port Huon 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr T. N. W. Wilshire, King Island 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr C. F. Cowell, Stanley 5.12. 77 (a) (b) Mr R. S. Strudwick, Ardrossan 19.12.80 (a) (b) Mr F. J. Mitchell, Port Adelaide 13.12.82 (a) (b) Mr N. C. Milner, Port Adelaide 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr L. J. Stehbens, Port Giles 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr G. C. Anderson, Port Lincoln 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr C. Robertson, Port Pirie 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr R. E. Kavanagh, Thievenard 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr R. E. O. Diedrick, Wallaroo 5.12.77 (a) (b) Captain P. R. Hammond, Whyalla 23.1.81 (a) (b) Mr R. Hughes-Smith, Albury 5.12 .77 (a) (b) Mr W. C. Rodgers, Albury 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr B. Stracke, Broome 5. 12.77 (a) (b) Mr C. E. Ganfield, Bunbury 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr A. J. Nowland, Bunbury 14.12.77 (a) (b) Mr L. Shearer, Esperance 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr R. M. Read , Esperance 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr J. Bocksette, Fremantle 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr V. S . Askew, Geraldton 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr R. H. Bailey, Geraldton 5.12.77 (a) (b) Captain G. W. Johnston, Port Hedland 5.12.77 (a) (b) Mr G. G. Lee, Darwin 13.9. 78 (a) (b) Mr R. A. Gibson, Darwin 5.12.77 (a) (b) (a) No fixed term of appointment. (b) Allowances: $785 per annum plus $125 per day sitting fee. COAL INDUSTRY TRIBUNAL Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ Mr D. A. Duncan 16.2.78 15.2.85 55,931 FLIGHT CREW OFFICERS INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL The Hon. Mr Justice P. A. Coldham, D.F.C. and Bar 18.2.71 . . (a) (a) Paid in his capacity as Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission FEDERAL POLICE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL The Hon. Mr Justice P. A. Coldham, D.F.C. and Bar 19.10.79 . . (a) (a) Paid in his capacity as Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. STEVEDORING INDUSTRY FINANCE COMMITTEE Mr N. F. Stevens, A.O., O.B.E. 5.12.77 During pleasure of the Minister 7,899 Mr B. Thomas 10.10.83 9.10.86 (a) Mr D. B. Erskine 20.11.82 19.11.85 (a) Mr G. M. Walsh 2.2.83 1.2.86 (a) Mr H. Calvert 5.9.83 4.9.86 (a) (a) Eligible for a daily sitting fee in accordance with rates prescribed by the Remuneration Tribunal; however, the members do not claim any remuneration. NATIONAL LABOUR CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL Chairman The Hon. R. Willis, M.P. (a) (a) Members Dr M. S. Keating (a) (a) Mr C. O. Dolan, A.O. 11.7.77 (b) (e) Mr R. S. Scott 19.12.83 (b) (e) Mr W. Richardson 6.5.83 (b) (e) Mr W. J. Kelty 1.10.77 (b) (e ) Mr R. Gradwell 14.10.81 (b) (e) Mr S. Crean 14.10.81 (b) (e) Mr K. C. Stone 8.5.83 (b) (e) Mr B. Noakes 19.10.83 (c) (e) Mr D. J. Hughes 25.3.83 (c) (e) Mr J. E. Dixon, O.B.E. 8.1.81 (c) (e) Mr J. D. Booth 19.10.83 (c) (e) Mr A. C. Copeman 25. 3.83 (c) (e) Mr J. C. Trethowan 11.7.77 (d) (e) (a) Appointment pursuant to S6 (1) of the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977. (b) Nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and appointed by the Minister for a period pursuant to S6 of the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977. (c) Nominated by the Confederation of Australian Industry and appointed by the Minister for a period pursuant to S6 of the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977. (d) Appointed by the Minister to represent public authorities as employers for a period pursuant to S6 of the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977. (e) Pursuant to S9 of the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977 members of the National Labour Consultative Council are not entitled to remuneration but are, in appropriate circumstances, entitled to payment of travelling allowance as if an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service. TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY-AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR UNION TRAINING Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ Chairman Mr J. E. Heffernan 12.10.83 11.10.86 (a) Members Commissioner M. E. Heagney 01.08.78 31.07.85 (a) Dr M. S. Keating (c) Mr C. O . Dolan, A.O. 25.08.81 24.08.84 (a) Mr S. Crean 15.04.83 24.08.84 (a) Mr H. Hauenschild 25.08.81 24.08.84 (a) Mr K. H. McLeod 25.08.81 24.08.84 (a) Mr K. C. Stone 25.08.81 24.08.84 (a) Mr K. Lawler 25.08.81 24.08.84 (a) Mr R. L. Gradwell 25.08.81 24.08.84 (a) Mr G. Polites A.C., C.M.G., M.B.E. 25.08.81 24. 08.84 (a) Ms S. Harlow 30.03.83 24.08.84 (a) Senator R. F. Ray 23.05.83 (b) (a ) The Hon. I. M. Macphee, M.P. 04.05.83 (b) (a) No salary or sitting fees payable in respect of chairmanship/membership of the Council. (b) Until the dissolution of expiration of the House of Representatives as elected at the time of appointment. (c) During the pleasure of the Minister National Director Commissioner M. E. Heagney 01.08.78 31.07.85 61,129 2,925 annual allowance Director of Studies Mr P. W. D. Matthews 08.09.82 07.09.89 48,262 875 annual allowance TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY-EXECUTIVE BOARD Chairman Mr J. E. Heffernan 12.10.83 11.10.86 9,826 Members Commissioner M. E. Heagney 01.08.78 31.07.85 (a) Dr M. S. Keating During the pleasure of the Minister (a) Mr C. O. Dolan, A.O. 25.08.81 24.08.84 (b) Mr S. Crean 15.04.83 24.08.84 (b) Mr K. C. Stone 25.08.81 24.08.84 (b) Mr R. L. Gradwell 25.08.81 24.08.84 (b) Mr G. Polites, A.C., C.M.G., M.B.E. 25.08.81 24 .08.84 (b) (a) No salary or sitting fees payable in respect of membership of this Board. (b) Daily sitting fee of $115. Fifty per cent of daily rate payable where meetings are less than 3 hours in duration. STATE COUNCILS FOR UNION TRAINING Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ NEW SOUTH WALES Chairman Mr L. Short 16.04.84 18.02.85 2,443(a) Members Mr F. W. Mossfield 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr M. B. Easson 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) The Hon. J. S. Thompson, A.M., M.L.C. 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr P. Watson 28.02. 82 27.02.85 (b) Mr D. Petie 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) D. J. Parrish 28.02.82 27.02. 85 (b) Mr G. C. Burke 09.02.84 18.02.85 (b) Mr J. Williamson 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) VICTORIA Chairman Mr F. B. Whitehead 19.02.82 18.02.85 2,443(a) Members Mr P. Marsh 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr M. J. O'Sullivan 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr K. Y. Harvey 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Ms M. M. Gould 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr P. G. Bruce 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr B. H. Powell 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr T. F. O'Shea 19.02.82 18.02.85 (b) Ms M. Marshall 16.03.84 27.02.85 (b) QUEENSLAND Chairman Mr E. G. Bright 19.02.82 18.02.85 2,443(a) Members Mr H. Hauenschild 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr T. Barton 10.07.84 27.02.85 (b) Mr T. S. Burton 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr N. C. Bullen 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr R. T. Omdahl 01.10.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr R. M. Bryce 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr T. A. Allingham 02.05.84 18.02.85 (b) Mr N. T. Pyle 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) SOUTH AUSTRALIA Chairman Mr A. R. Griffiths, A.M. 19.02.82 18.02.85 1,385(a) Members Mr M. F. Tumbers 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr P. K. Wright 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr R. J. Walker 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr N. E. Treharne 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr J. Sutton 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr B. Milton 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) Mr B. E. Pollard 19.02.82 18.02.85 (b) Mr R. G. Tasker 28.02.82 27.02.85 (b) 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) LOCAL TRADES COMMITTEES Date of Term of Name appointment appointment Salary $ NEW SOUTH WALES Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr G. Burke (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr O. H. Bowland (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. F. Fenner (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr W. L. Skillen 05.11.73 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr G. J. Cuthbert 23.02.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr A . R. Honeyman 10.01.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr M. J. Malcolm 24.02.75 (2) ( 4) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr G. Burke (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr O. H. Bowland (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. F. Fenner (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr W. L. Skillen 27.01.83 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr J. A. Franklin 12.12.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr G . H. Pitt 12.12.