Wednesday, 8 May 1985 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: To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the humble petition of Citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the World in their efforts to achieve a Nuclear Free South Pacific, and such Decision being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled Stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on Nuclear Vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its Policy to promote the development of Zones of Peace and Nuclear Free Zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. Any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the ''user pays'' principle in education not be introduced. 3. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. The visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Senator Mason (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament Assembled. The humble petitioners of certain undersigned Australian and overseas students respectfully showeth that: 1. The Overseas student program brings in a multitude of cultural, political and educational benefits as well as a net financial gain of A$5 million p.a., in foreign exchange. (Ref: Goldring Report) 2. Overseas students are under financial constraints. Most depend on their families for this financial support. The Goldring Report found 62 per cent of Overseas students come from families with annual combined parental income of less than A$15,000. 3. The imposition of high Overseas student charges will deprive many overseas students from getting a tertiary education and qualification in Australia despite their academic abilities. High charges will determine education in Australia for Overseas students on economic grounds. 4. The imposition of sudden and drastic increases in visa charges will also particularly disadvantage those current students, many of whom will be forced to discontinue their studies. 5. Overseas students do not displace local students. They represent a mere 3.4 per cent of tertiary students. (Goldring Report) 6. The fluctuations and uncertainty in Overseas students policy has led to uncertainty, stress and fear in Overseas students. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray that: 1. The Government re-affirm a commitment to its policy that supports the social and economic development of people and institutions in developing countries through access to Australia's education and training resources. 2. The Government formulate a consistent and considerate policy concerning Overseas students. 3. The Government reconsider, as a matter of urgency, the legislation of such a high increase in visa charges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 238 citizens) and Reynolds (from 227 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we condemn that Australia should assist the United States of America by participating in the testing of MX Peacemaker missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: 1. seek to reverse this deplorable decision and, 2. ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. by Senator Reynolds (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by Governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forth-coming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than June 30, 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bi-Centenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium businesses in Australia, destroying incentives and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not 'windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 380 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 258 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to 1. Reject a 'user pays' system of education and hence tuition fees in any form. 2. Abolish the Overseas Student Charge for all categories of Overseas Students. 3. Publicly re-affirm its commitment to a free post-school education system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 175 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 240 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and requests the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned who have great concern for the protection of the unborn child, call upon the Government to reject the Vinson Inquiry recommendation that an Abortion Clinic be established in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recommendation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 88 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Northern Territory respectfully showeth: 1. That we are deeply concerned that the redevelopment of the Darwin International Airport is not to continue on schedule. 2. That failure to complete the project will do great damage to the Northern Territory's, and Australia's, tourism industry. 3. That the north of the Northern Territory will be left with a totally inadequate airport to service its resident population. 4. That general aviation facilities and industry will be adversely affected by failure to continue with the redevelopment. 5. That the RAAF Base in Darwin will be hampered by failure to continue with the redevelopment, which could result in interference with effective defence procedures for the north of Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure the Commonwealth stands by its commitment to complete the redevelopment of Darwin International Airport by the scheduled completion date of 1988. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/ discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of citizens and residents of Australia and/or victims of the Hanoi Communist regime, shows that: (i) The current Hanoi Communist Government are the most repressive rulers in the history of Vietnam. Ten years after the so-called 'liberation' of South Vietnam by force, the Hanoi ruling clique continues to violate basic Human Rights and imprison several hundred thousand innocent people without trials in their so-called 're-education camps'. (ii) Hanoi is still following a policy of aggression with their troops in Kampuchea and Laos in defiance of World opinion. (iii) The Hanoi Communist Government is currently conducting the most sustained and aggressive dry season offensive since the initial invasion of Kampuchea. (iv) Aid of any kind, including the educational exchange program will be considered by the Hanoi regime as a sign of approval of their aggressive policy against the peoples of Indo-China. (v) The supposedly insignificant act of the Australian Government in granting the 22 Communist cadres disguised as students to enter Australia on student visas, is: being seen by Hanoi regime as a sign of approval of their policy; a provocative and insensitive act against the 80,000 Vietnamese in Australia, who have suffered at the hands of the repressive Vietnamese Government; presenting unacceptable settlement problems to the Vietnamese Community in Australia who want to live peacefully in their new homeland. Your petitioners therefore pray that Australia: (i) Ceases forthwith all forms of aid to the Hanoi Government including those educational ties and exchanges as the peace and freedom loving traditions of the Australian people should not be seen-through their government-as supporters of that cruel and repressive regime. (ii) Returns immediately their 22 disguised students back to their Socialist paradise. (iii) Joins the free world to condemn the Hanoi Government of their Human Rights violations in Vietnam and their invasion of Laos and Kampuchea and their incursion into Thai territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 3,570 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Credit Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 5 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 10 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the word 'apparently', where twice occurring in paragraph 556S (b) of the Crimes Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Australian Capital Territory, as contained in section 4 of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 11 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-Today is the last opportunity to give notice of motion for disallowance of each of these pieces of delegated legislation, so I am doing that, but in such a way as to allow time for further examination before the notices are dealt with. The Credit Ordinance implements in the Australian Capital Territory some far-reaching reforms of the law of credit and contains provisions which the Committee is still examining according to its principles. We have received a detailed reply from the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) on some matters and are awaiting a further letter from him. The Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance contains a provision which the Committee is concerned to satisfy itself does not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance contains a provision relating to the service of documents in criminal matters. Service may be either personal or substituted. Substituted service is effected by leaving a copy of the document at a home or business address with a person who is 'apparently' resident or employed there and 'apparently' over the age of 16 years. The Committee has written to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) suggesting that the word 'apparently' is subjective and that a more objective test should replace it. The Committee has not yet received a reply from the Minister. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) notes with regret that members of certain unions affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions are refusing to handle freight travelling into or out of the State of Queensland for the next 48 hours; (2) condemns this latest display of industrial thuggery and attempted intimidation of the State and its people; and (3) condemns the Federal Government for failing to protect the people of Queensland because of its refusal to exercise its legal responsibilities under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, which outlaws secondary boycotts. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I move: That the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report on or before 15 May 1985. This Bill implements some matters which the Committee has been dealing with in its reference on the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The Committee believes that it would be appropriate for it to check the provisions of the Bill and proposes that it report on this matter very quickly-that is within a week-so that the legislation is not held up. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Wheat Board-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 54 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979. 2. National Common Police Services-annual report 1983-84. 3. Australian Trade Union Training Authority-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 58 (4) of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. 4. A.C.T. House of Assembly (Second Assembly)-publication dealing with the business of the Assembly for 1984. 5. Australian Agricultural Council-resolutions of the Council's 120th (special) meeting held in Canberra 27 September 1984. 6. Australian Agricultural Council-resolutions of the Council's 121st meeting held in Melbourne on 11 February 1985. 7. Australian Environment Council-summary record of proceedings of the 16th meeting held at Mount Cook, New Zealand on 4 July 1984. 8. Council of Nature Conservation Ministers-summary record of proceedings of 13th meeting held at Mount Cook, New Zealand on 5 July 1984. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on current references. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I indicate that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has decided to continue with the three matters referred to it, but not disposed of, in previous sessions. The three matters are: Continuing oversight of the implementation of reports of the Law Reform Commission; National Service Amendment Bill 1983; and the joint opinion dated 23 August 1983 of the then Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General given to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies concerning a statement made in the South Australian Parliament by the Hon. Peter Duncan, MLA. I indicate to honourable senators that the Committee hopes to be in a position to present reports during May on the National Service Amendment Bill 1983 and on the joint opinion. Motion (by Senator Messner) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prevent an assets test applying to the rates at which certain pensions, benefits and allowances under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920 are payable. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Order of the Day relating to the consideration of Committee Reports pursuant to Sessional Order, be not proceeded with this day. Consideration resumed from 7 May. Clause 8. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering clause 8 of the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill. Two amendments moved by Senator Button have been agreed to. The question before the Committee at the moment is amendment No. 1 moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.11) —I think the Committee is at the point where the most appropriate contribution would come from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). He indicated privately to me last night that, while the Government might support the second amendment I would be moving, it was unlikely to support the first. Since we have got onto this business a little more quickly than was anticipated, perhaps I could make some comments about the contribution of Senator Jack Evans last night when he suggested that the Australian Democrats would not support the amendment which I had moved. It is important to understand that we are dealing with a piece of legislation that will permit the disbursement of $150m of the taxpayers' money to the automotive industry. That is being done with the support of the Opposition. Our concern is that the framework which is provided by the Automotive Industry Act is in itself very broad. It gives a large degree of discretion to the Automotive Industry Authority. Whilst we accept the administration of the moneys by the Automotive Industry Authority, we are concerned that the general administration can in turn be shaped by directions or guidelines issued by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. As I pointed out last night, it woul be possible for those guidelines effectively to reshape the Act by excluding some areas of assistance. For example, whilst the Act clearly is meant to cover the range of people in the industry from the plan manufacturers through to the component manufacturers, on my reading of the relevant provision, which from memory is proposed new section 26M, it would be open to the Minister to give guidelines which could effectively remove large slabs of the industry from being able to be considered for assistance by the Authority. I note that Senator Jack Evans's concern, in saying that he would not support the amendment, was-I think his words were-that there was potential for disruption to the Authority or the industry at large if this degree of uncertainty was introduced. For the benefit of the Committee, I recapitulate that we have drawn the amendment in a form which would permit the Authority to operate pursuant to any guidelines issued by the Minister and there would be no retrospective disruption were the Parliament to decide at any time during the relevant 15-sitting-day period that the guidelines should be changed or disallowed. The critical point is whether the Committee of the Whole of the Senate is going to pay regard to the important principle that legislation should be formed in this chamber and in the House of Representatives and not formed by ministerial fiat. I make no comment which reflects on this particular Minister. It is a simple point of principle as to whether we ought to have regulation-making powers or what are effectively regulation-making powers which are beyond the reach of this Parliament to touch. I remind the Committee that any regulation-making power is subject to disallowance. The fact that the Government in this case chooses to call them guidelines in my view does not alter their basic substance. They go beyond mere policy. In my view they go to being able to limit the whole scope of this assistance program. Therefore, I believe that it is proper and in the public interest that there should be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and, if necessary, disallowance. As Senator Button has yet to give us the Government's view in a formal way, perhaps I should say nothing further at this stage until we have heard from him. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.15) —I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, for reiterating some of the points he made last night. In these discussions in the Senate it is always very important that the technical competence of the Senate is maintained and is seen to be kept going. I am extremely grateful to Senator Chaney for his comments. The essence of Senator Chaney's first amendment is to make the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act apply to proposed new section 26M of the Bill before the Committee to have the effect that directions referred to in proposed new section 26M would be regarded as regulations and would be capable of disallowance. I say first of all that I understand the spirit of the amendment. If I may say so without in any way being construed as patronising, it is not a silly amendment. Sometimes silly amendments are moved by both sides of the chamber. Before making that statement I was very careful to make a qualification about it. Oppositions of either political persuasion sometimes move silly amendments. This is not a silly amendment. It is concerned with the question of the practice of the Parliament and scrutiny by the Parliament of Executive actions. I just want to remind the Committee that this is an area in which firm policy directions are required and certainty is required in the development of the motor vehicle industry. For that reason, amongst others, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. I think Senator Jack Evans, the Australian Democrat senator from Western Australia, expressed this point in a sense quite eloquently last night in his contribution to the debate. I have said-it has been a matter which I think has been accepted by the Opposition-that the elements of this plan are not negotiable. The amendment proposed by Senator Chaney is, in my view, having regard to the nature of this industry, an invitation to negotiation in the Senate about particular matters. It is not, as Senator Chaney said in a very kindly way last night-we were very kind to each other last night in the course of the debate-a matter of a particular individual or Minister. He is concerned with a matter of general principle and so on. But I still think the amendment runs the risk that very important details of the motor vehicle plan could become susceptible to delays and pressures as a result of the lobbying and so on of senators. The reality of the situation is that there would be no point in doing that in the House of Representatives. The government of the day, whether it be a Liberal, National or Labor government, would not change in the course of parliamentary scrutiny, I believe, the directions in the House of Representatives and would not seek to do so. This would occur only in the Senate and may not be the result even of an Opposition initiative. It may be the result of an initiative by a minority party or whoever. In dealing with another issue yesterday Senator Chaney referred to the Administrative Review Council's eighth annual report for 1983-84. In relation to this matter I just want to refer to some of the exceptions to the general principles which that report enunciates. I refer particularly to paragraph 39 of the report which says: The primary criterion for reviewability on the merits identified by the Council . . . is that rights or interests of individuals must be specifically affected to a significant extent by the decision in question. The report deals there with social security appeals and so on. I again make the point about the Government's proposal that is now before the Committee that the whole purport of this part of the legislation is to confer benefits on sections of the motor vehicle industry in exchange for certain conditions which are laid down either in the legislation or in the guidelines which are proposed. It is very important to remember that context. In dealing with the exceptions, paragraph 41 of the Council's report refers to: Decisions which should not be reviewable on the merits, notwithstanding that they affect rights and interests to a significant extent . . . The first exception identified where a decision is not appropriate for review is: where 'high' government policy or otherwise highly sensitive or partisan political issues are involved e.g. protection policy and management of the economy . . . This legislation is part of an integral package, and to remove a small part of it may very well affect the whole thrust of the package. I think Senator Chaney conceded yesterday that in respect of the whole package that exception applied. I think it does in respect of important integral parts of the package. Let me give another reason why the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. In part this has been the subject of some discussion in the debate to date. The Government recognises that there must be limitations on the directions which can be given. I want to outline what proposed new section 26M contains. First, directions by the Minister have to be by notice in writing to the Authority. Secondly, the directions must relate to proposed new Part IVA, that is, this scheme. The directions are not at large; they have to relate to Part IVA which deals with the grants scheme. Thirdly, the directions have to be forthwith published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette-that is, the Minister cannot give a secret direction, in writing or otherwise and it not become immediately a matter of public knowledge. If it does not become a matter of public knowledge because intelligent, perceptive and wise senators do not read the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette as a matter of course it becomes a matter of public knowledge, of course, because of the very nature of this industry. Publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette forthwith is important. The fourth qualification on the power of direction is that directions cannot be given by the Minister in relation to a particular company that are to the detriment of or for the benefit of a particular company. The next matter I mention in respect of the question of accountability involving the operation of this scheme is that the Authority is required to report annually to the Minister and that report has to be tabled in the Parliament. One of the requirements of the report by the Authority will be that each report is to publish details of the so-called design grants scheme which will refer to the names of the companies which have been the beneficiaries of grants, the amounts of the grants they have received, the nature of the proposal, subject to any commercial confidentality considerations, and the provisions of the schemes which the Authority has recommended for approval. We believe that in that context there is a wide range of things to ensure that there is no secrecy about the directions and that there is an opportunity in this Parliament to peruse and debate them. I reiterate the point about Senator Chaney's amendment. If I might say so, again in all humility, it is a perfectly understandable parliamentary point in a sort of legalistic sense. The reality is that in the circumstances of this industry any disaffection, as it were, in relation to directions would immediately find its way into this chamber and may be very detrimental, in our view, to the overall administration of the plan. For those reasons we do not accept the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. I might add at this stage that the second amendment foreshadowed by Senator Chaney is not unrelated. I can indicate now that the Government accepts the wording advanced by Senator Chaney in that amendment rather than any alleged refinement by the parliamentary draftsman. I will say something about that foreshadowed amendment when we actually get to it. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.27) —I will speak briefly on this amendment. The Australian Democrats have very serious reservations about allowing a Minister the sorts of powers and discretions which the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill proposes. We have a great deal of sympathy with and would like to be able to vote for Senator Chaney's amendment. I make that quite clear. We believe that the principle inherent in this amendment is one that the Democrats would normally support wholeheartedly. Our concern is that if we follow a principle blindly and adopt this approach with every Bill, with every industry and with every facet of government administration, and ignore the economic consequences, we are likely to cause more disruption than by recognising that there needs to be a distinction drawn in certain cases. In this case we have probably the worst organised and worst structured industry, as a result of political interference over 40 or 50 years, that this country has ever known. We have an industry which has not known, from one government to the next, from one parliament to the next, where it was heading. We have an industry which has looked for firm government and ministerial control and direction. We now have an opportunity to give that direction through this Bill. It is rather interesting to me, as the spokesman for the Australian Democrats in this area, that I have not been approached by one industry representative indicating opposition to this Bill. Not one approach has been made despite the fact that it has been obvious that the Australian Democrats will have the deciding vote on this matter. Senator Button —They have all worked it over, too. Senator JACK EVANS —Yes, I accept that they would, in their own interests, have been very conscious of the contents and implications of the Bill. That to me is an indication that the industry is not just willing to live with this but also recognises that it is going to be in the long term benefit of the industry to have this strong direction coming from the Government. It is for that reason, and the potential disruption that could come about if we agreed to Senator Chaney's amendment, that the Democrats will not be supporting the amendment. Let me stress that in this amendment we are not talking about the potential for parliamentary disallowance of a regulation if these directions were to be converted to regulations. What we are talking about is not just the possibility of the directions being disallowed; we are talking about the uncertainty and the hiatus which would be created each time a direction was given and, particularly if Parliament were not sitting at the time the direction was given, the potential for months and months of hiatus when the industry would be aware that a direction was there but that that direction was subject to disallowance by this Parliament. Therefore, nobody in the industry in his right mind would proceed along the lines set down by the direction until the 15 day term allowed for disallowance of that regulation had passed. That would mean months of uncertainty. Perhaps even more importantly, it would mean that each and every senator in particular would be subjected to massive pressure from certain segments of the industry which felt that they were disadvantaged during the period which can be allowed for disallowance. Not only would there be pressure on senators of all political parties, but more important than that is the fact that the power would be removed from the Minister to direct where this industry is going. According to the report of the Administrative Review Council 1983-84 I understand that the Minister is not only permitted to implement government policy but also encouraged to do this. When decisions such as those that are inherent in this Bill arise, they do not need to be reviewed, because they involve high government policy or highly sensitive or partisan political issues. This is the exception which I believe was implicit in the report by the Administrative Review Council and it is the reason for the Australian Democrats saying on this one occasion-it should not be regarded as any sort of a precedent for any other type of legislation-that the good of a major industry and the good of Australia's economy need to take precedence over the possibility of a ministerial direction needing to be subjected to parliamentary review with the potential for disallowance of a regulation. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.33) —This morning the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which I have the honour to chair, met and looked at the Automotive Industry Authority Amendment Bill 1985. It will be reporting formally to the Senate this afternoon. However, the Committee asked me to intervene in the debate at some appropriate stage, even though it is rather late to bring to the attention of honourable senators the views of the Committee on the matters which are the subject of debate at this very moment. Nevertheless I do intervene at this stage. With the indulgence of the Committee of the Whole, I will read the view of the Committee as it emerged from this morning's meeting. In considering the Bill in a general way, the Committee has this to say: The Bill would amend the principal Act to empower the Automotive Industry Authority to enter into agreements for the making of grants of financial assistance to eligible companies, companies engaged in or which intend to engage in the manufacture of classes of motor vehicles which the Minister has declared to be classes of eligible products in respect of expenditure to be incurred in automotive development projects. Although the Bill would confer a number of discretions on the Authority, no provision has been made for the review of its exercise of those discretions. The Committee acknowledges the policy underlying the failure to provide for review on the merits and notes that the lack of such review would appear to be in accord with general guidelines promulgated by the Administrative Review Council in its eighth annual report 1983-84. This is the report which Senator Jack Evans just mentioned. In particular, the Committee states: A decision is not appropriate for review where the decision involves apportioning a finite resource. Nevertheless, as is its custom, the Committee draws the lack of review on the merits to the attention of the Senate under its principles in that it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent on non-reviewable administrative decisions. Looking at clause 8 of the Bill in particular, which inserts a new part IVA into the principal Act, dealing with motor vehicles and the components development grants scheme, new section 26A would empower the Minister to declare a class of motor vehicles to be a class of eligible products by notice in writing in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. As the eligibility of companies for grants under this scheme is determined by whether they are engaged in or intend to engage in the manufacture of eligible products, the effect of this section is to make an important element of the scheme turn on a declaration by the Minister which is neither the subject of parliamentary scrutiny nor open to any form of review otherwise than as to its legality. While the majority of the Committee recognises the need for flexibility in such a scheme and considers that the nature of the Minister's decision does not lend itself to parliamentary disallowance, it considers that the Minister's decision should be brought to the Parliament's attention by the tabling of the Gazette notices. I regret that I have had to come into the chamber at this very late stage in the consideration of the Bill to make honourable senators aware of that view of the Committee, but logistics prevented my earlier arrival. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.36) —I have taken great interest in the contributions that have been made, particularly by Senator Tate, which I think would really warrant the Committee reporting progress and at least giving the Government a chance to consider the suggestion that, in addition to the safeguards which the Government itself has put into new section 26M, the addition of a tabling requirement might be inserted. Senator Button —I will agree to that. Senator CHANEY —I think that would be a useful addition. Senator Button —There is nothing to hide. Senator CHANEY —I am not suggesting that there is something to hide. That has not been the basis of any argument. Whilst I do not want to prolong the Committee's consideration of the Bill in a situation where I think it is unlikely that the Government or the Australian Democrats will reconsider the position they have adopted and the arguments they have put forward, for the sake of the record and also, I suppose, with some minuscule hope that the Government and the Democrats might further consider this point, I want to clear up what I think is a very evident confusion of thought in the views that have been expressed by both Senator Button and Senator Jack Evans today. I find it strange that Senator Button and Senator Evans should urge their point of view on the Committee on the basis of the eighth annual report of the Administrative Review Council, which I actually quoted in debate yesterday. I quoted from the eighth annual report to explain why the Opposition was not seeking to insert amendments to the Act which would give the Administrative Appeals Tribunal authority to review decisions made by the Automotive Industry Authority. It seemed to me that the arguments, which have been mentioned again this morning by Senator Evans and Senator Button-arguments which I accept as they are expressed by this report and which I said yesterday we accepted-are arguments which go to the question of whether or not the AAT should have any powers to review decisions. I have not put forward the proposition that it should. It seems to me that that would be a change that would fly in the face of, I think, the fairly sensible policy that has been put forward by the Administrative Review Council. I am in the position where I want the Committee to be quite clear in its mind that I do not disagree with the passage that was quoted by Senator Button, nor do I disagree with the passage to which Senator Evans referred-indeed, I quoted those passages myself yesterday-but they sustain a different point. They sustain the exclusion of the AAT, and the Opposition does not seek to insert it. What we are looking at is the question of whether what is effectively a regulation-making power in this Act should be subject to parliamentary disallowance. I would have to say to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, who is in charge of the Bill, that it has been quite a long time since we have had a Labor Minister in charge of a Bill who has been prepared to examine arguments in Committee and actually change his mind. I think the last Minister who did so was retired Senator Murphy. I recall with great pleasure some Committee debates when he was Attorney-General when we actually did have a debate where there was an ability to-- Senator Robert Ray —What about Liberal Ministers? Senator CHANEY —I accepted quite a series of amendments, particularly to primary industry Bills, while we were in government, when people raised technical points I thought were accurate. The technical point to which this amendment is directed is strictly the question of whether what are effectively regulation-making powers should be subject to parliamentary disallowance. I will address myself to what I think are the actual arguments put forward by both Senator Button and Senator Jack Evans as to why they will not support that proposition. First of all in respect of the Australian Democrats, I welcome the fact that Senator Jack Evans indicated that he accepts the general principle. However, he expressed regret at his inability to support it for the reason he went on to explain. I had visions of Senator Jack Evans, as he was putting that argument, as someone who had lost his virginity but who had certainly done it very reluctantly. I acknowledge his desire to espouse the principle but not to do so on this occasion. I think that the arguments put by Senator Jack Evans were quite significant in that they indicated the importance of the concept of lobbying which was raised by Senator Button. One of the reasons why Senator Jack Evans is not going to support this proposition is that no one has come along and asked him to do so. Quite frankly, the situation in which someone will come along and ask for support is if a Minister does the sort of thing that it would be open to him to do under this guidelines principle. For example, a Minister might say: 'I am being given a terrible time by the component manufacturers. They are Australian owned and employ a lot of people. They really think we should not be giving any more money to the multinational car manufacturers, so I am going to issue a guideline that says that there will be no more money for the plan manufacturers and the Authority can give money only to component manufacturers'. At that point Senator Jack Evans-if he were still here-would certainly be hearing from people. They would be coming along and saying that it was grossly unfair. I put it to Senator Jack Evans and the Australian Democrats that, in the absence of some immediate threat, interest groups do not rally. What we should do is look at this legislation in terms of how it should work and what the position would be if a Minister made decisions which were against the national interests and if he sought to distort this Bill. The fact is that if the Australian Democrats and the Government do not support this amendment it would be open to a government completely to reshape the form of the legislation and the Parliament would be unable to do anything about it. That is the possible problem which we are seeking to address with this amendment. On this occasion I say to Senator Jack Evans as the representative of the Australian Democrats that one cannot judge a measure such as this on whether one has heard from interest groups because one will hear from them when they perceive a threat. At the moment we have a broad set of guidelines which do not exclude any section of the industry and there is no immediate threat. After all, Senator Button is a reasonable chap and he will not do anything nasty. I ask Senator Jack Evans to remember that I might be the Minister in charge of this Bill one day and I might do something terribly nasty. I think the Senate ought to be able to be in a position to do something about it. I think that the Democrats ought to look at the principle which they espouse and see its applicability in this case. I have addressed myself to the hiatus argument before. The same problem arises wherever there is a regulation-making power in a Bill. The fact that there may be a period of some months before 15 sitting days elapse does not cause paralysis. I concede that reality. The point is that the direction, guideline, regulation or whatever it might be is valid unless it is disallowed and action taken under it is valid and is not subsequently invalidated by any parliamentary action. In regard to Senator Button's concern, I would have thought that I had given him as much support as an opposition could give in respect of the idea that the package should be something that was certain and predictable. He said that this really is an invitation to negotiation in the Senate. In response to that I simply say that that is not the case if we analyse it properly. Senator Button laid down in the 1984 statement some preliminary guidelines which have not been challenged by the Opposition or, indeed, by industry. I understand Senator Button will be gazetting guidelines which may be in some different form but that they will be broadly consistent with what has already been announced. Of course, there is no ongoing power in the Parliament to interfere with the directions. It is something that occurs only at the time that a new guideline is promulgated. Senator Button —Come on! Senator CHANEY —If the guidelines are static, the Parliament is not open to lobbying or whatever because it is powerless. However, if the Government sees the need to reshape this scheme by the use of guidelines, it seems to me that the lobbying point is just as relevant to the Government as it is to this Parliament. I believe that in an industry which certainly has a diversity of interests within it, including different manufacturing sectors and the trade union interests-the Minister has been very open in his references to those different interests in various comments he has made in the past-of course, it may well be that any objectionable set of guidelines will arise because of lobbying of the Government. The Minister would, I am sure, understand the reality of the ability of some sections, including some sections of the trade union movement, to affect Ministers and to help to shape the views they might have with respect to the operation of this section of industry. Quite frankly, I think that the argument against lobbying is simply an argument against the normal democratic process. We are in this chamber very well insulated against lobbying-far more so than those in other legislatures. Our party system sees to that. But the reality is that lobbying is the drawing of our attention to problems, be they real or imagined, and it is a proper part of the process. I do not think that any senator in this place has any difficulty in sorting out the wheat from the chaff in lobbying circumstances. My reservation about that point concerns Senator Jack Evans's comments that he does not feel that the principle is one that must be pursued on this occasion, in part because he has not been approached by interest groups. Senator Jack Evans —That is not the reason. Senator CHANEY —He made that an important factor in his thinking. I believe that that is a very dangerous approach and that an objective assessment by senators is necessary. I am sorry to have taken up another 10 minutes of the Committee's time, Mr Chairman, but I believe the principle is important. I think it can be applied in this case without the sort of disruption which has been expressed as being the concern of Senator Button and Senator Jack Evans. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.47) —As I indicated earlier, the Government does not accept the amendment. I did refer in my earlier comments to a number of qualifications on the Minister's power to give directions and I will reiterate those points. I would also like to indicate that I am quite prepared to give an undertaking to the Senate that insofar as any ministerial direction is required to be published forthwith in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, I will see that that direction-if there is any direction given while I am the Minister-is tabled in the Senate. If it is the wish of the Senate, we could look at the question of bringing back an amendment to include that provision. I do not want to do so today. I give the undertaking in respect of the tabling which the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has suggested; otherwise, I think the safeguards that I have referred to are appropriate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.48) —I am a little disappointed by those last remarks of the Minister. I understood from the Minister that he was prepared to make an amendment to pick up the recommendation. There is an easy precedent in section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act. I would have thought the Government, in relation to sub-clause (2), which presently reads: 'The Minister shall forthwith cause to be published in the Gazette particulars of any directions given under sub-section (1) and of any revocation of any such directions', could simply add the following words: 'and shall ensure that such direction be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the making of the regulations'. But I will move that amendment when we have disposed of my first amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.49) —I am quite happy to have that put into proper form. The recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is that it be tabled. I think that that is the expression I would prefer to use. I do not know what the expression 'laid before both Houses of the Parliament' means. Senator Jack Evans —The reference to regulations in that clause. Senator Chaney —No, I am not suggesting that it should do any more than statutorily require it to be brought in. Senator BUTTON —To be tabled? Senator Chaney —Yes. Perhaps we could report progress. Senator BUTTON —I do not think we have anything else to deal with in this Bill. Senator Chaney —I have another amendment. Perhaps we could move on, by leave, deal with my other amendment and then report progress. The CHAIRMAN —Perhaps it would be convenient to postpone further consideration of clause 8 and we could move on to the remaining clauses. Senator Chaney —No, my other amendment is to clause 8. We had better put my first amendment to the vote. The CHAIRMAN —Your other amendment is to clause 9, Senator. Your first amendment is to clause 8 and your second amendment is to clause 9. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. BDurack, P. D. Sheil, GGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic. M. E. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M. Black, J. R. Jones, G. NButton, J. N. McClelland, DouglasBrownhill, D. G. C. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Knowles, S. C. Georges, G. Carrick, Sir John Coleman, R. N. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.57) —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) may be prepared to move an amendment to clause 8. If he is not, I will move it. While the Minister consults his advisers, I inform the Committee that I had in mind inserting into proposed new section 26M a paragraph which would pick up the views of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Committee reported: While the majority of the Committee recognises the need for flexibility in such a scheme and considers that the nature of the Minister's decision does not lend itself to parliamentary disallowance it considers that the Minister's decision should be brought to Parliament's attention by the tabling of the Gazette notice. We had a personal undertaking from Minister Button that he would follow that practice. I do not doubt that he would do that, but, of course, he is the Minister only for the time being. I hope that he will move an amendment which simply adds a sub-paragraph requiring the directions to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the House. It is not yet clear to me whether the Minister intends to move an amendment in those terms. If he does not, I will. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.58) —I am sorry; I thought Senator Chaney was going on to deal with his second amendment. I apologise for not having heard all that he said. Let me state what I think he is putting. Is my understanding correct that Senator Chaney, his amendment relating to proposed new section 26M having been defeated and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee having made a suggestion about the tabling of a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice incorporating a direction, seeks to incorporate a provision akin to section 48 (1) (c) of the Acts Interpretation Act in relation to proposed new section 26M? Senator Chaney —Yes. Senator BUTTON —Is that the extent of it? Senator Chaney —That is all. Senator BUTTON —In those circumstances I will move the amendment. I do not have the clause in front of me. I will refine the wording in a minute. Senator Chaney —Would you like us to move on to my amendment until you have a form of words? That might simplify it. Motion (by (Senator Chaney) agreed to: That consideration of clause 8 be postponed until after consideration of clause 9. Clause 9. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.00) —I move: Page 12, clause 9, proposed new section 27A, after sub-section (2), add the following sub-section: '(3) Where there is an application to manufacturing of the results of a project which has been carried out under arrangements made under sub-section (1), such application shall be undertaken by a company under a contract entered into by the Commonwealth and that company after tenders for that contract have been invited.'. This amendment really picks up the point which was made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in his second reading speech about the intentions of the Government. The Minister said that it was intended that commercial development work which had been effectively done by the Government would be contracted out to industry through a tender process with the Commonwealth meeting the cost. He said: The outcome of such projects would remain the property of the Commonwealth and the rights for commercial production of successful developments would be put to tender. What I am proposing is simply to put that arrangement in a statutory form, not because I doubt that the present Minister would not follow through on that but because he is the Minister for the time being. I think this provision ought to be enshrined in the Act and not simply left to the intention of a particular Minister. I hope that my motion will be satisfactory to the Government and the Australian Democrats. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.02) —As Senator Chaney and Senator Jack Evans, but not perhaps other senators, will be aware, we have had some discussions about this provision. Senator Chaney gave notice of his amendment. As a result of discussions with the Parliamentary Draftsman I then suggested a rewording of Senator Chaney's amendment. On behalf of the Government, I indicate that we now accept Senator Chaney's amendment. We will not oppose Senator Chaney's amendment as it is now worded. There is one other matter which I think I should foreshadow in connection with this matter. The discussion which has taken place about this clause and Senator Chaney's amendment has highlighted another possible problem which really goes to a policy question. I just want to indicate what that problem is. Supposing a piece of relevant, appropriate and significant research was carried out in a government funded research organisation such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and, for example, a new alternator for a motor vehicle was developed. Under the legislation as it stands and under Senator Chaney's amendment, the right to develop and manufacture that invention would be put to tender. I think this is a totally legitimate, normal and correct principle which would have the support of all parties in this place. However, a policy question arises in a consideration of that issue. I indicate this difficulty because we might wish to come back with some further amendment to this legislation in a few months time after we have had an opportunity to discuss this question with the Automotive Industry Authority, the industry if necessary, and so on. We might also need to discuss it with the Opposition and Australian Democrats if such a course is desired. We may come back with some further amendments which involve this policy question. It may be that the process of putting to tender a sophisticated component developed in a government funded research institution would be in the best interests of the Australian automotive manufacturing industry as a whole. If one is considering whether the industry as a whole can participate in export markets, for example, it might be a very relevant factor not to have one company sucessful at tender developing and manufacturing that process. It might be better to have that process available and applicable to the Australian industry as a whole for the benefit of the industry as a whole. That policy question has turned up in discussions. I just foreshadow that at some stage we might want to consider that issue in the Senate. Otherwise, we accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.05) —I accept that there is a valid point of policy involved. The Opposition would obviously wish to co-operate in finding an answer to that. We had some non-parliamentary discussion about the matter. I do not think that this matter would cause any difficulties in the long term. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.06) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats have been involved in these discussions. We support Senator Chaney's amendment. Also, we take on board the comment made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and hope that a solution can be found. Certainly we will co-operate to endeavour to find a solution to the potential problem that he has raised. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Postponed Clause 8. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.07) —I begin what I have to say as one would normally begin a letter-that is by saying that I refer to previous discussions. I move: Page 10, after proposed new sub-section 26M (2), insert the following new sub-section: '(2A) Directions and any revocation of any directions published under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the publication in the Gazette of the directions or any revocation.'