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr W. C. Wooldrige 12.12.83 (2) (4) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr G. Burke (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr O. H. Bowland (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. F. Fenner (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr W. L. Skillen 05.11.73 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr P. M. Davis 23.02.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr C. D . Fisher 14.10.71 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr B. Beer 12.12.83 (2) (4) Sheet Metal Trades Chairman, Mr G. Burke (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr O. H. Bowland (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. F. Fenner (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr W. L. Skillen 05.11.73 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr M. K. Scott 23.02.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr G. J . Harrison 12.12.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr F. A. Bollins 22.02.73 (2) (4) Blacksmithing Trades Chairman, Mr G. Burke (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr O. H. Bowland (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. F. Fenner (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr W. L. Skillen 05.11.73 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr A. J. Nelson 23.02.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr B. Beer 12.12.83 (2) (4) Boot Trades Chairman, Mr G. Burke (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr O. H. Bowland (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. F. Fenner (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr K. M. Smith 17.01.77 (2 ) (4) Employers Rep., Mr W. S. Cloros 13.07.71 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr A. P. Timmins 15.07.71 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr F. Annersley 13.02.78 (2) (4) VICTORIA Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr T. F. O'Shea (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr G. C. Marshman (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. Casamento (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr G. Walmsley, MBE 20.09. 46 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr J. M. Roberts 06.05.63 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr R. Morgan 17.10.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr J. Speight 03.11.75 (2) (4) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr T. F. O'Shea (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr G. C. Marshman (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. Casamento (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr J. M. Roberts 06.05.63 ( 2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr D. M. Norris 10.04.65 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr L. S . Anderson 26.03.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr I. Auchterlonie 10.11.82 (2) (4) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr T. F. O'Shea (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr G. C. Marshman (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. Casamento (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr G. W. Walmsley, MBE 20. 09.46 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr J. M. Roberts 09.08.68 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr P. J. Johnson 26.06.73 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr J. O'Neil 17.10.83 (2) (4 ) Sheet Metal Trades Chairman, Mr T. F. O'Shea (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr G. C. Marshman (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. Casamento (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr J. M. Roberts 06.05.63 ( 2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr F. B. Whitehead 14.11.69 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr R . E. McNolty 01.07.75 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr E. J. Scott 21.05.70 (2) (4) Blacksmithing Trades Chairman, Mr T. F. O'Shea (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr G. C. Marshman (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. Casamento (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr G. Walmsley, MBE 20.09. 46 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr P. J. Johnson 19.03.59 (2) (4) Boot Trades Chairman, Mr T. F. O'Shea (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr G. C. Marshman (1) (3) Secretary, Mr P. Casamento (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr A. E. Williams 22.08.79 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr C. W. Reis 22.02.79 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr L. H. Colbourne 02.08.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr S. Bitmead 20.12.73 (2) (4) QUEENSLAND Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr T. A. Allingham (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr A. A. Kidston (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr G. R. Baker (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr J. R. Jones 4.3.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr J. A. Vaughan 27.2.75 (2) (4) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr T. A. Allingham (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr A. A. Kidston (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr G. R. Baker (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr J. R. Jones 4.3.81 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr R. J. Hawker 21.12.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr N. D. Kane 16.5.73 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr H. Dempsey 21.12.77 (2) (4) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr T. A. Allingham (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr A. A. Kidston (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr G. R. Baker (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr J. R. Jones 4.3.81 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr G. V. Carrier 27.1.72 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr B. R. Burns 7.8.74 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr K. P. Dwyer 8.7.74 (2) (4) Sheet Metal Trades Chairman, Mr T. A. Allingham (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr A. A. Kidston (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr G. R. Baker (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr J. R. Jones 4.3.81 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr G. T. Cuthbert 27.1.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr W. T. Gurdler 3.3.80 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr L. Souter-Robinson 20.7.66 (2) (4) Blacksmithing Trades Chairman, Mr T. A. Allingham (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr A. A. Kidston (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr G. R. Baker (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr J. R. Jones 4.3.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr K. J. Creedy 22.7.82 (2) (4) Boot Trades Chairman, Mr T. A. Allingham (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr A. A. Kidston (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr G. R. Baker (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr J. K. Cox 3.10.66 (2) ( 4) Employers Rep, Mr W. A. Rose 6.3.59 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr A. P. Dreier 26.7.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr R. J. West 24.8.79 (2) (4) WESTERN AUSTRALIA Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr J. F. Currie (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr R. V. J. Skinner (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr R. Tidmarsh (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr E. H. Smith Nominated (2 ) (4) Employers Rep, Mr C. B. Parks 13.7.78 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr N. Xavier 13.7.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr K. J. Peckham 30.8.78 (2) (4) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr J. F. Currie (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr R. V. J. Skinner (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr R. Tidmarsh (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr C. B. Parks 13.7.78 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr R. G. O'Rourke 2.12.80 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr R. W. Fletcher 8.8.56 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr F. Frank 10.6.53 (2) (4) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr J. F. Currie (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr R. V. J. Skinner (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr R. Tidmarsh (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr E. H. Smith Nominated (2 ) (4) Employers Rep, Mr C. B. Parks 13.7.78 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr H. Peden 6.10.78 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr F. W. Bastow 22.8.58 (2) (4) Sheet Metal Trades Chairman, Mr J. F. Currie (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr R. V. J. Skinner (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr R. Tidmarsh (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr C. B. Parks 13.7.78 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr E. H. Smith Nominated (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr P. F. Ryan 19.4.