. Therefore, proposed new section 26M (2) reads as follows: The Minister shall forthwith cause to be published in the Gazette particulars of any directions given under sub-section (1) and of any revocation of any such directions. Section 26M (2A) will state: Directions and any revocation of any directions published under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the publication in the Gazette of the directions or any revocation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.08) —I welcome the amendment and the Opposition will support it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.09) —The Senate is debating the Customs Administration Bill 1985 and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. A very significant proposal is before the Senate on this occasion which affects the Australian Customs Service. I would simply like to say that the proposal is important because the Australian Customs Service is important. The significant role that Customs plays is acknowledged by the Government in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and it is certainly acknowledged by the Opposition. In the second reading speech the Minister pointed out that the Australian Constitution gives this Parliament the exclusive power to impose duties of customs and of excise and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods and that the administration of that major power has traditionally been performed by Customs. The Minister mentioned something which I think is regarded as pretty important by many Australians in 1985. He said that in addition to its role in administering these industry assistance measures, Customs is charged with enforcing measures to control the import and export of goods and, on behalf of other agencies, the movement of people, ships and aircraft into and out of Australia. In this regard, it has a significant role in the Government's overall strategy against illicit drug trafficking and illegal drug importation. They are obviously matters which are significant and which are important to the community, and of course, that makes the Australian Customs Service of great importance to us all. There is perhaps a less obvious function, although I suppose everyone who pays customs duty is at times painfully aware of it, and that is that the Customs Service plays a very significant role in raising revenue. If one looks at the 1984-85 Budget Papers one sees that Customs is committed to the collection of an estimated $10.8 billion. It is an extremely significant sum of money; something over $10,000m. That is another reason why the shape and the condition of the Customs Service are of signficance to us all. The last point I mention in emphasising the significance of the Customs Service is that it employs something like 5,000 people, so it is a quite major agency in that respect also. Having said that the Customs Service is important to us, I do not think that anyone would claim-including the officers of the Service, from what has been seen in published form anyway-that the present situation of the Customs Service is satisfactory. The difficulties the Service faces are evident in part and they have been touched upon by various inquiries. I do not suggest that all these inquiries have focused on the Customs Service but they certainly have brought out certain aspects of the administration of Customs and some of its difficulties. The most recent was, of course, a highly political one in a direct sense, the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration on 5 July 1984, in respect of the problems of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). There was also the Senate inquiry into pornography, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, and the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures, which arose out of the difficulties of a Liberal Minister. Their reports all suggest that there are difficulties of administration which need attention. I do not wish to prolong this debate by lengthy reference to some of the reports and to the references that have been made to Customs. I will just mention a couple of points. For example, one finds disturbing allegations-I do not say that they are any more than allegations-in the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking report of February 1983, where at page 185 it was pointed out that one witness had said that he believed that the organisation's couriers were protected because of information leaks. There is then a quotation: As far as information is concerned I was also aware that when one of their ladies was doing a body run through Customs they always knew whether or not she was on a hot list. I am not quite sure what all that means, but I think it is suggested that there was some corruption of the Service, or at least some leakage of information which enabled people who were seeking to evade customs to benefit. The report goes on: A number of other witnesses claimed that Clark had a corrupt source capable of obtaining information from the Bureau of Customs' PASS (Passenger Automatic Selection System) computer. They said that because of this, the organisation would know if the name of any courier was on the alert system. Later in the report there is a passage at page 200 about the use of false-bottomed suitcases to import drugs. There is a passage on page 201 where it is suggested that one of the witnesses there 'also thought that the group had a Customs officer on the payroll'. In quoting that report I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that there is widespread corruption of Customs. What I am suggesting is that there have been significant allegations which have certainly given rise to concern and which I know are of deep concern to the thousands of Customs officers who are seeking to uphold the law. There has been no shortage of inquiries. There was the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures in New South Wales in 1983 which was commissioned by the previous Government. Again, I do not wish to quote from that at length, but it is disturbing to find in that report the attitude put forward by the Customs Officers Association of Australia. At pages 52, 53, 54 and so on of that report we find the COA submission, some of which certainly was not accepted by the inquiry but which I think needs to be adverted to, not necessarily because one would wish to embrace all of the things that were said but simply to say that this is an association which is made up of Customs officers and they are putting forward some extremely critical views about the state of the Service, both about the administration of the Service and about the possibility of corruption in some places. What one finds is that here is a very important institution in Australia, an institution that touches on issues of money, an institution that has a very difficult role with respect to an area of deep concern to us all, namely, the question of the illegal importation of drugs, and a general sense that things are not as we would wish them to be. I do not seek to make a speech which scores political points. I am not saying that the present Government is to be condemned because it has not got the Customs Service absolutely right. Indeed, the reports from which I have quoted refer to the situation that applied either at the very beginning of this Government or before this Government came to office. I am not raising matters that are matters of ancient history. If one looks at recent media reports one sees a continuation of the same sorts of concerns. I do not normally take as a reference the publication People, but my attention was drawn to the fact that on 15 April this year that magazine published a very critical article containing extensive allegations made by Mr Bob Spanswick, the General Secretary of the Customs Officers Association of Australia. Again we have an official of a union which is made up of Customs officers making statements that must cause a great deal of concern. I quote what he said without adopting it and I simply quote it as being public allegations currently being made. He said: . . . there are people high up in the Department who make sure that we do not have an effective customs service. That is the sort of thing which all of us find hard to regard as credible, but I simply quote it as an indicator of the sort of concerns that are abroad. He goes on to deal with a great number of concerns. There is a very severe criticism of the handling of a prosecution where he says that it was handed over to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he declined to prosecute. Serious allegations are made in a no doubt widely circulated magazine, and that in turn must affect the attitude people have to this very important organisation. More recently, on 4 May there was a substantial article in the Sydney Morning Herald. I quote from the section headlined 'Bad morale lets drug in, claim Customs officers', where the article states: Senior Customs officers are concerned at a drop in morale and job satisfaction since the introduction of the regular rotation of officers two years ago. A general lack of enthusiasm among officers inexperience within specialised areas is allowing drugs to walk out into the street. Again that is within a matter of days of this Bill coming on for debate in the Senate. The only other matter I wish to quote is a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 May from a named person who identified himself as a Customs Officer. I quote from his letter dated 28 April. It states: . . . I have watched a once efficient force degenerate into a farce. He also says: There have been a number of occasions when highly efficient groups within Customs have been disbanded for no apparent or logical reason. Members of the public would be very impressed and be able to sleep soundly in their beds at night comforted by the fact that 1,600 Customs officers in NSW are monitoring air and sea imports. He goes on to say that that simply is not the case. Mr T. N. Cavanagh concludes his letter by saying: I am so impressed by the new order within Customs and the lack of public support for an inquiry in the Australian Customs Service that I have reached a stage where I am in the process of seeking employment elsewhere, out of total frustration. I make all of those comments to underline the fact that we are dealing with legislation which affects a significant organisation and about which it is said there are very significant problems. In that context we have to examine what the Government has put before us. What we have is the Customs Administration Bill, which is a Bill to establish what is described by the Minister in his second reading speech on the consequential legislation as 'an independent Australian Customs Service'. The Bill creates the office of Comptroller-General of Customs as the controlling officer of the Australian Customs Service and gives him the status of a Secretary to a department. The Service is constituted of people who are employed under the Public Service Act 1922. I think one has to look at the Bill quite hard before one really can establish what sort of body is, in fact, being created. The expression 'an independent Australian Customs Service' suggests something which has a statutory life of its own but it is not being established, in fact, as a statutory corporation. It seems to me that what is being established is a separate department of Customs with a departmental head who is in addition a statutory officer with a term of seven years. So it is basically a departmental structure, but a structure which has some differences from that of the normal department and which, in particular, has a departmental head who is a statutory officer. Therefore he is in a more secure and slightly more independent position than a normal departmental head. The actual wording of the Bill makes it clear that there is still responsibility to a Minister. Clause 4, sub-clause (2), provides: There shall be a Comptroller-General of Customs, who shall, under the Minister, control the Australian Customs Service. We have something which is effectively a bit of a hybrid. It ensures that there is an independent Customs Service in the sense that there is a separate entity. It has its own head but a head who is under a Minister. We have the situation in which Senator Button has indicated that there will not be a separate Minister. The service will simply go on being administered by him as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. The companion Bill, the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, proposes to give to the Comptroller-General many of the roles which are presently assigned to the Minister under the Customs legislation. The Comptroller-General is given general administration of bounty and subsidy schemes, the Customs Act and the Excise Act. I should make it clear that the Opposition considers that, in light of the present situation and the history of this matter, the creation of an independent Customs Service is desirable. We can see advantages flowing to the Service in having it as a separate entity, but we are concerned that the way it is being done and the actual justification have not really been dealt with in any serious way by the Government in putting this very important proposition forward. Neither the legislation nor the second reading speech describe the practical impact of the change and what advantages are supposed to flow from the proposal. Whilst we support the general intent of this legislation, we believe that there has been a quite inadequate explanation of what is being done, how it is being done and why it is being done. It is quite unclear where the legislation really leaves the role and responsibility of the Minister, who, although he is relieved of the direct responsibility for administration, remains involved as the Comptroller-General is described as being under him. The specific ministerial powers are being transferred to the Comptroller-General in the various bounty and subsidy provisions and so on, but just how the system is to work and what the interaction between the two will be is certainly not in any way spelt out. It also appears on the face of it and from the second reading speech that there will be additional administrative costs. There is no attempt to spell those out in any detail. Indeed, there is no attempt at all to spell out the administrative benefits either. The legislation in no way addresses any changes which might be required in the actual administration of Customs. I think it would be fair to say that if there are any benefits to users of the Service-the clients-they are not evident from what has been put before the Parliament. The policy which has been adopted by the Liberal and National parties provides that we will: . . . undertake a modernisation of the whole Customs Act to bring it more into line with current international and Australian commercial and trading practices, legal concepts and judicial systems. Clearly this legislation does not attempt to do any of that. It may well be that the Government sees it as the forerunner of that being done, but the legislation does not really touch on that undertaking which we have given and which I had hoped would have been the intention and wish of the Government as well. The Opposition is concerned that the financial impact of what is being done has not been spelt out in any serious way. We think that the financial impact statement which is dealt with so briefly in the second reading speech is of little value to the Parliament. It tells us very little. Indeed, it is not until one gets to about the second last paragraph of the second reading speech that one gets any attempt by the Government to justify why it is making this change. I do believe that the matter is so important that to suggest that one can simply deal with it in the off-handed way that it is dealt with in the second reading speech is really quite wrong. That brings me to another apparent defect. The Minister in his second reading speech concedes the importance of the close co-operation between the industry policy area of the Department and Customs. The Minister foreshadowed the preparation of a document detailing the working relationship between the Department and the Australian Customs Service and undertook to have it tabled 'when appropriate'. I am not sure what the Minister's view is on when something might be appropriate, but I point out at this stage that this is of no assistance to the Parliament in assessing the merits of this legislation. I suggest to the Senate that we should approach this matter as being analogous to one where the Government has set about to establish a new authority. I have conceded that the Government is not establishing a new statutory authority; it is establishing a new statutory position of Comptroller-General. But it is simply establishing a department in a slightly different category or sense to other departments. I would like to refer to the report on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I think it gives one some guidance to the approach which we should adopt with respect to this legislation. I am fortified by the fact that Senator Button in an earlier debate today used the Administrative Review Council to develop arguments by way of analogy. I simply say that on this occasion I am doing the same thing. The Senate Committee's report, which has largely been adopted, incidentally, by the Australian Labor Party as the basis for its policy on statutory authorities, makes a couple of comments which I think are particularly pertinent. Paragraph 3.5 states: Basically, our approach in formulating the guidelines has been that the creation of a new authority needs to be justified. I believe that the creation of this new arrangement in exactly the same way needs to be justified. The Committee, at paragraph 3.37, went on to state: . . . that a statement expressing specific reasons for preferring a statutory authority be tabled with the legislation. Since this independent Customs Service for Australia is really a new arrangement, I think that in the same way we need a statement which really does set out the specific reasons for going down the track the Government has chosen. The Committee went on to recommend: If such a statement is not tabled, or if the reasons given in the statement are not persuasive, the Committee will request that the Senate refer the legislation to the Committee- that is, the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations- for investigation and report on the necessity for the creation of an authority. It is with that sort of view in mind that the Opposition, after examining this Bill and seeing the paucity of explanation and justification, seeing that the important question of the linkage between the existing Department and the Service is something to be dealt with at a later date when the Minister thinks it appropriate to table a statement, and noting that so little attempt is made to explain in practical terms what is happening, what is being done and what it will cost, believes that this is a classic situation where an examination by one of the Senate standing committees would be of assistance to this Parliament and, ultimately, to the public and to the Service itself. For that reason I move as an amendment to the motion that the Bills be now read a second time: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'these Bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report on the necessity for the creation of an independent Customs Service and, without limiting the generality of the reference, for report on- (a) the practical impact of the changes on the Service, the Minister, customs agents and the general public; (b) what advantages flow from the proposed changes; (c) the extent to which the changes add to or reduce the accountability of the Australian Customs Service; (d) how the changes affect the role and responsibility of the Minister; and (e) the cost of the changes.' I emphasise that the amendment is being moved not because the Opposition wishes unduly to delay the passage of this legislation. If it is asserted that to answer those questions would take time and create difficulty, I can only say that this legislation should not be before the Senate. If the Government has not addressed its mind to the point referred to in the amendment, then the Government has put forward this measure after inadequate preparation. I do not think it is possible to argue that the Government should endeavour to legislate in the way it has if it has not considered the practical impact of the changes on the Service, on the Minister himself-I suspect that the work burden and the role of the Minister have been important factors in all this-and on the Customs agents and the general public who have to use the Service or who are subject to it. It is unthinkable that the Government has not attempted to sort out what advantages flow from the proposed changes. It is unthinkable that it has not considered the question of accountability and how the changes affect the role and responsibility of the Minister. I would have hoped that it would be unthinkable that the Government would make these changes without a careful assessment of the cost. The Opposition asks the Government-rather than trying to deal with a significant measure in a quite complex area, rather than trying to deal with the matter totally by on-the-feet debate of the sort we can have in this chamber-to take the opportunity to enable one of the Senate standing committees to examine these propositions and to report back to us. I would have thought that job could be undertaken quite rapidly if the Government is properly prepared for this legislation. The only other thing I want to say about the Committee reference is that of course the Government has a majority on the Committee. One of the members of the Committee is also a member of the Australian Democrats. Only two of the six Committee members are members of the Opposition in a formal sense. Therefore, there could be no suggestion that we are sending the matter off to a committee which could in any sense, even if the Opposition wished to do so, deal with the Bill in an obstructive way. I am sorry that I need to make that last point, but until we use the Senate standing committees on a more regular basis, I believe there will always be at the level of government some concern that a committee might be used other than for the overt and technical reasons a committee looks at a Bill. I assure the Government that our objective is not to thwart or frustrate the creation of an independent Customs Service. We see the fundamental logic of that move, but believe that the matter is so important, considering that there have been so many inquiries and questions raised and so little justification for the measures which are put forward, that a sober, committee examination of this matter would be the most appropriate parliamentary way of dealing with it. I commend that course to the Senate and hope that it will have the support not just of the Australian Democrats but also of the Government itself. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.35) —I wish to speak briefly on the Customs Administration Bill 1985. Although this is vital legislation which will have an impact on all Australians in a variety of ways, I believe that the direct and major impact will be on the organisation, its structure and the effectiveness and efficiency of our Customs services. The establishment of the Australian Customs Service is a leap forward for this country. The very perception of our Customs organisation as an attachment, a part of an omnibus department under the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, made it evident to the world that Customs was not regarded as a vital ingredient in carrying out the policies of the Government in ensuring that the laws of the land were implemented and rigidly policed. The difficulty any government will have in making this major change is that it will not be able to predict its impact and its effect. It will have to feel its way and modify as it goes along some of the changes which will be implemented as a result of this Bill. But there is no doubt in the minds, I suspect, of us all-not only those indulging in this debate but anybody else with an interest in the operations of Customs-that there is an urgent need to modernise Australia's Customs procedures and practices. There is also not much doubt in the minds of most of us that there is currently a substantial loss of revenue to this country as a result of the inefficiency of the existing service. I do not blame the officers for that inefficiency. I blame the structure and the organisation and the perception of the role of the Customs Service for the bulk of the inefficiency. The impact of all of that is that we probably have a Customs Service whose morale is at its lowest ebb and which is in desperate need of being seen to be given wholehearted support in its operation by this Parliament and the Government itself. The creation of the office of Comptroller-General of Customs, although not a new position, comes out of this Bill and re-establishes a position which is urgently needed again. We need a director whose sole responsibility is to ensure that our Customs laws are properly implemented. The fact that the appointment will be for a term of seven years gives that degree of security to the Comptroller-General. It will ensure that there will be no brooking of ministerial interference in those areas for which the Comptroller-General is responsible to this Parliament. He will control the whole of the Australian Customs Service, and that covers a tremendous range of activities. I will not go into all those activities but simply highlight a couple that are of great concern to members of this Parliament and, I believe, to many members of the community. The first and probably the major one is the illicit drug trafficking and the illegal importation of drugs into this country. We need a focus of attention on that problem which, one can assume, will come from the separation of this organisation. We need the total concentration of a Comptroller-General, officers and staff, down the line, to get rid of the plague of this decade-the drugs plague. We will not achieve that if we allow the old fashioned organisation and methods to continue and wane, thus giving the control of drug importation to the drug traffickers. We have to have the sorts of controls that will flow from this Bill. We have to have them today, if possible, or tomorrow at the vary latest-not next week, next month or next year, because that sort of delay is playing into the hands of the drug traffickers and importers. For that reason I have great concern about the amendment put forward by Senator Chaney to have this matter referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I am conscious of the role of that Committee. I am equally conscious of the major inquiries that it is currently engaged in and the fact that this will be one of a number of references to that Committee, all of which need urgent attention. The thing that bothers me about this referral is the terms of reference. They need to be as broad as outlined in the amendment to have any significance at all. But their very breadth will almost guarantee that the Finance and Government Operations Committee will spend months, if not years, carrying out the sort of inquiry that would be required by this Parliament to get a worthwhile and meaningful report from the Committee. The terms of reference include a report on the practical impact of the changes on the Customs Service, the Minister, Customs agents, and the general public. Senator Chaney —Don't you think the Government should have considered that already? Don't you think it would have? Senator JACK EVANS —I will come to that point in a moment. The Finance and Government Operations Committee, with its limited time and resources, would take months and, I repeat, could well take more than a year to make that inquiry. The advantages that may flow from the proposed changes-one assumes that that means the advantages to the Government and to the people of Australia-could prompt a limitless inquiry because one would expect those advantages to be both macro and micro throughout the whole community. A full scale inquiry into the existing Customs operations would be necessary to bring out the extent to which changes add to or reduce the accountability of the Service. Paragraph (d) reads: 'How the changes affect the role and responsibility of the Minister'. I am not sure that that would take a major part of the inquiry's time. The last item is the cost of the changes. One would expect an inquiry into all these items to have been carried out by the Minister and his Department long before this Bill was ever put into its present form . I accept the point made by the Leader of the Opposition that there is inadequate evidence, in either the explanation of the Bill or the second reading speech, that the inquiry has been carried out and that the Minister is satisfied that all of the points raised in the amendment proposing the inquiry by the Finance and Government Operations Committee have been met to his satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Department, because I think one needs to consider also the feasibility of the application of those points. One would expect the responsible Minister to make reference to that. He will have that opportunity. I will be listening very keenly to the Minister's response in the debate today to find out just what inquiries were conducted before the Bill was produced, what the results of those inquiries were and what considerations were taken into account in the conduct of those inquiries-not just the recommendations of the Department itself but also the potential impact on others affected by this Bill, what sort of input was received from others affected by the Bill, and what consideration was given to that input. All these matters need to be answered by the Minister in his response. I do not want to make any further comments, except to pose a question to the Minister. In a sense I am wearing another hat here as a member of the Finance and Government Operations Committee. In September 1982 that Committee, before I had the honour to be appointed to it, presented its fifth report to the Senate in which it set our guidelines for the creation of statutory authorities. That should have been the base on which this new authority was established. My understanding is that the Committee, having done its ground work and set out the guidelines for the creation of authorities, should now be able to rest assured that Ministers and departments will, in the establishment of authorities, ensure that those guidelines are rigidly adhered to. I would like an assurance from the Minister, in his response in the second reading debate, that those guidelines have been taken into account, that they have been implemented in the creation of this authority, and that there is no need for the Finance and Government Operations Committee to do the work that the Minister's own Department was required by this report to do before the creation of the authority. Given that that has been done, I believe that the amendment moved by the Opposition would be redundant and that the Parliament should be allowed now to authorise officers, through the Minister, to get on rapidly with the job of restructuring the Customs administration and then to look at the results of that restructuring, organisation and operation of the Customs Service as the new systems are implemented under the new organisation. Given that we have those assurances, the Australian Democrats will wish the Minister and the new Australian Customs Service and its Comptroller-General every possible success in its reorganisation and in the implementation of this new Bill. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.47) —It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the Customs Administration Bill and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill and to say something in support of the amendment moved by my Leader, Senator Chaney. Before I do so I indicate that during the previous three years I had the good fortune to be a consultant to a number of firms and organisations which had intimate dealings with the Customs Service both in Sydney and in Canberra. I want to go on record as saying that my experience in the course of those three years was that the people working in the Australian Customs Service were working under a great deal of strain because of a lack of resources, and in many cases because of a lack of necessary tools with which to go about their work. The people with whom I was in frequent contact were public servants acting, I think, in the very best traditions of the Public Service, and trying to do a job under extreme difficulty. They were extremely decent and well-motivated people who deserved a great deal better than they got from the internal management arrangements of the Customs Service and indeed the then Department of Industry and Commerce in general. Therefore, to the extent that this legislation will allow the development of those management practices and services to give greater career stability and sensitivity within the Australian Customs Service, I greatly welcome it. I think it will be of considerable benefit to Customs operations and the Customs services in Australia. The Australian Customs Service and Customs and excise legislation have always raised a significant proportion of Commonwealth revenue. At the moment, as indicated in the 1984-85 Budget, excise duties will yield about 14.1 per cent of total Commonwealth receipts; Customs duties about 4.9 per cent of total Commonwealth receipts and the figure one gets as a result of adding those figures-19 per cent-amounts to some $10,129m, a not insubstantial amount of the Commonwealth Budget. It is interesting to note that while Customs and excise duties raise 19 per cent of total Commonwealth receipts, in the first Federal Budget, brought down in 1902, total Commonwealth receipts were 11 1/2 million pounds of which 9 million pounds were raised by Customs and excise duties. The first Federal Budget must have been a very remarkable document because while total Commonwealth receipts were 11 1/2 million pounds, total Commonwealth expenditure was only 4 million pounds leaving 7 1/2 million pounds surplus. I doubt whether any Treasurer these days would be able to achieve anything akin to that. I think it is likely that revenue, from Customs and excise, as a proportion of total Commonwealth receipts, will increase in future years. It will increase, first, because of the indexation of excise arrangements on certain items. Secondly, it will increase because of increases which will undoubtedly take place as a result of changes in the crude oil levy scheme. It will also take place because of the undoubted general shift towards indirect taxation as a method of raising revenue. However what I am concerned about-it is one of the points which I raise at an early stage in this debate-is that there are some problems on the revenue side for business arising from this legislation. Margaret Milne, who is a manager of one of the divisions of Arthur Anderson &Co. in Sydney, has written in an article in Australian Business on 1 May, stating: The Australian Customs Office has long been recognised as a source of Federal Government revenue. But now it may be able to help lower the Budget deficit a little more by holding on to a large part of the $80 million paid out yearly in duty refunds. After an analysis of that particular problem, she continued: Accordingly, Australian businesses reliant on imported goods must seek greater control over Customs duty being paid because there will be little opportunity for turning back. And while business faces additional burdens at its own peril, the government may in fact be overjoyed to find an additional source of income which should never have been there in the first place. This illustrates one of the problems in Customs administration which has been the subject of some concern in the business community and the legal community in recent months. The exposure paper or draft paper regarding Customs duty refunds attracted a very considerable amount of public comment and criticism. The refunds which are payable under section 163 of the Customs Act have been a source of contention for the business community in Australia for quite some time. Recently, the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia has had some comments to make, particularly because it has become apparent that in recent years some of the rulings of the Customs Service have been based upon premises which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have found to be unsound as a matter of law. The Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, in its report on the Discussion Paper issued as part of stage 2 of the Reference on Customs and Excise Appeals, made this comment: Customs legislation is notable for the degree of discretionary powers, strict liability penalty provisions and a strong array of investigatory and remedial powers given to the Australian Customs Service, primarily intended to deal with the most serious type of criminal offences but actually available to be applied to all traders. The Law Council's indication of concern was picked up in an article in the Australian Financial Review of 18 April this year. It stated: The Law Council of Australia has called for the revision of the Customs Act to protect citizens' rights against the Federal Government's present approach on the administration of Federal customs law. I do not make these points to criticise in any way the Customs Service in the way in which it is operated; rather I simply indicate that this is an area in which clearly the lack of resources, constraints on resources and lack of particular expertise within the Customs Service have been identified. The Customs Service is clearly taking steps to overcome and rectify those deficiencies and it deserves to be commended for what it is doing in that regard. However, it lends strength to some of the points which Senator Chaney made about referring to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations a number of aspects which arise and, in particular, paragraph (b) of his amendment so that one can identify more clearly what advantages flow from the proposed changes. The Customs Service has been looked at, probed, examined, turned upside down and inside out, shaken and rattled by more inquiries and more committees than just about any other part of the Federal Government in the last couple of years. In December 1979 the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs-that is the Williams Committee-made some significant recommendations about the way in which the Customs Service ought to be reorganised to deal with the drug trafficking problem. Recommendation 24 stated: The resources of the Bureau of Customs should be upgraded for the purpose of fulfilling its re-stated role. That was the fight against drug abuse in Australia. A Finance and Government Operations Committee inquiry would allow us to identify the extent to which that has been done. The next report to which I refer is the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit on the collection of excise duties and deferred Customs duties which was produced in March 1982. That report had some things to say, in particular, about bonded warehouses, an issue with which I am particularly familiar. For years the Auditor-General has been drawing attention to the financial implications of the bonded warehouse system and the need for appropriate fees and recoupment of costs involved in their administration and control. A study by the firm Price Waterhouse into the appropriate fees, setting of fees, and scales of the fees to be levied in the system of bonded warehouses is under way at the moment. That matter could equally be referred to the Finance and Government Operations Committee. The third report I refer to is the Administrative Review Council report on the review of import control in Customs by-laws decisions. That was a report to the Attorney-General dealing with Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations. One is not altogether sure from reading through that report what the responses to it have been. The next report that touched on some of these matters was the report of the September 1982 Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Although the organisation criticised in that report was one within the Department of Primary Industry, there were implications for the Customs Service which again need some examination and report. The next report is that of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking of February 1983. I am curious to know whether all of its recommendations about the Customs Service have been picked up. For instance, it recommended a joint task force with elements from the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Federal Police and the Queensland Police to be based in Cairns to gather intelligence on allegations that fauna smuggling, drug smuggling and illegal immigration were organised activities in the north of Queensland. One ought to know what the Customs Service's response to this was. The report drew attention to a matter which, again, I think the Finance and Government Operations Committee could well have looked at when it dealt with the question of the current provisions in the Customs Act for attaching the profits derived from drug trafficking. One ought to be in a position to hear from the Government what the implications of this legislation are on that matter. The next report to which I refer is that of the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures in New South Wales. The report, which was presented in April 1983, again drew attention to the resource difficulties of Customs. It said: During visits to Customs and in discussions with officers, it was apparent that with present staff resources, Customs has been obliged to lower its standard of control in order to cope with its business and this was so despite Customs having upgraded equipment and having introduced many improved management practices-- The report indicated that restrictions on Customs were such that the capacity of Customs to carry out its statutory obligations had been severely limited. The Finance and Government Operations Committee could be informed by the Government whether the resources that were indicated as a result of the Mahony inquiry have been provided and what the implications would be if this were done through an independent Australian Customs Service. The next report was a report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit Act and other Acts dated September 1984. That report had some comments, again touching on the matter of warehouses and control of administration within the former Department of Industry and Commerce. In terms of new systems to be introduced, the report said: While acknowledging the short period during which the Department was required to introduce the new system in 1982 this Office-- that is, the Audit Office- considers that progress since then has been slow in upgrading the level of investigations and rectifying deficiencies in the computer system. One would want to know what progress has been made on that matter before it becomes entirely the responsibility of the independent Customs Service. I say in passing that I was interested in the comments that appear on page 112 of the report about the unsatisfactory nature of the location of the duty free premises at the Melbourne International Airport. We then had the Black Report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration' which was presented in August 1984. Let me say immediately that the Black report concluded that there was no impropriety on the part of any officer of the Australian Customs Service and no breach of law. The report said that the officers of the Customs Service who were concerned in the matter performed their duties thoroughly and impartially. I only raise the Black inquiry because it indicates the amount of strain that exists on Customs resources, particularly at immediate points of entry. There was then the 224th report by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on the collection of excise and deferred Customs duties. That report again touched on the system of bonded warehouses and indicated that this was a matter which it believed should be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report. Finally, the tenth report that I cite is the joint Commonwealth and New South Wales task force report on security of wharves and containers. Although I have only just had the opportunity to complete my reading of that report, I simply say that if the recommendations of that task force are to be adopted and implemented, the resource implications for the Customs Service will be enormous. I turn to a couple of the specific matters to which the Australian Customs Service has to contribute to Australia's well-being. The first of those, as Senator Jack Evans has indicated clearly in his address, deals with the public concern over the narcotics smuggling and drug industry in general. I was alarmed to see in the Canberra Times of 27 February this year the following: The future of the Australian Customs service, already under scrutiny in a wide-reaching Government review, has been further confused by the spectre of a new national strategy on drugs coming out of next month's drug ''summit'' meeting. I think that we ought to have some clearer indication of how it is that the Customs Service intends to respond to what were the results of that drug summit and to have it clearly indicated that the Government is prepared to provide the necessary resources for the Customs Service to undertake the vital role that it has in dealing with the drug menace. I think that that indication could be clearly provided in an inquiry conducted by the Finance and Government Operations Committee. I believe these facts and figures should be immediately available to the Government. Thus it would not be an inquiry taking a year and it would not unnecessarily delay the passage of this piece of legislation. I go on to mention what is one of my most favoured hobby horses, as my colleagues on this side of the chamber know, that is, the question of inward duty free shopping. I mention the matter only to indicate that having studied the submission of the Australian Customs Service to the Industries Assistance Commission's inquiry into passenger and crew concessions, which was presented to the IAC in April, one of the points that the Customs Service made was that it did not really care very much for inward duty free shopping. The Service stated that it would aggravate queueing; it would confuse the extent of concessions; it would cause amendments to baggage statements; it would make for some evidentiary problems if prosecutions arose; it would increase the revenue forgone; and would increase the processing time for passengers. The point it made at the end of that part of its submission was: An additional problem is that IDFS staff would be located within the Customs area leading to an added risk of narcotics and message exchange. This would require additional Customs surveillance workload and increased manpower. The security screen would have to extend to checking IDFS staff each time they left the premises (e.g. lunch, visits to toilets, leaving work for the day). Monitoring would be required of deliveries to and from the IDFS and rubbish removal. There would be a requirement of police/character checks on IDFS staff. Yet we see, despite all the comings and goings of the Government on the question of inward duty free shopping, that its own Customs Service is saying to it: 'This is an area which is fraught with difficulties, not just for passengers, Customs and revenue losses, but also significantly, for the possibility of additional avenues of drug smuggling'. Because there is an IAC inquiry, because we are now told that the Government intends to rush through inward duty free shopping legislation to have it in place by 1 July, and because the Customs Service says that it has real concerns about it, these matters ought to be addressed. If one looks at the other sorts of things with which the poor officers of Customs have to deal, one will see that this Parliament-I was glad to play some part in it some time ago-passed the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. This Act requires officers of the Customs Service to have some knowledge of taxonomy, what is on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Schedule of protected flora and fauna, what it is prohibited to import and export in terms of endangered species and wildlife, and so on. Customs officers have to be capable of dealing with those matters. They have to be capable of dealing with other forms of exports. For instance, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, in a statement made on 23 April, said that legislation was to be introduced shortly to protect important items of Australia's cultural heritage from illegal export. When one thinks of the quite justifiable concern over the way in which the Strehlow collection was removed from Australia, one sees that the Customs Service is clearly to be required now to have some clear role in monitoring the possible illegal export of items of cultural heritage. One knows that the Customs Service has the responsibility for dealing with the importation of films and video material. It is surprising to see that Mr Peter Bennett, I think it was, in his evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Video Material said, to all intents and purposes, that Customs officers were under some sort of instruction to turn a blind eye to pornography if they saw it coming into the country; that there were no guidelines for Customs officers. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 January stated: . . . Customs officers were told by senior officers to ''see it but don't see it'', the Customs Officers' Association told a Senate committee hearing yesterday. Mr Cohen also announced on 6 November 1984 that: The exportation of copies of films and sound recordings made in Australia or its territories 40 or more years ago, and which have been published in Australia or elsewhere, is prohibited from today without Commonwealth Government approval. Presumably there has to be some capacity within the Customs Service to identify what are copies of film and sound recordings made more than 40 years ago and to see that they are not exported from Australia without specific permission. Sometimes Customs officers themselves have a little difficulty in regard to seizure, and I instance the temporary confiscation of Emeritus Professor Bruce Johnson's collection of Cuban subversive books, or revolutionary pamphlets, or the collected speeches of Fidel Castro, which I thought might have been imported into this country as a cure for insomnia rather than being regarded as a threat to national security. We have the situation of someone's books being seized when he enters the country because of difficulties and reference being made to the Attorney-General's Department about whether books of that nature can be seized, should be seized, or have to be let go without any comment. One sees that the Customs Service is required to mount operations to track down various rackets. In July 1984 Customs investigators were involved in an inquiry into a tax evasion racket based on the illegal entry of very expensive motor vehicles. The value of the cars involved was something like $6.8m. The Acting Collector of Customs in Queensland indicated that the Customs Service had had to mount a nationwide investigation of this racket. At the same time, Customs officers have had to go on wild chases in Sydney's Chinatown to effect the seizure of 2,000 illegally imported T-shirts. That is certainly a correct and proper thing for the Customs Service to be doing. However, the point I make is that the necessary additional resource implications could well be profitably examined and scrutinised by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in terms of the amendment moved by Senator Chaney to the second reading of the Bill. It is true that there are ongoing problems with the regulation of Customs agents. There are some very unsatisfactory aspects of the way in which the operations of Customs agents are regulated in Australia. I hope that as an independent body the Customs Service and Mr Hayes, as the Comptroller-General of Customs, will have greater success than previous departmental attempts have had in providing some framework, hopefully based upon principles of self-regulation by the Customs agents themselves. That is something that will need to be addressed fairly promptly by the new Service. The final point I make, and Senator Jack Evans mentioned it in the course of his remarks, is that we are constantly reading of a lack of morale within the Australian Customs Service. In fact, on 4 May the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article headed 'Bad morale lets drugs in, claim Customs officers'. I do not want to go into the details of that, but I have a feeling that there are some grounds for concern about morale within the Customs Service at the front line of operations. I also believe that having the Customs Service as an independent service in the way proposed by this Bill will be a very significant step in overcoming those concerns of morale. I believe the Service will have a capacity which it does not have within its existing legislative and administrative framework to deal with those matters within the framework of a professional career-oriented Customs Service. I believe the advantage of Senator Chaney's amendment would be to allow us to examine at least some of the clear areas of Customs difficulty and responsibility, which range from crude oil excises right through to illegally imported ocelot skins, subversive Cuban books, illegally imported Chinese T-shirts, or pornographic films. The Finance and Government Operations Committee could be told by the Government what resources are to be made available, what advantages flow from the proposed changes, how the Service becomes more accountable in terms of its responsibilities, not just to this Minister but to other Ministers whose Acts require some interface with the Customs Service, and indeed the cost of the changes, because that in itself is an important element. When one looks at the general exercise the Government is currently undertaking in terms of attempted expenditure control and reduction one sees that there are great advantages to be gained by the passage of Senator Chaney's amendment. However, regardless of the fate of that amendment the Opposition very clearly and very overtly welcomes the proposals contained in the Customs Administration Bill and hopes that the independent Customs Service will have a great deal of success and sufficient resources available to it to undertake the very significant job it performs, and by and large performs very well, on behalf of the people of Australia. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.17) —The two Bills we are debating cognately, the Customs Administration Bill and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, which seek to establish the Australian Customs Service as a separate identity, fall within the portfolio of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The Customs Administration Bill is a very important Bill, although on the face of it a machinery Bill. It has very important consequences because it deals with the organisation and therefore the role of a very important part of government structure in Australia, namely, the Australian Customs Service. Senator Chaney, Senator Puplick and other senators have discussed that role and its significance in their comments earlier in the debate. I do not propose to go over those in detail other than to point out that Customs plays a very significant role in terms of government revenue collections. At the moment the figure is almost $11 billion a year. Customs has a very fundamental role in the policing of drug trafficking in this country, as well as having other important functions. As Senator Chaney said, the Opposition welcomes steps the Government might take to strengthen the role of the Customs Service in Australia to make it more efficient and able to keep up with a rapidly changing world in the variety of areas in which it operates. We as an Opposition support the Government's intent of improving the capacity of the Customs Service to perform these very important roles not only on behalf of the Government but, more importantly, on behalf of the community as a whole. In broad terms we accept the desirability of the principle that the Customs Service be a separate identity, standing in its own right. However, various matters are of concern to the Opposition, largely because the Government in the second reading speech and in the Bill itself gave an inadequate explanation of some of the reasons for the proposed change. It is not clear on the face of it why this Bill would automatically or necessarily make the Customs Service a better service. The simple act of hiving off the Customs Service into its own area of operations, giving it greater independence, does not necessarily mean that it will be able to perform a better role, although in principle we would agree that that would probably be the case. But there are other elements for consideration as well. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to the importance of the Customs Service in terms of its inter-relationship with other areas of government, in particular the Minister's portfolio of Industry, Technology and Commerce, which is responsible for the development and implementation of the Government's range of proposals to strengthen and develop Australian industry. I think it is valid to ask how the separation of the Customs Service from that part of the Minister's responsibilities will affect the working relationship which would occur, and which necessarily must occur, between those two bodies if the thrust of the Government's machinery to implement and develop industry policy is to be most effectively carried out. That is a subject on which we have had several debates in this chamber over recent months. It will obviously be an ongoing and very important consideration for this Parliament and, therefore, for the future of industry in Australia generally. The working relationship has not been addressed in the Minister's second reading speech. Indeed, the curious statement is made that at an appropriate time a document will be produced dealing with this relationship. I think it is very valid to ask why, if that document has not already been prepared, did the Government go ahead with the proposal to establish a separate Customs Service when it did so. If the document has been prepared-I assume the Minister would have thought about the implications of this-why is it not available to the Senate? It appears from the second reading speech that it has not yet been prepared, and that raises some questions in itself. There are various other aspects of the legislation and the proposal which are still not clear. As I said, no serious attempt has been made in this chamber to justify the creation of an independent service, although, as I say, in principle on the face of it we would accept that proposal. There is a question which I think the legislation leaves unclear as to what the Minister's role will be in relation to the Service. Wide powers of delegation are being given to the holder of the new statutory position of Comptroller-General. It is not clear to me where that leaves the position of the Minister. Specific ministerial powers are being transferred in various important areas. The second reading speech also states that the measures contained in the Bill will have no direct financial implications, even though it is accepted that the proposals may involve the creation of new positions within both the existing Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the new body. As it is also said that the Department and the ACS will have separate management services and other support services-that is contained in the second reading speech-there must be financial implications and important staffing and administrative arrangements. Again, those are not spelt out. In fact, the second reading speech states that details in this regard have not yet been finalised. Other elements are also unclear. Without going into detail, I was interested to read clause 16 of the Bill, which deals with the disclosure of information by the Comptroller-General to other agencies on certain strict conditions. There is provision in that clause, for example, for the Comptroller-General to be able to pass information to the Government or an authority of a foreign country. That has significant implications, for example, in terms of how the future treatment of that information would be handled on a confidentiality basis once it is in the hands of a foreign country. Again, there is little or no explanation of that point. As Senator Chaney said, we accept that the body that is proposed is not technically a new statutory authority, although it does seem to have some hybrid characteristics which make it difficult to categorise adequately. The statutory nature of the appointment of the Comptroller-General does put it in the broad category of statutory authorities. In that context, as has already been raised, I refer to the report-a report which, as I understand it, the Senate accepted some considerable time ago-of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, which established guidelines for the establishment of statutory authorities. Those guidelines made the main point that the creation of a new authority needs to be justified. The Finance and Government Operations Committee recommended that a statement expressing specific reasons for preferring a statutory authority should be tabled with legislation. It recommended: If such a statement is not tabled, or if the reasons given in the statement are not persuasive, the Committee will request that the Senate refer the legislation to the Committee for investigation and report on the necessity for the creation of an authority. That is part of the background thinking behind the amendment to the motion for the second reading that Senator Chaney has moved and the reason why we believe that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In a broader context, I regret that the Government has not taken the opportunity, having made a significant administrative proposal in relation to the Customs Service, to have a wider look at the whole area of Customs and Customs administration. As we have said, the Customs Service performs a very vital service for Australia in relation to a wide range of activities-commercial activities, legal activities, and social activities as well. I refer, for example, to its role in policing the pernicious trafficking in drugs. Perhaps of all services of government the Customs Service operates in the most rapidly changing environment. The legislative and administrative framework must respond to this rapidly changing environment, otherwise it will not be able to carry out its tasks in the way in which the Government wishes and in the way in which the community demands. The Bills that we are considering today do not seem to me to go very far down this path. The main purpose of the Bills is to hive off the Customs Service into a separate body. Although we agree with that proposal in broad terms, I think there are grounds for some concern that the reasons for the change have not been adequately spelt out. As I also said, the proposals in many ways could be considered not to go far enough along the lines of looking at what sort of modernisation of the Customs Service we need to take account of the increasing complexity, difficulties and rapidly changing circumstances within the environment in which it works. It is a key part of the coalition parties' policies for industry and trade in Australia that a modernisation of the Customs Service and the framework in which it operates is essential to bring the Customs Act more into line with current international and Australian commercial and trading practices, legal concepts and judicial systems. I think it is a pity that the Government itself has not taken an opportunity to look at some of those wider aspects at the same time as introducing the change that it has now introduced. Perhaps the Minister will comment in his response to this debate on any undertaking or intention that the Government might have to examine with some urgency the steps that are being taken and that need to be taken to move further down the path of modernisation of the whole Customs Act. There are other matters that one could raise in relation to the legislation and the proposal before the Senate, but I will not take the time of the chamber on those at the moment. In summary, the Opposition does not oppose the general thrust of the Bills but, as Senator Chaney has so well explained, we are concerned that there are important elements on which further information is required. For that reason I fully support the amendment proposed by Senator Chaney that the Bills be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for consideration and report back to the Senate. I propose to move the following amendment to Senator Chaney's proposed amendment: After paragraph (e), add the following new paragraph: '(f) the extent to which these questions were addressed and answered by the Government prior to introducing this legislation'. I must say that I was amazed and extremely disappointed by the view expressed by Senator Jack Evans in his earlier comments that the Australian Democrats do not propose to accept Senator Chaney's amendment. Like Senator Evans, I am a member of the Finance and Government Operations Committee. I could not agree with Senator Evans that that Committee would take months or years, as he said, to examine the proposals contained in Senator Chaney's amendment. I think most of the information contained in the paragraphs of the amendment, the terms of reference to the Senate Standing Committee, should already be available. Presumably, the Government considered those aspects before it made the proposal to establish a separate Customs Service in the first place. They are the normal sorts of considerations that any government would take into account and examine before taking its decision. Therefore, assuming that that is the case, the work of the Finance and Government Operations Committee would, in my view, be a fairly speedy task because it would be receiving information at very short notice, presumably from the Minister, to enable it to conduct the examination that is being proposed for it so that it can report back to the Senate and give the Senate a more informed base on which to frame its judgment on the Bills as a whole, Bills-I repeat Senator Chaney's comment-the general thrust of which we support. I think there is an important point here, that being the role of this Parliament in seriously considering significant proposals which come before it in relation to the role of the Executive and the machinery that makes up the Executive. In my view we do not as a parliament have sufficient evidence and information in front of us. I am sure that the Minister has thought these things through. We are asking for the information which he has brought to bear in the proposal that he has put to the Parliament to be made available to the Senate so that the Senate can exercise its parliamentary and democratic responsibility to take a decision on a fully eyes-open basis. That, I think, is really the crux of Senator Chaney's amendment and the reason why he has moved it and why I propose the addition of paragraph (f) to it. To the Democrats, I say that if they are true to their name as a party, if they really believe in democracy and parliamentary democracy, they would want to see this chamber examine legislation on a fully eyes-open and informed basis. I do not think we can say that that is the case with the legislation before us at the moment. I hope the Democrats will rethink their opposition to the amendment and I hope that the Government will view the amendment sympathetically. It is offered in good spirit and I therefore hope that proper and appropriate consideration will be given to it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.37) —I support the amendment to my amendment, which has just been foreshadowed by Senator Short. I welcome it because it goes to the rather peculiar point which was raised by Senator Jack Evans when he explained that he would not be supporting the original amendment. I would think it would be fair to say that there is a lot of concern around the democratic world, or at least the part of the democratic world that follows the Westminster system, at the failure of parliaments to perform their role and the growth of the power of executive government and the apparent contempt that the executive government often shows for parliament. I think the Customs Administration Bill and the way in which it has been presented is a very good example of the rather careless view that governments develop towards the duties of the Parliament itself. Everybody agrees that this is an important Bill touching on an important institution. It represents a significant change and we are told that it is important that an independent Australian Customs Service is being established. In the second reading speech, which is the Government's policy statement on why this should be done, we find an explanation for it. We find at the bottom of page 5 of the typed version of the second reading speech the following statement: The creation of the office of Comptroller-General of Customs and the establishment of the Australian Customs Service will provide a number of benefits-- I am pleased that it is the view of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) that it will provide a number of benefits- including relieving the minister and secretary of the department of the routine of customs administration with greater opportunity, in consequence, for both to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. I suggest that that is about the only description of any benefits which will flow from this legislation that we will find in what has been put forward so far by the Government. We also find that it is acknowledged in the second reading speech that this may involve the creation of new positions within both the Customs Service and the rest of the Department, yet we are told that the measures contained in the Bill have no direct financial implications. I am not sure that those two statements are consistent. In any event, we have before us significant legislation affecting a significant Australian institution-indeed, an institution that is required to deal with nearly $11 billion of revenue-involving important questions relating to the unlawful importation of drugs and involving a large number of public servants, many of whom have been publicly expressing their discontent and concern at the standards which are being obtained by the Service. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to give some reasonable and detailed explanation for what it is doing. What is being sought by the Opposition in its original amendment, to which Senator Short has foreshadowed a further amendment, is for a Senate committee, a Standing Committee already established with a Government majority and with a member of the Australian Democrats on it, to report to the Senate on the practical impact of the changes. We are asking the Committee to report on the advantages which flow. We are asking it to report on the extent to which the changes add or reduce the accountability of the Customs Service and how they affect the role and responsibility of the Minister. We want the Committee to look at the cost of these changes. We had the extraordinary situation where the Australian Democrats, who tend to express an enormous amount of support for the role of the parliamentary institution, for a second occasion today expressed moral support for the role but refused in fact to put their votes where their sentiments apparently lie. The reality of this situation is that if the Government has properly prepared itself for this Bill, the reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations will simply provide an opportunity for the Government to make information which is presently available to it available to the Parliament so that it can be satisfied on these various points. I would have thought that it was quite unforseeable that the Government would not have examined the various issues which we are suggesting are raised by the legislation which we want the Senate Committee to examine. If the Government does not have ready answers to these questions, I can only say that it is a disgrace. To have commenced this exercise without having made such inquiries would have been, in fact, quite irresponsible. I do not accuse the Minister or the Government of irresponsibility. I simply say that the information should be readily available. It is therefore beyond my comprehension how Senator Evans can suggest that the reference would involve months or even more delay. It seems to me that either the information is readily available and can be given to the Committee immediately which will allow the Committee to deal with the reference without delay, or the information is not available in which case I think it would be quite improper for this legislation to be passed. There are a number of respects in which I think, on the face of it, the Government has been cavalier with the Parliament. I mention the fact that there has been no serious attempt to set out the benefits which will flow from the changes which the Government has put forward. There has been no serious attempt to quantify the cost. I think, very seriously, on the face of the document the Minister is saying that it is very important that there be close co-operation between the Customs Service, even though it is to be independent, and industry policy areas. He considers that that is important enough to require a firm basis in the preparation of a document and at some time that will be given to us. But the relevance of that point to what I am saying now is simply that we are being asked to pass judgments on the arrangements before we have the information that is required to make an accurate judgment. I think that that simply reduces the procedures of this chamber to a sham. It renders a waste of time the consideration of this legislation in the chamber. I also express the view that for as long as the Senate chamber and the Parliament itself allow legislation to be dealt with in this manner it will, of course, be dealt with in this manner. It is much easier for Ministers and public servants to do things in this way than to do them properly. I have yet to see an example of a public servant or, indeed, very many Ministers who seek to allow the Parliament to do its job correctly. I believe that unless there is a bit of fortitude in the Parliament itself to make sure that the Government meets reasonable requirements, it is unlikely that that will be done voluntarily, either by Ministers or by public servants. Again, that is not a matter of individual morality. That is the way in which things work. If there is an easy way of doing things, one takes the easy way. Senator Button —Are you sure that it is not a matter of individual morality? Senator CHANEY —I think that the contempt that the Minister feels for Parliament is often quite evident. But I suggest to him that the place would be less contemptible if we did some serious work here. Senator Button —Are you sure it is not a matter of individual morality? Senator CHANEY —It is my personal view that it is important in politics to have some views on the role of Australian institutions. One might say that that has a moral element. Senator Button —That is a judgment that I would have thought would be made by God rather than the Leader of the Opposition. Senator CHANEY —I make the point very seriously that I think there are good reasons why this Parliament should operate more effectively. I believe that we are not able to act effectively in respect of this legislation in the absence of the Government justifying what it is doing in far more detail than it has attempted to do so far. I simply suggest that if the Australian Democrats are at all serious in the protestations about the role of the Parliament they should be prepared to support the reference of Bills such as this to committees so that they can be given proper scrutiny. I do not wish to say anything further. However, I believe it would be of value to this Government, as it would be of value to the Australian Customs Service, if this legislation were dealt with in a more serious way than apparently it will be dealt with according to the comments which the Minister has made from his chair. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister of his acknowledgment in a debate in the Senate recently of the principle of horizontal equity in the tax system, that is, the need to make allowances for the fact that people at the same income level might have quite unequal responsibilities, for instance, responsibility for dependants. Now that the Treasurer's preferred tax package has been published in the Sydney Morning Herald, will the Minister give a guarantee that the proposal to abolish the dependent spouse rebate will not further disadvantage single income families already discriminated against by the tax system? Senator WALSH —I am not going to respond to the second part of that question. If I were to respond to anything like that, Opposition members would embark on a fishing expedition asking one after another what is or is not going to be in the May statement, and so on; so I am not going to respond to that at all. As to the first part of the question about the story reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Treasurer, as it is well known, has for some time canvassed the view that the income tax base is in need of repair and that there should be some broadening of the indirect tax base. The latter part, of course, is also endorsed by some people in the Opposition, although I do not know about the Opposition per se. In reference to the story in today's Sydney Morning Herald, it is in fact riddled with error and is substantially different from the discussion which took place with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It should be assessed as being little more than guesswork. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister still defend the principles of horizontal equity in the tax system and its application to taxpayers with dependants? Senator WALSH —The principle of horizontal equity is quite an important principle but I do not believe that any particular principle ought to crowd out at all times every other principle. I do not say that in any particular context of the principle of horizontal equity or any principle at all. For example, I think there is some merit in the principle of avoiding retrospective legislation. However, when people have plundered hundreds of millions of dollars from the revenue and when they continue to plunder the revenue to the extent of at least tens of millions of dollars by way of fraudulent and highly contrived tax schemes, I believe the principle of no retrospective legislation ought to be abandoned because only a credible threat of retrospectivity will stop people plundering the revenue in that way. The Opposition and half of the Australian Democrats, and Senator Harradine of course, these days take the view-although in Senator Harradine's case he does not always take this view-that if people have been caught robbing the till, anything they pinch from the till in the future they will have to pay back, but what they have already pinched from the till they are allowed to keep. That is a view which, notwithstanding the principle of non-retrospective legislation, I am not willing to endorse in all circumstances. It is a matter for judgment as to what principle or set of principles ought to take priority over one or other principles. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to Senator Gareth Evans in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that the Federal Court of Australia has ordered that legal aid worth $400,000 be granted to Brian Maher, a person alleged to have been involved in a hundred million dollar tax rip-off? Will the Government consider amending the legislation covering legal aid to prohibit the granting of aid to technical bankrupts, persons who have, for instance, transferred assets to their spouses but who still seem able to drive around in Rolls Royces or to use luxury yachts? Is this the same Brian Maher who used to boast that he had not paid income tax for the last 25 years? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have heard that the Federal Court has made an order to that effect, which obviously does give rise to a number of sensitive policy questions of the kind that have been identified by Senator Ray. I believe that the matter is being considered by the Attorney-General and I hope to be in a position shortly to advise the Senate and Senator Ray what the Government's response will be. I make the point that a court order is a court order and that the Government will of course respect, as always, what the judicial system comes up with, however much particular circumstances may appear to give rise to policy problems. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the recent school funding classifications released last week. Is it correct, as the Minister said in Adelaide on 5 May, that schools that increase their income levels may face penalties for this when they are next classified a couple of years down the track? On the other hand, is it not also true that the Government has determined that any school that fails to maintain its income level may be penalised for a failure to maintain effort in real terms? Does this mean that schools are locked into their present or lower funding categories? Senator RYAN —Senator Peter Baume has taken a close interest in this matter since the decision was first announced. Since the guidelines announcing the formula and the way in which the formula would be applied have been matters of extensive discussion with schools, school representatives and, indeed, the public, I would have thought that he would have understood the system. The Schools Commission has categorised schools on the basis of their total income, with some allowances for capital expenditure and so forth, for a period of four years. At the end of the four-year period schools will have their circumstances reviewed. It is implied in the system, since it is a needs based system and needs are determined by a measurement of income, that if a school has for some reason a loss of income it could apply to be recategorised at a higher level of grant. If it has had a drastic increase in income it is implied in the scheme that it perhaps could be recategorised at a lower level of grant. Another circumstance that may occur is that some disaster may befall the school. It may be burnt down or it could be in an area which is suddenly afflicted by high unemployment whereby parents are unable to pay fees; so during the four-year period there would be circumstances in which a school could have its position reviewed. However, in general the categorisation which the Commission has made after a very careful consideration of the incomes of schools will prevail for four years. As has been a matter of public knowledge for many months, at the end of the four-year period the circumstances of schools will be reassessed. I would have thought that by now it would have been a publicly understood fact that schools are expected to maintain their effort. If a school has the capacity to achieve a certain amount of income by fees or other means, it is expected to maintain that effort. I suppose there is an assumption of goodwill by all parties concerned. If a certain school is able to operate at a certain level, and has been doing so for a number of years, it has a certain level of income and it ought to be able to maintain that effort, it will be required to maintain that effort by the Schools Commission. If some involuntary circumstance prevented a school from maintaining its effort, of course there will be no penalty, but if a school simply chose not to maintain its effort then it would not be acting in accordance with the scheme. Senator Baume is very well aware that the scheme that was announced is basically the scheme recommended by the Schools Commission. It was widely accepted throughout the non-government sector-all of the key organisations in the non-government sector welcomed it and all of them said it was a considerable advance-that it would give them security and stability. All of them understood that because we were moving from a four-category system to a 12-category system there would be readjustments, that not every school would be readjusted favourably but that all schools would be categorised on a fair and thorough assessment of their circumstances. My advice from the Schools Commission is that that has happened. A number of schools are appealing, which they are perfectly entitled to do. A number of other schools have not been categorised finally because they have not been able to provide the information the Schools Commission needs. In summary, the scheme which was announced last year, and which was understood and welcomed by the non-government sector, has now been put into place. Its essential features should remain in that form for four years. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Did I understand correctly that the Minister said that if the schools voluntarily increase their cash income they stand to go to lower subsidy funding and if they voluntarily do not maintain their effort they also face going to a lower subsidy group? Senator RYAN —If a school voluntarily increases its income to an extent which actually changes the income profile of the shcool, at the end of four years that will be taken into account. It must be. It is an inevitable consequence of the scheme. That is widely understood. Senator Peter Baume —And if it voluntarily reduces it? Senator RYAN —If it decides to voluntarily reduce its income-that is, not because of accidents or unforseen circumstances, but voluntarily-by drastic lowering of fees, of course that will be taken into account too. It is an income-based scheme, accepted by the non-government community. Senator Peter Baume —They lose both ways. Senator RYAN —We know Senator Baume's performance in this place. Senator Baume understands the scheme. He understands that the scheme was recommended by the Schools Commission after consultation with the non-government sector. He understands that the non-government sector accepted the scheme and the implications of the scheme which is a needs-based income tested scheme. Obviously, if we accept that we have a needs-based scheme-need being determined by income-then changes up or down will change the assessment of needs. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government concerned with and will it protest against the violation of human rights which is presently taking place in Turkey with the arrest and trial of members of a Turkish peace committee? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australia has expressed its concern to the Turkish Government over the trials of 56 Turkish intellectuals who were among over 1,000 who signed a petition on human rights. The Turkish authorities explained that the trials were, in effect, a judicial inquiry to determine whether the intellectuals were being used as a cover by left-wing extremists acting on behalf of foreign powers in order to destabilise the Government. The Department of Foreign Affairs is seeking further information from the Australian Embassy in Ankara on the progress of the trials and will make very clear Australia's continuing interest in their outcome. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald and, indeed, to an editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald concerning rain forests. Those articles very accurately indict the Federal Government for its weak and inconsistent attitude, particularly towards the rain forests in the Daintree area in Queensland and in New South Wales. I ask the Minister: How long does the Federal Government intend to wait for the Queensland Government to agree to nominate the Daintree tropical rain forests for World Heritage listing? In the light of the Queensland Premier's continuing refusal to co-operate-obviously that is happening-does the Minister agree that World Heritage listing of the wet tropical rain forests, including Daintree, is not likely to occur before the Queensland Government has completely destroyed them by milling? Is this the case also for important sections of the Great Barrier Reef? Further, will the Minister advise whether the delay in nominating New South Wales rain forests for World Heritage listing is because the Federal Government lives in an unnatural fear of the Queensland Premier because of his rejection of proposals for a joint New South Wales-Queensland nomination covering rain forests in both States? Senator RYAN —I do not have any specific information on the matter raised by Senator Mason's question. I remind Senator Mason that the Government has a pretty good track record in respect of Tasmania and the rain forest there, which was preserved at considerable financial cost to the Commonwealth. In the case of the Daintree rain forest, the refusal of the Queensland Government to co-operate has proved an obstacle in taking effective steps to protect that rain forest. Although I will have to refer Senator Mason's question to the Minister for further information, it is my understanding that negotiations are still being pursued by the Commonwealth in order to ensure that the rain forest as it now exists-I understand that there has been some damage-will be preserved and protected. Whether that will happen by way of a World Heritage listing is a matter on which I cannot comment at this stage. Certainly my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment continues to be very assiduous in his efforts to achieve some sort of protection for what I think we all regard as a most valuable area of Australia's natural heritage. Senator MASON —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I find it difficult to accept that the Minister who represents the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment cannot give us a clear indication of just what the time scale is. Surely the Government has considered to some extent whether it is going to do something this year, next year, in 10 years time, or in a century's time. Can she give us some idea of the degree of urgency with which the Government sees this? Senator RYAN —I will try to get some more specific information for Senator Mason from the Minister. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the composition of the Board of the television company Queensland Television Ltd, which runs Channel 9 in Brisbane. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is Alan Bond the Chairman? Is P. R. Gallagher a member of that Board, as well as B. E. Orr and P. G. Beckwith? Who are the other members of the Board? Secondly, was Sir Edward Lyons, who resigned last week as Chairman of the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board and as Vice-Chairman of Queensland Television Ltd, elevated to both those positions through the influence of the Queensland Premier? Thirdly, are their any known connections between Rothwells Ltd, the merchant bank of which Sir Edward Lyons is still Chairman, the Queensland TAB, of which Sir Edward Lyons is a former Chairman, Queensland Television Ltd, of which Sir Edward is a former Vice-Chairman, and the Queensland branch of the National Party, of which he is still a trustee? Fourthly, has the Queensland TAB invested some $28m in Rothwells merchant bank? Fifthly, has the Reserve Bank of Australia refused to underwrite the investment? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is hard to see what many aspects of that question have to do with any matter of the administration of this Government or, indeed, of any government. I ask you to direct the Minister to answer only those parts of the question that touch on Commonwealth administration. The PRESIDENT —Order! I listened carefully to the question. The question involved matters relating to the administration of the Reserve Bank, which comes within the ministerial responsibility of the Treasurer so far as Parliament is concerned. Therefore, the question is in order. Senator WALSH —There were a number of questions in Senator Jones's broad question. As to the last part of it asking whether the Reserve Bank has guaranteed borrowings by Rothwells bank, the answer is no because Rothwells is not a bank as defined by the Banking Act and, therefore, the lender of last rort provisions-- Senator Ryan —Say it again. Senator WALSH —I suppose that, when one is discussing the affairs of Sir Edward Lyons and the Queensland National Party, 'rort' is a word that comes very naturally to mind. The lender of last resort provisions which are provided by the Reserve Bank to the trading banks do not extend to Rothwells because it is a merchant bank covered by the Finance Corporations Act and not the Banking Act. As to the other matters to which Senator Jones referred, some of which are relevant to the Department of Communications, whose Minister I represent in this place, I am afraid I do not know the directorship of the Queensland television station to which Senator Jones referred. I will try to get an answer to that from the Minister. Senator Jones also referred to Rothwells, to the directorship of that bank and to the probability, I think, that the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board had loaned some $28m to Rothwells. I understand that Sir Edward Lyons is a Director of Rothwells Ltd. I do not know whether the Queensland TAB has loaned $28m to Rothwells Ltd. But, given the fact that Sir Edward Lyons was the Chairman of the Queensland TAB and a director of Rothwells Ltd and given the way that business is normally done in Queensland under the Bjelke-Petersen Government, it certainly would not surprise me if TAB funds had been loaned to Rothwells Ltd at the instigation of the Chairman of the TAB, who is also a director of Rothwells Ltd, and also of course, as Senator Jones said, has very close affiliations with the National Party of Queensland, and in particular the Premier of Queensland. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the annual census of schools, which provides essential data for administrators and policy makers, conducted previously by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in July and published before 30 November each year. Did the Minister take responsibility for this census from the ABS into her own portfolio, and did the Commonwealth Schools Commission conduct the survey in 1984? Why have the results of the 1984 survey not yet been published, more than five months after the normal deadline? Senator RYAN —I will give Senator Teague a general answer, but would point out at the beginning that I am speaking from memory. I will seek more accurate and complete information for Senator Teague by the end of Question Time. My recollection is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics itself decided not to do the schools survey. The Department did not take it over; the Schools Commission took it over. However, because the Schools Commission has been suffering a bit of an administrative overload lately and has a backlog in a number of areas, my recollection is that it has not yet managed-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —It is probably well known to the Senate that the Commission has been overburdened with administrative matters and has not been able to achieve total administrative efficiency in recent times. My recollection is that it has not yet been able to complete, and therefore make available, that information but, as I warned the Senate, I am speaking from memory and before the end of Question Time will try to get a more precise account of where the Commission is at with that survey. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation. What was the Government contribution to the provision of the ACTION bus service in Canberra in the 1983-84 financial year? How can the Government justify this level of subsidy to residents of Canberra while at the same time withdrawing a $1.35m yearly subsidy of western Queensland air services? Senator RYAN —I have been provided, on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation, with some information with regard to the withdrawal of the subsidy from the airline services to western Queensland. I understand that Trans Australia Airlines has stated that it will continue to provide the services with a view to introducing a smaller and more economic aircraft type this year. As to the relationship between that decision of the Minister and the level of subsidy provided to ACTION bus transport in the Australian Capital Territory via the portfolio of Territories, I shall have to seek further information on that from Mr Scholes's Department of Territories and provide that information to Senator Colston. But I would point out that the portfolios through which those two subsidies are administered are different and making comparisons between them is perhaps a little difficult to do in any meaningful way. However, I will seek information from Mr Scholes about the subsidy to Action buses and see what explanation he has to give. Senator PARER —Did the Minister for Education send a minute dated 23 April 1985 to the Acting Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission expressing her dissatisfaction with the administration of the Commission, with communications from the Commission and in particular with the Commission's handling of a recent freedom of information request in which it failed to discharge its obligations and as a result was taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? What were the criticisms she made of the performance of the Commission? Senator RYAN —I shall have to check my records and see what correspondence I had with the Commission on 23 April. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is it likely that the recent removal of interest rate controls on small loans will free up funds which can be used as working capital by the small business sector? Will this specific advantage to the small business sector also prove to be of general benefit to the Australian economy? Senator BUTTON —The Government's decision in this matter was announced by the Treasurer last week at a Press conference and elaborated on in a joint Press statement by the Treasurer and me. The answer to Senator Foreman's question is that the Government believes that the action taken by the Government will improve significantly the availability of finance for small business. In that respect it is in accordance with a number of earlier decisions made by the Government to promote a more efficient and dynamic financial sector. The decision to free up interest rates on loans under $100,000 is in line with the recommendation of the report of the Review of the Australian Financial System, the Martin Committee, and it has also been proposed in a report presented to the Government by the Metal Trades Industry Association and similar submissions made to the Government by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia-COSBOA, as it is called-and the Government's Small Business Council, which is representative of a wide range of State and small business organisation interests. In taking the decision the Government accepted the generally agreed view that interest rate ceilings have had the effect of discouraging bank lending to small businesses and have limited the availability of finance to small business. The result has been that small business has either had to seek finance elsewhere, generally at a higher cost, or to make do without finance. Given the need for growth in the small business sector, which is certainly happening, and the encouragement of that growth, we believe that in a sector which provides some 15 per cent of private sector employment it is important that that expansion and growth develop into viable and effective business units. The removal of the ceilings is expected to improve, as I indicated, the availability of bank finance to small businesses and should also encourage the introduction of more innovative loan packages and the provision of better advisory services to small business-things which have been generally lacking at a comparable degree of international efficiency in the Australian business sector as a whole. The decision follows a number of other Government decisions in relation to deregulation of the financial sector and the admission of foreign banks which, in the longer term, we believe will have complementary effects to those effects which I have claimed in answer to this question flowing from the decision which was announced last week in regard to small business. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Has St Paul's Anglican Church Choir School, Bankstown, been refused recurrent funds for 1985 on the basis that its written application for funds was received a few days after the deadline for submissions? Is it not a fact that, notwithstanding the lateness of the written application, the Commonwealth Schools Commission processed the application, corresponded with the school, and for several months led the school to believe that the application was proceeding? Further, had not the Commission received oral advice-I have here a statutory declaration from a respected Anglican priest who is connected with the school to that effect-well before the deadline, and was not the decision to refuse funding an incorrect decision? Does the Minister agree with her colleague the Federal Treasurer, who has suggested to her in writing that the Commission's handling of this matter indicates that it did not know what it was doing, a view which her minute referred to by Senator Parer indicates that she shares? Will the Minister reverse this decision on the basis of the administrative error made and ensure that this little school receives, for 1985, all the funds to which it appears to be entitled. Senator RYAN —Senator Puplick is only recently yet again amongst us, so he may not be aware that currently over 2,500 private schools are assisted through the Commonwealth Schools Commission. It may come as news to him that I actually do not have the details of the status of the funding of each of those schools in my head when I come in for Question Time. Senator Gareth Evans —Resign! Senator RYAN —Do you think so? It may also have escaped Senator Puplick's attention since he so recently rejoined us, welcome though he is, that the administration of grants to private schools is not a matter that I am directly concerned with. It is carried out by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, a body of which Senator Baume, the shadow Minister, is a very great fan and which I think Senator Baume believes is beyond criticism in any way. However, from time to time matters of maladministration by the Commission come to my attention. I will certainly have the matter raised by Senator Puplick's question investigated and when I find out what the circumstances are I will be able to make a decision. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. What protection exists to ensure the right of Australian citizens to clean air, water, land and food that is uncontaminated by pesticides? Secondly, what redress do people have against contamination by chemicals and pesticides from aerial spraying and drift? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matters to which Senator Hearn referred are primarily, of course, the responsibility of the States and, good federalists that we are, there is no inclination on the part of the Commonwealth to trespass unduly in areas which are pre-eminently the proper responsibility of the States. Except in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, in respect of which I do not have the information immediately to hand, it is not a Commonwealth responsibility. Moreover, the matters that Senator Hearn raised are probably, on balance, more appropriately directed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I will ensure that such of those rather broad ranging questions which the Commonwealth can reasonably answer are directed to the appropriate Minister. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister for Education. Did Dr Richard Campbell, Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, criticise the recent announcement that the Authority was to be restructured and reduced in size, that it was to have a full time chairman and that certain matters would be devolved from the Authority to schools? Did he base his criticism on failure to consult adequately with the Authority? Why was there inadequate consultation with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority on this matter affecting the Authority's form and functions? Senator RYAN —Richard Campbell, the outgoing Chairman of the Schools Authority, spent some time in my office last night where he communicated to me his views on the discussion paper which has been circulated. His views were numerous and he expressed them at some length. I certainly would not attempt to synthesise them in a succinct answer to Senator Reid's question, but I do not accept that there has not been sufficient consultation. Certainly the Authority was consulted by my Department in preparing a paper in response to the issues and options paper. But I should make it clear to Senator Reid, as I know that she has a very genuine and proper interest in this matter, that we are still at the stage of consultation and that the paper that has been put out is, if you like, a refinement of the issues and options paper but certainly does not present any final decisions. Questions such as whether it would be more appropriate to have a full time or part time chairperson are still open. I can see arguments both ways. I think that Dr Campbell himself has experienced some difficulties, being part time in an area that is so publicly visible and, I guess inevitably, so controversial. The question as to whether there should be a full time or part time chairperson is still open in my mind and in the Government's mind. I would be very interested to hear from Senator Reid, who I know is very actively involved in education matters in this Territory, her views, as I can assure her I have heard those of Dr Campbell very recently. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen the report in today's Age indicating that the Federal Opposition will oppose the occupational health and safety commission legislation? Can the Minister comment on the difference of opinion on this matter between Mr Shack, who opposes it, and Mr Macphee, who last May agreed with the thrust of the legislation? Can he comment on Mr Shack's claim: 'We have no confidence that a new bureaucracy in the form of a national commission will effect any improvement'? Does this lead us to understand that the Opposition would prefer to do nothing or is it recommending that such matters be left to private enterprise? If that is the case, what of the record to this point that has achieved so little and leads to the need for this occupational health and safety commission? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. Slabs of that question relate to the Opposition's position, which has nothing to do with the matters administered by the Minister. I ask you to ask the Minister to restrict his answer to matters relating to the Government's administration. The PRESIDENT —I think the point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition is reasonable. I would tend to rule the question out of order but for the fact that there is legislation before the House and that the Minister is entitled to answer in respect of that legislation. I therefore call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Mr President. The first part of the question asked whether I had read an article in the form of news comment regarding this matter in today's Age. It so happens that I have it in front of me and have been reading it in the last couple of minutes. Of course, the Government is committed to the introduction of this legislation, to the establishment of a statutory authority and to the monitoring and supervision of voluntary health and safety standards on a co-ordinated basis for the whole of Australia. Legislation will be introduced shortly, or has been introduced, I am not sure which, to establish a national occupational health and safety commission. This legislation was announced a year ago in circumstances, I might say, which had the full approval and support of the then Opposition spokesman on these matters, Mr Macphee. Of course, the Opposition is entitled to change its mind on these matters, as it has done on everything else. There are clearly different opinions within the Opposition about this matter. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion within the Government on the issue because its prime motivation has been the enormous cost of occupational accidents and illness in Australia. I remind honourable senators that Mr Shack, in pursuit of his reputation of being impeccably dry, has said that the cost of such a statutory authority to taxpayers would be unfortunate. The cost to this community of occupational injury and illness has been enormous over a very long time, and it is to the discredit of governments of both political persuasions in the past that they have done nothing about it. To make the point graphically to Opposition senators, who always have important statistics in their mind, I point out that during the period of this Government the level of industrial unrest and the number of man days lost through industrial stoppages have been the least for 17 years. Before this period of industrial tranquillity now existent in Australia a great deal of emphasis was always laid on the cost to industry of industrial stoppages, a point with which I agree entirely. The costs and burden of industrial stoppages have been enormous in the past and they still are. However, they are now much better than they have been. Even at the worst period of industrial disputation, measured in terms of man days lost through industrial stoppages of one kind or another, that figure never approached the number of man days lost as a result of occupational accidents and illness in Australia. It was a record which, by international terms, was extremely bad. There may have been all sorts of reasons for that; I do not wish to debate them. However, Australia's record on a comparative basis internationally, was appalling. That is why I strongly commend the view of the Government to the Senate. I also commend the view of Mr Macphee and other members of the Liberal Party of Australia who have addressed these problems in a thoughtful way. Senator Lewis —You never solve anything. Senator Withers —You never solve anything by throwing money away. Senator BUTTON —I commend to people such as Senator Withers and Senator Lewis, who sit here and do not look as if they are likely to have an industrial accident in the pursuit of their careers-not even an accident induced by getting up to ask a question occasionally-that they give attention to the importance of this legislation which is very important, both in financial cost terms and social cost terms, to this community. Senator HAMER —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is it true that the recent rise in petrol prices was not caused by an increase in the world price of oil but solely by the devaluation of the Australian dollar? Does the Government feel that the present value of the Australian dollar is lower, perhaps by as much as 10c, than it would be if its value were based solely on Australia's international trading performance? If so, is this lower value of the Australian dollar a reflection of the recent performance of the Government in matters such as the MX fiasco, the faction fighting over economic direction and the probability that wage rises will reduce our new international competitive edge? Finally, what part of the increased price that motorists are paying for their petrol is the result of the world's unfavourable assessment of the economic performance of this Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the recent increase in the parity price was a function of the depreciation of the Australian dollar rather than any movement in world crude prices. It is also the case that the Australian dollar is presently being valued on world financial markets at less than the trade weighted index value of the dollar and, as such, does suggest that there is still some undervaluation on world markets. The factors to which that undervaluation is attributable are something which we can cheerfully debate, and which many people have been debating in recent weeks. I simply make the point that many factors contribute to the psychology of financial markets when it comes to exchange rates. I think it is widely acknowledged that very few of them have a closely rational relationship to the real world phenomena to which they are responding. I assure the honourable senator that there is no justification objectively whatsoever for any suggestion that this Government is not in total command of the economy and not looking forward with total confidence to the prospects of further improvement in the economy in the months ahead. I am sure that the recent response of the Australian dollar to the announcement of the $1,000m worth of prospective cuts in Forward Estimates, plus the decision we made on the import parity pricing issue, plus the kind of confidence that Mr Keating has been able to engender by his personal appearances in various parts of the world in recent weeks, all demonstrate that there is complete confidence in the Australian economy and its present management. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General concerned that a dilemma will arise in the artificial insemination by donor program whereby children conceived by artificial insemination by donor might wish or urgently require information regarding their natural parent or parents? Is there provision in the program to accommodate such a situation if it arises? Is the Minister satisfied that those ethic committees, professionals and couples involved in the program, have fully embraced the implications of this issue? Senator GARETH EVANS —As the honourable senator will be aware, the regulation of medical procedures such as AID is not a matter directly of Commonwealth concern but, equally, it is one that the Commonwealth has been closely monitoring through its participation in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. A number of State inquiries have examined the topic of AID and its regulation. Most recently the New South Wales Law Reform Commission issued a discussion paper on human artificial insemination as part of its overall reference on matters related to what may loosely be described as artificial conception. All of those bodies which have reported on this area have addressed the particular issue to which Senator Elstob adverts and that is the question of access to information in relation to the natural parents or the natural donor. They have addressed it as a crucial and sensitive area. The extent to which records of donors are kept and the extent to which access to those records is regulated are things which vary from one program to the next. The only legislative regulation of artificial insemination by donors in Australia is, I understand, presently contained in the Victorian Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984. That Act provides that hospitals and practitioners are to keep records on various matters including prescribed particulars in relation to the donor of semen. A central register of these details is to be kept by the Health Commission with access to those details regulated by the Minister for Health. In turn, the Minister for Health, or the Secretary to the Health Commission, can allow certain persons access to that information but there is a proviso that there cannot be access to identifying information unless the person concerned-the donor-consents to such access. Under that regime a person can get access to the information but only with the consent of the donor in question. As yet that Act has not been proclaimed, mainly, I understand, due to the need to draft regulations on a number of complex matters relating to the Act's administration. However, it does remain in existence as what is thought in at least one jurisdiction to be an appropriate legislative regulation of this matter to which Senator Elstob adverts. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As Government members and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have been most vocal and active in recent months in opposing and attempting to frustrate the legitimate attempts of the Queensland Government to restore and maintain essential community services in that State, I ask: Will the Government be consistent and take the same stand and denounce and condemn the Victorian Government's recently imposed state of emergency brought about by the blockading of milk supplies to Melbourne in the same way as it denounced the state of emergency declared by the Queensland Government during the recent power crisis? Senator BUTTON —Questions of a similar kind have been asked in the Senate in the past week or two. Senator Bjelke-Petersen, for reasons which seem to be only marital support ones, has not been here to hear some of the answers. It is very difficult to deal with simplistic analogies between vastly different situations in the way Senator Bjelke-Petersen invites me to do. There is a complex range of issues in relation to the Queensland dispute which from time to time has been the subject of Government statements and so on. What Senator Bjelke-Petersen is trying to do is draw an analogy between a state of emergency under Queensland law, which arose from new legislation rushed into the Queensland Parliament-- Senator Collard —It was old legislation. Senator BUTTON —Wait on-which involved new legislation brought into the Queensland Parliament, overruling a decision of the Industrial Commission in Queensland, and a state of emergency which has been proclaimed in Victoria for a couple of days in relation to the failure to deliver milk supplies. It is very easy to say that a state of emergency in one place involves a similar response to a state of emergency in another place. It does not. We make all sorts of judgments about these things, whether we be in government or out of government, depending upon the circumstances in each case. Everyone in the Senate makes judgments about states of emergency, in South Africa and in Poland for instance, depending on the circumstances in which the state of emergency has been declared and the surrounding circumstances. That is true. If Opposition senators require time to think about that they can have it at the end of Question Time because I wish to complete this answer. The Government's position in relation to the Queensland dispute has been enunciated by other Ministers and myself on a number of occasions. The only ultimate reconciliation of the Queensland dispute will come about if Senator Bjelke-Petersen can absent herself from this chamber for yet another period and persuade the Premier that he ought to consult with the Prime Minister, the offer of consultation having been made by the Prime Minister in order to bring about a resolution of this dispute and refused by the Premier of Queensland. The other thing that both Senator Bjelke-Petersen and her husband should look at is the opinion poll published in today's Bulletin which shows them rapidly going down the slippery poll of popularity in Queensland because of the ineptitude-- Senator Chaney —What does it show about Bob Hawke? Senator BUTTON —What is shows about Bob Hawke is that in May 1985 he has a higher popularity rating in the Australian community than Malcolm Fraser ever enjoyed in seven years in government. About Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, it shows a quite extraordinary position for a Premier who has enjoyed a great deal of popular support-some of it justified; a lot of it not-over a considerable period. I summarise my answer by saying that in order to satisfy the intellectual deficiencies of the Opposition, I will not be drawn into responding to simplistic analogies of the kind suggested in the question by Senator Bjelke-Petersen. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Finance seen newspaper reports that the Brian Westwood, $7,500, official portrait of the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, is still owned by the Commonwealth, while another portrait of Mr Fraser is being offered for acquisition to the Historic Memorials Committee? Are the reports true? Specifically, is the asking price for the second portrait $10,000? What reasons have been given for rejecting the official portrait? Could the reason be that in the official portrait Mr Fraser is cut off at his ankles and is, therefore, standing on his record? Would the Government be able to recover the costs, in the event of a purchase of the second portrait, by selling the first one, or is there no market for rejected paintings of Fraser? At a time in which the Government is cutting expenditure, could a second purchase be justified? Senator WALSH —I am, of course, concerned about unnecessary government expenditure, whether it be at the instigation of a former Prime Minister or by some judge who decrees that $400,000 worth of legal aid ought to be provided by the taxpayer for an agent who facilitated the evasion of $100m-plus in income tax. On the other matters, I understand that-this is subject to confirmation-the Historic Memorials Committee, of which you, Mr President, are a member, in its normal practice had commissioned a portrait and subsequently it was discovered that Mr Fraser had himself arranged for a Mr Ivor Hele to do a portrait which he now wants the Committee to purchase. I am not sure whether the cost was $10,000. I thought it was in the vicinity of $7,500. I will try to have the figure checked. I am not sure why Mr Fraser did not like the portrait which the HMC had commissioned or whether it was that he was cut off at the ankles. I think it would be highly speculative to consider whether the portrait could be sold again. Although rejected portraits of Mr Fraser may not have much value, it looked as if significant sections of the Liberal Party wanted him to come back as leader of the Liberal Party because they were keen on rejecting the one they already have. I understand that there is at least one precedent for a former public official having commissioned, at public expense, two portraits because he did not like the first one. That was, of course, Sir John Kerr, who has had common interests and common infamies with Mr Fraser in the past, although to be fair to Mr Fraser, to the best of my knowledge, Mr Fraser has never lurched around the enclosure at Flemington racecourse during a Melbourne Cup race, fallen in the mud at country shows or endangered sensitive equipment by lurching around the Chifley Square offices. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the tax summit still intended to provide an opportunity for the representatives of various interest groups to contribute to the decision making processes of tax reform plans? If so, how flexible will the Government be on its White Paper on tax reform following the tax summit? Is the Treasurer still willing to consider major changes to the so-called Keating package of tax reforms purported in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald newspaper to be the Government's present position? Senator WALSH —The tax summit will include representatives of various groups. Of course, as I am sure Senator Evans realises, there is a physical limit as well as other limits as to how many groups can be accommodated at such a meeting. I understand that Senator Evans's Party is to be represented. I understand that the Opposition, although invited, will not be represented. Ultimately, the decisions have to be taken in the Parliament and not by any representative though non-elected group. As for the Keating package, as Senator Evans dubbed it, referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, evidently Senator Evans was not in the chamber at the beginning of Question Time because that so-called package, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, is riddled with error. I do not propose to specify where it is erroneous and where it is not, but it is riddled with error. Senator JACK EVANS —I ask a supplementary question. How can the Government justify the cost of the tax summit, both in dollar terms and in loss of confidence of the participants in this Government, if the tax summit simply evolves as a hard sell operation by the Government of decisions that were taken long before the summit commenced? Senator WALSH —Senator Evans, in those last few words, grossly misrepresented the facts, of course. It is not a hard sell operation for decisions taken long ago. The views expressed there will be taken into account, but the ultimate responsibility for taxation law proposals rests with the Government. Whether they get through the Parliament is, regretfully, a matter which might be decided here, partly by people who are responsible now, partly by people who might at least be expected to be responsible at some time in the future and partly, regrettably, by people in the Party that Senator Evans represents who have to accept no responsibility now and will never have to accept any responsibility in the future. Senator MAGUIRE —My question, which is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, relates to the review, instigated by the Government, of the two-airline policy. Is the Minister aware that while Trans Australia Airlines operates 35 scheduled flights and Ansett Airlines of Australia operates 34 scheduled flights from Melbourne to Adelaide each week, there are 33 duplicated flight departure times? What can be done about the abomination of parallel scheduling which probably would not be tolerated in any other country? In particular, will the review of the two-airline policy examine the duplicated flight times of the major airlines which inconvenience many travellers? Senator RYAN —The review referred to in Senator Maguire's question will be headed by the prominent Australian businessman Mr Thomas E. May. This was announced by the Minister for Aviation in early March. Its terms of reference call for a review of existing arrangements for the economic regulation of domestic aviation in Australia. Mr May has been asked to report to the Government by the first half of 1986 on possible options for the future. The purpose of the review is to place the Government in a position to determine a framework for domestic aviation arrangements into the 1990's in a manner best suited to Australia's unique requirements. The terms of reference for the review are broad ranging to allow Mr May to address a wide range of issues. One of the particularly important issues the review will address is the question of how consumer needs may be best satisfied in an environment which will allow the industry to compete efficiently. I have no doubt that the often raised question of parallel scheduling will be raised in this context. I am advised that the Minister is aware of the current schedules of interstate trunk route flights provided by Ansett and TAA to and from Adelaide. The Minister is also aware of the recent comments on the matter by the honourable senator. The Commonwealth's authority in relation to the approval of interstate airline schedules is limited to matters concerned with the safety of air navigation. Decisions relating to schedules are matters for the commercial judgment of the airlines themselves. Under the present airlines agreement, trunk route airline services are generally restricted to Ansett and TAA. In a situation where both airlines operate similar networks and aircraft fleets and are based in Melbourne it is not surprising that their schedule times are similar, given that each airline must compete to maximise its share of the passenger market. I am aware that the honourable senator has made a submission to the review on this matter. The Minister calls on all interested parties to make similar reviews. Mr President, I realise that there is a great deal of interest in this matter; so for the information of honourable senators I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the terms of reference of the Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation. Leave granted. The terms of reference read as follows- REVIEW OF ECONOMIC REGULATION OF DOMESTIC AVIATION: TERMS OF REFERENCE Recognising the Government's policy to retain TAA as a wholly Commonwealth owned enterprise, the consultant shall: (a) review existing arrangements for economic regulation of domestic aviation in Australia and report to the Government on possible options for the future; (b) have regard to, and report upon the impact of, the following matters insofar as they relate to domestic aviation: (i) the public interest; (ii) the role of East-West Airlines; (iii) the role of other regional airlines and commuter (Supplementary Airline Licence) operators insofar as they impinge on the major trunk and regional routes; (iv) import of aircraft; (v) capacity control; (vi) pricing control, including public interest considerations of passing on costs; (vii) access by Qantas to carriage of domestic passengers; (viii) the role of large aircraft charters; (ix) Commonwealth/State powers in respect of economic regulation; (x) implications for the air freight sector; (xi) economic regulatory arrangements for domestic aviation in overseas countries, and any conclusions which may be of relevance to Australia; (xii) Commonwealth/State/Territories tourism policies; (xiii) the economic efficiency implications of each option; and (xiv) the Government's proposed general review of business regulation; (c) also have regard to maintaining the safety of air service operations-but shall not make recommendations on operational/safety matters; and (d) undertake such other related tasks as are referred by the Minister for Aviation. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Reynolds asked me a question about the Mackenzie River Dam in Queensland to which I now am able to respond in the following terms. As I am aware of them the facts are that as part of its 1984-85 Budget the Queensland Government announced an additional $100m for water resources including $4m to construct a dam on the Mackenzie River. I understand that the design of the project has been completed and tenders will be called in the near future. The proposed dam is about 35 kilometres upstream from a 30,000 hectare property owned by Ciasom Pty Ltd, a company which is owned by the Bjelke-Petersen family. I understand that there are 20 paid-up $1 shares in that company-15 shares of which are held by Florence Bjelke-Petersen, two by her son John and one by each of her other three children. The Mackenzie River Dam has never been submitted to the Commonwealth for funding either through the national water resources program or its successor, the federal water resources assistance program. It is very difficult to understand the Queensland Government's priorities for the construction of dams and weirs. The sudden arrival of projects at the top of that Government's spending lists, as has recently been reported, can only lead to speculation that factors other than rational economic or public interest considerations are playing some part. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to move a motion in respect of that answer. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to a Question without Notice asked by Senator Reynolds on 7 May 1985, relating to the MacKenzie River Dam, Question. The answer really is quite clear in its terms. This matter does not raise any question of Commonwealth funding. There never has been a question of Commonwealth funding. It is yet another cheap jibe from a Minister whom we are used to seeing behave in that shameful manner. I just wish him to know that he has the contempt of the Opposition for that sort of nonsense. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator RYAN —Earlier in Question Time today I was asked about the progress of the census of non-government schools. I can advise the Senate that the census is now finished, a preliminary date for 1984 has been published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and that that date has been sent to the States. Any additional information I get I will make available to the Senate. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the basis that I have been misrepresented by a gross error made by a Queensland newspaper. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON —On the morning of Friday, 3 May, I received a telephone call at my home from a Mr Peter Cliff of the Central Queensland News. This publication is printed twice weekly in Emerald, a centre some 235 road kilometres west of Rockhampton. Emerald is by no means an insignificant centre. It has a population of about 6,000 people. Quite naturally a great proportion of Emerald's citizens regularly read the Central Queensland News. Mr Cliff was quite obviously embarrassed by an article which appeared in the Central Queensland News that day. The article ran under the heading of 'Talkabout' and was wrongly attributed to me. Mr Cliff apologised profusely for the error, one reason being the embarrassment that the article would obviously cause me. Apparently, Senator Collard, a National Party senator from Queensland, had forwarded to the Central Queensland News an article dealing with unionism. Senator Collard's name was not mentioned, but mine was. I shall read the first two paragraphs of this five column article. These two paragraphs illustrate why a senator who is a member of the Australian Labor Party, a party which grew out of the trade union movement, would be highly embarrassed by the error made by the Central Queensland News. The article stated: In this month's Talkabout, Queensland Senator Mal Colston fires a few barbs at unionism, and presents some thoughts on possible changes within the ambit of its operation in Australia. Senator Colston likens unionism to a 'rogue elephant which has been allowed to get out of control', but we'll let him tell it his way-- The article which followed was typical of one which would be written by a Queensland National Party senator. It attacked trade unions, the trade union movement and unwarrantedly attacked the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I stress that I completely disassociate myself from the comments made in the article which was submitted to the newspaper. I understand that the newspaper concerned has today published an apology. I have not personally seen that apology, but I am informed that it reads as follows: In Friday's issue we published a Talkabout feature on unionism and attributed it to Queensland ALP Senator Mal Colston. The comments published in fact came from Queensland N.P. Senator Stan Collard and Senator Colston has completely disassociated himself from them. We apologise unreservedly to both Senator Colston and Senator Collard for this error and for any embarrassment it may have caused. At this stage I would like the matter to rest. So that my Australian Labor Party and trade union colleagues are aware that my name was used wrongly, I shall distribute copies of this personal explanation widely in Queensland. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Baume proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for maximum educational choice for parents and students as a necessary part of raising educational standards and Labor's ill-advised moves to restrict choice. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.09) —This matter of public importance concerns educational standards, educational excellence and choice as a part of the means of achievement of these goals. Australian parents want schools to provide good standards and quality learning for their children. Students too want excellence. They want the best as they prepare for the future. Without this, young adults will not get a fair go in life and they will not get a fair go from the education system. Choice is vitally important in the provision of quality schooling. Choice provides competition, diversity and extra options, and each of these enhances the quality of education. Choice enhances excellence and it enhances the fair go for students and for Australia. Choice promotes competition because it maintains excellence. Choice promotes competition because it raises learning standards. It maximises potential and the realisation of potential and it enhances efficiency within the whole education system. Choice promotes diversity. It allows for the emergence of schools based on a religious ethos. It allows for schools which want to emphasise academic learning and academic excellence. It allows for the emergence of schools that want to regard themselves as community schools. It allows for the emergence of schools that want to emphasise artistic or musical talent. I refer, for example, to the conservatorium high schools. It allows for the emergence of local schools which relate to their local community. It allows for the emergence of better disciplined schools. It allows for a variety of forms of school governance, and it allows for the accommodation of those who wish to send their children to school with others of a common culture. Choice and diversity allow different parents and students the opportunity to pursue what they see as important. I have here a publication from the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority entitled 'Choice of Schools in the Australian Capital Territory-Parents have their say'. We see at table 8 on page 16 of the document the kinds of reasons which parents in the Australian Capital Territory gave for the choice of schools, which bears out what I have been saying. I seek the permission of the Senate to have table 8 of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority publication incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- [N ence (68%) Religious (78%) Religious (70%) Reputation (34%) Social Environment (37%) Education Program (53%) Education Program (58%) School Type (31%) Education Program (37%) Convenience (40%) Discipline (48%) Education Program (29%) Reputation (37%) Discipline (33%) School Type (29%) Staffing (17%) Limited Choice (35%) School Type (31%) Convenience (24%) Learning Environment (17%) School Type (18%) Staffing (25%) Reputation (23%) Independent school parents Independent Independent Independent Independent School A School B School C School D Education Program (85%) Religious (83%) Education Program (72%) Education Program (73%) Learning Environment (58%) Staffing (51%) School Type (44%) Staffing (45%) Parent-School Reln. (50%) Discipline (51%) Staffing (41%) Discipline (45%) Staffing (46%) Education Program (45%) Religious (31%) Religious (28%) School Type (27%) Parent-School Reln. (29%) Discipline (31%) Learning Environment (28%) Social Environment (11%) Learning Environment (27%) Learning Environment (23%) School Type (25%) Note: Percentages refer to a number of parents mentioning this as important reason for school choice. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. Choice will promote extra options as well. It will allow for the development of different learning techniques to the advantage of some children. It will allow for a greater range of subjects and it will allow for more community activities. We believe that choice has a lot going for it in terms of education and in terms of what it can offer Australian children. All these factors have a capacity to raise the quality and variety of learning and general education and all of them are enhanced by the widest possible choice. When we discuss choice we need to think of choice between sectors-between government and non-government sectors. We need also to think of choice within sectors-within the government and non-government school sectors. In the non-government sector we need to recognise that choice is necessary between the non-government systems and choice is necessary as well among community schools, for those who may wish to choose a community school or a school which has been promoted by some small group. It should be available to their child in the same way as a Catholic systemic school or a government school is available. Within the government sector we must look for choice to remove the rigidities which exist, such as zoning rigidities, which restrict choice between government schools. We know that parents want choice. We know that in the Australian Capital Territory parents want choice. We know, further, that in the Australian Capital Territory 30 per cent of Australian Capital Territory parents who have children in secondary high schools wanted to send their children to some other school. I draw the attention of the Senate again to the document entitled 'Choice of Schools in the ACT-Parents have their Say' and to the summary document at table 7 on page 15, which indicates quite clearly that 30 per cent of parents of high school children in the Australian Capital Territory wanted their children to be educated elsewhere. Twenty-five per cent wanted their child to move to a private school and 5 per cent wanted their child to move to another government school which had not been available to them. Why did they want to move? Many of them wanted to move their child because of the education program, or because of questions of discipline and questions of staffing. I seek the permission of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard table 7 from the Schools Authority publication. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TABLE 7: THE MOST PREFERRED SCHOOL FOR PARENTS SENDING THEIR CHILDREN TO GOVERNMENT, CATHOLIC AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS Proportion of parents preferring The school Another school now Parents of children at a attended Government Catholic Independent % % % % Government- primary 75 5 8 12 secondary 70 6 13 11 Catholic- primary 93 2 2 3 secondary 87 1 9 3 Independent- A 97 . . . . 3 B 92 . . 5 3 C 97 . . . . 3 D 98 . . . . 2 Senator PETER BAUME —I am very grateful to the Senate. The facts show that non-government schools do not have teacher strikes and are not forced to close because of strikes that have nothing to do with the educational program in the school. The facts show that non-government schools certainly in my State, are producing better results at public examinations. The facts show that non-government schools are very responsive to the community and are more responsive to parents and to individual pupils. The Opposition supports choice in education. The Opposition's education policy guarantees financial support for educational choice, because our policy will provide for at least 20 per cent of the standard government school cost for each student. Our policy guarantees that in the exercise of that choice there will be simple administrative arrangements for schools seeking funding and deadlines will be met within those arrangements. The Opposition's policy will guarantee ready support for new non-government schools so that when those schools wish to emerge they will not be prevented from doing so. We have heard, and I will mention it later, that the Government has actually made it part of its intentions to make it more difficult for some new non-government schools to emerge because it believes that they may not fit in with the efficiency of the systems already present. We have a view that for the benefit of children, for the benefit of education and for the benefit of all schools, choice must be maximised, and our policies will do that. As well as that, we will ensure simultaneously that the quality of learning in government schools is enhanced. We will do our part in that regard. Our policy, alongside that of our colleagues such as Mr Greiner in New South Wales, Mr Olsen in South Australia and Mr Kennett in Victoria, will look towards decentralised decision-making in government schools. Our policy will look towards increased choice within the government school sector so that the local community, the local principal and the local parents are responsible for more school policy-making. Our policy will seek to encourage the removal of rigidities such as zoning which restrict school choice. Our policy will seek to break the monopoly power of the teachers' federations, so that dedicated and caring teachers can put teaching and learning and students and education ahead of politics and ahead of the federations' political goals. I digress to say that what is happening in New South Wales today-rolling strikes in district after district, with the high schools closed-is nothing short of a disgrace. What is at issue is who shall manage and who shall run the schools in New South Wales. Shall the duly elected Government-not a government of my political persuasion, but a duly elected government-run the system or shall the Teachers Federation run the system? What is at issue? Is it some great principle of education, some great pedagogical principal of learning, some issue of culture? Not at all. It is the issue of whether the government of the day in my State shall have the right to determine matters of staffing. Let me clearly put the view of the Liberal Party. We are not political supporters of Mr Cavalier nor of the New South Wales Labor Government, but while ever on this matter they stand up to the Teachers Federation in New South Wales, while ever they assert that they are running the schools in New South Wales, while ever they assert that they will remain responsible for staffing, and while ever they stand up to the Teachers Federation on this matter, we will know that they are doing the correct thing and that they deserve our support. Our policy will discourage the trend to centralised bureaucratic educational monopoly, of which the militant teachers federations are advocates. I must say that this does not apply to all of the teachers' federations. In at least one State I know that the Teachers Federation takes a very moderate and reasonable line. But the militant federations around Australia are not doing education any good and they are not seen by parents as doing it any good. That is another reason why parents want other choices and other options. Whenever I have seen the opening of a new non-government school I have been struck by the fact that its enrolments are great from the beginning. In particular, within the Catholic system the schools are full on the day on which they open. We want to see decentralised, simple administration. We want to see a government school system which will emphasise students, parents and dedicated teachers, not the system within which they operate. The system is less important than the education which is delivered to the pupils. But students also need increased choice in higher education and in technical and further education in Australia. It is a fact that the Government has provided some extra places in higher education. I acknowledge that. We applaud what the Government has done. Nevertheless, because of the increased numbers coming through the school system, the demand for places in higher education is greater now than it has ever been. We have to look at the number of people turned away from the gates of our universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE institutions. We find a very unsatisfactory situation. This year between 15,000 and 30,000 qualified students could not find places in higher educational institutions. I draw the Senate's attention to a letter written by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, on 29 April, which addressed the number of people turned away from higher education in Australia. Table 5 of that very comprehensive letter from the higher education authorities makes it clear that up to 29,000 students-making allowance along the way for the fact that there may have been double counting-may have been turned way from our universities and colleges. I seek leave to have Table 5 of that letter written to Senator Ryan on 29 April incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TABLE 5 Eligible applicants Did not Number Received offer receive offer No. % No. % Admissions Centres New South Wales (UCAC) 41,649 34,922 83.8 6,727 16.2 Victoria (VUAC) 31,757 23,153 72.9 8,604 27.1 Queensland (QTAC) 24,257 18,984 78.3 5,273 21.7 South Australia (SATAC) 13,174 10,185 77.3 2,989 22.7 Western Australia (TISC) 10,275 8,672 84.4 1,603 15.6 Institutions Tasmania 1,664 1,519 91.3 145 8.7 Northern Territory 939 939 100.0 0 0.0 Australian Capital Territory 9,475 8,257 87.1 1,218 12.9 Additional Institutions* New South Wales 1,942 1,639 84.4 303 15.6 Victoria 3,265 873 26.7 2,392 73.3 138,397 109,143 78.9 29,254 21.1 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. In addition to that, between 50,000 and 75,000 qualified students-it is hard to be sure of the exact number-could not find places in technical and further education. Students who wanted the chance to acquire a trade skill, students who wanted the chance to acquire skills that would help them find jobs and a place in the world, were turned away from the doors of the technical colleges when they sought that educational opportunity. The absence of choice and opportunity for these students has prevented them from learning, from improving themselves, from getting jobs and from becoming a part of the mainstream of our community. In short, these students who could not get into higher education and into TAFE are not getting a fair go. Senator Puplick will identify soon how the Opposition's open university proposal will make use of print, electronic and advanced satellite technology to bring educational choice and opportunity to these Australians. I will leave that to my colleague when he speaks. Unfortunately, the Labor Government has sought since it came to office to restrict choice. It has done a number of things. It has slashed the grants to the hit-list schools, increasing the financial burden upon the parents. It has reduced the real funds of many other schools through the recent recategorisation, increasing the financial burden upon the parents progressively as the years go on. It has made it harder for the schools to expand, diversify or relocate by treating such schools as what it calls new schools. It has accepted the rigid new guidelines for new schools included in the Connors report, a report entitled 'Planning and Funding Policies for New-Non Government Schools-Report of Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners, March 1985'. In paragraph 58 on page 15 of that report, where the Government's plans are being discussed, the following words appear: This would provide the Government with a means of exercising greater control on the availability of recurrent funds for new schools in order to avoid-- I emphasise, to avoid- the unplanned expansion of non-government schools overall, or in certain locations. So it goes on. It makes quite clear that this panel dealing with the planning and funding policies for new non-government schools had as one of its briefs the making more difficult of the emergence and funding of new non-government schools. The Government has increased greatly the notification time for new schools, including the so-called new schools which are expanding and relocating. The Government has introduced a funding formula that discourages schools from improving themselves. Senator Ryan could not answer today the following simple question: Is it not a fact that if they improve their funding resources they will get less from the Commonwealth and if they do not maintain their present funding, if they reduce their funding, they will also be penalised for failing to maintain effort? This is the kind of perverse incentive system that is creeping into what the Government is doing. The Government has burdened schools with excessive red tape, with complex rules and with huge forms to fill in. As a result of that, the Government has caused the Commonwealth Schools Commission to miss deadlines for the notification of schools. We need only go back to 1984. I remind the Minister of the promises schools had that by the end of September or the end of November they would have certain information on which they could plan for this school year. Time after time those deadlines were missed, due not to the fault of the officers of the Commission but to the fact that too few officers were being asked to do too many things of a political and administrative nature. What does all this mean for schools? It means that schools cannot plan. It means that it is harder for them to expand. It means that there is less diversity of subjects and activities. It means that more time is wasted on administrative activities and that there are fewer choices for parents who are worried about their children. In any event, it is more expensive. One of the things that non-government schooling does is save money for the community. Every parent who decides to contribute by sending a child to a non-government school-even a new non-government school, I remind the Minister-is saving money for the Commonwealth because the child's schooling costs less than it would if the child were educated within the government system. Senator Ryan —From the Commonwealth? Senator PETER BAUME —In the State school systems; I thank the Minister. All this adversely affects the quality of learning. We support the pursuit of excellence in the school down the road, the school around the corner, the local community school where parents want to see their children do well. We want to encourage those schools to be entrepreneurial, flexible and successful. Non-government schools are part of that entrepreneurial, flexible and successful system, and they are part of the pursuit of excellence. In relation to government schools, the Labor Government has abrogated a whole series of solemn promises, given before its election, to provide extra resources to the government system. These never arrived and because of this the Government abrogated its obligations under the famous prices and incomes accord, which included money for government schools. We believe that that money did not arrive. We believe that attacking and restricting the hopes of parents through new or expanded guidelines to restrict the development of non-government schools is no way to move towards the revitalisation of government schools in Australia. The Opposition wants every parent and every student to have a quality school at the bottom of his or her street. Increased choice is part of that deal. It is a good deal for education and a good deal for Australia. The Opposition wants all qualified students to have access to higher education or TAFE. My colleague Senator Puplick will develop the proposition that our open university system would offer such access. Our policies for schools would offer the choice that is necessary to achieve what we so desperately need in Australian education-the improvement of standards, the pursuit of excellence and the achievement of the full potential of every Australian child. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(3.29) —What Senator Peter Baume has just inflicted on the Senate is, I suppose, becoming increasingly typical of a ragged and desperate Opposition. One of the clearest signs of a ragged and desperate Opposition is that it starts to promise everything to everybody regardless of cost. It starts to take up any cause which is presented to it and promises that it will deliver on it without any recognition of the realities of government, which are that a government has a finite amount of money and an enormous number of demands on resources and any money that is spent in one area of public expenditure is money that simply cannot be spent in any other area. My colleague Senator Coates noted by way of interjection one of the many contradictions in the series of contradictions and rhetorical flourishes to which we have just been subjected by Senator Baume. On the one hand Senator Baume is claiming that every parent should have every possible choice available to him or her in terms of public, private, local, specialised, ethnic and religious education. He claims that there should be no limit on what the Commonwealth Government spends in funding non-government schools of any kind, character, location, dimension or quality. He says that there should be absolutely no budgetary limit, that we should never ever consider whether there should be any restriction on government funding in this direction. At the same time, of course, we are told that we should be providing unlimited places in the tertiary sector for anyone who would seek a place there. Of course, the kinds of aspirations that have just been spelt out by Senator Baume, that everybody should have absolutely everything that they might want at any stage of their lives, are aspirations for which we can all feel some sympathy. Every politician in this place would like to say yes to every group that comes along. A Labor government particularly, having such close and traditional ties with the needier sections of the community, is constantly in the position of wishing to say yes-yes to the single mothers; yes to the aged pensioners; yes to the Aboriginal community; yes to the unemployed; yes to those who have housing problems; yes to those who are dissatisfied with their children's education; and yes to every student who wants to get a place in a tertiary education institution but cannot. Much more than conservative governments, which have made a bit of a speciality of saying no when in government as opposed to their performance in opposition, we wish to say yes to all claims. However, because we are in government, because we are governing at a time of serious economic problems, most of which were inherited from the Fraser Government, we cannot simply adopt this careless libertarian stance of Senator Baume, who runs around the countryside saying: 'You should have everything you want, you should have every possible choice available to you and the Commonwealth should pay for it. If the Commonwealth does not pay for it the Commonwealth is engaged in some secret socialist plot to deny you freedom of choice'. This is an extraordinary performance but sadly it is the kind of state that desperate Oppositions get themselves into. The other very familiar but, I would repeat, regrettable aspect of Senator Baume's performance is his constant undermining of the public education system. Senator Baume cannot get to his feet in this place without attacking public schools and, by implication or sometimes directly-more often by implication-those of us who support public schools, teachers who teach in them, parents who choose them and students who study in them. It seems to escape the attention of Senator Baume that whatever fine things are achieved in the non-government sector-we acknowledge those achievements and we are pleased to assist-75 per cent of this nation's children are educated in public schools and by and large that is a situation which their parents have chosen and wish to continue to choose. He ignores the fact that there is considerable support in this community for the principle of public education-that is, high quality education available to all without fees or religious tests. This 75 per cent of the school community constantly has to endure onslaughts from Senator Baume who, when he realises that he has gone a bit too far, tries to resile by saying that he does not mean absolutely every teacher, he just means those horrible teacher unions. He says: 'Of course, if you really cared about your children, if you really cared about quality, excellence, competition and all the rest of it, you would choose a non-government school'. That approach by Senator Baume is becoming increasingly offensive to teachers, parents and students who believe in and support the public education system. However, I might say that it is also offensive to many parents who believe in and support the non-government school system because they recognise that no good or constructive purpose is served in the education debate by this constant effort to try to set up public against private as if they were totally polarised when, as we know, in many respects they are very close together. As honourable senators know, in many of the Commonwealth Schools Commission programs which we fund-teacher development programs and computer education programs-teachers from public and private schools work together. In the matter of curriculum development-the Curriculum Development Centre, which is now part of the Schools Commission, was re-established by our Government-we have superb co-operation between the public and private sectors, co-operation on a professional level, co-operation which is concerned with finding the way in which the Commonwealth can assist in achieving better curriculum for children in all Australian schools, be they public or private. We have numerous examples of such professional co-operation. Yet Senator Baume comes in here with the tired old 1960s approach saying: 'Public against private and we back private and we think people who care about their children should do the same'. That is so far from the reality of the constructive developments in education these days that it defies comprehension. That any politician would seek to advance his cause or his party's cause by such a destructive and unrealistic approach defies comprehension. Let us take a look at some of the facts about parental choice. One would think, from listening to Senator Baume, as unfortunately we have to do too often, that the Hawke Government had restricted choice in some way. Let us have a look at the facts. Since coming to office our Government has, for example, approved 180 new non-government schools. That over a period of little more that two years can hardly be called putting the clamps on or putting the screws down, or whatever hysterical hyperbole Senator Baume likes to choose. I am advised by a Schools Commission officer that a great majority of those 180 schools are small, non-systemic schools for small communities, often styled as Christian schools but the kinds of small schools that Senator Baume now says are going to be excluded from consideration. The facts just fly in the face of Senator Baume's hysteria. The total recurrent grants to these new schools alone have been estimated at over $50m. We have given over $30m in capital grants to these schools. In fact, we have committed ourselves to a total expenditure on non-government schools over the next four years of $2.5 billion-to be precise, $2.517 billion-in general recurrent funds alone. If that is not assisting parental choice, I do not know how else it can be described. Let me remind the Senate that it is not only by way of capital and recurrent grants that we assist non-government schools. I remind the Senate of other sorts of programs by which we fund non-government schools. These are just for 1985: Some $4.6m under the participation and equity program; $1.2m under the computer education program; several hundred thousand dollars for emergency assistance; over $17m for the English as a second language program; over $1m for the special new arrival element; over $5m for the disadvantaged schools program; over $5m for special education; nearly half a million dollars on integration for special education, and in excess of $55m for recurrent expenditure. These are just for one year. These are decisions made by our Government to assist in the development of the non-government sector, in its expansion and diversification, and in the upgrading of what is offered to children. It is absolutely incomprehensible in the face of this massive expenditure which is going into the non-government sector that Senator Baume can time and time again come in here and waste the time of the Senate complaining that the question of choice is not adequately being addressed. I would like to say something on the subject of choice, having just heard several lengthy excerpts from the Liberal Party platform on the subject. I would like to say this: I think the choice that parents are most interested in making is the choice of a successful education, of a high standard education, an education that will