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr J. F. Hardy 13.6.73 (2) (4) Blacksmithing Trades Chairman, Mr J. F. Currie (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr R. V. J. Skinner (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr R. Tidmarsh (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr C. B. Parks 13.7.78 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr E. H. Smith Nominated (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr N. Xavier 13.7.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr K. J. Peckham 30.8.78 (2) (4) Boot Trades Chairman, Mr J. F. Currie (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr R. V. J. Skinner (1) (3 ) Secretary, Mr R. Tidmarsh (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr A. C. Nichols 6.10.78 (2 ) (4) Employers Rep, Mr C. B. Parks 13.9.78 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr A. J. Bennett 3.12.59 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr A. G. Barker 3.12.59 (2) (4) SOUTH AUSTRALIA Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr J. Harding (1) (3) Secretary, Mr R. A. Hill (1) (3) Employers Rep, Mr M. T. Dobie 21.3.80 (2) (4) Employers Rep, Mr A. J. Scriven 24.3.64 (2 ) (4) Employees Rep, Mr E. E. Crowden 17.10.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep, Mr B. Mowbray 24.5.75 (2) (4) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr J. Harding (1) (3) Secretary, Mr R. A. Hill (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr M. T. Dobie 21.3.80 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr J. H. Williams 20.9.63 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr F. J. Fahey 1.2.63 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr R. M. Glastonbury 27.4.60 (2) (4) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr J. Harding (1) (3) Secretary, Mr R. A. Hill (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr M. T. Dobie 21.3.80 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr V. Aschberger 19.12.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr N. Wyman 21.11.74 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr J. E. Lodge 26.11.76 (2) (4) Sheetmetal Trades Chairman, Mr J. Harding (1) (3) Secretary, Mr R. A. Hill (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr M. T. Dobie 21.3.80 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr L. D. Rowlands 19.12.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr J. O'Neill 17.10.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr M. F. H. Tumbers 11.11.69 (2) (4) Blacksmithing Trades Chairman, Mr J. Harding (1) (3) Secretary, Mr R. A. Hill (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr M. T. Dobie 21.3.80 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr N. Wyman 21.11.74 (2) (4) Boot Trades Chairman, Mr J. Harding (1) (3) Secretary, Mr R. A. Hill (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr R. B. Reid 10.9.51 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr D. Rossiter 8.1.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr H. G. Cookett 20.10.69 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr W. Bourke 18.8.75 (2) (4) TASMANIA Engineering Trades Chairman, Mr D. R. Batchelor (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr J. Graham (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. S. Bronstein (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr W. G. Simmons 18.5.72 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr R. H. Purdon 4.2.83 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr H. Harris 31.5.84 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr T. W. Luckhurst 31.5.84 (2) (4) Electrical Trades Chairman, Mr D. R. Batchelor (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr J. Graham (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. S. Bronstein (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr K. T. Holmes 3.7.72 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr A. T. Blee 31.5.77 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr A. Sierink 31.5.84 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr J. I. Nicholson 1.6.68 (2) (4) Boilermaking Trades Chairman, Mr D. R. Batchelor (1) (3) Deputy Chairman, Mr J. Graham (1) (3) Secretary, Mr J. S. Bronstein (1) (3) Employers Rep., Mr P. W. D. Saunders 22. 11.65 (2) (4) Employers Rep., Mr S. Wells 31.1.57 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr A. I. Bell 13.2.81 (2) (4) Employees Rep., Mr D. Wilson 24.11.81 (2) (4) (1) Ex officio appointment. (2) During the pleasure of the Minister. (3) Paid in the capacity of an officer of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. (4) Daily sitting fee $63.00. Fifty per cent of the daily rate where meetings are less than 3 hours duration. (5) Daily sitting fee $110.00. Fifty per cent of the daily rate where meetings are less than 3 hours duration. (Question No. 892) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) How many people are presently employed under the Government's community employment program and in which States/Territories. (2) How many people were employed under that program as at 30 June 1983, and in which States/Territories. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Up to 6 July 1984 an estimated 30,300 people have been placed under the community employment program (CEP). A disaggregation of this estimate by States/ Territories is not available. (2) None. The CEP was officially launched on 1 August 1983 and the first projects were approved on 3 October 1983. (Question No. 910) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) Has Australia had a bilateral co-operative agreement for the technology development of hypervelocity and electromagnetic guns and launchers for approximately the last three years. (2) Is that agreement between the Australian Ministry of Defence and the United States Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. (3) Is that agreement in the process of being renewed; if so, does the government intend to renew that agreement. (4) Has the purpose and nature of that agreement been considered by the Minister, Cabinet or a sub-committee of Cabinet in the process of renewing that agreement; if not, who had responsibility for the renewal of that agreement. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) At the outset, the honourable senator's attention is drawn to the answer given by the Minister for Defence in the House of Representatives in response to Mr Scott's question on Notice No. 1486. Accordingly, the specific answer to the first part of the honourable senator's question is that Australia has, for approximately the last three years, had a co -operative research and development project arrangement with the United States Department of Defence on electromagnetic guns and launchers and pulsed power conditioning. (2) That arrangement is between the Australian Department of Defence and the United States Department of Defence. (3) and (4) The renewal of this co-operative research and development project arrangement is under consideration. The purpose and nature of this proposed new arrangement are essentially the same as those negotiated in 1980. The renewal negotiations have not yet progressed to a stage where Ministerial consideration is required. (Question No. 911) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) What defence research projects operated by another nation or by joint agreement with another nation are Australian scientists working on presently. (2) What are the titles, dates of initiation, purposes and dates of expiry of each of those agreements. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Parliament is aware that Australia has participated since 1965 in the technical co-operation program (TTCP) which is a multi-lateral arrangement under which Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States co- operate and exchange information over a wide range of defence science and technology. In addition, Australia has bilateral memoranda of understanding on co-operative research and development with United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand. (2) The US/Australia memorandum of understanding on co-operative research and development was established in July 1968 for an indefinite period. The purpose of this MOU is to facilitate an interchange of information between the US Department of Defence and the Australian Department of Defence in order to identify areas of research, development and engineering which could, to their mutual advantage, be undertaken co-operatively. Areas thus identified are analysed further to determine, in detail, what arrangements may be appropriate for sharing costs or work to implement co-operative programs in such areas. The object of such co-operation is to utilise, to the best advantage and to the mutual benefit of the two countries, the resources allocated to defence science and technology. Current project arrangements under this MOU include: (a) Influence of the environment on properties of fibre composite materials. The purpose of this project is to study the degradation in mechanical properties of carbon fibre reinforced plastic produced by exposure to various environments. The results of this effort will be useful to both countries in providing information on the likely performance of this material in Service equipment under operational conditions. This project arrangement was initiated in May 1975 and will be completed soon when the results of some long term exposure tests have been documented. (b) Electrical guns and launchers and pulsed power conditioning. The honourable senator's attention is drawn to the answer given by the Minister for Defence in response to Mr Scott's question No. 1486 for details of this project arrangement . (c) Low cycle fatigue in aircraft engines. The purpose of this project arrangement is to increase the life of engine components by developing a better scientific understanding of crack propagation behaviour, improving the non- destructive evaluation techniques for detection and characterisation of small defects and cracks in components and assessing the feasibility of extending the life of engine components by introducing a 'life extension/retirement for cause' component life philosophy. This project arrangement was initiated in August 1980 and due to expire in August 1984. It is being renegotiated for a further period. (d) Acoustic emission. The purpose of this project arrangement is to validate techniques for monitoring and interpreting acoustic emission in critical airworthiness situations. In general terms it is necessary to characterise acoustic emission signals arising from crack growth and from various extraneous happenings such as corrosion, fretting and fastner movement so that measurable differences between these signals will be established. This project arrangement was initiated in August 1980. It has been essentially completed and the final report is in preparation. (e) High Frequency over-the-horizon radar. The purpose of this project is to co -operate on research relevant to High Frequency (HF) over-the-horizon radar technology and the application of this technology to various threat scenarios. This current project was initiated in July 1980 and is due to expire in 1985. (f) NAVSTAR global positioning system. The purpose of this project is co- operation on research relevant to the application of satellite navigation and the techniques and problems arising from the use of satellites in military navigation. This project was initiated in June 1982 and is due to expire in 1987 . The existence and nature of other projects under this MOU are classified by agreement between United States of America and Australia and are, therefore, not available for public release. The memorandum of understanding between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia concerning co-operative research and development was established in 1978 for an indefinite period. Activities conducted under this MOU are classified by agreement between both governments and are, therefore, not available for public release. The memorandum of understanding between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia concerning co-operative research and development was established in 1982. No co-operative activity has commenced under this MOU. Senator Ryan —On 29 February 1984 (Hansard, page 138) Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, a question without notice concerning a grant made to the 'Age Monthly Review' by the Literature Board of the Australia Council. The Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Present legislative and institutional arrangements provide for the Government to make decisions on the overall level of funding to be provided to the Australia Council, but not for its disposition on specific grants. This is a matter for the Council and its constituent boards-in this case the Literature Board. I am advised that the Literature Board has established detailed criteria for literary magazine grants. These criteria have been endorsed by the Council. Within the criteria it is possible for non-literary magazines to receive funding for literary supplements as a means of encouraging the publication of creative writing. At its meeting on 2-3 March 1984 the Literature Board considered a revised application from the 'Age Monthly Review' for funding of the Australian fiction and poetry supplement. The Literature Board offered the Review a grant of $6,600 towards six such supplements in 1984, comprising $4,800 towards fees for contributors, $1,200 towards the cost of an administration panel and $600 for promotion. The Board did not approve an amount for production costs. The Review accepted this offer. The major part of the grant goes to Australian writers as payments for publication of their work. This is in keeping with the funding objectives of the Board. Senator Gareth Evans —On 3 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1556), Senator Harradine asked me, as Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question without notice: My question, which has serious implications for human rights in this country, is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. It relates to those Australians of Indo-Chinese origin who travelled to Canberra on 15 March 1984 for a peaceful demonstration against repressive acts of the Vietnamese authorities or government internally and in Kampuchea. Is it correct that these people were stopped by 15 to 20 carloads of police on the Hume Highway at Craigieburn on the northern perimeter of Melbourne? Is it correct that they were subjected to body searches, photographed and required to fill in forms which included questions about their level of education, prior military service and religion? Is it correct that the search extended even to children under nine years of age whose shoes and even nappies had to be removed? Were Australian Federal Police or officials in any way involved? If the police concerned were all Victorian police, were they acting on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, the Commonwealth police, or any department or agency of the Commonwealth Government? The Acting Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have been advised by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that the police roadblock at Craigieburn, Victoria on 15 March 1984 to which the honourable senator refers was organised by the Victoria Police. Two AFP officers were present in case any Commonwealth offences became evident. I am advised that no such offences were detected and that the AFP officers took no active part in the questioning or searching of any vehicles stopped by the Victoria Police. In response to the final part of your question asking whether or not the Victoria Police were acting on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, the AFP or any department or agency of the Commonwealth Government, the answer is no. Senator Gareth Evans —On 10 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1928) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice: Is it a fact that most Royal Australian Air Force Mirage aircraft have exceeded the airframe safety standard in terms of flying hours as specified by their manufacturers. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The application of modern aircraft technology can allow an aircraft to be operated safely beyond its original design airframe fatigue life. Such technology has been applied in the case of the Mirage through an extensive refurbishment program, generally with the advice of the manufacturers and other users of the aircraft, thereby extending its operational life. The RAAF, as the military airworthiness authority, sets its own technical limits to the operation of its aircraft. In so doing, it takes into account: the manufacturer's design limits on operations and the life of the airframe and its components: refurbishment programs undertaken; and the recommendation and policies of other services operating the aircraft. An assurance can therefore be taken that the RAAF is operating within the known capabilities of the airframe's structure. Senator Walsh —On 5 April 1984 (Hansard, pages 1300-1) Senator Crowley asked me a question without notice concerning bushfire risks from rural power lines. In my response at that time, I undertook to provide further information on the economics of burying power lines or of continuing to pay insurance premiums against the risks of liability from fires caused by overhead lines. As I indicated in my initial response, matters concerning the electricity supply industry are the responsibility of the various electricity authorities or the State governments which ultimately control them, and the Commonwealth Government is not involved in their policy decisions. However, I do have some further information on the matters you raised in your question. I am advised that in Victoria power lines are responsible for only about 1.5 per cent of the bushfires which occur each year, although this figure can be much higher on an acute fire danger day in a high risk fire year. At such times, one of the most prevalent causes of power lines initiating fires is the interaction of trees with the lines. In general, the major risk of initiating bushfires is from low and medium voltage rural distribution lines rather than the high voltage lines of the main electricity transmission system for which easements are comparatively wide. In Victoria, for example, the total length of medium and low voltage rural transmission lines exceeds 80,000 kilometres. While undergrounding these power lines would be technically feasible, the costs of underground cable supply range up to 20 times those of overhead lines depending on the transmission voltage. The cost of undergrounding the rural supply for Victoria has been estimated at $ 8,000m. A booklet has been published by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV), 'Undergrounding the State Electricity Commission Rural Electricity Supply System'. In the case the honourable senator raised of the proposal by the SECV to replace the existing 66 kilovolt transmission lines in the Yarra and Merri Creek valleys in the Melbourne metropolitan area by a higher capacity 220 kilovolt line. I understand that local opposition to the construction of this line is on aesthetic rather than fire prevention grounds. While loss of life, stock and property are national and personal tragedies, extensive undergrounding of rural power lines would not appear therefore to be a cost-effective means of reducing the incidence of bushfires. I am also advised that the issue of bushfire prevention is under active consideration by a special co-ordinating committee of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, whose membership includes practically every electricity generating and distributing body in Australia. Senator Button —On 14 September 1983 (Hansard, page 665), Senator Hill asked me, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, a question without notice concerning the impact on manufacturing industry of changes announced in the Budget which relate to the sales tax treatment of oils, greases and lubricants. Senator Hill referred to a press report which suggested that as a result of the sales tax changes the cost of producing a tonne of steel could rise by $4, with resultant flow-through costs for industry. I undertook to obtain an answer to Senator Hill 's question in consultation with the Treasurer and my own Department. The following answer to the honourable senator's question has been prepared after receiving advice from the Commissioner of Taxation: The correction of certain anomalies and inconsistencies in the sales tax law, including the provisions relating to oils and lubricants, was announced in the 1983-84 Budget. The effect of this was to remove lubricating oils, used for business or industrial purposes, from the list of items classified as exempt and make them subject to tax at the general rate of 20 per cent. Prior to the 1981-82 Budget amendments, item 127 in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act exempted all oils, greases and other preparations for use as lubricants of machinery, implements or apparatus. The previous Government amended that item, with effect from 19 August 1981, to exclude from exemption oils and greases for use as lubricants of road vehicles. Exemption for oils and greases thus became conditional on their being for use for business or industrial purposes as lubricants of machinery, implements, or apparatus other than road vehicles. Considerable difficulty was encountered by vendors and purchasers in the administration of this conditional exemption, particularly where the same type of oil was for use in both taxable and exempt circumstances and where purchasers operated both road vehicles and other machinery for business purposes; for example, in the agricultural, mining and construction industries. As a result of that difficulty, the Government announced in the 1983-84 Budget that all oils and greases for use as lubricants would be taxed at 20 per cent. To give effect to this announcement, item 127 was omitted from the First Schedule and the definition of 'aids to manufacture' was amended to exclude lubricants. In this regard, lubricants have been defined in the sales tax law as 'oils, greases and other preparations- (a) of a kind sold exclusively or principally as; or (b) put up for sale as; or (c) for use as, lubricants of machinery (including vehicles implements or apparatus'. These changes do not affect the conditional exemption available under the aids to manufacture provision in respect of various substances not considered to be lubricants. Products such as coating oils, slushing oils, rust preventative oils and greases (other than lubricating oils that contain rust preventative additives), quenching oils, white oils and greases (other than those of a kind sold exclusively or principally as, put up for sale as, or for use as lubricants ), rubber process oils, heat transfer oils, antifreeze/boil fluids and hydraulic fluids are considered not to be lubricants and are, therefore, eligible for exemption as aids to manufacture when used in the appropriate circumstances. The Taxation Commissioner has recently ruled that substances such as cutting fluids and coolants, metal drawing oils and drawing compounds, metal rolling oils, flushing oils, mould oils, transformer oils and grinding concentrates are similarly eligible for exemption. As to that part of the question dealing with the effects of these changes on industry costs, it would appear that the overall impact would be minimal. Although the impact will vary from industry to industry, according to the use of pattern of taxable lubricants, there should be little or no discernible effect on steel production costs as a result of the announced changes. Senator Walsh —On 3 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1557) Senator Boswell asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned Australian beef exports and the Commonwealth export inspection charge on meat. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The export inspection charges for meat were introduced by the previous Government in 1979, with the objective of recovering from industry 50 per cent of the cost of providing export inspection services. Due to inflation, changes in the service provided, and fluctuations in throughput, the 1979 charges soon began to fall well short of achieving the 50% recovery objective. The Government carefully reviewed the previous Government's policy of charging for export inspection and concluded that the cost recovery principles should continue to apply for commercial type activities. However, in February this year the Minister requested that an examination of the financial and economic aspects of the current recovery of inspection costs in the meat industry be undertaken as a high priority by the Interim Inspection Policy Council which was established by the Minister in September 1983. The Council completed its inquiry into the effects of export inspection charges on meat industry viability and international competitiveness and presented a report on 1 May 1984. The Minister gave this report urgent consideration and, on 20 June 1984, announced revised charges for export or domestic meat inspection undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry. These charges represent a reduction in the cost of export inspection of some 20% and will lead to an overall reduction in the industry's contribution to the cost of meat inspection. The inspection charge has been restructured into two components. All inspection carried out by the Commonwealth in domestic and export works will attract a charge. For product going to export a levy will be charged at the point of export. This will serve the best interests of the Australian meat industry through the opportunity for increased throughput in export-registered establishments which will ensure a balance is maintained in the amount of meat processed by domestic only and export-registered establishments. Senator Boswell referred to recent developments in the Korean, Japanese and Singapore markets. Further to the advice provided at the time to Senator Boswell on the Korean market for beef, he should be aware that Korea has since announced the results of a further tender for 3,500 tonnes of beef, of which Australia will supply 80 per cent or 2,800 tonnes. With respect to the Singapore market, in 1982-83 Singapore imported Australian beef valued at $18 million. Increased competition has come about primarily because of the decision of the Singapore Government to further diversify the countries from which meat can be imported to include imports of meat from certain South American countries. Although it can be expected that Singapore importers will assess the acceptability of this cheaper priced product, the Minister is confident that higher quality Australian beef of a known and consistent quality will continue to command a premium place in this market. With regard to Japan, negotiations on the question of Australia's future access to the Japanese beef market are continuing. The most recent discussions the Minister had with Japanese Ministers in May reviewed the progress made by the officials' negotiations to that time. The Minister suggested to the Japanese that they give serious consideration as to how Japan might improve, in qualitative terms, access for Australian beef to the Japanese market. He indicated that the area of particular interest to Australia is chilled and aged frozen beef. At a meeting of officials held on 14-15 June Japanese officials responded to the issues the Minister raised in his discussions with Japanese Ministers. At that meeting the Japanese adopted a positive attitude towards addressing these issues and the government will be consulting with the industry before responding to the Japanese proposals. Importantly, the Minister has stressed that the figures put forward in negotiations by the Japanese in respect of the level of access under the global beef import quota indicate that the Japanese have no intention of reducing Australia's beef access in quantitative terms. Senator Button —On 7 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1623) Senator Elstob asked Senator Walsh the following question without notice concerning the community youth support scheme: Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advise the Senate whether the Koorie community youth support scheme research project into the needs of young unemployed Aboriginals has been completed? If so, what were the major recommendations? As part of the Government 's response to the study will the Minister initiate methods to counteract the lack of liaison and co-ordination between Aboriginal CYSS projects? In his reply, Senator Walsh undertook to obtain the information sought. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information: A committee representative of a wide range of Aboriginal organisations, known as the Koorie Research Committee, was set up in February 1983 to co-ordinate a study to examine ways in which community youth support scheme projects might more effectively meet the special needs of young unemployed Aboriginals. The study was to focus on New South Wales but would include extensive national consultation in all areas with significant Aboriginal populations. Unfortunately, despite a deal of effort on the part of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Koorie Committee has now conceded that it is unable to complete the research and prepare an associated report. The Government is of the view that a flexible, local community-based program such as CYSS has the potential to provide valuable assistance to young Aboriginals, particularly those who are geographically isolated or who, for other reasons, are unable to participate in other labour force programs. Accordingly, I will be giving consideration to the initiation of a new study once I have had the opportunity to review the problems experienced by the Koorie Committee. Senator Button —On 8 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1748) Senator Lajovic asked Senator Walsh the following question without notice concerning a number of industrial disputes then current: Has the Minister noted the Dateline News Digest of Monday, 7 May, afternoon edition, today's morning edition and tonight's edition, reporting the following strikes or bans which are plaguing Australian industry: First, Port Pirie, closure of lead smelter because of the continued closure of mines at Broken Hill for more than a month. Secondly, the 20-day old waterside dispute which has brought Australian ports to a grinding halt. Thirdly, the power engineers' refusal to accept a recommendation to lift their bans on returning generators to service. Fourthly, the Builders Labourers Federation pickets who have delayed work on six new light towers at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Lastly, complete closure of the New Parliament House site if the site workers decide to stay out. What action does the Minister intend to take to settle all of the aforementioned disputes? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The dispute at Broken Hill which led to a phasing down of operations at Port Pirie has been resolved. Work resumed on 19 May based on the recommendations of Justice Cahill of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. The resumption of work has enabled Broken Hill Associated Smelters at Port Pirie to avoid any stand-downs as a result of the mines closure. The waterside dispute was settled on 8 May with agreement between the parties that the matters then in dispute be arbitrated in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Normal work was resumed on the waterfront on 9 May. In relation to the professional engineers power industry dispute in N.S.W., the bans were lifted on 8 May, reimposed on 10 May and lifted again on 14 May to allow the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to hear the dispute . In relation to the dispute involving the Builders Labourers' Federation which is affecting work on light towers at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), it should be noted that the Builders Labourers' Federation (BLF), the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) and the Federated Ironworkers' Association (FIA) have been involved in a number of demarcation disputes. On occasion, these matters have been appealed by one or other of the unions to the High Court. In the case of the MCG light towers, Commissioner Merriman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission found that the BLF's eligibility rule did not entitle it to undertake the work. Accordingly, he allocated it to the AWU and FIA. The Government believes that the BLF should refrain from industrial action and accept the Commission's decision. If the BLF is not so inclined, the Government supports the Victorian Government in taking action to allow the work to proceed. Concerning the New Parliament House dispute, it should be noted that on 15 May workers employed at the site returned to work pending a decision on the site allowance for the project. This return to work followed talks, involving the Australian Council of Trade Unions and initiated by the Government, in mid March . The site allowance decision granting $1.50 per hour was handed down on 16 May by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Workers met on 23 May and voted to accept the site allowance decision and to pursue further matters through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Ryan —On 9 May (Hansard, page 1825) Senator Elstob asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, the following question without notice: Has the Minister seen the recent British report that, according to industry leaders, British companies are wasting millions of pounds by buying the wrong micro-computers for their needs? Can the Minister say whether there is evidence to show that similar problems are occurring in Australian Businesses? Does the Minister consider that there are sufficient advisory services operating to prevent such wastage from happening in Australian businesses? The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: I am unaware of the British report referred to by the honourable senator, but I am well aware of the problems faced by businesses in selecting computer equipment suitable to their needs. To deal with this problem, my Department has formulated a number of programs to assist business awareness of the opportunities and pitfalls associated with information technology. My Department has developed a project entitled 'Smarter Office-Stronger Firm, An Introduction to Information Technology for Small Business'. The project is designed to introduce businessmen of all professions to the range of available information technologies; to detail the processes by which a businessman can assess his own requirements and to obtain further impartial advice on the appropriate technologies. The project is now managed on a commercial basis by the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia. My Department is also facilitating the establishment of Microcomputer Demonstration Centres. These centres will provide the business community with the opportunity to obtain 'hands on' experience and training on a range of computer hardware and software systems in an impartial, non-sales environment with trained consultant assistance at hand. The first of these centres is being established in Adelaide in co-operation with the South Australian Government through its Small Business Corporation. In a related project, my Department is supporting a program to display Australian-made computer equipment at the Australian Microcomputer Industry Clearinghouse established in Melbourne on 2 April 1984 by Technisearch Ltd. I anticipate that similar centres will be set up in other State capitals in the near future. I believe they will go a long way towards overcoming the problems to which the honourable senator refers. Senator Button —On 10 May 1984 (Hansard, pages 1926-7) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked Senator Grimes, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Do the articles in today's newspaper headed 'Canberra set to back building workers' rise' and 'Willis will back building unions' super scheme push' accurately reflect the Government's reported intervention in a full Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing tomorrow? Does the Government support the payment of the 4.1 per cent national wage rise in addition to the superannuation scheme? Does the superannuation claim of the building unions breach the wage fixing guidelines of 'no extra claims commitment' given by the building unions to the Government earlier? Could the Senate be advised on these matters? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information: The current discussions on superannuation stem from award negotiations which concluded in late 1983. The negotiations gave rise to an agreement between the parties which incorporated an industrial relations package. This package held out the prospect of industrial stability in the industry for the two year life of the agreement. It is a matter of record that the Commission found that some aspects of the agreement were not in keeping with the wage fixation principles and that as a result, the agreement was not ratified by the Commission. It should be noted however that the Commission adverted to the positive industrial relations aspects of the agreement. The Government considered it important that all avenues which might maintain the positive industrial relations objectives and benefits of the agreement be further explored. Consideration of the feasibility of introducing a superannuation scheme was an aspect of both the original log and the 1983 agreement. Government support for a superannuation scheme for the industry is contingent upon a number of requirements being met: that any scheme be consistent with Government economic and industrial policies; that it should not be a device for a deferred wage rise; that it be a genuine retirement scheme; and that any scheme be accompanied by positive industrial relations undertakings. While the Government is opposed to a rapid spread of superannuation, it encourages orderly development of these benefits, as has occurred in the past. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has reaffirmed its commitment that the building industry negotiations will not form a basis of flow on to other areas and that further development of superannuation will proceed in an orderly and gradual manner. It should be noted that superannuation has developed over time as an issue independent of the wage system. It has been widely regarded as one aspect of the wider working environment and may be seen in the same light as developments in workers' compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements. While the Government acknowledges that there exists a cost component to such developments, it nevertheless regards this as a socially worthwhile cost which should be seen as the price paid for improvement over time of the broader relations between employers and employees. In the past industry has been prepared to meet such costs. The Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, on the 4th, 18th and 22nd of May 1984, heard an application by a number of employer groups for the recent national wage case increase to be denied to the building unions. The Government intervened in those proceedings and supported the flow on of the increase. The Government argued that the Commission ought to be particularly concerned about any developments in the spread of superannuation which are really devices to circumvent the principles and which are not genuine schemes. The Government further submitted that it would be open to the Commission to take into consideration any increase in overall labour costs caused by any rapid spread of superannuation schemes when determining any increase that may be awarded by the Commission in a national productivity case or in future national wage cases. The Full Bench in its decision of 13 June 1984 granting the flow on of the national wage case 4.1 per cent, concurred with this submission. Senator Button —On 1 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2374) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice concerning the furnishing trades allowance campaign: I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to inform the Senate of the up to date position regarding the claim of the Federated Furnishing Trade Society of Australasia for an $11.90 allowance. What action is being taken to avoid a flow-on to Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia members? Are reports that the Minister plans partial deregistration of the Federated Furnishing Trades Society accurate? If so, when will the submission be made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? The following information is provided in response to the honourable senator's question: The Government was deeply concerned about the FFTSA claim for an $11.90 per week on-site disability allowance for indoor workers in the glazing and building supplies sectors. The claim was in conflict with the centralised wages system and the prices and incomes accord. The Cabinet considered the dispute and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations was involved in negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, employer representatives and the union, aimed at achieving a solution acceptable in terms of the Government's wages policy. The efforts of the principal parties have succeeded in resolving the issue. The FFTSA claim has now been withdrawn, all industrial action has ceased and residual matters associated with the campaign have been resolved between the parties. (Question No. 968) Senator Coates asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 June 1984: (1) Has the Attorney-General seen the Canberra Times editorial of Sunday, 10 June 1984, concerning the Directions made by the High Court? (2) Does the Attorney-General agree that it is inappropriate for the High Court to have the power to make such Directions; if so, does he intend to propose amendments to the High Court Act to ''Let the judges judge; let the legislators legislate; and let the executive execute''? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Directions in question were made by the Clerk of the High Court, on behalf of the Court, pursuant to the power conferred on him by section 19 (2) of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. Section 17 (2) of that Act provides that the Court has power 'to control and manage any land or building occupied by the Court and any adjacent land or building that is declared by Proclamation to be part of the precincts of the Court'. Section 19 (2) of the Act empowers the Clerk, on behalf of the Court, to give directions in writing for the purpose of regulating the conduct of persons on any land or in any building referred to in section 17 (2) (d) of the Act. Any such directions given by the Clerk must be tabled in each House of the Parliament and are subject to disallowance. The powers thus given to the Clerk of the Court, to be exercised on behalf of the Court, are consequential upon the basic provision in section 17 (1) of the High Court of Australia Act that the High Court is empowered to administer its own affairs subject to and in accordance with the Act. That power having been given to the High Court, it is appropriate that the Court should be empowered to control the conduct of persons on the land which is occupied by the Court or which is part of the precincts of the Court. (Question No. 721) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Has a committee been established, with reference to the budget allocation of $1m for the improvement in the Department of Defence Support's efficiency and effectiveness. (2) If a committee has been established, who are the members of this committee and what rationale was used to choose the members, and are any of the members from the private sector. (3) What brief has been given to this committee, and when is the report on their deliberations due for release. (4) Is the committee giving consideration to the establishment of a strategy for the involvement of private industry, and on how private industry can best support Australian defence. (5) How is that allocation being used to increase effectiveness and efficiency of your department, if no committee has been established. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (5) A committee has not been established. The Department undertakes a broad range of activities to improve efficiency and effectiveness as part of the continuing management responsibility. The $1m provides an additional resource to extend the Department's activities in this area. In particular resources are being used to further improve management accounting and control systems, personnel management operations, production and inventory management and marketing operations. Broadly, the improvement initiatives fall into two categories: The use of consultants (in accordance with the arrangements determined by the Public Service Board). Acquisition of computing equipment and computer software (in accordance with the arrangements determined by the Department of Administrative Services). The improvements will be of benefit to all elements of the defence industry, providing a stronger basis for private industry involvement, particularly in the areas of Australian industry participation and the offsets program. (2), (3) and (4) Not applicable in the light of the above answer. (Question No. 734) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) How many deaths have been recorded in Australia in the last ten years in relation to: (a) the mining and transportation of coal; (b) the drilling, production and transportation of oil and other liquid fuels; (c) the mining and transportation of uranium. (2) What were the causes of death in Australia over the past ten years of people working: (a) coal mining operations; (b) oil drilling and production operations; (c) uranium mining operations. (3) Does the Government have the same information for all or any of the following countries: United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Japan, Canada, and the United States of America; if so, can the Minister for Resources and Energy provide it. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) In the period July 1973 to April 1984, 140 deaths have been recorded in Australia in the mining of coal. Statistics are not available on deaths related to the transportation of coal. (b) In the last ten years fifteen deaths have been recorded in Australia in relation to drilling, production and transportation of oil and other liquid fuels. Statistics of deaths involved in transportation activities beyond the pipelining phase are not available. (c) Three deaths have occurred in the uranium mining industry in Australia in the last ten years, one in 1976 one in 1977 and one in 1979. No deaths have been recorded as a result of the transportation of uranium in Australia in the last ten years. (2) (a) Australian statistics on causes of death in coal mining operations relate only to fatal accidents. They do not include deaths which may be subsequently attributed to mining. For the period commencing July 1973 to April 1984, deaths by type of accident were as follows: falls/jumps by persons 4 struck by falling objects-slides and cave-ins, falls 57 stepping on, striking against or struck by objects excluding falling objects 12 caught in/between objects (trucks, continuous miners, etc.) 21 exposure to or contact with electric current, explosion 46 (b) The causes of death in oil drilling and production operations in Australia in the last ten years were as a result of the following accidents: Exploration operations-7 deaths 2 men died on an offshore drilling vessel when slings being used to raise a blow-out preventer guide frame failed; 1 man died on an offshore drilling vessel when struck by a joint of a drillpipe ; 1 man died on an offshore drilling vessel as a result of a crane accident; 2 men were electrocuted during exploration operations onshore in Queensland; 1 man died in an operating rig accident onshore in South Australia (no other details to hand). Production operations-2 deaths 1 man died on an offshore production platform during wirelining operations when struck on the head by a lubricator sheave assembly; 1 man died from chest injuries when unfastening a pressurised wellhead fitting during production operations onshore in Western Australia. Pipelaying and construction operations-3 deaths a diver suffered a heart attack while diving off a pipelaying barge; 1 man was electrocuted during pipeline construction in Queensland; 1 man died while stacking pipe during pipeline construction in South Australia. Production platform construction-1 death 1 man died following a fall through an opening in a partly installed offshore platform. Transportation-2 deaths a workboat crewman died as a result of head injuries when he was picked up within the bight of a slipped mooring line; a workboat crewman died as a result of internal injuries after an anchor buoy ( stored on board an offshore drilling vessel) rolled on the victim. (c) In 1976 the death of a truck driver was caused by severe internal injuries sustained when he reversed a truck over an edge of a waste dump. The death in 1977 was due to the same cause. In 1979, a worker was killed when he fell while installing a roller door. (3) The following tables provide information available to my Department concerning fatal accidents in coal mining operations, the petroleum industry and mining and transport of uranium in the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Japan, Canada and the United States of America. COAL MINING OPERATIONS Number of Deaths Trans- portation at the Mining mine Total United Kingdom 1973-1982 298 208 506 France 1973-1982 (a) n.a. n.a. 293 West Germany (b) 1975-83 157 103 657 Japan (c) 1974-1983 372 99 471 Canada (d) 1973 -1982 153 n.a. 153 United States of America 1973-1983 (e) 1 024 386 1 410 n.a.-Not available. (a) No split provided between mining and transportation; does not include deaths due to work-related illness. (b) Figures were sourced from industry associations. Different statistical criteria prior to 1975 prevent meaningful comparisons with earlier years. The numbers of fatalities in mining and transportation is less than the total because the total includes fatalities in other industrial work areas not directly connected with but related to the mining and transportation of coal. (c) Excludes the 83 fatalities in the Mitsui coal mine accident caused by fire in January 1984. (d) Fatalities resulting from occupational injuries and illness. (e) To September 1983 only. COALMINING OPERATIONSCauses of Death by Type of Accident United Kingdom 1973-1982 Underground Accidents- falls of ground 97 transport 176 machines 42 Miscellaneous accidents, shaft and pit 112 Sub Total 427 Surface Accidents- transport 32 machines 10 other 37 Sub Total 79 Total 506 France, West Germany, Canada Information could not be obtained on causes of death in coal mining operations. Japan 1974-1983 Major causes of fatal accidents in approximate percentage terms were: cave-in 20% gas and coal dust explosion 19% gas blow out and poisoning 19% coal car 18% other 24% United States of America Fatalities by cause of accident for 1973-83 were: 1973-1977- electricity 49 explosives 11 explosions of gas or dust 30 falls of face or rib 39 falls of roof or back 193 fires or suffocation from fires 1 haulage 165 in rush of water 9 machinery 148 pressure bumps or bursts 5 stepping or kneeling on sharp or loose objects 1 sliding or falling material or objects 20 slips or falls of persons 19 suffocation (no flame or smouldering) 1 miscellaneous causes 9 Sub Total 700 1978-September 1983- electrical 59 exploding vessels under pressure 3 explosives and breaking agents 22 falling, rolling or sliding material 21 fall of face, rib, side or highwall 30 fall of roof (u/g mines only) 223 fire 1 handling material 4 handtools 1 powered haulage 181 hoisting 10 ignition or explosion of gas or dust 58 inundation 8 machinery 69 slips or falls of persons 17 other 3 Sub Total 710 Total 1,410 PETROLEUM INDUSTRYNumber and Causes of Death Country 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 United Kingdom (a) 0 5 2 2 2 0 1 0 3 3 3 (b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 (c) 3 7 8 15 9 4 9 4 3 10 3 France (a) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 0 0 0 n.a. (b) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n .a. n.a. 0 0 0 0 n.a. (c) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 0 0 0 n.a. West Germany (a, b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 (c) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a . n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Japan (a, b) n.a. 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 (c) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Canada (a, b) 7 2 5 5 3 9 7 3 4 6 n.a. (c) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n .a. n.a. n.a. n.a. USA (d) 275 380 415 280 n.a.(e) 520(f) n.a. n.a. Not available. (a) Drilling. (b) Production. (c) Transportation and other (e.g. diving, work boat, crane and construction accidents). (d) Oil and gas extraction and oil and gas field services. (e) No data available due to a change over in the recording system. (f) 1978-82 data based on a 5 year average because the sample used was too small to produce reliable data at the detailed level. Covers establishments of 11+ employees, whereas 1973-76 data covers all size employment groups. Deaths in the Mining and Transport of Uranium Country 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 United Kingdom Uranium is not mined in the UK France (a) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 3 2 3 . . FRG . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Japan . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n. a. n.a. n.a. n.a. USA (b) 2 2 5 8 14 15 8 6 5 . . . . n.a. Not available. (a) In France, 1 death (1980) was by accident, the other 8 were attributed to work related illness. (b) In the USA all deaths were by accident. Senator Gietzelt —On 14 June 1984 (Hansard, page 3025) Senator Kilgariff asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, the following question without notice: Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport advise when background material used in the preparation of the report of the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, requested by the Northern Territory Government by letter dated 24 May 1984, will be made available under the Freedom of Information Act? The Minister will understand that the Hill Independent Inquiry was based on the proposed rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin to complete the national rail network from south to north of the Australian continent. The Minister for Transport has provided the following information in respect of the honourable senator's question: There are a great many documents relevant to the request by the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works, the Hon. J. M. Robertson, MLA. Some of these are documents of the Department of Transport and some are documents accumulated by the Inquiry itself and placed in Archives by the Department of the Special Minister of State. All of these documents are being examined to determine their status under the Freedom of Information Act and where necessary consultations are taking place with third parties who may have a legitimate interest in the question of disclosure. As this process will involve a considerable commitment of resources and may be quite time consuming I have decided to release documents to Mr Robertson progressively. He has already been provided with access to a number of documents .