fit children when they leave school for further education, for training, for the work force and, perhaps above and beyond all that, for life in a democratic society. That is the choice that we want to be available to all parents for their children. How is the Commonwealth, which does not run schools itself, to achieve this? We achieve it by quality of education programs which we fund via the Schools Commission-for example, the computer education program, which is designed to assist children to come to terms with the reality of computer technology either in a specialist way or in the general way in which computer technology is permeating all areas of the work force-and by our continuing efforts to upgrade schools operating in the disadvantaged schools program. I make no excuse for the fact that as far as this Government is concerned our top priority is to assist children from poorer backgrounds. We do this through the disadvantaged schools program. We will continue to do so. Again, that is a program which reaches into the private and public sectors. It is not of burning concern to our Government, as it is to Senator Baume and his cohorts, whether a child is in a public or a private school. What concerns our Government is the education opportunities available to that child. If they are not good enough, we seek to find ways, through setting up and funding Schools Commission programs, of improving those opportunities. It is very interesting that when Senator Baume talks about education, competition and standards he nearly always-perhaps I am misjudging him-neglects to raise the most disadvantaged school children in our community, namely, Aboriginal children. The participation rates for Aboriginal children in secondary education are appallingly low, dramatically lower than they are for the rest of the population. The numbers of Aboriginal people who have qualified to enter tertiary education are still pathetically low. Since we have been in government we have instituted a number of programs to assist Aboriginal students at the primary school level, secondary school level and in tertiary education to have more success and better outcomes. I think that is something for which our Government ought to be recognised as having done. I know that Senator Macklin is extremely interested in these matters. Of course, Senator Baume could not care less. Despite the fact that Senator Baume was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Administration, he never addresses the problem of Aboriginal disadvantage in education and that is probably because children living in remote communities, until our Government put a bit of capital funding in, had no schools to go to at all. Children living in the Kimberley, the remote parts of the Northern Territory, the Torres Strait Islands or in other parts of Australia where they have suffered terrible education neglect, do not have parents who can hop on planes and spend a lot of time telling Senator Baume how much more money they want out of the system than they are already getting. They do not have powerful advocates, but they do have a government and a Minister who are a little more concerned with their circumstances than the circumstances of schools which have very high incomes and which will be able to maintain those standards because of the formulas we have provided. There has been a suggestion by Senator Baume that somehow the non-government sector is less than satisfied with the decisions of this Government. That is simply not the case. In the few minutes remaining to me I will remind the Senate of statements made by the spokespersons for the non-government sector last year when our new recurrent formula was announced. Father Williams, then the Chairman of the National Catholic Education Commission, said a number of very favourable things. He said: . . . Catholic Education Commission welcomed the clear statement of responsibility for all children in the guidelines and the practical implementation of this by increased recurrent funding for both sectors. It was heartening to see that the Catholic Education Commission concerned itself with both sectors. Father Williams said: The decision to legislate for the level of recurrent funding for the next four years and to give guarantees for the following four years is a most significant improvement in funding arrangements. Schools, both government and non-government, will be enabled to plan with certain knowledge about the level of Commonwealth recurrent funding. As indicated in its response to the Schools Commission document Funding Policies for Australian Schools the National Catholic Education Commission welcomes the extension of the categories to twelve and believes that this will provide a greater opportunity to direct funds to those who are most in need. The greater number of categories, together with the decision to continue to pay the same amount, in dollar terms, to any school adversely affected by a change in category will minimise any dislocation caused by these changes in categories. I remind honourable senators that these are the words of the Catholic Education Commission. Father Williams continued: The National Catholic Education Commission wishes to acknowledge with gratitude the decision of the government to provide extra funds for schooling within the present economic restraints. The National Catholic Education Commission welcomes the recognition by the government of the right of parents to choose the type of schooling they want for their children and of its obligation to be a partner in the funding of that right of choice. The National Council of Independent Schools said that 'the guidelines reflect continuing support for a dual system of government and non-government schools' and were welcome. The Council's Chairman, Mr Tom Chapman, welcomed the Government's significant moves to bring about funding justice for all Australian students and its determination to contribute to long term stability in the dual education system. He went on to say: We were pleased to be informed personally by the Minister earlier today that schools which might move to a lower category under the new system would have their dollar funding maintained until by inflation it corresponds with the appropriate level. Mr Slattery, on behalf of the Australian Parents Council, mentioned several pleasing features in the new system. He said: the government has accepted the need for stability in the non-government sector by its four year funding plans the increasing percentage allocations for low-resource non-government schools increased funding for government school children the continuation of averaging for system schools the maintenance of special purpose programs in real terms the new program for basic skills in primary schools. I could go on and on, but I simply remind the Senate that they were the responses of the non-government sector when this formula was first announced. I know that the sincere people within that sector continue to hold those views because I spend a great deal of time in discussion with them. It is absolutely mischievous and unfounded for Senator Baume to suggest that the decisions we have made have restricted choice in any way or that they have attracted any widespread criticism in the non-government sector. The contrary is the case. I pass briefly to the new non-government schools policy. We have had lengthy debates about it in this place but, again, its principles and objectives have generally been endorsed. Why would they not be when the Connors panel contained a majority of non-government representatives? Mr Vin Faulkner, from the Catholic Education Office in Victoria, and Sister Denise Desmarchelier from Western Australia, a member of the Schools Commission, were two of the members of the panel. Professor Ron Sackville, who is associated with the Jewish day schools, was the third member of a five-person panel. It was no surprise that the panel's report, when it was accepted by the Government, received wide acceptance. Any responsible person engaged in the administration of schools and the getting together of resources to fund schools at a level whereby children have proper educational opportunity accepts that funding is not infinite, that there must be co-operation, planning and co-ordination in the developing of new non-government schools. Schools are not amenable to free market principles. A free market principle is a great way to sell toothpaste or soap powder. We can buy one brand one week and if we do not like it we can change to another one. The whole operation of advertising is designed to get people to change their choices. However, the provision of schooling for children is a much more complicated matter, a matter that needs stability and long term planning and whose outcome, successful or otherwise, can be assessed only over a long period. The vision that I have when Senator Baume starts rabbiting on about free market principles applying to education is that children will be dragged in and out of schools week after week: Let us try this school this week; we do not like that, let us try another school next week. Apart from the cost to the Commonwealth, let alone the communities that support the schools, which would be insupportable, what does that mean for the stability of schooling? Schools are not like toothpaste or washing powder. They require planning, development, a stable staff, a stable source of funds and an appropriate curriculum. They require stability and planning of the highest order. Any reasonable person would have to accept that the decisions of our Government have contributed to such stability and to such an improvement in educational opportunity. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.48) —The matter of public importance we are discussing today is 'The need for maximum educational choice for parents and students as a necessary part of raising educational standards and Labor's ill-advised moves to restrict choice.' The actual matter of public importance does not seek to specify schools or, indeed, to specify anything in particular. If one looks in some detail at the proposition, it is interesting that maximum educational choice here is seen as a necessary part of raising educational standards. We are all very much aware that many choices made by parents for their pupils do no such thing. In Australia today an increasing number of parents are expressing their concerns about educational choices that they have made for their sons or daughters in the past which have not, in fact, raised the educational standard of those children. I think it must be said that we must be very careful about making categorical connections between the types of things we would like to happen as though they will always happen in the real world. That is not the case. In general, of course, the widening of educational choice to parents ought to result in better opportunities for children. If that is the proposition I do not think there would be any caveat in this place from any honourable senator. The need for diversity in education has been recognised by parents, students, teachers and most people who come in contact with the education system at each level. I think over the years we have become more and more aware of the variety of cultures, lifestyles and educational aspirations that characterise Australia in 1985. To be able to fulfil those types of aspirations obviously requires an education system which is as diverse as the country is able to maintain. I suspect that the argument which is still being sustained at least in the political circles, if it is not sustained with terribly much joy in the educational circles, revolves around that aspect of how much choice is available in Australia in 1985 and the years to come and whether the country can sustain economically a wider range of choice. I do not think anybody is actually arguing that the amount of choice should be less. However, I would like to make a couple of points on this notion of choice. All too often we assume that parental choice is the same as institutional choice. It is not, for two very good reasons. One is that the only schools in Australia today which are available for total choice of parents are the state schools. There is an old saying that the rich and poor alike are both free to sleep under the bridge. If one does not have the resources one cannot choose. If one does not live in a geographical region where those choices are available, one cannot choose. If a person in Australia comes from a race of people such as, for example, the Aboriginal people in many parts of the Northern Territory-I was there last week-he or she does not have access. Such people do not have the opportunity to choose. Choice depends on a whole range of matters. As I have said, for the overwhelming number of people in Australia today the only schooling system which is available and which has that maximum availability of choice is the state school system. There are other schooling systems. One would need to divide the private school system into probably the systemic Catholic school system and the schooling systems established by other churches and groups in our society. The Catholic systemic system by and large is very much open to people in almost every income group in Australia. The reason for that is that the Catholic systemic system by and large is supported from Consolidated Revenue. It varies from State to State. I understand that New South Wales is the lowest. I am not sure which is the highest. Overall, the type of support which is provided directly from Consolidated Revenue is in many schools in the order of 80 to 85 per cent of their recurrent costs. In those circumstances it is possible for the Catholic systemic schools to provide educational facilities to children from low income groups simply because they do not charge large fees. However, if one goes to every capital city in Australia today one can find schools which, in a way, might be said to be open to any parents but they are certainly open only to a very small group of people. They would probably be open to the children of honourable senators in this chamber because of our incomes, but they are not open to the vast bulk of the Australian population which does not have the type of income we enjoy. So I think under that heading one must be very careful when one is talking about the freedom of choice. Is it precisely the freedom for the parent and student to choose or is it the choice of the institution to choose who shall go into that institution? But a second, and I think equally important, idea is contained within the notion of freedom of choice, particularly when it comes to educational choice. That is that all too often in this country we have tended to talk about educational choice as though it is a choice between a state school education or a religious education. I think that the real choices in Australia today, and hopefully it will be the case into the future, are about the types of educational philosophies those schools embody rather than whether it is a secular or religious education. As I have said on innumerable occasions, because we seem to have this sort of debate fairly regularly, one could sit in the back of the classes of most of the private schools in Australia and if it were not for the statues or holy pictures on the wall one would not know whether one was in a state school or a private school. The schools look very much the same in Australia today. If one looks at the types of aspirations of the vast majority of the population in Australia today one sees that they are not very different one from another. People are all looking for what is best for their children. They are all looking hopefully for their children to get sufficient educational standing to be able to get jobs in the ever-shrinking labour market. This applies to only a very small group of schools. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in her speech actually referred to a group of schools-possibly the accelerated Christian schools. If one went into those one would certainly notice a difference. There are groups of schools that do provide an essentially different type of education, but by and large the vast bulk of education in Australia today fits into what we understand is mainstream education. However, from this year on I think educational choice will start moving very rapidly, not in institutional terms, but in educational terms. By that I mean that if one has a look at the figures for the last nine months with regard to the growth in the home computer market one has to start understanding that essentially the people who have finances in Australia today and who have children at school are buying some type of computer-based education system for their children. Someone has suggested that the computers might be the new encyclopedias and that if people do not actually have one for their children they might start to feel awfully guilty. Whatever the reason people are buying into computers, they are buying in. It may be that these will sit on desks because people cannot work out how to use them, or they may be used effectively. Quite frankly, my feeling is that the tertiary educated parents in Australia today are making an attempt to use these computers to benefit their children in a way which will put them a jump ahead of other children in their class at school. In Australia I see a distinct movement appearing towards that type of supplementary education, which used to be provided by coaching colleges or other types of enrichment education such as music classes to which children are able to go out of schooling time, being provided more and more in terms of the available education dollar through types of new technologies and new communication mechanisms. The power of those new mechanisms to mould our choices about education I think is not yet apparent. I think they will become apparent, but if one thinks along those lines and then turns to the Schools Commission's recommendations for this year, one sees the gulf that might be opening up in Australia. The areas covered are Aboriginal education, English as a second language, particularly for new arrivals, the disadvantaged schools program, and the special education program. Those areas are in desperate need. They have been singled out by the Schools Commission, and I think they have to be singled out as areas of desperate need in Australia today. On the one hand we are attempting to fulfil the requirements of government in those areas of special and desperate need, and on the other hand large groups of the Australian population are looking at totally different forms of education to enrich and advance their children. When we talk about the need for maximum educational choice we should talk about 1985 and beyond, and not put the rather barren debate of the 1970s and the 1960s regurgitated for another runaround. If one wants to talk about the narrowing of choices, one can certainly talk about that in terms of the cutbacks that have occurred and the inability of this Government to fulfil the desires of people who want to go into technical and further education, the enormous wind down in professional development, and the lack of support for capital works programs. Quite frankly, however, those types of complaints that I make of this Government I made of the previous Government. Unfortunately, the run down in Australia in educational terms is endemic in the way we have funded our educational processes. I made those complaints when Senator Peter Baume was Minister for Education in the Fraser Government, as I make them again today with the current Minister for Education, who is present for this debate. They are there and represent a particular view of where we should put resources in Australia. I have argued, seemingly totally ineffectively, that we should be putting them into choices about the development of the human capacities of Australian citizens. However, we still want to talk about the costs of those resources; we do not want to talk about them as investments. That seems to be the settled debate, and I suppose that is where it will stay. One point I wish to make about this whole operation is that, if we fail continually to redefine our resources in human terms, the ability of Australia to provide work and opportunities and to raise educational standards will not be realised. It will not be realised simply by arguing about whether this school or that is established. Eventually the real crunch item in education will not be about how we cut the cake, it will be about the size of the cake with regard to other allocations in the Budget. The education allocation has not risen under this Government. It remains at the same pitiably low level provided by the previous Government. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.04) —At Question Time today Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education, was kind enough to welcome me back to this chamber. She reminded me, in I suppose one has to say a maternal fashion, that certain things had changed in the last three years in the operation and funding of schools in Australia. What has not changed in the last three years is the lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the Minister and her propensity to misrepresent, deliberately and malevolently, the views expressed by the Opposition, to impute to the Opposition and to Senator Peter Baume in particular views that he does not hold, as if the principle of repeating the untruths often enough and shrilly enough will somehow substitute for confronting the arguments which the Opposition and its spokesman, Senator Peter Baume, have put critically of the Minister's administration of the education portfolio. I give three examples from today's comments by Senator Ryan in response to Senator Baume's speech which indicate what I mean. The first concerns the accusation that Senator Baume, or the Opposition in general, is in the process of trying to undermine the public education system. Compared with Senator Ryan, I suppose Senator Baume and I suffer from a considerable handicap and disadvantage. We both attended state schools. The commitment we have, and the commitment I have in particular, to the maintenance of the highest standards and the highest degree of quality of education in the state school system cannot be reflected upon by Senator Ryan in any fashion other than a totally dishonest one. The second accusation made by the Minister was that the Opposition and its spokesmen were somehow not concerned with the question of Aboriginal education. If there is one thing that can be clearly said around the Aboriginal communities in Australia at the moment it is that, given their choice between the Liberal administration of Aboriginal affairs and the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs being practised by this Government, there is little doubt as to the choice they would seek to make. If anybody has the record of taking this matter seriously, of dealing with issues on their merits and of making promises it has every intention of honouring rather than of dishonouring, it is this side of the chamber in relation to Aboriginal affairs policy, including Aboriginal education policies. The third comment she made was that the Opposition seeks to polarise the debate between government and non-government, between Protestant and Catholic, between rich and poor, between advantaged and disadvantaged, or whatever terminology the Minister likes to drag up from her ideological depths. I will not comment by simply rejecting that as a statement of my own view, but rather will refer to an article in the Bulletin on 9 April 1985 under the heading 'Alarm grows at Ryan's funding policies'. I quote the article: Federal Education Minister Senator Susan Ryan presides over an education system which almost half the country appears not to want. The policies she is implementing would appear to discriminate between students and their families on grounds of race and religion. Furthermore, she has elevated feminism to the level of national policy-despite the dubious argument for lumping half of humankind into a category of social victims along with blacks, migrants and the physically disabled. That article says towards its conclusion in terms of the cost of schools and schooling to parents: Since non-Catholic schools generally cost more than Catholic schools, the choice for a Catholic family between the public and the private system is easier than the choice for Protestant parents who would like their children to have a religious education. Under current government policies, those schools will cost even more and be harder to get into. If anybody is responsible for elevating sectarianism and for polarising the education debate in this country, it is none other than the Minister. If I may remark briefly on one of the comments made by Senator Macklin, and it was a comment well made, he said that choice depends on a vast range of matters. That is absolutely true, but the Opposition objects to the way in which this Government, by largely covert methods, pursues its ideological commitment to control, to uniformity, to squeezing out the principles of free choice and to the elimination of diversity within the school system. Examples have been given in this chamber, and the implications of the recommendations of the Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners have been referred to today as examples of restricting choice by restricting the potential growth and development of new schools. Reference was made to the constant bowing to pressure by the Australian Teachers' Federation and other organised groups within the education sector to maintain the system as an essentially closed system in which they have areas of privilege and disadvantage that they are not going to give up under any circumstances, regardless of the educational consequences of maintaining that closed system approach. As Senator Baume previously indicated to the Senate I would do, I now turn to comment on the diversity and choice in Australian tertiary education in the future arising from the adaptation and use of new technology. Indeed, there is no reason that it should be confined for ever to tertiary education. In December 1974 the then Commonwealth Government received the final report of the Committee on Open University which was made to the Universities Commission under the chairmanship of Professor Peter Karmel. This initiative, which was taken largely at the instigation of the Hon. Kim Beazley Senior, resulted in a very lengthy study of the question of the Open University along the lines developed by the British Open University at Milton Keynes. The recommendations that the Karmel Committee put forward included the following: Nevertheless, significant barriers to access to tertiary education still exist in a number of areas. These relate to entry, accessibility, range of courses, modes of learning, diversity of institutions, transferability between institutions and courses, the flow of information and student finance. These barriers are most difficult to surmount for those groups in the community who are educationally disadvantaged through their cultural, social or economic backgrounds. In many cases, however, the educational disadvantages occur well before the point of entry to tertiary education. For such groups the lowering of educational barriers can only be a long term task and will involve measures many of which may be outside the sphere of tertiary education and even of education as a whole. The Committee went on to say that it believed that tertiary courses should be available to all Australians who had reasonable prospects of coping with them, wherever they lived and in whatever circumstances they were placed, and it recommended that a National Institute of Open Tertiary Education should be established as a statutory body with a general objective of expanding opportunities in tertiary education for all sections of the community. Much to the regret of then Minister for Education, the Hon. Kim Beazley Senior, who I know was very much committed to the development of the Open University, the Whitlam Government shelved that report and declined specifically to take any action on it. Had action been taken on the Open University recommendations at that time, I believe that we would have been in a position, with the development of a communications satellite and the imminent launch of our own Aussat arrangements, to put into place an Open University system which would have been in a position to be a world leader. We would have had the technology available by now. We would have had the opportunity to learn from the experience of not only the Open University in the United Kingdom but particularly the Open University in Paris at Vincennes where a very large number of courses are available and where the sophisticated French electronics and communications industry has made a major contribution towards the expansion of educational opportunity. When we faced the electorate at the last Federal election, the policy of the Liberal and the National parties on education made a specific commitment on the question of the Open University. We said in our policy: The Coalition believes that any serious attempt to increase participation in, and access to, higher education requires further development of off-campus educational opportunities. This requires maximum use of advanced educational and communications technology. We believe that a shift in emphasis from formal and concrete institutional structures to less formal, more flexible and responsive institutions and processes is inevitable. We envisage the development of a Commonwealth institution offering recognised undergraduate degree courses via print and electronic media in conjunction with advanced satellite technology. The production of intellectually sound and stimulating teaching material will be contracted out to existing higher education institutions. We will utilise institutions already offering external studies for such resources. Existing institutions will be thus intimately linked with the 'Open University'. We will ask them to contribute in developing vital and innovative ways to transmitting knowledge. Our commitments to equality of educational opportunity and greater participation in higher education naturally coalesce in an 'Open University' initiative. We went on to indicate how this would be integrated with an open technical and further education college policy with potential development beyond the purely tertiary sector. We were looking to use the resources of universities and institutions which are already well developed in the process of outreach in education. One thinks of the programs at Deakin University, the University of Queensland and Griffith University, where these could have been integrated. One would have thought that under this Administration, with the imminence of the satellite, some thought would have been given to this. During the investigations of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Education by Estimates Committee D Senator Baume and I had the opportunity to ask some questions about how far the Government had gone in this matter. We referred to some Press releases and discussions by the Australian Education Council. Senator Baume asked: Has the task force submission to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on behalf of the AEC yet been made? The Department told us that it had. We then indicated that a Press release from the Council said: The Commonwealth Minister for Education, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Task Force, will discuss with the Commonwealth Minister for Communications how education may exploit the opportunities provided by tele-communications technologies and facilities . . . We then asked: Has such consultation taken place? Senator Ryan answered: It has not taken place yet . . . This Government has had the time and the resources to deal with this matter. It has had a couple of years in office. It knew the launch date for Aussat. It knew that the development of educational programs related to the satellite needed to be put in place. What do we get? We get as a response in April 1985 that the Commonwealth Minister, Senator Ryan, has not even opened negotiations and discussions with her own federal ministerial colleague on the question of the effective use of satellite communications for advancing choice and diversity in education. That illustrates once again just how uncommitted this Government really is to the maintenance of choice and diversity in education. As a result of its positive ideological commitment to regulation, restriction and control, it will be responsible for the gradual and inevitable lowering of educational standards in Australia. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.18) —Before turning to the Opposition's claims, which are based on supposedly 'ill-advised moves' of the Government 'to restrict choice', I will outline a short history of government funding for schools in Australia. It is important that we get in context what is actually provided to schools today compared with the past. At one stage no funding was made available to schools in the States by the Federal government, as the total responsibility for education was accepted as one for the States themselves. Faced with gaps in the education sector, however, the Commonwealth began funding schools in 1964 with grants for science laboratories and related equipment. Since then the Commonwealth government's commitment to the schools sector has increased dramatically, so that today about $1.6 billion is being spent by the Commonwealth government on government and non-government schools. It is significant that the real boost towards the level of funding which now prevails came during the time of the Whitlam Government. In 1972 the Labor Government established the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, known as the Karmel Committee. That Committee was to examine the needs of schools and to work towards establishing acceptable standards in schools, as well as to advise on school funding. The Karmel Committee recommended a multifaceted seven-program approach. This was accepted by the Government of the day and program grants were authorised during the 1974-75 biennium. In 1973 the Schools Commission was established to inquire into and furnish information and advice to the Minister for Education on matters ranging from the attainment and maintenance of school standards to matters in connection with Commonwealth financial assistance to schools. The Commission's first set of recommendations were contained in its report for the triennium 1976-78. In 1975 the Government informed the Commission that the recommendations for the 1977-79 triennium would be framed within guidelines on expenditure developed by the Government. Subsequent administrations have continued this procedure and since 1976 the Commission's annual recommendations on grants have been made in response to funding guidelines issued by the Minister for Education. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has maintained the Karmel Committee's multi-program approach to funding which enables grants to be directed to broad areas while providing for State and non-government school authorities to make specific decisions on expenditure within those areas. The current States Grants (Schools) Acts divide Commonwealth payments into three program categories. The first is the government schools program, the second is the non-government schools program and the third relates to joint programs. In referring to school funding it should be remembered that about 75 to 76 per cent of all enrolments are in government schools. Under the Fraser Administration the proportion of total Commonwealth Schools Commission funds which went to government schools declined from 64 per cent to 47 per cent. Clearly, the 75 per cent of government school students were not receiving an equitable share of the available funding. Some moves have been made by the Hawke Government to provide more balance to the system. In education funding it must be remembered that equity for the total school system must be one of our concerns, not the favouring of one sector over another. It is important to recognise that even though we talk in this place of funding schools we often forget that there are children in those schools and it is their education which is of the utmost importance. It is for this reason that the Commonwealth provides significant funds for the non-government sector even though it may be argued that the Commonwealth Government's principal concern should be about government schools. I sometimes wonder whether the Opposition takes a global view of education in Australia or whether it deliberately wishes to favour one sector over another. New guidelines have recently been introduced for the funding of new non-government schools. All governments are faced with the problem of limited resources and thus those resources have to be used as efficiently as possible. In this regard the Commonwealth Schools Commission's Panel on Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-government Schools reported in March 1975. Referring to the economic uses of resources, the Panel stated: The need to balance the rights of all children to adequate resources for schooling exists within schools and systems as well as between the sectors. For example, careful management is needed within and between systems and sectors to avoid diseconomies and disruptions resulting from enrolment decline and shift. The provision of significantly more school places than those required on a population basis can have serious educational and financial implications and is likely to have negative direct and cumulative effects on the operation of all schools. This is so whether the over-provision occurs in the government sector or the non-government sector or both, as an unintended outcome of demographic change or of government policies. One aspect of this comment should not be forgotten, namely, the need for equal opportunity within the systems. Where some zoning system applies, as mentioned earlier, this is of even more importance. In days past students in Queensland sat for a public examination called the Scholarship at the end of what is now the equivalent of the Year 8 level. I well remember a fellow student who left school to attend another school about eight kilometres away so that he would have a better chance of passing his scholarship examination. I have doubts about whether his prospects altered, but obviously his parents perceived that one school was better than another. Some of the Federal Government's programs are aimed at giving all students equal opportunity and, hopefully, allow the public perception to acknowledge that children will not be disadvantaged by attending a particular school. At this stage I will comment on the statement I have just quoted from the report of the Panel of the Commonwealth Schools Commission about careful management being needed to avoid diseconomies and disruptions resulting from enrolment decline and shift. In this regard the Commonwealth Government's approach to new non-government school funding is to be applauded. However, before I discuss that I will quote from a Press release which was issued last year by the National Catholic Education Commission. In part, the Commission stated: The National Catholic Education Commission has noted the concerns expressed by the Schools Commission and the government about the need to ensure a balance between the proper use of resources already available and the provision of new places in government and non-government schools. It notes the decision to impose minimum enrolment requirements and two years notice on the establishment of new non-government schools. It requests the government to ensure that these new requirements will not be implemented in a way which will cause undue hardship to those wanting to establish new schools. That is a laudable request. I quote some of the elements of the new policy in relation to new non-government schools: The Government therefore decided that: . . . from 1985, new schools, as a condition for Commonwealth recurrent funding, will be required to meet the enrolment guidelines accepted by the Australian Education Council and set out in the Council's report on Registration of Non-government Schools . . . I ask: What is wrong with that? Should public funds be used where enrolments are extremely low? We must question whether funds which have been provided by the taxpayer should be used for a school which has low enrolments. The second point the Government decided was: Commonwealth establishment grants to new non-government schools from 1985 will be made available only to new schools, systemic and non-systemic, serving developing areas; these grants are to be maintained at existing real levels for the funding period 1985-88 . . . Again I ask: What is wrong with that? It would be difficult to justify the provision of new schools in stable areas where educational requirements are fully met. It would be even more difficult, if not impossible, to justify the use of scarce resources in establishing new schools in areas of declining enrolment. The Government also decided that: . . . in principle, authorities seeking capital and/or recurrent grants for new non-government schools (or major structural changes such as the addition of secondary levels to primary schools or the relocation of a school) in 1987 and beyond will need to give notice to the Schools Commission of their intention to commence 24 months in advance; 12 months for 1986 commencements . . . This is also a sound move. Proposals for new schools are more likely to be soundly based if a significant lead time is required. I listened carefully to Senator Baume's comments when he opened the debate on the alleged matter of public importance this afternoon because I was puzzled by his reference to choice. In my mind, what Senator Baume was referring to were symptoms, if his comments about a clamour for choice are correct. I would ask: Why does he not tackle the real problem and suggest a cure for whatever may be causing the alleged symptoms? Towards the end of his speech Senator Baume dropped his call for choice and claimed that all schools should be able to provide quality education. Indeed, this should be the aim and should be the case. The Government's policies are directed towards that aim. Once that is achieved Senator Baume's alleged clamour for choice will no longer be heard. I reject the claims made by Senator Baume in the alleged matter of public importance which he submitted to the Senate for discussion. It would be refreshing, for a change, to hear a former Minister make a well-reasoned and constructive speech about the educational requirements that we need in Australia at present. What is of public importance is the progress made by the Hawke Labor Government in the field of education. Labor has a long tradition of fostering the ideal of quality education throughout the nation. For their commitment to students in Australia, the Government and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) deserve commendation. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.31) —The Senate is considering a matter of public importance in the following terms: The need for maximum educational choice for parents and students as a necessary part of raising educational standards and Labor's ill-advised moves to restrict choice. Why do people want to send their children to non-government schools, always at considerable cost to themselves? One frequently sees situations where parents of similar financial standing choose, at their own expense, to sacrifice a lot in order to send their children to independent schools when a government school is freely available to them. Why do they do it? I suppose part of the reason is the old school tie attitude-'I went to that school, therefore my children should'. Some of it is the entirely proper motives on the part of parents to have their children educated in a religious environment. Surely that is a motive which we should all accept, provided, of course, the school has appropriate academic standards. If parents wish to have their children properly educated in a religious background surely we should accept that as being a right and proper thing for parents to want. I think that the main reason-not these; although they are substantial-is that they think that at the private schools they will get disciplined school children and dedicated and disciplined staff and they are far from confident that they will achieve this at many of the government schools. It is, I suppose, sometimes a matter of affluence and pride, but basically what people are looking for is that their children will get the best chance in life through going to an independent school because they will get discipline and dedication both from the students and from the staff. The fact that so many people feel this and are voting with their feet and at their own expense in this respect is a matter which should be looked at very carefully. We should look very carefully at what is going wrong with the government system that makes people feel this so strongly and makes them act so strongly in support of their views? Why is the quality of education better in the non-government schools? I have tackled some of the reasons and I will repeat them. One is the continuity of staff. If one goes to a non-government school one will find people who have been there for many years; they are closely involved in the school and are committed to the school's ideals, whereas, in the government schools-I can speak for my State of Victoria; it may not be the same in other States, but I think it is-the Public Service system operates whereby when a teacher is appointed he immediately looks around for the next appointment. As soon as he gets appointed to one school he applies for a higher level appointment in another school. The turnover of staff in the government system is such that a great deal of staff continuity is lost, which is a vital ingredient of efficient education in a school. I talk to about 50 schools a year, the great majority of which are government schools. I talk to about politics and the role of parties the higher school certificate students who are studying politics as a subject. I must say that I find some admirable and dedicated teachers in the state system. I would also say that because of historical accident a proportion of teachers in the state system-I do not know what proportion; I guess it is about 25 per cent-are not suitable for teaching children. Their motivation is wrong. They got into the profession because it provided a free university education, or a subsidised university education, and a job when they finished; they cannot find other employment. They are not really motivated to be teachers. Yet they are there and their direction is not academic; it is not in the interests of the children. The effect on the state education system in recent years has been catastrophic. They would not last for a week in a private school, yet they are in the state system and they are there to stay. Their effect on the general community impression of the standards of the state system, and their effects on those standards, are very damaging. That is largely the reason why so many people, at their own expense and at considerable sacrifice, are pulling their children out of the state education system. The next factor that makes for the superiority of the independent system over the government system is the quality and authority of the principals. In an independent school the quality and authority of the principal is paramount. The principals are chosen very carefully. They have authority to hire and fire staff. They have disciplinary authority over the staff. That has all been wiped away in the state system. I believe that if we wish to get a state system that will respond to the needs of the community and the wishes of parents, two things must be done. The first is to remove the geographical restriction which applies in many States so that we can only send our children to a particular state school no matter what our dislike of some of the things that go on there. We should be allowed to send our child to any state school that can accommodate that child so that parents who have an unsatisfactory state school in their area can vote with their feet. The second thing we must do is give principals the right to hire and fire staff. Until we give them that they have no appropriate authority to run an efficient, responsive and academic school. Until those things are achieved we will continue to see the exodus of children out of the state system into the private system, at considerable cost to the parents of those children, which represents, I think, a substantial loss to the community. What is alarming is the very low retention rate of teenagers in our schools. We are seventeenth in the list of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the retention of school children between 15 and 19 years of age. In Australia, only 44 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds are in full time education. By the way, people in apprenticeships are counted in that figure. Only 44 per cent of our young people aged 15 to 19 years are in full time education. That compares with a figure of 80 per cent in America and 71 per cent in Japan. If we look at the standards of our schools in terms of retention, we see that the retention rate to Year 12 in the independent non-Catholic schools is 92.9 per cent. This might be compared with a figure of 51.3 per cent in Catholic schools and 33.7 per cent in government schools. I suppose we might say that the ones who go to independent non-Catholic schools have wealthy parents and they can afford to keep their children at school. Maybe that is so. Let us ignore them. Let us look at the two categories-the Catholic independent schools and the government schools-and their retention rates. There is no evidence of any description to show that the wealth or socio-economic status of those who attend Catholic schools is higher than those who attend government schools. In fact, such evidence as there is would suggest the opposite. Yet, 51.3 per cent of those who go to Catholic schools complete year 12 and 33.7 per cent-many fewer-complete year 12 in government schools. Why is this? Why are government schools so failing our community, our children and our parents? I am sure that honourable senators can see that the reason people send their children to Catholic schools or independent schools basically is that they think their children will get more out of their education. Their children agree with them. Senator Coates —They think they will. Senator HAMER —Maybe they think they will but it is a very strong feeling. I think that any government which does not recognise that this is the community reaction based on experience, and that parents believe they are not getting what they are entitled to get out of government schools is ignoring reality. Senator Coates —Because people like you keep repeating this sort of stuff. Senator HAMER —That is not so. People are sacrificing a great deal of their resources in order to send their children to private schools. They do not send their children to private schools because I say so. They do it because their experience in these schools is such that they believe they are getting a more responsive, a more disciplined and a more directive education than if they send their children to government schools. This is a great worry. Government schools are educating 75 per cent of our children. Therefore, these schools have an enormously important role to play in our community. The secondary schools in particular should be the means by which we integrate people from diverse backgrounds into our community. Our community standards are set by the products of our government schools. Surely what we must do is devote all our efforts to seeing why these results are not being achieved by government schools. That is not done by chopping down the tall poppies. This is the eternal failure of the Labor approach. If somebody is doing better than another person, Labor does not try to improve to the standard; Labor tries to destroy the person doing better. That is the Labor approach. There are many things the Government should do about government schools but nothing will be achieved by tipping money over the schools. The best funded government schools in this country are those in the Australian Capital Territory yet the Australian Capital Territory has the highest proportion of people in the community who have opted out of the government system. There are many more fundamental problems in the government system and they are compounded by the approach of this Minister. The Minister is seeking-perhaps not openly, although in one case she did do it openly-to level out the system to mediocrity and destroy the people who do better. Senator Ryan has openly stated that she does not believe in the pursuit of excellence in education. Senator Coates —Say that again! Senator HAMER —The Minister, Senator Ryan, has publicly said-- Senator Coates —Where? Senator HAMER —She said at a conference of independent school headmasters that she does not believe in the pursuit of excellence in education. All her actions show that to be true. Presumably, if she does not believe in the pursuit of excellence she believes in the pursuit of mediocrity. Of course, this is a disaster for the whole community. Not only that she is also seeking-I do not know whether deliberately or accidentally-to divide the independent school communities. All of the 56 schools on her so-called hit list are non-Catholic. Why is this so? It is a matter of great concern to the Catholic educationalists. It is divisive. We thought we had put the division of independent schools based on religion behind us. The Minister has revived that argument which bedevilled our schools funding for many years. It is a most unfortunate feature of what has happened. The number of schools on the hit list increased from 41 to 56 despite the increase in the number of categories from three to 12. The Minister has sanctioned a new report which stops non-government schools registered by the States automatically receiving recurrent funds. This strikes at the confidence of the independent schools system. The report which the Government has blessed is only one of a number of recent moves which make for more control by the Government over non-government schools generally. Basically, the Government fears competition. We must raise the standards of discipline and performance in the independent schools as well as in the government schools. We must all raise our standards together. We must not try to chop off the good schools; we must try to emulate them. Ultimately, the standards of education in the community, its excellence, diversity and flexibility, will be vital to the future of our country. All Australians must have the chance to develop their full educational potential. The divisive, reactionary and anti-academic policies of the present Minister are harming all of us. We need an urgent change of direction. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.46) —Senator Hamer, who has just resumed his seat, asked why people send their children to private schools. He is part of the reason why people want to do that because he keeps spreading the perception of the higher dedication of staff and higher standards in private schools than in government schools. That is an insult to the dedicated teachers in the government school system in all States and Territories of this country. Government schools are not failing the community as he suggests. I get sick and tired of the Opposition talking down the government school system. We wanted to stop the division in the community on this matter and this Government's policies do that. However, we keep getting this referral to divisiveness by the Opposition. To suggest that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is not in favour of higher education standards is a total insult to her and to every senator on this side of the chamber. I refer to the specific phrasing of the Opposition's matter of public importance. It talks about maximum educational choice and accuses the Government of restricting choice. I make it clear that despite Senator Peter Baume's flowery rhetoric on this subject the educational policies of this Government are not designed to and do not restrict the democratic right of parents to choose to send their children to government or non-government schools. Our policy is based on the principle that in making that choice parents and students have the right to expect the highest possible quality education in both sectors. Funding should reflect the priority of ensuring that there are high standards in those sectors. Private schools able to have access to substantial private wealth ought not to be publicly supported to the same extent, given the limited funds that are available. After all, the Opposition keeps on insisting on more and more cuts in public outlays. Therefore, we have an inconsistency when it talks about State aid for private schools. This Labor Government is about re-invigorating the education system. It recognises that our prime responsibility ought to be to the public school system which provides education for all children wherever they live or whatever their physical or intellectual circumstances. The logical extension of the Opposition's proposal of maximum educational choice is that there be 100 per cent funding of all private schools. That of course, would be ridiculous. Even though at time some of those private schools may appear to ask for full funding one can be sure that they would be opposed to the higher responsibility which would be imposed on them in exchange for that funding. Of course, there would have to be open access for all with no restriction on the basis of academic ability, religion or anything else. There would have to be much greater accountability. Of course, once that happened those schools would call it government interference. Because there is not 100 per cent private funding there is, of course, a less than free choice. People can choose not to use the services provided by the public sector and can choose to send their children to private schools. But they will need to pay for it, and so they should. They are, after all, private institutions and it is a private choice. Government schooling is available for all. It is not as completely free as it should be, but it is available. The Government gives support to private schools on a needs basis. That is totally supportable in all logic. To the extent that there is funding, it leads to the cost of that private choice being less than it otherwise would be. Therefore, any such assistance increases the choice. Of course, the more assistance there is, the more that that choice is skewed. I will quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 May 1984 by an economic commentator, Ross Gittins, dealing with a study by Ross A. Williams entitled 'The economic determinants of Private Schooling in Australia'. In the article Mr Gittins stated: We all know that over the past decade there has been a big increase in government-particular Federal Government-grants to private schools. Over two-thirds of the running costs of private schools is now financed by government. And we all know that in recent years there has been a drift of students from public schools to private schools, particularly at the point of changeover from primary to secondary school. * * * There has been a vigorous debate about why parents have been 'voting with their feet'. The most popular explanation seems to be that parents have been responding to a decline in the standard of public school education. A growing number of parents have been prepared to pay for private school education because they believe that it offers better discipline, more emphasis on acquiring basic skills and more emphasis on success in examinations. That is the sort of rubbish that we heard from Senator Hamer. Ross Gittins continued: That is what I thought, too, until I ran across a fascinating little paper on 'the economic determinants of private schooling', written by Professor Ross Williams of Melbourne University while he was on leave at the Australian National University. Now I am not so sure. Professor Williams argues that the swing to private schools can be explained simply in terms of the effect of increased State aid, without any reference to a change in parental attitudes towards private schooling. Being an economist, he believes it all gets back to money, and more particularly to the level of private school fees. Later in the article he stated: The real price of private school fees rose in the post-war period to reach a peak in 1968-69. Since then the price has fallen rapidly as the level of government grants has risen. By 1981-82 two-thirds of the running costs of private schools was financed by government grants and the real level of school fees had fallen to 30 per cent of what it was in 1968-69. I repeat: 'The real level of school fees had fallen to 30 per cent of what it was in 1968-69'. The article continues: Being a well-furnished economist-- Mr Gittins says- Professor Williams has constructed a little mathematical model of the private-school market which seeks to identify the factors which may explain the drift to private schools. He finds that the fall in the real level of private school fees is the main explanation for the rise in the proportion of students going to private schools. He concluded his article by stating: The more governments increase the real level of per capita grants to private schools the more students those schools attract, and the more students they attract the more governments have to spend on per capita grants. On top of this increased financial attractiveness of private schools there is, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the well-orchestrated anti-government schools campaign by the Opposition, the private schools lobby, sections of the media and certain conservative academics. Too many parents have been conned by this campaign into thinking that 'public' is equivalent to second class and that just because one pays for private schooling, that somehow makes it better. I reject that idea categorically. I do so similarly in respect of health services. Too many people have been pressured and conned into taking out private health insurance and private services in private hospitals. Again, that includes many people who cannot afford to pay so much money. Many of those same people who cannot afford it struggle financially to send their children to private schools. Yet, in regard to health, if there is an emergency or people are really sick and need top quality treatment, they are inevitably treated in a public hospital. People should not believe that they need to pay for a private service which is in no way objectively superior. Of course, most Australians have no choice about whether they can send their children to private schools. Even if they struggled to the limit of their finances, they could not choose to do other than send their children to the local government school. Generally, as with public hospitals, they get the excellence that they deserve. Senator Baume's rhetoric about the pursuit of excellence had the unstated assumption that that is fine as long as it is not in government schools. This, of course, is not to say that everything is perfect in the state school system. Of course, not all teachers are wonderful. Of course, there are not enough resources and of course there are inadequacies. But overwhelmingly we have a good system of public education which is worthy of the support of parents and students. That is especially so in Tasmania, where many years of State Labor Government ensured the development of an excellent system of government schools. We all acknowledge that the shortcomings need to be redressed. That is happening under this Government and under its commitment to having as its prime responsibility the government school sector. The improvements that are necessary will not occur if there is the sort of transfer of resources from the government to the non-government sector which the Opposition would like and which, of course, actually occurred under the Fraser Government, with its miserable treatment and public denigration of government schools. In regard to the question of choice, I turn to the issue of the development of new non-government schools which apparently also upsets the Opposition. It objects to the new conditions for new non-government schools which the Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners has recommended should be modified to require from the proposed new schools the following: (a) advance notification to the Commonwealth twenty-four months prior to commencement; (b) indication of conditional acceptance by the relevant State registration authority; (c) demonstration of reasonable prospects-- I repeat, reasonable prospects- of financial viability; (d) meeting of minimum enrolment guidelines; and (e) evidence of notification of government and non-government educational authorities in the States. These conditions are necessary because we cannot have a continuation of uncontrolled proliferation of new small non-government schools which are possibly not economically viable and possibly not educationally viable. There is, of course, a right to open them and for them to apply for State registration, but there is not an absolute right to Commonwealth funding without the Commonwealth having some say in the matter. There is no bottomless pit-Senator Baume wants to suggest there is-of public funding of those private resources. Such new commitments should not be automatic. Proper planning makes it essential for the sorts of considerations in the Schools Commission's Panel's recommendations to be adopted. Some small non-government schools set up under the open-go policy of the Fraser years have since closed or collapsed. We cannot support that sort of waste and inefficiency. There should be the highest possible educational standards. There should not be undertaken the risk of a small range of educational experiences and inadequate facilities which, especially in relation to secondary level, can arise in regard to the very small schools. There is not quite the same argument about school sizes at the primary level. Let nobody suggest that I am suggesting that only huge schools are good, but there is a happy educational medium. There must be a balance between parents' freedom of choice and the protection of educational standards and public funds. I will quote from paragraph 20 of the report of the Panel on planning and funding policies for new non-government schools because it states quite succinctly some of the principles involved in public funding of the school system. The Panel states: Government schools have a unique legal obligation to provide high quality educational services for all children of school age in Australia, now including the full range of secondary schooling. A continuing significant decline in the government school sector's share of overall enrolment is likely to change substantially the social composition of the student population in government schools, with potentially significant negative consequences for the general comprehensiveness of public school systems. The cumulative effect of these financial, educational and social consequences could, in the long term, threaten the role and standing of the public school as a central institution in Australian society. Such a development would be unwelcome to most citizens and is inconsistent with the stated policies of governments, as well as the major school interest groups, government and non-government. A clear public policy on the planned development of government and non-government schooling within a dual system is needed to avoid such a situation. I wholeheartedly support those sorts of principles. Senator Baume and the Opposition, of course, do not want such planning. What they want is what that paragraph suggests would occur in the absence of such planning. I could not disagree more strongly with Senator Baume and the Opposition. In the very short time available to me I wish to touch on the question of educational standards because that is also mentioned in the Opposition's matter of public importance, which refers to maximum educational choice being a necessary part of raising educational standards. In many ways I envy my children and their peers the school experiences they are having at the moment. There has been a lot of progress in the education system since I went to school. That is not to denigrate my teachers, of course, and it is not to say that everything is as perfect as we wish it to be, but I reject the sorts of criticisms that have been made about standards in the school system. There has been a great deal of improvement. Nothing has changed in some areas. The same sorts of complaints were made 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago about the standards of literacy and numeracy, but things are improving. The curriculum has changed in schools to ensure that there is an improvement in the way young people growing up involve themselves in our society. I think all of those things mean that the public school system should be supported increasingly to ensure that that vast majority of Australians who attend public schools are able to enter the work force and their adult life properly prepared. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Senator Messner, and read a first time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.03) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to abolish the assets test on Social Security and Repatriation pensioners and beneficiaries first announced by the Labor Government in its Budget of 1983-84, finally enacted in September 1984 and which came into operation on 21 March 1985. The introduction of this test followed a long period of confusion within the Government which resulted in many changes and counter-changes to the initial scheme, culminating in the establishment of the Panel of Review into the proposed Incomes and Assets Test-the Gruen Panel-in February 1984 to report on the form which an appropriate assets test should take. One indication of the Government's approach to this matter was that such a review was undertaken after, rather than before, an initial scheme was publicly announced. This Panel reported to the Government in May 1984 and outlined a scheme whose notable feature was the inclusion of the family home with other assets for the purpose of the test. The Government did not adopt this part of the recommendations and announced in June 1984 its so-called 'modified tall poppies' test which is now embodied in the current legislation. As I said when introducing a similar Bill earlier this year, the last eighteen months has witnessed widespread confusion and concern amongst pensioners and beneficiaries at the intrusiveness many unfair aspects and numerous anomalies contained in the assets test legislation. While many anomalies have been exposed they have not been corrected by the Government. Nor has there been any attempt by the Government to review these, notwithstanding there being brought to its attention by Opposition senators and members of the House of Representatives, by the media and the individuals concerned. I remind honourable senators opposite that when foreshadowing the establishment of the Gruen Panel in February 1984, Mr Hawke admitted that the original legislation contained errors and anomalies. That legislation would have passed into legislation three months before that admission had it not been for the actions of the Liberal and National Parties. Over the past two months the rate at which these anomalies-and the hardships and difficulties they have created-have come to public attention has increased markedly. This is especially true with regard to the test's impact on the rural community. Still there has been no response from the Government and in particular the Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe, MP. Despite the increasing widespead dismay in the community and both the Prime Minister's and the Minister for Social Security's undertakings expressed in the course of the last several months, to review anomalies when raised, the fact of the matter is that the Government failed to take any action before the legislation took effect on 21 March 1985. The long and sorry history of this legislation indicates that the Government has continuously refused or failed to act until pushed to the limit. Australians are once again faced with a similar situation. As I outlined in February the Opposition has two courses open to it in the face of the Government's intransigence: it can propose legislation to correct the anomalies or it can seek to obtain the passage through both Houses of Parliament of legislation to repeal the assets test upon gaining control of Parliament. In February I moved a similar measure to this one in the Senate. It was defeated in this chamber due to the combined vote of the ALP, Australian Democrats and Independent senators. The Opposition has now decided upon a new dual approach at abolishing the assets test. The decision by the Opposition Parties to move to repeal was not taken lightly. The Liberal and National Parties are opposed to the assets test in principle because it is designed to encourage people to become more dependent on governments by discouraging them from accumulating assets in order to provide as much as possible for themselves. Our commitment to repeal is so based. For this reason we have rejected the notion of seeking amendments designed to correct anomalies in the assets test legislation which we believe to be so fundamentally lacking in merit. This Bill seeks to obtain the repeal of the assets test legislation. We want to remove the assets test legislation which is having such a dramatic effect upon Australian aged, especially those in the rural community. From the outset, the Opposition has consistently made the point that the Labor Government's assets test will not catch the really rich whom it claims are taking unfair advantage of the pension system. On the contrary, it is the person who through thrift, modest enterprise and, in some cases, involuntarily built-up moderate levels of savings, who will be affected. Of late the Government has once again trotted out its 'millionaires' argument in favour of the test. It announced that 12 millionaires have been caught by the test. I simply pose one question: at what price to the taxpayer and to other pensioners and beneficiaries has such satisfaction been gained? Some examples of anomalies arising out of the operation of the test may spell out more clearly the common types of cases caught in the assets test net- the widow who receives a legacy from her former spouse, but finds that the married couple's exemption limits of $100,000 has reduced to $70,000 as she is treated as a single person thereafter, but whose income requirements have not fallen commensurately; the person of advanced age who, having owned and lived in the one house for many years, is required to move to a nursing home or an aged person's cottage, who realises a considerable sum of money in excess of the exemptions limits from the sale of the house and, because of inexperience and old age, finds it most difficult to handle the investment of the funds; the small businessman who sells out his business for little more than $100,000; a person in a similar position who moves to a 'granny-flat' to live with the family and finds that it cannot be treated as a principle place of residence for the purpose of the assets test because it technically is owned by the person providing the land upon which the aged person paid for and erected it; a person who pays rent in an aged person's home compared with one who makes an 'up front' payment upon entry to the home which is treated as though it were the value of the principle place of residence; the farmer whose farm property is unable to generate income sufficient to support him and his spouse in retirement and their son or daughter and their family who have been working on the property for little remuneration. Their plan has usually been that they will take it over to continue the operation but are unable to afford the payments to the parents because of the low rate of return on such properties. Due to the deprivation provisions of the legislation the parents are unable to qualify for the pension and legally transfer the farm to the children, which is the only practical action to be taken; the Government provided the infamous 'pension loan scheme' to allow pensioners in this situation, or with other illiquid assets, to 'borrow' the pension-with interest of 13.5 per cent during their lifetime-against a security charge being applied to the farm. In the best of circumstances, and assuming a life in retirement of 15 years, this could build up to a debt of $400,000 and become a considerable problem for the inheritor to refinance, probably causing the eventual sale of the property and destruction of the intention, which was to maintain the family farm operation. The fact is that this scheme is a defacto system of death duties. but consider the diabolical bind in which a farmer finds himself if he has transferred the legal ownership of the property to the children. Not only is he caught by the deprivation provisions of the assets test, but because he no longer is able to effect a charge on the property owned by his children he is unable to qualify for the pension loan scheme as well! his only resort is to seek a pension under the hardship provisions. However, he finds that should he own assets in excess of $5 000-for instance, a modest savings account, then he will not be eligible under that provision either. There is probably no cleverer three-way attack on farmers yet devised by the Government than this. The extent of the hardship ruse on farmers became clear during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee B last month. Despite continuing Government claims that the hardship provisions will protect farmers experiencing difficulties and hardship under the test, only 23 applications out of 1260 had been successful by 4 April 1985. Because of the extensive complex and far-reaching nature of these most serious anomalies in the assets test legislation, there can be only one course-to repeal the legislation. I would like to pay further particular attention to the plight of the farmers and the rural community under the assets test. Following the release of statistics to the Government's primary industry caucus committee-and their subsequent reporting in the media-the claims by members of the Opposition and farming and rural groups that the test is discriminatory have been substantiated. Those statistics revealed the effect upon pensioners of the introduction of the assets test throughout the State of Victoria. Horsham* 8.3 Dandenong 2.1 Hamilton* 6.8 Geelong* 1.9 Wangaratta* 6.1 Oakleigh 1.9 Swan Hill* 5.8 Ringwood 1.9 Camberwell* 5.7 Greensborough 1.8 Warrnambool* 5.5 Werribee 1.8 Sale* 4.9 Cheltenham 1.6 Shepparton* 4.6 Moonee Ponds 1.5 Morwell* 4.4 Boronia 1.4 Bendigo* 4.1 Preston 1.2 Belmont* 4.0 Northcote 1.1 Caulfield 4.0 Coburg 1.0 Prahan 4.0 Lalor 0.9 St Kilda 3.1 Springvale 0.8 Wendouree* 3.0 Footscray 0.8 Box Hill 2.8 Newport 0.8 Mildura* 2.7 Richmond 0.7 Heidelberg 2.4 Glenroy 0.7 Peninsula 2.4 Fitzroy 0.6 Ballarat 2.3 Sunshine 0.4 Knox 2.2 St Albans 0.3 (* indicates rural area) I draw attention to the fact that the greatest impact has been upon the rural areas. I am concerned that similar figures I have requested for the whole of Australia will show a similar trend. Figures provided last week to the Liberal Member for Flinders (Mr Peter Reith MP) show a variation on impact in his electorate with the greatest effect being upon people living in rural areas of Flinders. The growing dissatisfaction with this obvious bias has resulted in ALP members representing rural electorates starting to voice their alleged concern. A survey of Government MPs by the Melbourne Herald revealed 22 members wanting changes to the assets test to give a fair deal to pensioners in country areas. These Government members involved included: Barry Cunningham-McMillan, Vic. Chairman, Caucus Committee on Primary Industry. Ted Lindsay-Herbert, Qld. Steve Martin-Macarthur, N.S.W. Keith Wright-Capricornia, Qld. Michael Lee-Dobell, N.S.W. Eric Fitzgibbon-Hunter, N.S.W. Peter Cleeland-McEwen, Vic. John Gayler-Leichhardt, Qld. John Brumby-Bendigo, Vic. If those members, purporting to represent rural areas, really had the interests of their constituents at heart why didn't they speak up or act last year before the test was enacted in order to avoid the current hardships and difficulties? It is all too easy for them to come out now, and the question must be posed: what has prompted their sudden conversion, their constituents or their own electoral prospects? Despite growing unrest-allegedly including Government ranks-the Minister for Social Security remains unmoved. When confronted with the results of the Herald's survey and asked if it revealed an anomaly in the test, Mr Howe is reported to have said: ''I'm not sure I would call it an anomaly.'' When further pressed as to his backbench colleagues' views that the test needed 'fine-tuning', he is reported to have stated: ''The Prime Minister has given a commitment that the assets test will be monitored. In a sense we are still in the early stages. There are still further stages of appeal which have yet to be used, but we would certainly do fine tuning if, in the end, it was clear it was needed.'' Such optimism does not sit well with the history of the Government's-or the Minister's-actions when directly confronted with anomalies. Mr Howe has been quick to criticise both the media and members of the Opposition who have highlighted the plight of farmers and others under the assets test. But what did he expect? Is he finding the human face of the assets test all so different from the statistical model upon which it was based. If that is the case then the Minister has been naive; that naivety should not prevent him from moving to assist those people who have been caught in the net of this test. Australia's rural community is angry about the assets test-and rightly so. It has begun to give notice of its concern. Last month at the small South Australian town of Penola, 600 farmers came together to plan a rally to protest the impact of the assets test on them and their families. Despite invitations to attend, the Ministers for Social Security, Veterans' Affairs and Primary Industry and the Chairman of Labor's Primary Industry Caucus Committee were notable by their absence. The main motion passed by that meeting called upon the Hawke Government to reinstate all pensions until the assets test was either made more equitable or scrapped altogether. A further insight of the Government's approach and attitude to the rural sector-and all the more interesting given his later public statement-was an incident involving Mr Cunningham. According to the Border Watch newspaper, when Mr Cunningham was approached to attend the Penola meeting in his capacity as Chairman of Labor's Primary Industry Caucus Committee, he launched into what can only be described as a tirade against Australia's farming community. The article reported Mr Cunningham as saying that if farmers were experiencing difficulties it was their own fault because they did not have their affairs in order. Further he suggested that farmers had been 'diddling' the tax system for years and now expected the Government to pay rent to pensioners on farms which a son operates. Mr Cunningham subsequently took exception with the report in the other place and wrote to the Border Watch demanding-I use his own wording-an apology. The Border Watch has not done this and Mr Kelly Carter has issued a statutory declaration substantiating his conversation with Mr Cunningham. I shall lodge a copy of that Statutory declaration in the Records Office this afternoon. This is the type of attitude that permeates this Government. The rural community feels betrayed by this Government-and Government members-who have such little regard for their interest and their contribution to this nation. This discriminatory attitude exists despite Mr Hawke's claim in 1984 that his would be a Government for all Australians. If the Parliament once again neglects its responsibilities in this regard, it is condemning to considerable hardship people who, in their declining years, are unable to cope with either the rate of change or the details and technicalities of it. As the Government continues to fail to act, it is the view of the Liberal and National Parties that the Parliament-through this Bill-must initiate action. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report gives me a chance to pay a tribute to the Australian Wheat Board for the way in which it has served the industry over the last few years. The point should be made that, as is noted in the first part of the report, the Board made no call on the Commonwealth Government to support the price paid to the growers for the wheat delivered. The commercial nature of the Wheat Board operation was reflected in the funding arrangements for growers' payments. Domestic funding of up to $2 billion was arranged from commercial sources using a tender panel system, and I think the Board is to be commended for that. It has met the challenges of marketing over the last few years. Wheat production has increased by over 50 per cent since 1970-71, and the Board has had the ability to match credit terms offered by our competitors-something it has not been able to do in the past because it has not had the underlying support of its government, which other governments around the world have provided. It is noted in the report that wheat characteristics are now playing a vital part in the world trade market, and the Board has attached importance to characteristics recognition and segregation. The fact that the Board has problems with the challenge being presented by the issue of counter-trade, which is the barter system, with other countries offering big concessions to those who buy their wheat, is something our Government probably will have to address in future. I believe the Wheat Board has met the challenges of the current world wheat environment by adopting more sophisticated and competitive marketing and financing techniques. I commend this report to the Senate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.07) —The Australian Wheat Board began the year with a record carry-over of 19.5 million tonnes, a large proportion of which is still in temporary storage in New South Wales, some of it rapidly deteriorating. Although 14 million tonnes were shipped in 1983-84, the likelihood of more harvests over 20 million tonnes makes the storage situation in New South Wales particularly critical. Since the export expansion grants scheme was abolished in 1983 because it was seen to be contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Australian wheat exports have been at an increasing disadvantage on world markets due to various subsidies, overt and covert, which are operating in foreign countries. For example, I read in the report that under the United States regulations, Public Law 480 includes long term loans of up to 40 years and periods of grace of up to 10 years, with interest of 2 to 3 per cent. It is no wonder that in 1983-84 United States wheat exports increased to 12.8 million tonnes from the 3.9 million tonnes exported in the previous year. This is because of unfair credit terms. As the Australian Wheat Board points out in its report, Australia, in its ability to match credit terms offered by its creditors, is at a distinct disadvantage. In view of all this, it would seem that now is the time to enable the Board to take advantage of the low value of the Australian dollar, while giving the Australian export sector the opportunity to help service our massive foreign debt. It might also be a suitable opportunity to inject some sorely needed confidence into the Australian farming community. We must be prepared to support Australian exports and match the credit facilities offered by our competitors. In a market place which chooses to ignore gentlemen's agreements, Australia can no longer afford to be pure. The GATT is okay if all the countries signatory to it are adhering to it. We must ask: When is exporting really dumping? I believe that similar remarks can be made about other industries under threat, such as the dairy export sector, which faces the same disadvantages on world markets. I bring those aspects of the report to the notice of the Senate, and I hope that the Government will be able to take some action to improve the condition of exporters to help handle the foreign debt problems the Government has got us into. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.10) —I want to address myself briefly to the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Wheat Board. It is a comprehensive and well presented report. Indeed, one would expect that to be the case because that statutory organisation has been saddled for many years with the mammoth and constantly increasing task of marketing Australian wheat crops under increasingly difficult conditions in terms of international trade and the capacity and determination of some countries to give all sorts of support to their export industries. That task is also related to the constantly changing economic and climatic circumstances in Australia whereby drought and good seasons, at least in some measure, confuse our capacity to seek out and satisfy markets for our grain. It is worth recalling that in 1983-84 Australia had a record crop of in excess of 22 million tonnes. This was an enormous amount of wheat in terms of Australia's average production. Indeed, I suppose we must be looking to the real possibility of finding markets and, more importantly, delivering to those markets something like 20 million tonnes of wheat instead of the 14 million to 15 million tonnes that have been harvested in more recent years. Consequently we have to seek more markets and find more efficient ways of handling our crop. The marketing authority began this year with an enormous amount, in Australian terms, of 19.5 million tonnes of wheat for which it had to find markets. Indeed, basically it has done just that. I believe that it was encouraging to find that there was a strong demand for Australian wheat in many places around the world, including our traditional markets and new markets. Because of the 1982 drought our capacity to supply wheat was somewhat diminished. It is something of a compliment to the Australian industry that Australian wheat was sought when it became available again in significant quantities. More than 14 million tonnes was shipped from this country in 1983-84. The shipment of this sizable amount was an excellent performance in many ways, although it should be recalled that the amount could have been greater had it not been for delays resulting from industrial relations problems, particularly in my own State of New South Wales, which led to an inability of facilities to handle the amount of grain that one would assume would be normally grown in this country. It is not that long ago that we lost 37 per cent of our export market in the European Economic Community. However, we have found new outlets in China, Egypt, Iran and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for at least the amount of wheat we have lost. The year was also of importance in that the Australian Wheat Board had to find, and in very large measure did find, a market for its rain damaged wheat. This grain has largely been sold, although two million tonnes remain in this country, again unfortunately because of our inability basically to bring ships alongside the loading facilities. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report about National Common Police Services deals with the Australian Police Ministers Council, which was set up following the recommendations some years ago of Sir Robert Mark. I think that this group has done a great deal to co-ordinate police activities. The report refers in part to the efficient use of police resources. The Senate will, of course, appreciate that the Australian Capital Territory is not specifically in its own right a member of the Australian Police Ministers Council. It is, of course, represented on the Council through the Commonwealth representative and, hopefully, the interests of the Australian Capital Territory are noted. Consideration will have to be given to the important role that will be played by police when the Australian Capital Territory gains self-government, which has been promised to us. In a sense the question of whether the Australian Capital Territory will have its own police force, whether some arrangement will be made with the Australian Federal Police or whether there will be some third alternative is perhaps one of the most difficult and sensitive aspects of the development of self-government. However, this is something that needs to be addressed. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy President, and other honourable senators will have seen recent newspaper reports about the very high rate of crime in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly in respect of house burglaries, and the fact that there is a significant drug problem in the Australian Capital Territory. One of the difficulties that our police officers are faced with is that they do not have the resources, particularly in terms of manpower, to meet the problems with which they are faced. I think it is quite inappropriate for government funding cutbacks to be made in this area. The community is entitled to a police force which is able to meet its needs. The Australian Capital Territory has had cutbacks in traffic and other patrols. There have been significant cutbacks in overtime. An officer who is on duty outside normal day time hours is switched to a day time shift and not replaced if he is required to attend court. A program called Neighbourhood Watch is operating in Canberra in a number of areas. This program has already been shown to be very worthwhile in terms of protecting the community in those areas and co-operating with the police. Many suburban areas in the Australian Capital Territory have indicated that they would like to participate in Neighbourhood Watch. However, the shortage of staff in the police force at present is such that the community groups have been told that there is about a seven months delay. This has caused a great deal of concern among community groups which want to be involved and participate in Neighbourhood Watch. We are told that the drug squad cannot operate after 4 o'clock in the afternoon because of a shortage of funds. That seems to be perhaps the most ludicrous situation of all. While I have no doubt that one can buy hard drugs in the Australian Capital Territory during the day, I think it is probably much more likely that these substances are traded after dark and consequently the police need to be out and about at that time. The scientific squad also is restricted in that it can only be called out after 4 o'clock if consent is given. Members of the squad normally do not go to house breakings which are detected after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Complaints have been received about the state of police motor vehicles. Just recently seven of our officers were transferred to Australian Federal Police duty in Sydney to guard Family Court of Australia judges. I am not for one minute suggesting that Family Court judges do not need to be guarded, but I am suggesting that it is inappropriate to withdraw officers from the Australian Capital Territory for this purpose. Attention needs to be given to seeing that our officers are able to do their job. They are certainly willing and we have an excellent force in Canberra. However, there is a need for the force to be of the right strength so that it can do the job it is faced with. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.20) —Much attention has been given recently to the prevention of crime and the punishment for crime. Every right thinking person ought to be appalled by serious crime and ought to seek to confine it, if not to eradicate it. However, in having the proper aspirations to halt crime we should always keep in mind that some of the means used to eradicate crime contain either an actual or a potential threat to liberty, to human dignity and to human rights. Liberty, human dignity and human rights ought to be of paramount consideration to all in this chamber and, indeed, to the community as a whole. If the means used to suppress crime intrudes too much on the rights, freedom and dignity of people, the good sought by that is outweighed by the harm done to those great attributes of mankind, or humankind, I suppose it is referred to in this day and age. Senator Archer —Personkind. Senator COONEY —Personkind. Senator Tate —Humanity. Senator COONEY —Humanity. I thank honourable senators. Police forces are the traditional means by which society confines crime. That has been too much forgotten in recent days. Over the years the law has built up a balance between the policing activities carried out by the police and the rights that human beings have. It seems to me that the police ought to remain the proper group to carry out that activity of confining and perhaps eradicating crime. It is in that context that I have some reservations about bodies such as the National Crime Authority, which, in spite of all the great good it does, unfortunately does have some of the attributes of the old Star Chamber in Tudor times. There are dangers in that. That is why I have trouble in excusing police from using phone taps to discover crime or to discover the private doings of citizens. Those sworn to uphold the law should not have the comfort and the freedom simply to break the law in an attempt to find out what goes on in society and possibly to find out some attributes of society which lead to criminal convictions. Properly trained, properly paid and properly led police are the way we should go forward. We should not go forward on the basis of extraordinary means of defeating what seems to be the great problem of the moment. Consideration of the great problem of the moment, as always, should be around the questions of where we go, what liberties we have and what dignity we have as human beings. Unfortunately, in the community at the moment there has been created an atmosphere which very much militates against that. Until we get back our sense of fairness, our sense of fair play and our sense of condemning people only on hard evidence obtained by proper policing, we continue to be in danger of giving away the rights that we should hold so dearly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I notice that other senators rose to their feet to get the call so I will take only two minutes. I formally congratulate Jack Heffernan on his appointment as Chairman of the Australian Council of Trade Union Training. I also note that this will probably be the last report tabled in parliament while Ted Heagney is National Director. I am sure honourable senators join with me in wishing Ted Heagney a successful retirement and also acknowledge the long period of his work in and for trade union training, not only for the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, but even before he went to the Authority. He certainly has made a very distinguished contribution to that aspect of trade unionism. Page 8 of the report details training materials and publications that have been developed over the preceding year and even before then, in particular the handbooks that have been prepared relating to a manual of the procedures and documents used in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is important. It also mentions two new videos about speaking at meetings and drafting a motion. I have not had an opportunity of seeing those videos but it is a good idea to have these sorts of materials and training programs. If trade union training concentrates on this particular area, giving to trade unionists the tools which will make the system work, so much the better. I was on the initial interim Training Authority, way back too many years ago to think of, and I had something to say about the Clyde Cameron College at that particular time. I have always believed that it is important to concentrate in the States and not to concentrate efforts in a central area. However, I believe there will be opportunities to speak about that because there will be a Bill introduced into Parliament shortly. I say quite deliberately that students, and indeed staff, at the Trade Union Training College in Wodonga should be able to go about their business and should be able to be present and be accommodated in the Trade Union Training College without harassment. I hope that matter has been properly determined and settled. I do not wish to raise that question unnecessarily in this Parliament; there will be opportunities for raising it. However, I sincerely hope the matter has been properly handled and settled. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call the next speaker, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that a number of honourable senators wish to speak on this paper. Under sessional order, the debate on papers will end in seven minutes time. That is in no way intended to limit the entitlement of honourable senators, which of course remains as laid down in sessional order. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.28) —Mr Deputy President, I will be brief. I had the honour to serve on the Council of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority during the last two years. It is very pleasing to see that the organisation is continuing to develop. I congratulate TUTA on the development of its publications. Senator Harradine has mentioned the one on the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is a very impressive document. TUTA has proved to be very adaptable in its courses during the last few years, readily forwarding courses on the prices and incomes accord, occupational health and safety and other topics relevant to the current issues. Two other pleasing aspects that occur to me are that when the Clyde Cameron College was first set up in Wodonga it was very much an isolated institution, referred to by the locals as the Kremlin, the Red Morgue or some other appellation. It was very much divorced from the community. It is very pleasing to see that in the last two or three years it has integrated into the community, it allows its facilities to be used by the community in Wodonga and that it is far more highly regarded than in the past. From the moment it was set up there was the dilemma as to whether courses are best run from State centres or are best run from a place like Albury-Wodonga. Regrettably, I would say that in most cases the State centre courses are slightly more popular because they are more accessible to the general working population than going all the way to Albury-Wodonga. I also congratulate Ted Heagney on the way in which he has controlled and organised the organisation. I understand that he is probably in his last term at the moment. He has done an excellent job and I wish his successor every success. Senator MCKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.29) —Like Senator Harradine and Senator Robert Ray I would like to congratulate the Australian Trade Union Training Authority on the excellent year it has just completed. In 1983-84, 11,879 trade unionists attended 601 courses in 62 cities and towns across Australia. The figures represent an increase of 24 per cent in training activity expressed in student training days within TUTA over the previous year. The figures fulfil the second stage of TUTA's growth which was based on a national survey in 1980-81. The report contains many other interesting statistics, one of which I would like to highlight. In training courses contact was made with officials and members of 194 unions. This number represents the majority of unions in this country. It is noted that every union of significance had members participate in TUTA courses during the last year. I note with some pride and draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the union of which I am a member-the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union; it keeps changing its name-was the most active individual participating union in the TUTA program. The AMWU participation expressed in student training days was 2,423.5 days. Only one other union, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, passed the 2,000 days mark. The active participation of the metal workers is of note because the union, as well as being supportive of the TUTA program, also runs its own internal union education program. The metal workers program does not compete with the TUTA program. Rather, it seeks to complement the work of TUTA by seeking to ensure that its members know and understand the democratic procedures by which that union functions. The concept of trade union training is relatively new to Australia. It is only just over ten years since the legislation establishing the Trade Union Training Authority was enacted. It would be fair to say that at first there was some suspicion about the concept. That suspicion came from a number of areas across the spectrum of the trade union movement, from employer groups and, indeed, from the then Opposition, even though the legislation did get bipartisan support in the Parliament at the time of its introduction. It was subjected to an inquiry in 1977 out of which it fared very well. It has been subjected to many other inquiries by employers and individual unions on its performance since then. I think the report presented today is an indication of the acceptance that TUTA has gained in the community. One area I mention very briefly is that of paid study leave. Such is the acceptance of TUTA that the concept of paid study leave for people attending union training courses has been extended, but it does not cover every member of the working population today. Hopefully, that will change in the very near future. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.33) —I will be brief, like my colleagues, because there are still some people who wish to speak in this debate. I too congratulate Ted Heagney on his performance in the chair of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority and Jack Heffernan on his appointment to the role he will play. In speaking to this paper I think it is important that we note that there are few things in industrial relations on which the parties in Australia can agree. One of those few things is the need for TUTA. It is important to remember that whilst it was introduced by the Whitlam Government it was continued under the Fraser Government and is now, of course, continuing under this Government. Therefore, it enjoys important bipartisan support. Other speakers have indicated how it has improved its services and has constantly and increasingly been resorted to by trade unionists for educative purposes. I mention quickly two statistics. There has been an increase from 5,500 student training days to 7,500 student training days over the last two years. Now, 20 per cent of participants in courses are women. Indeed, TUTA is gaining in international dimension because the International Labour Organisation women's education group resorted to TUTA for an Association of South East Asian Nations-South Pacific region course. On all fronts TUTA is playing an important role, not the least part of which is its considerable interest in occupational health and safety. Over the last year 9 per cent of its activities were devoted to that very important area. As Senator Button pointed out in answer to a question during Question Time today, losses of production to Australian industry can be significantly reduced if we get a more safety conscious work force and see that accidents are prevented. TUTA is playing an important role on that front and in educating trade unions to participate in an informed manner in the occupational health debate in Australia. I commend the report to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for consideration of government papers has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.35) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent- (a) the debate on the motion to take note of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority Annual Report 1983-84 from continuing; and (b) at the conclusion of that debate, Senator Lewis moving a motion to take note of Papers tabled this day relating to Resolutions of Meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council. I want to continue the debate on the Trade Union Training Authority annual report. The reason I do that is that, clearly, so many people are interested in debating the report of the Trade Union Training Authority. It is a matter which concerns both sides of the chamber. Because debate is limited, many of us on this side have sat quietly during speeches on the Trade Union Training Authority and allowed our colleagues opposite to make their speeches to their electorates. That is in effect what they were doing instead of using the very few minutes available to them to enable them to talk about what the Trade Union Training Authority ought to be doing. I had hoped that Senator Cook, in particular, would have talked about worker participation in the light of the recent report by the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. on worker participation and whether in some way the Trade Union Training Authority could be directed down that path so that it was not only training union people but was also involved in the training of employers. For that reason I believe that the debate should have been continued. Even more importantly, a matter of absolutely vital importance is listed for debate in the papers presented today and that is paper no. 5, which is the resolution of the Australian Agricultural Council made on 27 September 1984. That paper has come into this Parliament only today. That resolution concerned the problems of the dairy industry of this nation. Apart from the assets test, for the rural community of Australia there is no other major matter of such vital importance to the people of Australia than the problems in the Australian dairy industry. This resolution on 27 September 1984 was a unanimous resolution of the Agricultural Council special meeting. I add that a bit of politics was involved in that because the possibility of an election was floating around at the time. Nevertheless, it was a- Senator Robert Ray —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think Senator Lewis is now debating the matters he wants to debate. Of course, he is entitled to indicate why his motion is important-I will not comment on that-but I think he has done that, or failed to do that, already. He is not entitled to debate the matter. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Ray, your point is valid. Nevertheless, I have been listening with some care, being aware of the very great difficulty involved for anyone raising a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. He has to explain what the importance is. Senator Lewis is within bounds at the moment. I ask him not to go too much further in explaining the nature of the debate, but just its importance. The dividing line is a very narrow one. Senator LEWIS —It is difficult to try to explain to the Senate why this subject is of such vital importance that we should debate it. I appreciate that Senator Robert Ray wants to get on to some other matter which is of major concern to the people of Victoria and not of concern to the dairy farmers. If that is what he wants to do, that is his business. But I am endeavouring to bring to the attention of the national Parliament the problems of the dairy farmers, and particularly the dairy farmers of Victoria. I know that Senator Robert Ray and the Labor senators are not interested in this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis, you are getting off the point of your argument as to why Standing Orders should be suspended. Senator LEWIS —But Labor senators invite me to make that comment when they make interjections of that sort in my speech. There is undoubtedly in rural Victoria in particular and in Tasmania enormous concern among dairy farmers. The reason for that concern is that this resolution has taken so long to get into this chamber, and the Senate is not even given the opportunity to debate it. This was the unanimous resolution of the Australian Agricultural Council. It has been rejected by the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Minister proposes to give dairy farmers two months-- Senator Cook —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, I submit that Senator Lewis is now debating the report. He has exceeded the bounds of speaking to the motion and, indeed, a moment ago was answering interjections. This is hardly a method to debate the proposition that is before the Chair. I think he should be called to order. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: It seems odd that those who are making disorderly interjections should object to that aspect of the remarks which are being made by Senator Lewis. The explanations Senator Lewis has been giving so far appear to me to direct themselves clearly to the issue of why the Senate should debate this matter now. There has been a long delay. Senator Lewis is addressing himself to the evident interest in this matter and the matter in respect of which Opposition members were leaping to their feet a few moments ago. I suggest that, although Senator Lewis has to tread a narrow path, he is still on it at present. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The only matters that are relevant in a motion of this nature for the suspension of Standing Orders are ones concerned with why Standing Orders should be suspended. That is the importance of the subject. As I explained earlier, the difficulty for the Chair is that matters apparently irrelevant are relevant to that particular motion. But I again ask Senator Lewis to confine himself to why Standing Orders should be suspended and not to reply to any interjections or points of order which might lead him away from that point. I call Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS —I am trying to do that, Mr Deputy President, but Senator Cook from Western Australia is not concerned about the dairy industry. It does not bother him. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I particularly asked Senator Lewis not to reply to points of order or to debate interjections. Senator LEWIS —All I can say is that Senator Cook does not understand. I have moved this motion because the matter is of major concern to the people in at least the eastern States. In Victoria we have the most efficient dry land dairy farmers. They are in real trouble, and in Tasmania they have the same problem. Tasmania also has efficient dairy farmers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis, you are testing the Chair on this matter. I ask you to limit yourself to the motion before the Chair. Senator LEWIS —I am trying to explain why it is important for the Senate to debate this matter today. This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss this matter. Senator Peter Rae —The Government wants to gag it. Senator LEWIS —I agree with my colleague Senator Peter Rae that apparently the Government wants to gag any debate on the report of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference. Government senators interjecting- Senator LEWIS —Mr Deputy President, you are asking me not to respond to interjections, but I must ask you to protect me from the interjections of people like Senator Robert Ray, who does not care about the dairy farmers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections coming from Government senators. Senator Lewis has asked for the protection he is entitled to. I was not aware he needed it. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have not got around to the Australian Agricultural Council resolution carried at its 121st meeting. That is a full report of the Australian Agricultural Council. The resolution on 27 September 1984 was taken at a special meeting called to consider the dairy marketing problems of the nation. It was a unanimous report and it has now been rejected by the Government. Then the Australian Agricultural Council meeting, held on 11 February 1985, had a full report and included was a follow up report in regard to the dairy industry. What is happening is that as a result of the Government's attempt to prevent the Senate debating these matters, the Senate will not be able to debate today the massive problems of the dairy industry-problems which we should be debating and which are far more important than whatever it is Senator Robert Ray wishes to debate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.46) —I doubt that it is necessary to do so but I would like to say that the Government opposes the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I suppose that it is probably not necessary to make that point in view of the words and demeanour of Senator Lewis in bringing it forward. Standing order 448 reads: In case of urgent necessity, any Standing or Sessional Order or Orders of the Senate may be suspended on Motion . . . without Notice: Provided that such Motion is carried by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators. Senator Lewis should have attempted to demonstrate today why the suspension of Standing Orders is urgent. He gave two reasons. The first was clearly phoney. He wanted the opportunity to debate further the report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. The second reason is such an absolute farce and so phoney that I shall spend a little time dealing with it. This Parliament has been sitting for 20 days- Senator Chaney —Only 20 days? Senator GRIMES —Only 20 days, no matter what Senator Chaney thinks. If this matter was urgent in the mind of Senator Lewis, who spends as much time out of Victoria as he does in it, like the rest of us, he could have raised the matter on any of those days as a matter of public importance, by way of an urgency motion, or in the adjournment debate. He failed to do so. Yet suddenly he gets up in this House and says that it is terribly urgent that we debate that report today, even though he knows, and everyone else here knows, that he can raise the matter tomorrow afternoon. The Opposition can devote the whole two hours of General Business tomorrow afternoon to this matter. But no, it has to be done this afternoon. The sessional order, which provides that the Senate has half an hour to debate papers, was agreed to by the Senate. If Senator Lewis wants to change the order, and I know that many people are dissatisfied with it, he can have it changed. He can go to the Standing Orders Committee and try to get the support of a majority of Senators. If he wants to debate something he claims to be urgent, he can bring it up at any time as a motion of public importance, as an urgency motion or on the adjournment. But no, he puts up this motion this afternoon without warning. Senator Lewis —What do you care about the dairy farmers? Senator GRIMES —I repeat the challenge to Senator Lewis that I made to Senator Boswell a little time ago. If you want to see who can milk a cow the best-Senator Harradine was in on this, too-we will all line up. The only one we will not challenge is Senator Collard. But Senator Harradine and I are quite happy to challenge a bush lawyer like Senator Lewis on how to milk a cow. Senator Lewis has not demonstrated why this is a matter of urgency, and that is the reason we oppose it. If he thought it was urgent or important, if he was so concerned about the dairy farmers, he has had ample opportunity in this place to get up and talk about dairy farmers for the last three weeks or so, and he has not done so. Senator Button and I know exactly why this petulant little display is going on, and Senator Chaney knows why it is going on. I am sorry but I will not divulge to the Senate how hurt some poor senator on the other side is about a remark that was made to him, and therefore he egged on Senator Lewis in this matter. He is wasting the time of the Senate. The Government will oppose the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.50) —I think I should support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved by Senator Lewis. A very clear illustration of the importance of this debate is the attendance by honourable senators in the chamber. The alternatives for debate on offer today included major Customs administration legislation when there were at one stage no Labor senators in the chamber other than the Minister and very few, but at least some, members of the Opposition. When Government papers are brought on for debate a very large number of senators of both Labor and Opposition persuasion come into the chamber. When Government papers were called on and we got to the Trade Union Training Authority five Labor senators and a number from the Opposition leapt to their feet and sought the call. It was quite clear that we were not going to get to the report of the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. Of course, this is the first time that the report from the Council has been available to the Senate. The Government has asked: Why bring this on now? The simple fact is that the Government has given us the record of that Council meeting for the first time. Of course, that was a very important meeting in the development of the dairying issue. All of us will remember that the record contained in paper No. 5 is the record of the meeting which was thought to have solved the problem of the dairy industry. It was amazing how last September there seemed to be among Agricultural Council Ministers an extraordinary unanimity as to what ought to be done to ease the troubles of the dairy industry. We have seen some extraordinary changes of direction since that time, and those changes of direction have given rise to a great deal of publicity and even to a state of emergency in Victoria, a matter which was dealt with particularly ineptly in Question Time today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who for once lost his customary cool and did not seem to know quite how to deal with it. I mentioned that because it is a matter of very great importance which is causing enormous stress in the community, and now for the first time we have before us the record of one of the key meetings held to deal with this issue. Of course, this meeting discloses, I suppose, some rather duplicitous conduct on behalf of some of those who have been active in the political solutions to these problems and it is not surprising that a very large number of Opposition senators want to address themselves to the problems of the dairy industry on this occasion and to this report now that it has at last been brought before us. If one measures the urgency of a matter by the interest in it shown by honourable senators I can only say that this measure passes the test with flying colours. As a matter of courtesy, Senator Lewis included in his motion paper No. 3 concerning the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. He made it quite clear that he did that because he wished those Labor senators who obviously regarded that as a highly important matter to have the same access to additional time that he was seeking for himself and for his colleagues. If Labor senators do not wish to avail themselves of that, they do not have to avail themselves of it; in other words, there is no obligation on them to speak further with respect to item No. 3. I would have thought that the individuals involved in the dairy industry, particularly in Victoria-perhaps those policemen who have had to escort trucks of milk and to worry about blockades, those public servants who have been called upon to administer state of emergency regulations, or even the politicians of Victoria who have seen fit to invoke emergency legislation-might regard this as a matter of some urgency. I think it is clearly a matter of much more interest to the Senate than the alternative available to us. I believe that we should support this motion and thus have the opportunity for sensible debate, in particular on paper No. 5. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.55) —I support this motion with some diffidence. I do not automatically support the suspension of Standing Orders but I believe that this is a matter which the Senate should be able to discuss at this point, because paper No. 5 is the paper which contains a purported settlement of the problem and a program, agreed by all, which would have alleviated the problem in the dairying industry. That has since been overturned by the Government. Subsequently a state of emergency has been declared in Victoria. A great deal of concern has been expressed in my State and in other States. I know that we have debated the issue here before, but I believe the opportunity is now available, with the Australian Agricultural Council's paper before us, to press the Government on why that agreement or understanding by the Council has been overturned. It is opportune because, as we all know, legislation from the Government is coming before this Parliament very shortly in respect of this very matter. If this motion is passed the matters raised today might well be taken into account by the Government and the Government itself could address the matter in a-- Senator McIntosh —Do you believe that? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. If the Government went back to the understanding reached in the Australian Agricultural Council it might well do that. We know also that amendments are being put forward by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. This, of course, would come out in this debate and hopefully the Government would be able to pick those up before the matter came here. For those reasons, which I think are quite valid, I support this motion. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.57) —I support the motion and would like to reply to some of the remarks made by the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, who was on duty and who described what my colleague Senator Lewis said as a farce and a phoney and then referred to a petulant display. If there has been a display of petulance in this place on this matter it has not come from this side of the chamber. The petulance we have seen has come from the other side of the chamber. The reason for the petulance is quite obvious. There is a matter of very real urgency and there has not previously been an opportunity for reasoned debate on what happened at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting until that document was tabled today. That it is a matter of extreme importance must surely be recognised by Senator Grimes, unless he is completely immune to the pleas coming from the whole of the dairy industry in his own State as well as a number of other States. The dairy industry in Tasmania is facing ruin. It is one of the most efficient industries of any sort in Australia. Senator Lewis —And in Victoria. Senator PETER RAE —The dairy industry in Victoria, as my colleague Senator Lewis said, is also an extremely efficient industry. Yet those people are forced to such action as the blockade and the introduction of emergency legislation. If that does not indicate that a state of urgency-of emergency-has arisen and if that is not sufficient to convince this Government that the matter deserves debate today, I do not know what we have to do to convince it. The fact that the Victorian Government has declared a state of emergency must surely be proof of the degree of emergency. In Victoria farmers have been blockading the factories and the transport of whole milk and have been pouring away milk products as part of their protest at what is happening with regard to their industry. Yet this Government is so ashamed of its incapacity to deal with the problem and of what it proposes to do to the efficient dairy farmers of Tasmania, Victoria and other States that it is prepared to gag the debate when we have the opportunity, which will not be available tomorrow or the next day, to debate it on air so that some of the dairy farmers can hear what is said by us and by the Government in response. One of the reasons why it is important that Senator Lewis's motion should be carried is that we may have the opportunity to debate the matter in detail. I know that under the Standing Orders I cannot debate the matter in detail when I am speaking to the motion to suspend Standing Orders, but I draw attention to the fact that the severity of the problem is indicated by the extent to which there have been meetings of farmers in every State where they are dairy farmers. Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry, has been booed and subjected to some, shall I say, not very friendly treatment at various places where he has gone to try to explain the Government's policy. The Government is now so concerned and so petulant about this matter that it will not let us debate it on air today, when those who are so concerned would have the opportunity to listen to what was being said on both sides. I wonder whether Senator Grimes would like to visit Smithton, Winnaleah or some other places in Tasmania and say that he regards the dairy industry debate as being a farce and a phoney and that those who wish to have it brought on today are engaging in a petulant display. This is a matter of urgency. It is a matter of importance, and I support the motion moved by my colleague Senator Lewis to enable the matter to be brought on today as a matter of urgency when people can hear what we have to say and what the Government has to say in reply. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.01) —The first question to be addressed regarding Senator Lewis's motion-he did not address it at all-is why this paper should be discussed today and not tomorrow. The normal procedure when dealing with Government papers is that if a particular paper is not reached, as with the electoral redistribution papers during the last sitting, it is considered on the first Thursday following. Honourable senators opposite will have ample opportunity to do that tomorrow. Of course, Senator Peter Rae has given us the answer to that question. Opposition senators want to grandstand on radio. It is not good enough for them to discuss these matters if they are not on radio. Senator Lewis —The people want to hear what we have to say. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Lewis interjects that people want to hear what he has to say. What has Senator Lewis said about the dairy industry in the last two years? Absolutely nothing. Senator Grimes has pointed out that we have had 20 sitting days this session. What have honourable senators opposite said on this matter? Absolutely nothing. They had the opportunity three or four times today to take the necessary steps to have this matter debated. When they were notified about the papers that would be put forward this morning, they could have moved for the re-ordering of the presentation of those papers. They did not do so. They had the opportunity to raise this issue as a matter of public importance. They did not do so. They did not raise the matter when they had the opportunity in the last 20 sitting days. What has happened is that Opposition senators have come in here today and said: 'We probably do not have the numbers for the suspension of Standing Orders but, nevertheless, we have to do something to look as though we are doing something'. It is no coincidence that today members of the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria have been here in Canberra. I ask Senator Lewis whether he denies that they have seen him. Senator Lewis —Of course they have seen me. Senator ROBERT RAY —They have put the needle into Senator Lewis, and he suddenly comes in here and says: 'I will show you what a valiant fighter I am for the people from the bush'. Senator Collard should not smile. What Senator Lewis is about, like all Victorian Liberals, is trying to prove that the Liberals are the real representatives of the country people in Victoria. The Senator Lewises of the world despise the National Party of Australia. They despise the Victorian National Party, especially in Warrnambool, where Senator Lewis comes from. That is why we have had those vicious three-cornered contests in the last two elections. What Senator Lewis is about, without going into the depth and the detail of matters he knows nothing about, is trying to pretend that he has some sort of influence in the rural area. That is absolute rubbish. Senator Lewis has had his chance. Senator Chaney has had his chance to raise any of these matters through urgency motions, through matters of public importance, or by any other means, and they have not done so. Apparently I missed what narked honourable senators opposite and started them off. They did not approach us and say: 'Look, this is an important issue. Can we debate it here today?'. Not one of them did that. That is the normal procedure, is it not? Instead, they came in and used ambush tactics to move the suspension of Standing Orders in order to make a contribution on a matter that can be dealt with tomorrow. If they are not willing to deal with this matter tomorrow, to give up their two hours tomorrow, and there are only 55 minutes left today, that does not say much for their concern about this issue. Senator Lewis came in and built the grandstand. Senator Chaney painted it, saying that this was an important issue and that we all should be in the chamber, and then walked straight out the door. I am glad he is back to listen to the debate. If Opposition senators are serious about the urgency of this issue, if they are fair dinkum, they may as well put it to the vote now and have their 55 minute debate, if they can win the vote. But, no, they will not do so. They will have more speakers. They will filibuster, just so they will not have to discuss the fine details of the issue. They have no intention of doing that. We know that. They are just here to grandstand. There were ample opportunities available today for this matter to be discussed. None of them was pursued. I can imagine, when we sat on the opposition benches, how much sympathy we would have got if we had said we wanted more time to discuss Government papers. Senator Sir John Carrick would have got up and just brushed us aside. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(6.07) —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Grimes —Here is a bloke who can milk a cow. Senator COLLARD —First of all, I acknowledge my professional status, as has been indicated by Senator Grimes. I realise that if I had to take part in a milking competition I would probably infringe amateur status, and, apart from the fact that I might suffer from repetition strain injury in a very short time, I would have to dip out. I take great pleasure in rising to support my colleague Senator Lewis on this motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable better discussion of the dairy industry. It is a subject which is causing great concern to an industry that is an export industry, an industry on which many rural areas and towns rely for income. It is an industry that cuts right across all State boundaries, and one on which all Australians rely in one way or another for sustenance. So it gives me great pleasure to support Senator Lewis on this occasion. He, as a Victorian, of course, has great concern, as Senator Robert Ray, as a Victorian, also should have great concern. Senator Lewis —Should have. Senator COLLARD —He should have, because that is a State in which the Premier, who is of Senator Robert Ray's political persuasion, has declared a state of emergency. It is a very selective state of emergency. It is not all right in Queensland, but it is all right in Victoria. This selective state of emergency has been declared against the dairy farmers in Victoria, who have a particular problem. The dairy industry is well aware of the problems confronting it. Over time it has tried to come to grips with its problems and has recognised that the output of milk needs to be reduced to about 5.3 billion litres a year. That is the level of production we could stand. We have over-production, and the dairy industry has recognised it. We have tried to get to grips with it. We had agreement with all involved in the industry, but where was the problem? The problem lay with the Labor Minister of Agriculture in Victoria. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Collard, you must confine your remarks to the reason for the urgency for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator COLLARD —I realise, Mr Deputy President, that you have to tread a narrow line, and I sympathise with you, having been in that position before. I am trying to point out that there are problems in this industry, problems that could be solved. They are problems that the industry itself could have solved. Indeed, prior to the Victorian election, there was an Australian Agricultural Council conference-I think Senator Lewis alluded to it-which came up with a proposition that would have met with the general agreement of the industry and all agriculture Ministers. That proposition was agreed to two days before the Victorian election. What happened after the Victorian election? The Agricultural Council's recommendation was-- Senator McIntosh —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator is not debating the suspension of Standing Orders. He is debating the issue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Collard, as I said before, you must confine your remarks to the reason for the urgency of this debate, not its importance. Senator COLLARD —The reason for the urgency is the dire straits of the dairy industry at this point in time, brought about by the fact that the Government overturned an Agricultural Council decision just prior to the Victorian election. It did not do it before the election. The Government overturned the decision and is now seeking to bring into play a plan which does not have the acceptance of any State government or any part of the industry as a whole. It has been indicated that people from the dairy industry, as I understand it, are present in the House of Parliament today because of their concern. That is why they are here. This is where the matter ultimately has to be thrashed out. If the legislation is not in the House of Representatives yet it soon will be. Of course there is great concern. The dairy industry is in a parlous state at present but the dairy industry itself can solve its problems. If this Federal Government would keep its nose out of it, the industry could come to grips with the problem. It recognises the problem and it can solve it without all the bloodshed that is likely to occur. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Despite the fact that I understand there is not an absolute majority, I am happy to concede to the suspension of Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. There is no point in wasting our time on this issue. Senator Chipp —You have been persuaded by the eloquence. Senator Grimes —It is the eloquence that has persuaded me. If it will stop this nonsense, I am quite happy to do it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.12) —I am pleased to have the opportunity, as many of my colleagues did, to speak to the 1983-84 annual report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. In particular, I would like to endorse the remarks of all of my colleagues from the Government side and refer to some of the points that I had in mind raising if and when I had an opportunity to speak. Surprisingly, I find that I have the opportunity to speak this evening and not tomorrow. I wish to take up that part of the report which refers to the attention paid to occupational health and safety by the Trade Union Training Authority. My colleague Senator Cook referred to the use of training days by TUTA in State centres. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! For the information of honourable senators, as the Sessional Orders have been suspended each senator may speak for 30 minutes. Senator CROWLEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I can elaborate at much greater length on the provisions of occupational health and safety under TUTA. I thank the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Grimes, for that. I am pleased to be informed of the extra time that I now have at hand. The point to which Senator Cook alluded and which I think it is important to make again was that during 1983-84 some 9 per cent of the training days conducted by TUTA State centres were devoted to courses specifically concerned with occupational health and safety matters, with a higher proportion of those days occurring in States where legislative changes were taking place or were already planned. In my own State of South Australia the State provisions for occupational health and safety, through legislation and the establishment of structures in the State, have meant that the South Australian Trade Union Trading Authority has been very concerned with occupational health and safety matters. The Trade Union Training Authority was very interested in following closely the establishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. The Authority followed the establishment of the Interim Commission and the subsequent report from the Interim Commission on the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. The Authority has already decided, given its current provision for staffing and given the range of topics that it judges are necessary for its consideration-that is, the conditions it feels are fundamental to meet its commitments to trade union training-to limit to 15 per cent the number of days of training on occupational health and safety issues. While it is possible that the Authority could devote 100 per cent of its time to occupational health and safety issues, the TUTA board has decided that a maximum limit of 15 per cent would be reasonable given, as I said earlier, the commitment to a whole range of other issues that it judges are necessary to fulfil its functions. It is noted in this report and it is a matter of some comfort to the Trade Union Training Authority that the interim report from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission states specifically that as a matter of priority the Commission should give consideration to the question of training trade unionists in occupational health and safety-that is, the Commission itself should be responsible for picking up much of the training in occupational health and safety for trade unionists. That is a matter of some comfort to the Trade Union Training Authority because, unless there is an allocation of increased staff and provisions, it appreciates that it cannot actually meet the needs of a massive increase in training in occupational health and safety, which, of course, the Authority judges to be very important but not its only requirement. The occupational health and safety seminars that have been conducted in this area already have covered legislative changes and the question of repetition strain injury. They have looked at asbestos as a specific item of interest as apart from another topic of general chemicals. They have looked at problems of dust, noise, screen-based equipment, stress, safety in the construction industry and health and safety committees. Of course, the topics in the seminars would have covered a number of the structural and organisational arrangements necessary to address any and all of those topics. The occupational health and safety courses at the state level have also addressed the role and functions of delegates and committee members in the occupational health and safety area of unions, the relevant legislation and statutory machinery, the identification and investigation of health and safety hazards, and the problems of sources of information and the provision and dissemination of that information. So as well as specific topics of hazards for workers there is the necessary provision of information and the addressing of topics such as the infrastructure to provide workers with not only the information but also the organisational and structural mechanisms to handle that information and to act responsibly as a consequence of having that information. One further area which I note is listed as a topic that the Trade Union Training Authority has devoted some time to in courses covers the review of the anti-discrimination legislation and procedures in relation to employment and sexual harassment. Senator Cook alluded earlier to some 20 per cent of the student hours being taken up by women attending Trade Union Training Authority courses. I am sure that those courses would have been a matter of specific importance to them, but it is also a matter of importance for the whole trade union movement to understand exactly the implications of anti-discrimination legislation. Understanding legislation and the effect it can have for workers and on workers is very important. As I stated earlier, the Trade Union Training Authority has spent a considerable part of its course work on this and judges that that part of its course work is very important-in fact, more important than almost anything else it can address. The necessary provision of information and ways in which one can handle that information is one of the basic requirements of the Trade Union Training Authority. That is why it was established in the first place. It continues to be its most important charter. I think the courses reviewing the sex discrimination legislation and all anti-discrimination legislation, and the sexual harassment clauses in that legislation, are a very good illustration of the way in which the Trade Union Training Authority educates and provides information to its members. It also provides the information on what that legislation contains by way of protection for its members. They need to have access to that information as does any citizen in our community. While some of the legislation is specific to people in the work place much of the legislation is necessary for them to know generally. That is one of the areas in which the Trade Union Training Authority provides its resources for workers who attend its many courses. Senator Robert Ray —What sort of courses do they have? Senator CROWLEY —I could run through the whole list if Senator Ray would like. If he thinks that would be a good idea, if thus challenged, I could list the courses mentioned here. I suppose, in fact, that in listing the courses it is a very neat way of elaborating on what the Trade Union Training Authority judges to be its priorities in the way it organises its courses and their content. Many of the courses address industry, particularly the skills and knowledge required in the industrial area. Some of the courses address the importance of union negotiation and the skills workers would need to be able to fulfil their role as representatives of a union movement or a work force. There are courses addressing negotiations in the work place, union policies and procedures relating to national wage cases, the prices and incomes accord, the formulation of claims and the preparation and presentation of their cases-- Senator Archer —We have read all that. Senator CROWLEY —I am pleased that the honourable senator has read all that, but I am happy to take the opportunity that the motion has given me to provide this information to anybody who happens to be enjoying the opportunity of listening to the Senate this afternoon. In fact the honourable senator may well know about it but I think it is very important to provide the opportunity for those people who are listening to know it also. In fact, it is a very good illustration of what the Trade Union Training Authority is about-providing information to people who need to know it and who can benefit from knowing it. Therefore, I will proceed, if the honourable senator does not mind. Senator Lewis —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is quite clear that what the Australian Labor Party is doing in government is endeavouring to prevent this Parliament from debating the dairy industry arrangements. Senator Robert Ray —You challenged us to speak on TUTA. Senator Lewis —I must say that I was sufficiently stupid to say that I would give honourable senators opposite an opportunity to speak. Clearly there were three or four honourable senators opposite who wanted an opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. I thought I would give them the opportunity to do so. They are now filibustering so that we cannot debate on air the problems of the dairy industry. The point of order is that Senator Crowley is trying to read into the Hansard the report which has been tabled. The motion is that we take note of the paper. We have taken note of the paper and, therefore, it is a misuse of the Senate procedure simply to stand in the chamber and read the report into the Hansard. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Crowley is in order in debating the motion before the Chair. I call Senator Crowley. Senator CROWLEY —Mr Deputy President, rarely do the listeners of Australia have the benefit of such a lucid analysis of Senator Lewis's capacities as he himself has just given us. 'I did not know I could be so stupid', said Senator Lewis. Well done! I thank Senator Lewis for an assessment of his own abilities. We on this side of the chamber concur. How stupid could the honourable senator be? I was trying to refer to some of the material within the Australian Trade Union Training Authority annual report for 1983-84. I take up one of the points that Senator Harradine raised earlier. He referred briefly to some of the material produced by TUTA and in particular mentioned a book entitled In the Commission. Senator Robert Ray also alluded to this quite excellent production. I noticed also that listed under the material prepared by TUTA are two wall charts. One of these wall charts actually describes the steps required in making a Federal award. This may not be a matter of particular interest to people who belong to traditional trade unions or who work in traditional work areas. However, one of the things of very real interest to me is the problem confronting many women who, when they are in the work force, find that their job descriptions are not specifically under any Federal award. In fact, one of the issues I talked about yesterday in the debate on the supported accommodation assistance program legislation was the priority listing there of an award to cover women providing work or staffing in women's shelters and in child care centres. Neither of these areas of employment for women is at the moment covered by a Federal award. In fact, they are not covered by State awards. The challenge for government and for people in that area of work is to go ahead and describe an award. That is listed as a priority area of consideration in the supported accommodation assistance program legislation. That is a very important area. I am delighted to find such information has been produced on a wall chart. It is interesting to note that many people who are involved in paid work do not know what Federal award covers them, much less what State award covers them or, in fact if there is an award, how they can find out what their award is and what their rights are. I would say that to this point four or five women have approached me asking where they can find information in regard to the award they are working under. When they discover that they are not covered by an award they ask what steps are required to establish an award. I am delighted to find in the manual the report of a wall chart which specifies and details how one goes about making a Federal award and what the required steps are. I know that might be a matter of surprise to Opposition senators in this place but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to report that this is not an imagined or filibustering piece of information. I assure honourable senators opposite that it is a matter of real experience. It is a matter which has been raised with me by constituents and which highlights once again the difficulty that many women in the work force experience. They are not covered by awards because they are not working in traditional work areas. It is a matter for priority consideration by the Government under the legislation introduced in this chamber yesterday. I am therefore very pleased to see the Government and the Trade Union Training Authority once again very much in harmony-although I have never actually known them to be out of harmony. Finally, I want to say that I, like many of my colleagues, have had the opportunity of contributing to some of the courses in TUTA. On a number of occasions I have been invited to speak as part of a number of courses provided by the South Australian Trade Union Training Authority. That is partly because of my previous role as a doctor, partly because of my experience as a working woman and partly because of my interest in occupational health and safety. I think there are any number of areas of concern for women in the work force, whether they be paid or unpaid. Principally at that stage, however, we were looking at the problems of women in the work force. I have been very interested to make my contribution to the TUTA courses in South Australia. Women participate in TUTA courses either as participants or as people who have expertise and who come along to contribute by way of teaching. The problem for women highlights the point I made earlier about the difficulties for women being in a special category and not necessarily covered by traditional awards. They are also exercising their opportunity, and very pleased to take that opportunity under TUTA, to highlight some of the specific problems for women in the work force. It is still a fact that most women would say that they actually hold down two jobs-their paid work job and the work of maintaining a home or hearth when they get back home from the work force. That double job role provides in particular the likelihood of increased stress for women. Dealing with that sort of stress is becoming a very real consideration for unions and, in particular, is becoming the subject of courses of TUTA. Many other problems of women in the work force which have not been addressed so much in the past by our union representatives because they did not have a massive representation of women or, dare I say, a considered awareness of the particular problems of women in their work forces are now able to be brought out into the open and highlighted and then addressed through the opportunities that the Trade Union Training Authority courses give them. For any number of reasons, from my own experience in response to constituent inquiries and in response to this report, I am delighted that the motion that has been agreed to by the Government in this place has allowed me the opportunity to make those comments. Motion (by Senator Lewis) put: That the debate be now adjourned. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Parer, W. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Hearn, J. M. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Puplick, C. J. G. Giles, P. J. Knowles, S. C. Georges, G. Carrick, Sir John Coleman, R. N. Archer, B. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Collard, S. J. Evans, G. J. Reid, M. E. Tate, M. C. Messner, A. J. Coates, J. Sheil, G. Aulich, T. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.37) —I wish to address the report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. I am mindful of the fact that some transport drivers are members of trade unions. We have just seen a very interesting demonstration in which the Government wisely agreed to a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders so that we could debate the great crisis that exists on the east coast of Australia relating to the dairy industry, the plight of the farmers, the plight of the consumers and the general public who need their daily milk. What happened? The Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party voted against Senator Lewis's honourable motion that we no longer talk about trade unionism but that we talk about the reason why the Standing Orders were suspended. The Democrats stand side by side, as usual, with the Labor Party, supporting the bully boys of the unions. Let us look at this report of the Trade Union Training Authority. We have heard Labor senators chanting the catechisms, as they always do, in support of their lords and masters in the trade union movement, so that they can guarantee their pre-selection at the next premature election. I do not know whether that is six weeks or six months away. But they are working hard to make sure that they get the nod. I think that that is a good thing. I am happy to give them the time to do so because if there were a competition, maybe some better people would be elected to the Government's ranks. When we read this report of the Trade Union Training Authority, the thing that hits us like an express train is the fact that it does not deal with what trade unions ought to be about. It is a traditional reiteration of everything from the time of Karl Marx onwards. It deals with traditional trade union attitudes. It pays no recognition to what the Australian community in 1985 expects from the trade union movement. It pays no recognition to what the Australian community expects of unionists. I say to Government senators who have their heads in the sand that times have changed. They have only to take notice of what is going on in Queensland and to see the support not only in Queensland but right around Australia for Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his policies of bringing the union movement within the law of Australia. But do we find in this book anything about the changed circumstances in Australia? Not a bit of it; just the hackneyed old cliches about doing business the way the unions have always done it. Senator Bolkus —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have the advantage of having read the Trade Union Training Authority's annual report 1983-84. It bemuses me that the honourable senator was referring to Karl Marx. There is no mention of him in the report and there are none of the old cliches. I ask the honourable senator, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, whether he has opened the book. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order, but I ask Senator MacGibbon to keep his comments to the report and to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator MacGIBBON —I will, Mr Acting Deputy President. The point is that this is the annual report required by law from a statutory authority for the expenditure of public funds. As a representative of the people from whom those funds are collected, I make no apology and I will not be silenced by people like Senator Bolkus in bringing this Authority to account. Let us get that point perfectly clear. It if is not clear, I will repeat it. The Australian Trade Union Training Authority shows no recognition at all of the changed community perceptions. One of those great changes is reflected in the fact that unions and the union movement have a social responsibility to the people of Australia. The days of pursuing selfishly narrow economic goals to the advantage of a selected few in the trade union movement, the ultimate economic monopoly in the Australian community, are past. The next Government, when it comes to office in six or 12 months time, will legislate to ensure that the monopoly position of labour will not ever arise again. The shortcomings in the report are very clear. We see nothing in relation to the responsibility of the trade unions to provide essential services. The days of people being able to strike and hold the community to ransom are gone forever. The right to strike is not challenged except for those providing an essential service. The point is that we see none of these changes reflected in this book. How can an authority which sets itself up as a training authority be so oblivious to community attitudes? How can a training authority be so oblivious to and ignorant of changes overseas? I refer to the great changes which have taken place in Britain, on which the Australian trade union movement bases all its reports. The failure of Scargill and the mine workers after twelve months of bloody fighting, the way they were brought within the law of the land, is something that the Australian Trade Union Training Authority should take notice of. Trade unions do have a social responsibility. They have a responsibility to obey the law and we see no legislative recognition in this report. It is impossible to sustain the argument, as my colleagues opposite will endeavour to do, that there is no law applying to trade union leaders or to trade union members. I have news for them. When the new government is elected in six months time we will have laws and we will have penalties that are enforceable. Most importantly, we will have voluntary trade unionism and the people who wish to get others to come in-- Senator Crowley —Rubbish! Senator MacGIBBON —If Senator Crowley likes, I will talk about some of the other things that we will bring in. We will get rid of this boycott situation. There is no sense of responsibility here. We have an Australian Council of Trade Unions movement supporting a blockade on Queensland this very day. The unions say that it will run for two days. I can guarantee that it will be as ineffectual, meaningless and irrelevant as was the last attempt to hold a boycott. These people have a hide to run a secondary boycott from outside Queensland against the good people of Queensland. This is the law of the jungle and this sort of stuff cannot be tolerated. As a simple legislator, I look for a reflection of this sense of responsibility in the report and I find none. Honourable senators might think I am a little disappointed. I am more than that; I am annoyed to find that there is no responsibility at all coming out of this Australian Trade Union Training Authority. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(6.44) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the annual report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, not only because I have been a member of unions for many years and felt the need before the establishment of TUTA for just the sort of courses which it runs but particularly because the Clyde Cameron College is in my own State of Victoria. Its establishment there has been of very great benefit to the local community in Albury-Wodonga and it has been a focus for the development of that twin city which is a tribute to the Whitlam Government that established it. There is a lot of excellent material in this report which, unfortunately, I will not have time to cover. I understand that some of my colleagues would like to speak to this matter as well. Senator Grimes —You have a quarter of an hour. Senator ZAKHAROV —Right. Firstly, I refer to the matter of women. Senator Crowley has already referred to this matter, but I am a woman unionist myself and for many years when I was involved in unions I also had young children and found it very difficult, as did other people in my position, to get training of any sort and, in particular, trade union training. In those days many unions were fairly resistant to the idea of women taking office in unions anyway or encouraging women to take a very active part in union matters. So one of the things that I welcome in this report is the reference to the fact that the proportion of student training days utilised by women attending TUTA State centre courses is 24 per cent. Of course, the State centre courses are held in the capital cities of each State. I understand that they are listed in the back of the book. Honourable senators opposite may want to check where they can attend one of these centres. They might find it very educational. One difficulty with the Clyde Cameron College is that of people being able to travel to it. Therefore, TUTA also conducts a number of courses around the country. These are listed on page 6 of the document. Senator Lewis —Read it out. Senator ZAKHAROV —No, I will not read it out. I do not wish to waste valuable time. I know from personal experience when travelling around as a senator, and no doubt other senators have heard this too when they have been in provincial centres of their own States, that these courses are of very great value to local workers and particularly to local women because of the handicap they have during child bearing years of not being able to get away readily from their home town. People can come in off the job to attend these courses-they are usually of several days duration; they are not prolonged courses-in their own town. That is extremely valuable. On top of that, of course, the trade union postal courses that TUTA holds are extremely useful. The names of the courses bring me back to the debate on the matter of public importance today in which honourable senators were talking about falling standards. If standards have fallen I wonder why it is necessary to have introductory English, everyday English, arithmetic and statistics courses for adult workers. Judging from the way some members of the Opposition talk when we have debates on education, one would think that in the good old days everybody could cope with this basic education and it is only today's students who cannot. Very clearly, these courses fill a need. Not only do they cover basic matters such as the ones I have mentioned but also, very importantly, they include things like clear thinking, which is vital. There would be many in this place who would benefit from such a course, I am sure. Also included are courses on running a meeting and there is an introduction to economics. It is extremely important these days, particularly in negotiation with employers, to have a very good knowledge of basic economics or even to be able to speak the language of economics so that one is not snowed by the employer talking about macro and micro, marginal rates and all those sorts of things. The Training Authority also produces materials and publications of its own. It refers particularly to new 10-minute videos on speaking at meetings and drafting a motion. In the back of the book one finds a list of a number of other publications which are extremely useful for people working in unions, covering such basic things as chairing a meeting, speaking at a meeting, producing a report and so on. This is the sort of education which I believe should be available to all school students. I am very pleased that moves are being made in my home State of Victoria to broaden the curriculum in schools to include just those sorts of basic citizenship skills which are needed if people are to be able to cope, in union groups or any other community groups in which they may be involved. The report also mentions non-English speaking student participation. About 11 per cent of student training days are taken up by unionists from non-English speaking countries. The languages are listed in the report. That is an extremely important aspect. In the course of my work as a senator I have travelled around a number of large factories in Victoria and have been struck by the number of unionists who do not have a good working knowledge of English, sufficient to enable them, for example, to negotiate in respect of their own pay and conditions. Unfortunately, over the years since we have had mass migration to this country this situation has been used by employers in an appalling way to deny people their rights. I heard recently of a woman whose English was poor and who had been working for many years for something like half award wages. Finally she was put in touch with the union, which is now fighting to get her back pay. Because she did not speak English well her employer was able to con her into thinking that she was getting the right pay and was working under the right conditions. The same person is also suffering from repetition strain injury because she understood that she would be sacked if she complained about the rate at which she was asked to work. A great deal of exploitation exists in the Australian work place and some of the worst affects people who do not have a good grasp of the language. I would like to see the 11 per cent of student training days involving language training increased to a much higher proportion. The report also talks about the relevance of the accord to the work of TUTA. It is particularly pleasing that a study of the accord has been introduced widely into TUTA courses because that has important implications for the working of the accord. It is important that workers understand why there is an accord and how it works. I believe that this sort of knowledge which has been disseminated through the trade union movement, has been responsible for the historic downturn in industrial disputation that has occurred under the Hawke Labor Government in the last two years and has been referred to frequently in this place. I am also pleased to see that the report mentions a pilot course. All honourable senators could understand this, whether or not they have read Karl Marx or the report. The report contains a photo showing the participants in a pilot course for disabled workers. These workers are often discriminated against. When they do get work they will often suffer less than award conditions because they know that it will be much harder for them to get another job than it would be for an able bodied person. Again, I think it is very important that those people be given an opportunity to undertake TUTA courses which are tailored to their needs. Many of TUTA's courses are tailored to the particular needs of the people who are likely to want the training. The courses are tailored not only to the particular needs of a particular union but also to the needs of a particular work place. I know that members of my own union, the Victorian Secondary Teachers' Association, have courses specially tailored to their needs because, of course, working in a school with children is very different from working with objects in other occupations. I shall conclude my remarks at that point to give my colleagues the opportunity to speak on this matter. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.54) —I too should like to make some comments on the Trade Union Training Authority. I hope that the Authority in Victoria has the capacity to take on about 20,000 dairy farmers who are going to be thrown off their farms by this Government. These people will have to be retrained because they have no capacity to stand up for themselves. They are going to have to undertake some form of training, and I hope that TUTA has the capacity to train them. Mr Acting Deputy President, you have probably seen today the 50 or 60 very worried looking farmers in the corridors of this place who have been seeking help from the Australian Labor Party. They have been calling on Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry. They have been calling on everyone they can in the last desperate effort to avoid the disaster that the Kerin plan is going to perpetrate on the dairy industry. Senator Colston —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I understand that Senator Boswell is not speaking on the matter that is under discussion at the moment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. However, I suggest that Senator Boswell should keep to the report. Senator BOSWELL —I hope that the Trade Union Training Authority teaches the people who participate in the training that they have a responsibility not only to unionists but also to every other citizen of Australia. The way the unions, backed by the Government, are behaving in the boycott that has been foisted upon the people of Queensland is absolutely disgraceful. I sincerely hope that TUTA will endeavour to impress upon the people who attend its courses that they not only have a responsibility to the unions but they also have a responsibility to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Government senators interjecting- Senator BOSWELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your protection from the interjections. The people who attend TUTA also have a responsibility to fulfil the jobs they take on. I bring to the attention of the Senate the boycott that is being placed on Queensland at the moment. In actual fact, the more the State is boycotted the further the Queensland Government will continue on its course. The boycott has become an absolute joke in Queensland. The further the trade union movement goes down that track the deeper the water it will get itself into. Before I conclude my remarks I should like to put on record that tonight this Government has treated the dairy industry with absolute contempt. It has filibustered. It would not address the question. It is frightened to go forward and put its position on the dairy industry. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(6.58) -I wish to speak tonight on the 1983-84 annual report of the Trade Union Training Authority, which has been presented pursuant to a requirement of the Trade Union Training Authority Act, which was passed by the Parliament in 1975 to set up the Authority. One honourable senator who spoke tonight on the annual report was very critical of the Authority. He said that it was not taking courses to the workers, that it was not leaving its centralised location and visiting the regions of Australia. I should like to set the record straight. It is very clear from the annual report of TUTA that in fact a larger number of courses are not only being taken up in the States, away from Albury-Wodonga, but also are being conducted in the regions. It is important to note that while in 1981-82 there were 20,837 student training days in the States, in the year in question, 1983-84, that number had increased to 31,200. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 7 p.m., for the purposes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.59) —I am concerned about some aspects of the Queensland State scheme to provide aids for the disabled. I understand that this matter does not come within the authority of the Federal Government. However, I am compelled to raise it as a senator for the State of Queensland. I expect that my comments, as recorded in Hansard, will be read by the relevant authorities in the Queensland Government. I hope that these comments will be given proper consideration by the Queensland Government. What follows should not be taken as destructive criticism. I intended my comments to be constructive. There are two schemes operating in Queensland which provide aids for the disabled. The Queensland Government, like other State governments, administers Commonwealth funds under the program of aids for disabled people-the PADP scheme. There is no means test associated with the Commonwealth funded scheme. I have always been impressed by the service which my constituents receive from the Commonwealth scheme, which is administered by the Queensland Government. As well, I understand that the Commonwealth recognises the good work carried out by Queensland officers in administering the scheme. The other scheme is the Queensland Government's own scheme for the supply of aids for the disabled. This differs from the Commonwealth scheme with respect to the range of aids which may be supplied. Yet the greatest difference is that the Queensland Government's scheme is means tested. I have no opposition to the idea of means testing, provided that the means test is fair and equitable. It is in this regard, namely, whether the scheme is a fair one, that I consider the Queensland Government's scheme should be improved. The problem with the Queensland Government's means test is that no-one outside the Queensland Government or the Government's administering departments knows what the terms of the test are. This leaves people in the dark, leaves them confused when they are told they are not eligible under the State scheme and sometimes gives the impression that it is not being administered fairly. I would like to relate the details of a case which illustrates my point. I was recently approached by a constituent who had been given medical advice to wear elastic stockings. Such stockings are supplied only under the State scheme. When this lady came to see me, she had been told that she was not eligible for assistance because she had not qualified under the means test. Normally, that explanation would be satisfactory. In this case, however, it is not satisfactory because the public is unaware of the details of the means test. My constituent showed me her bank books. One held a few hundred dollars into which her age pension was paid. She regularly withdrew the value of her pension, so the level of that account remained fairly static. The other had, from memory, a balance of about $1,000. She was keeping this so that it would pay for her funeral. The lady had no other income or assets. My understanding is that she did not own her home, but was paying only a nominal rental for her accommodation. It seemed to me that under these conditions, this person should be eligible for aid under the State scheme for the elastic stockings which she had been advised to wear. I therefore wrote to the Minister for Health in Queensland, Mr Austin, cited the case I have mentioned and asked him, amongst other things, what criteria were used to determine whether people are eligible for assistance. I shall read part of Mr Austin's reply, deleting my constituent's name. The part I wish to quote reads: As stockings are only supplied on the State scheme, Mrs . . . was tested for her eligibility to receive these stockings and the result was that Mrs . . . did not qualify. Eligibility for assistance under the State scheme is determined, amongst other things, by the applicant's financial capacity. The method of calculating financial capacity is by use of a formula covering the weekly income, weekly expenses, number of dependants, assets, outstanding debts, and the cost of the article sought. Details of the eligibility criteria are not publicised in order to ensure, as much as possible, that applicants are not unduly influenced in the information they provide. To my mind, this is totally unsatisfactory. Suppose the Commonwealth decided to issue age pensions where there were no details of the eligibility criteria so that, in Mr Austin's words, 'applicants are not unduly influenced in the information they provide'. There would be a hue and cry, and rightly so. Just imagine the behind the door deals which would go on if the Commonwealth ran its taxation system in such a vague way. This type of secret criteria is too open to abuse by the Government or its administration. To imply that, if the criteria were publicly known, people would be influenced to provide incorrect information is an insult to the vast majority of the applicants. The Commonwealth administers many schemes where the criteria are well known. Indeed, copies of instructions for those who administer the scheme are available to the public. Of course, there is always a minor percentage who will abuse the system, but precautions are taken to identify such people. The idea of a secret means test such as that which I have described is not acceptable. It is open to abuse by its administrators and it runs the risk of applicants thinking that the whole system is shady. I urge Mr Austin to review this secrecy surrounding the Queensland Government's scheme. By bringing it out in the open, people would be able to see whether it is a fair system. If it is not, the public should be able to lobby for a change. If it is a fair system, I imagine that Mr Austin's department would be spared of many needless applications being sent and processed. For the sake of both the Queensland people and the Queensland Government itself, I consider a change is necessary. It would be far better to see that justice is not only done in Queensland, but is also seen to be done. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(7.05) —I rise to express my concern at a number of unsatisfactory aspects of housing provided to the families of Australian Army personnel at Holsworthy Army Base near Sydney, which, with about 25 per cent of armed forces personnel in Australia stationed there, is probably the largest single concentration of Army dependants in the country. I went to Holsworthy last week, held a discussion with a group of Army wives, and looked at a number of houses in which families are currently accommodated. One of the aspects which worried me greatly and which I believe I ought to report to the Senate was the apparently deep-seated impression on the part of a number of soldiers' wives that their husbands would be discriminated against because they had raised the question of their housing with me. This was a matter I could hardly ignore. I asked what form this discrimination would take and I was told it could involve men being passed over for promotion, or being given unpleasant, heavy or unpopular duties. I have more faith in our Army command than to believe such things could happen without corrective action. I ask the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is in the House, to convey that sentiment to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) so some statement of reassurance to these people can be made. Certainly many of the Army wives at Holsworthy have every reason to complain. The overall picture is one of discrimination. There are large, new, brick houses with wall-to-wall carpet, in which some families live. There are also very small, 40-year-old fibro houses which afford the most minimal accommodation and which I must say are a positive disincentive to the maintenance of a professional army. There are people at the private and non-commissioned officer level who carry out very valuable functions, such as parachute training, who we need and need to retain in our armed services. Plainly, they have an incentive to get out of the Army and do something else if their families are unhappy with good cause. Indeed, this is happening. I intend to place some questions on notice to establish the extent to which we are losing these valuable people, but I already know from the reports made to me that there are very considerable losses. It is also a fact that, because of frequent shifts in location and relatively low salaries without overtime, it is very difficult for Army families to build their own homes. Because of the location of bases, it is also difficult for them to find accommodation outside of that officially provided. With that in mind, it is difficult to understand the situation being continued, but of the 950 houses officially provided in Holsworthy and Anzac Village, 60 per cent are below the minimum Army housing standard set in 1972, which is, after all, 13 years ago. Thirteen years after the setting of the standard, 60 per cent of nearly 1,000 houses are below the minimum standard. I saw several houses with bare, unfinished timber flooring and knotholes in the floorboards. Apparently the theory is that people who are unfortunate enough to be in the old houses will not be provided with carpets; they are supposed to provide their own. Of course, when they move from house to house when they are transferred, their carpets never fit. This, and the usual complete lack of insulation in the houses, makes them very cold and damp in winter. It was reported to me that some winter electricity bills are as high as $300. Maintenance of this already low standard of housing has apparently also been a very slow business. I was told of one case where a leaking pipe which had been dripping water down a bathroom wall was left for six months before a plumber was sent to fix it. Inadequate housing conditions are not the only obstacles encountered by professional members of the Defence Force and their families. Other typically catch-22 situations apply. It was intended that the new, redesigned and, I believe, much better Army uniforms would be introduced in 1984 or 1985. To that end the old uniforms are no longer being produced. Unfortunately, it is now expected that the new uniforms will not be available until 1988. It is therefore extremely difficult to buy any uniform, old or new, and it will become increasingly difficult as 1988 approaches. Of course, one has to be in uniform in the Army or one is in trouble. Most extraordinary artifices are already being resorted to at Holsworthy with people buying four or five sets of uniforms, swapping with each other, in order that our Army can actually appear in uniform. Senator Peter Baume —Did you raise any of these matters at the Estimates Committee hearings? Senator MASON —No. Let us not discuss other debates now. I am raising them now in this adjournment debate. As I said, of course soldiers have to be in uniform in the Army or they are in trouble. How people can be expected to maintain their present standard of dress when they cannot buy new uniforms is a mystery to me, and it is becoming an increasing mystery to the people who are called on to do it. If we wish to maintain the high standard of our Defence Force, and indeed to stop the escalating number of resignations and the plummeting morale of those who remain in the forces, we must do something about these problems. We must provide incentives to people to join the forces and put up with all the problems that that entails. If we continue on the present course, we will find ourselves in a very short space of time with a vastly diminished and increasingly unhappy Defence Force. Those problems must be addressed now. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.12) —I will not delay the Senate for long. I do not make a habit of speaking on the adjournment but the matter I raise tonight is very important. It affects a significant number of people in the Bridgewater to New Norfolk area of Tasmania who are suffering loss and damage as a result of the spraying of grass adjacent to railway lines between Bridgewater and New Norfolk. The sprays that are being used are highly toxic and have led to fruit trees and vegetable gardens being destroyed and grass being severely affected. I was recently alerted to this matter, and on 2 May I wrote to Australian National Railways referring to the fact that six weeks ago a resident of Bridgewater had asked Australian National what spray was used and what are the effects of such sprays on edible vegetation. Australian National was well aware that some three years ago certain herbicides were used as sprays and certain pellets were laid, causing damage to vegetation in Bridgewater and damage to vegetation in areas as far up as New Norfolk, as well as damage to property. The damage includes the destruction of fruit trees, including nectarines, apples, peach and native trees, plus areas of grass and shrubs and indeed vegetable gardens. Several trees died early this year and had to be cut down by the residents, but others are still standing and show evidence of the continuing effects of the herbicides. I will not go into all the details, which are available should the Minister desire them from me, but I am informed that one of the herbicides was bromacil. Bromacil is described as a residual which at high rates becomes a soil sterilant. It has some contact action and is selective at low rates. It has a slow killing action and relies on heavy applications of water and good soil moisture levels to carry the chemical to the root zone where uptake occurs. It is non-volatile and non-corrosive and contact action is improved by the addition of wetting agent. I refer to the recommendations contained in the Canegrowers' Quarterly Bulletin of January 1977. It says that it should not be used near wanted trees or ornamentals as their roots may pick up the chemical. It is a hazard to all plants but has a low toxicity to mammals. A journal called Australian Agriculture gives another of the herbicides, diuron, a No. 3 rating, which is for a persistent hazard. That chemical or herbicide is quoted as being persistent in soil with some movement in soil water. The point about which the residents are concerned is that seepage of the mobile herbicides will continue and damage will increase; that vegetables and fruit could possibly be unsuitable for human consumption; that a simple inquiry made by them to a government department, namely Australian National, concerning damage to their property, at least six weeks ago in one case and by word of mouth previously, has been ignored and not adequately dealt with; and that Australian National has decided simply to send a representative from one of the herbicide companies from Melbourne to Tasmania to deal with the question. I believe that this matter should now be dealt with at ministerial level since satisfaction has not been obtained through Australian National. Some other questions should be raised. What precisely were the herbicides and pellets? Another suggestion is that another herbicide called hexazinone was used. When was the herbicide used, and where? It is believed to have been used at least from Bridgewater to New Norfolk. What complaints have been raised and what action has been taken in respect of those complaints? Finally, can the Government give an assurance that Australian National will recompense those residents of Bridgewater and other residents affected for the loss that has been incurred?. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(7.18) —I am sorry to delay the Senate at this late stage, but I think it is important to put on record the disgraceful situation that yesterday's Senate Hansard is not yet available to senators at 7.20 this evening, at the time when we are about to adjourn. One of the important features of this chamber since I have been a member of it has been the relatively early period when Hansard has been available to enable senators to have some idea of matters they may have missed on the previous day and, if necessary, to enable senators to raise matters which are considered to be important. I understand the reason for the delay is that there was firstly some dispute last evening in the Government Printing Office. I hasten to add that I make no criticism of the Senate itself or of Senate officers. I think they are as embarrassed by this as anybody else. But the main reason why the publication of Hansard has been delayed-and I trust that your inquiries, Mr President, will indicate whether my information is correct-is that the Government has given orders that priority shall be given to the House of Representatives debates and also to House of Representatives Bills, which are coming in at a rate that can only be described as amounting to tremendous sausage machine activity. This is an insult to this chamber and to the whole Parliament in the way in which legislation is being processed and forced forward. Because of this urgency the Senate has been sent to the bottom of the pool. Its records of debate are not being processed. The result is that even as late as five or ten minutes ago I was at the Hansard office inquiring and was told that the Senate Hansard was still with the binders and was not yet available. It is outrageous that the Senate is being given such a low priority. Its records of debate are essential and ought to be available to us early in the day. Mr President, I hope that you will inquire as to the precise reasons for this delay. If I am wrong, I am sorry; but I believe, from what I am told, that the reason is that the Government has determined priorities and has decided that the Senate is not so important, and, therefore, can wait third in line for the obtaining of printed documents. This being so, I trust that you, Mr President, will make inquiries and report the situation to the Senate so that it may be cured and not happen again. With that, I urge the Senate to take account of its important precedence in the scheme of things in the Parliament and not to allow itself to be pushed aside in this way by the action of the Government. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(7.22) —The matter raised by Senator Colston is familiar to me. I am well aware that the Queensland Government in its scheme of aids for the disabled applies a means test. It has always been a matter of disgust to me that Mr Austin, the Minister for Health in Queensland, can attack the Federal Government for applying an assets test with limits of $70,000 and $110,000 but in applying a means test and an assets test for aids for the disabled his Government refuses aids if the applicant has more than $100 in the bank or more than $5,000 in assets. I will get further details and give them to Senator Colston. The matter that Senator Mason raised about Army housing I am not familiar with, but I will certainly get the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to reply. I would certainly be as annoyed as Senator Mason is if there was any discrimination against the husbands or wives of Army personnel for raising such matters. I will certainly refer the matters raised by Senator Harradine to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). I would have thought that Australian National was in enough trouble in Tasmania trying to keep its head above water without spraying along the railway lines between Bridgewater and New Norfolk, particularly a substance like bromacil, which, as Senator Harradine says, is a soil sterilant. It has a broad action, is long acting and should be used with extreme care. As I said, Australian National is in enough strife without having to pay compensation to people, although it certainly sounds as though it should. I will leave the matter raised by Senator Missen to you, Mr President; but all of the other matters I will refer to the relevant Ministers. The PRESIDENT —I did have inquiries made this afternoon about the matter raised by Senator Missen concerning the delay in the printing and publication of the Senate Hansard for yesterday. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter reported to me this afternoon as follows: Delivery of yesterday's daily Hansard by the Government Printer has been delayed due to: 1. Precedence having to be given to the printing of Bills; and 2. A shortage of printing staff due to people being on compensation as a result of repetition strain injury, on sick leave or on long term leave and not able to be replaced. The Government Printer has estimated that Hansard will be available at about 4 p.m. today. That note was given to me shortly after lunch. However, whether or not priority has been given by the Government Printer to the printing of the House of Representatives Hansard over and above the Senate Hansard, as has been suggested by Senator Missen, I cannot comment on. I am not aware of any changes that have taken place in the long-standing practices here but I shall certainly take up that aspect of the matter with the appropriate Minister. Senator Missen, of course, will appreciate that the Government Printing Office is not under the control of the Parliament but is under the control of the Government. I shall make inquiries in respect of the point that he has raised and certainly take up that aspect of the matter with the appropriate Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.25 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 18) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What defence-related facilities: (a) operated by a foreign power; and (b) jointly operated by Australia and a foreign power existed, or will exist, in Australia as at (i) 1 July 1967, (ii) 1 July 1969, (iii) 1 July 1971, (iv) 1 July 1973, (v) 1 July 1975, (vi) 1 July 1977, (vii) 1 July 1979, (viii) 1 July 1981, (ix) 1 July 1983 and (x) 1 July 1985. (2) What is the foreign power and designated operating agency in each case. (3) Have any alterations of operating agency taken place; if so: (a) when; and (b) in respect of which facilities; and (c) by what authority. (4) Under what agreement or other authority does each facility operate in Australia. (5) When did each agreement or other authority enter into force and when does each expire. (6) What is: (a) the function; and (b) the location of each facility. (7) How many: (a) Australian; and (b) foreign personnel were employed at each facility as at the dates listed above in (1). (8) What was the capital cost to: (a) Australia; and (b) the foreign power involved in siting and building each facility. (9) What has been the annual operating cost in constant dollars to: (a) Australia; and (b) the foreign power involved for each facility since its establishment. (10) What firms undertook construction and provision of major equipment for each facility. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1 to 10) Details of defence related facilities in Australia were provided in response to House of Representatives question on notice No. 1253 of 25 May 1978 and updated in response to House of Representatives question on notice No. 726 of 9 November 1983. Those answers provided information on the situation as at 1 July for the even numbered years from 1968 to 1982 inclusive and for 1983, whereas the honourable senator's question seeks information on the situation as at 1 July for the odd numbered years from 1967 to 1985 inclusive. Substantial resources would be involved in providing detailed information on the odd-numbered years, and at first sight would not seem to add significantly to the substance of the information already provided. If the honourable senator would care to be more specific about the reason for seeking these particular details, I would be happy to give the matter further consideration. (Question No. 20) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: What were: (a) the vessel names; (b) the type and class designation; (c) whether or not the vessel was nuclear powered; (d) the port visited; and (e) the dates and length of the visit, in respect of United States Navy submarines and warships which visited Australia between 1 January 1965 and 1 February 1985. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The information requested is not readily available for the period prior to 24 June 1974. I do not intend to direct the diversion of Departmental resources from normal Defence tasks to research and compile the data for this period unless I can be convinced there are compelling reasons to do so. The following table sets out the details of USN ship and submarine visits to Australia from 24 June 1974 to 1 February 1985: Ship Port Dates Type USS Rausell Sydney 24-27 June 1974 Destroyer (DD) USS Juneau Sydney 20-25 June 1974 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Alamo Sydney 20-25 June 1974 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Bristol County Sydney 20-25 June 1974 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Fort Fisher Sydney 20-25 June 1974 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Gurke Brisbane 26-28 June 1974 Destroyer (DD) USS Tulare Brisbane 19-26 June 1974 Landing Ship (LKA) USS Fresno Brisbane 22-26 June 1974 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Cleveland Brisbane 20-26 June 1974 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS San Bernadino Brisbane 19-26 June 1974 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Gurke Cairns 18-24 June 1974 Destroyer (DD) USS Gurke Townsville 21-26 June 1974 Destroyer (DD) USS Waddell Newcastle 19-21 June 1974 Destroyer (DDG) USS Waddell Melbourne 23-26 June 1974 Destroyer (DDG) USS Bausell Mackay 18-21 June 1974 Destroyer (DD) USS Hepburn Sydney 29-30 July 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Sydney 1-5 Aug. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Sydney/JB 5-13 Aug. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Port Kembla 14-17 Aug. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Brisbane 19-21 Aug. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Gladstone 20-21 Aug. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Racine Cairns 31 Oct.-6 Nov. 1974 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Reasoner Sydney 21-25 Nov. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Reasoner Townsville 28 Nov.-2 Dec. 1974 Frigate (FF) USS Coral Sea Fremantle 30 May-6 June 1975 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Passumpsic Fremantle 31 May-5 June 1975 Oiler (AO) USS Lang Geraldton 30 May-6 June 1975 Frigate (FF) USS Gridley Bunbury 30 May-6 June 1975 Cruiser (CG) USS Bausell Albany 31 May-5 June 1975 Destroyer (DD) USS Parsons Sydney 10-11 July 1975 Destroyer (DDG) USS Parsons Brisbane 14-15 July 1975 Destroyer (DDG) USS Parsons Cairns 18 July 1975 Destroyer (DDG) USNS Vanguard Sydney 30 July-4 Aug. 1975 Misc. Auxiliary (AG) USCGS Burton Island Melbourne 2-6 Mar. 1976 Icebreaker (WAGB) USS Oklahoma City Fremantle 19-26 Apr. 1976 Cruiser (CG) *USS Snook Stirling 14-19 Aug. 1976 Submarine (SSN) *USS Truxton Melbourne 7-13 Sept. 1976 Cruiser (CGN) *USS Truxton Jervis Bay 19 Sept. 1976 Cruiser (CGN) USS Ogden Brisbane 30 Oct.-4 Nov. 1976 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Point Defiance Brisbane 30 Oct.-4 Nov. 1976 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Fresno Brisbane 30 Oct.-4 Nov. 1976 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Henry B Wilson Burnie 28 Oct.-5 Nov. 1976 Destroyer (DDG) USS Barbey Geelong 30 Oct.-6 Nov. 1976 Frigate (FF) USS White Plains Townsville 28 Oct.-2 Nov. 1976 Combat Stores Ship (AFS) USS San Bernadino Brisbane 30 Oct.-3 Nov. 1976 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Kansas City Sydney 28 Oct.-6 Nov. 1976 Replenishment Oiler (AOR) *USS Long Beach Melbourne 30 Oct.-6 Nov. 1976 Cruiser (CON) *USS Enterprise Hobart 29 Oct.-5 Nov. 1976 Aircraft Carrier (CVN) USS Blue Ridge Sydney 1-6 Nov. 1976 Amphibious Command Ship (LCC) USS Vancouver Sydney 1-6 Nov. 1976 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Hoel Sydney 1-6 Nov. 1976 Destroyer (DDG) USS Waddell Sydney 1-6 Nov. 1976 Destroyer (DDG) USS Decatur Sydney 1-6 Nov. 1976 Destroyer (DDG) USS Monticello Port Kembla 1-6 Nov. 1976 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS San Bernadino Cairns 5-7 Nov. 1976 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Navasota Sydney 1-6 Nov. 1976 Oiler (AO) USCGS Burton Island Melbourne 10-14 Dec. 1976 Icebreaker (WAGB) USNS Mizar Darwin 15-21 Dec. 1976 Oceanographic Research Ship (AGOR) USNS Albert J. Myer Darwin 13-21 Dec. 1976 Cable Ship (ARC) USS Sterett Fremantle 19-24 May 1977 Cruiser (CG) USS Morton Fremantle 19-24 May 1977 Destroyer (DD) USS Bradley Bunbury 19-24 May 1977 Frigate (FF) USNS Mispillion Fremantle 19-24 May 1977 Oiler (AO) USS Somers Geraldton 16-20 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DDG) USS Somers Adelaide 24-30 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DDG) USS Somers Melbourne 30 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DDG) USS Benjamin Stoddert Fremantle 17-22 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DDG) USS Benjamin Stoddert Melbourne 26-30 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DDG) USS Richard S. Edwards Albany 18-22 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DD) USS Richard S. Edwards Portland 25-30 Sept. 1977 Destroyer (DD) USS Richard S. Edwards Westernport 1 Oct. 1977 Destroyer (DD) USS Midway Fremantle 17-22 Oct. 1977 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Worden Fremantle 17-22 Oct. 1977 Cruiser (CG) USS Ponchatoula Fremantle 17-22 Oct. 1977 Oiler (AO) USS Francis Hammond Fremantle 17-22 Oct. 1977 Frigate (FF) USS Navasota Fremantle 17-22 Oct. 1977 Oiler (AO) USS Lockwood Bunbury 17-22 Oct. 1977 Frigate (FF) USS Parsons Geraldton 16-22 Oct. 1977 Destroyer (DDG) USS Gray Newcastle 19-27 Dec. 1977 Frigate (FF) USS Gray Launceston 30 Dec. 1977-2 Jan. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Agerholm Newcastle 19-27 Dec. 1977 Destroyer (DD) USS Agerholm Devonport 30 Dec. 1977-2 Jan. 1978 Destroyer (DD) USS Bausell Sydney 23-27 Dec. 1977 Destroyer (DD) USS Gray Fremantle 7-12 Jan. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Agerholm Fremantle 7-12 Jan. 1978 Destroyer (DD) USS Fox Fremantle 24-28 Jan. 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Quellet Fremantle 24-28 Jan. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Hassayampa Fremantle 24-28 Jan. 1978 Oiler (AO) USS Fox Fremantle 1-2 Mar. 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Quellet Fremantle 1-2 Mar. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Hassayampa Fremantle 1-2 Mar. 1978 Oiler (AO) *USS Queenfish Melbourne 4-10 Mar. 1978 Submarine (SSN) USS Oklahoma City Sydney 4-9 May 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Oklahoma City Melbourne 10-12 May 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Oklahoma City Fremantle 16-20 May 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Reasoner Hobart 5-11 May 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Reasoner Bunbury 16-20 May 1978 Frigate (FF) *USS Bainbridge Darwin 7-12 May 1978 Cruiser (CGN) USS Harold E. Holt Cairns 13-17 May 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Whipple Cairns 13-17 May 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Harold E. Holt Darwin 21 May 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Whipple Darwin 21 May 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Roanoke Fremantle 7-12 Aug. 1978 Replenishment Oiler (AOR) *USS Enterprise Fremantle 7-12 Aug. 1978 Aircraft Carrier (CVN) *USS Long Beach Fremantle 7-12 Aug. 1978 Cruiser (CGN) *USS Truxton Fremantle 7-12 Aug. 1978 Cruiser (CGN) USS Horne Sydney 25-28 Aug. 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Horne Cairns 31 Aug. 1978 Cruiser (CG) USS Robison Brisbane 26-29 Aug. 1978 Destroyer (DDG) USS Robison Mackay 31 Aug.-4 Sept. 1978 Destroyer (DDG) USS Schofield Brisbane 8-13 Sept. 1978 Frigate (FFG) USS O'Callahan Brisbane 8-13 Sept. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Paul F. Foster Brisbane 8-13 Sept. 1978 Destroyer (DD) USS Schuyler Otis Bland Devonport 28 Sept.-2 Oct. 1978 Destroyer (DD) USS Benjamin Stoddert Cairns 9-13 Oct. 1978 Destroyer (DDG) USS Niagara Falls Sydney 6-13 Nov. 1978 Combat Stores Ship (AFS) USS Ashtabula Fremantle 1-8 Nov. 1978 Oiler (AO) USS Kirk Fremantle 1-8 Nov. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Lockwood Fremantle 1-8 Nov. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Knox Geraldton 1-8 Nov. 1978 Frigate (FF) USS Kincaid Sydney 6-13 Nov. 1978 Destroyer (DD) USS Hewitt Townsville 17-21 Nov. 1978 Destroyer (DD) USCGS Glacier Sydney 9-13 Mar. 1979 Icebreaker (WAGB) USS Cochrane Sydney 12-19 Mar. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Cochrane Sydney 31 Mar.-2 Apr. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Robert E. Peary Sydney 12 Mar.-19 Mar. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Sydney 31 Mar.-2 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Sydney 12-19 Mar. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Sydney 31 Mar.-2 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Cochrane Melbourne 5-9 Apr. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Cochrane Launceston 12-17 Apr. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Cochrane Albany 21-22 Mar. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Cochrane Fremantle 23-27 Apr. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Robert E. Peary Geelong 5-9 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Adelaide 12-16 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Esperance 18-20 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Geraldton 23-27 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Newcastle 3-9 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Hobart 12-16 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Fremantle 23 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Port Hedland 26-29 Apr. 1979 Frigate (FF) *USS Tunny Stirling 19-27 Apr. 1979 Submarine (SSN) USS Safeguard Darwin 27-30 June 1979 Salvage Ship (ARS) USS Safeguard Cairns 4-8 July 1979 Salvage Ship (ARS) USS Midway Fremantle 20-25 Oct. 1979 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Stein Fremantle 20-25 Oct. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Mispillion Fremantle 20-25 Oct. 1979 Oiler (AO) USS Parsons Geraldton 20-25 Oct. 1979 Destroyer (DDG) USS Knox Bunbury 20-25 Oct. 1979 Frigate (FF) *USS Bainbridge Stirling 20-25 Oct. 1979 Cruiser (CGN) *USS Pintado Stirling 20-25 Oct. 1979 Submarine (SSN) *USS Gurnard Melbourne 24-29 Oct. 1979 Submarine (SSN) USS Ponchatoula Sydney 2-8 Nov. 1979 Oiler (AO) USS Chicago Sydney 1-9 Nov. 1979 Cruiser (CG) USS Duluth Sydney 1-8 Nov. 1979 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Tripoli Sydney 1-8 Nov. 1979 Amphibious Assault Ship (HELO) (LPH) USS Tripoli Hobart 10-14 Nov. 1979 Amphibious Assault Ship (HELO) (LPH) USS Bristol County Melbourne 2-8 Nov. 1979 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Lang Newcastle 1-9 Nov. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Townsville 1-6 Nov. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Cairns 8-10 Nov. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Melbourne 15-17 Nov. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Perth 21-26 Nov. 1979 Frigate (FF) USS Mount Vernon Brisbane 1-10 Nov. 1979 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USCGS Polar Sea Sydney 6-10 Dec. 1979 Icebreaker (WAGB) USCGS North Wind Melbourne 29 Jan.-4 Feb. 1980 Icebreaker (WAGB) USCGS North Wind Brisbane 7-11 Feb. 1980 Icebreaker (WAGB) *USS Haddock Stirling 26 Mar-8 Apr. 1980 Submarine (SSN) *USS Los Angeles Stirling 1-7 Apr. 1980 Submarine (SSN) USS Dixie Sydney 17-22 May 1980 Destroyer Tender (AD) *USS Guardfish Stirling 16-21 May 1980 Submarine (SSN) USS Gridley Fremantle 23-28 May 1980 Cruiser (CG) USS Barbey Fremantle 23-28 May 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Alamo Fremantle 23-28 May 1980 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Okinawa Fremantle 23-28 May 1980 Amphibious Assault Ship (HELO) (LPH) USS San Bernadino Fremantle 23-28 May 1980 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Mobile Fremantle 23-28 May 1980 Amphibious Cargo Ship (LKA) USS Cook Darwin 12-15 May 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Cook Cairns 19-22 May 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Cook Sydney 26 May-14 June 1980 Frigate (FF) USS O'Callahan Sydney 26 May-14 June 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Kincaid Cairns 24-27 June 1980 Destroyer (DD) *USS Puffer Stirling 18-25 July 1980 Submarine (SSN) *USS Baton Rouge Stirling 25-30 July 1980 Submarine (SSN) *USS Tautog Stirling 14-20 Aug. 1980 Submarine (SSN) USS Reclaimer Brisbane 5-11 Aug. 1980 Salvage Ship (ARS) USS Oldendorf Bunbury 15-18 Aug. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Oldendorf Fremantle 19-25 Aug. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Marvin Shields Geraldton 15-18 Aug. 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Fremantle 18-25 Aug. 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Turner Joy Port Hedland 13-16 Aug. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Turner Joy Fremantle 19-25 Aug. 1980 Destroyer (DD) *USS Groton Stirling 6-11 Sept. 1980 Submarine (SSN) *USS Permit Stirling 12-17 Sept. 1980 Submarine (SSN) USS Oldendorf Fremantle 4-8 Sept. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Oldendorf Adelaide 12-17 Sept. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Oldendorf Hobart 20-25 Sept. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Oldendorf Melbourne 27 Sept.-3 Oct 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Marvin Shields Fremantle 4-8 Sept. 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Whyalla 13-17 Sept. 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Burnie 20-25 Sept. 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Melbourne 26 Sept.-3 Oct 1980 Frigate (FF) USS Turner Joy Fremantle 4-8 Sept. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Turner Joy Port Lincoln 12-17 Sept. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Turner Joy Devonport 10-25 Sept. 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS Turner Joy Melbourne 26 Sept.-3 Oct 1980 Destroyer (DD) USS New Orleans Fremantle 27 Sept.-3 Oct 1980 Amphibious Assault Ship (HELO) (LPH) USS Vancouver Fremantle 27 Sept.-3 Oct 1980 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Frederick Bunbury 27 Sept.-3 Oct 1980 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Racine Geraldton 27-30 Sept. 1980 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Ajax Sydney 26-30 Oct. 1980 Repair Ship (AR) *USS Omaha Stirling 10-17 Nov. 1980 Submarine (SSN) *USS Haddock Stirling 16-22 Dec. 1980 Submarine (SSN) *USS Philadelphia Stirling 23-29 Dec. 1980 Submarine (SSN) USS Independence Fremantle 2-7 Feb. 1981 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Harry E. Yarnell Fremantle 2-7 Feb. 1981 Cruiser (CG) USNS Navasota Fremantle 3-7 Feb. 1981 Oiler (AO) USS Charles F Adams Bunbury 2-7 Feb. 1981 Destroyer (DDG) *USS Memphis Stirling 6-11 Feb. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Tarawa Fremantle 8-13 Feb. 1981 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS St Louis Fremantle 8-13 Feb. 1981 Amphibious Cargo Ship (LKA) USS Barbour County Fremantle 8-13 Feb. 1981 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Brewton Townsville 10-13 Feb. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Brewton Sydney 17-23 Feb. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Rathburne Sydney 19-23 Feb. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Brewton Sydney 27-28 Feb. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Rathburne Sydney 27-28 Feb. 1981 Frigate (FF) *USS Gurnard Stirling 27-28 Feb. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Jason Fremantle 27-28 Feb. 1981 Repair Ship (AR) *USS Gurnard Fremantle 1-6 Mar. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Jason Fremantle 1-3 Mar. 1981 Repair Ship (AR) USS Brewton Sydney 4-7 Mar. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Rathburne Sydney 4-7 Mar. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Brewton Beauty Point 9-14 Mar. 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Rathburne Geelong 9-14 Mar. 1981 Frigate (FF) *USS Cavalla Stirling 15-22 Apr. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Tuscaloosa Geraldton 22-26 May 1981 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Tuscaloosa Fremantle 29 May-1 June 1981 Tank Landing Ship (LST) *USS Pintado Stirling 20-27 May 1981 Submarine (SSN) *USS Bluefish Stirling 29 May-3 June 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Dixon Sydney 18-23 May 1981 Submarine Tender (AS) USS Midway Fremantle 6-11 May 1981 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Reeves Fremantle 6-11 May 1981 Cruiser (CG) USNS Mississinewa Fremantle 6-10 May 1981 Oiler (AO) USS Kirk Geraldton 6-11 May 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Lockwood Bunbury 6-11 May 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Belleau Wood Fremantle 27 May-2 June 1981 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS Thomaston Fremantle 27 May-1 June 1981 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Thomaston Stirling 2 June 1981 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) *USS Los Angeles Stirling 6-13 July 1981 Submarine (SSN) *USS Cincinnati Stirling 8-13 July 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Kitty Hawk Fremantle 17-24 July 1981 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Halsey Fremantle 17-24 July 1981 Cruiser (CG) USS David R. Ray Fremantle 17-24 July 1981 Destroyer (DD) USNS Mississinewa Fremantle 20-24 July 1981 Oiler (AO) USS Wabash Fremantle 17-24 July 1981 Replenishment Oiler (AOR) USNS Navasota Fremantle 17-20 July 1981 Oiler (AO) USS Berekley Geraldton 17-24 July 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USS Hepburn Geraldton 17-24 July 1981 Frigate (FF) USS Hoel Bunbury 17-24 July 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USS Fanning Bunbury 17-24 July 1981 Frigate (FF) *USS Haddock Stirling 11-17 Aug. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS America Fremantle 25-31 Aug. 1981 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Preble Fremantle 25-31 Aug. 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USNS Mispillion Fremantle 25-31 Aug. 1981 Oiler (AO) *USS California Stirling 25-31 Aug. 1981 Cruiser (CGN) USS Richard S. Edwards Brisbane 31 Aug.-4 Sept. 1981 Destroyer (DD) USS Decatur Brisbane 30 Aug.-4 Sept. 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USS Samuel Gompers Melbourne 23-27 Aug. 1981 Destroyer Tender(AD) USS Decatur Sydney 7-14 Sept. 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USS Decatur Sydney 18 Sept. 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USS Decatur Sydney 26 Sept. 1981 Destroyer (DDG) USS White Plains Fremantle 15-21 Sept. 1981 Combat Stores Ship (AFS) *USS New York City Stirling 23-30 Sept. 1981 Submarine (SSN) *USS Bremerton Stirling 5-12 Oct. 1981 Submarine (SSN) *USS Flasher Stirling 22-28 Oct. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USS Okinawa Fremantle 3-9 Oct. 1981 Amphibious Assault Ship (LPH) USS Denver Fremantle 3-9 Oct. 1981 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Alamo Fremantle 3-9 Oct. 1981 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Schenectady Albany 4-9 Oct. 1981 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Okinawa Sydney 16-21 Oct. 1981 Amphibious Assault Ship (LPH) USS Denver Sydney 16-21 Oct. 1981 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Alamo Sydney 16-21 Oct. 1981 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Schenectady Sydney 16-21 Oct. 1981 Tank Landing Ship (LST) *USS Aspro Stirling 30 Nov.-7 Dec. 1981 Submarine (SSN) USCGS Glacier Brisbane 4-8 Dec. 1981 Icebreaker (WAGB) USCGS Glacier Sydney 10-18 Dec. 1981 Icebreaker (WAGB) USS Tripoli Fremantle 28 Jan.-3 Feb. 1982 Amphibious Assault Ship (LPH) USS Duluth Fremantle 28 Jan.-3 Feb. 1982 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Mount Vernon Fremantle 28 Jan.-3 Feb. 1982 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS Fresno Fremantle 28 Jan.-3 Feb. 1982 Tank Landing Ship (LST) *USS Tautog Fremantle 28 Jan.-3 Feb. 1982 Submarine (SSN) USS Dixie Sydney 14-18 Jan. 1982 Destroyer Tender (AD) USNS Yukon Fremantle 17-18 Jan. 1982 Transport Oiler (AOT) *USS Puffer Stirling 10-17 Feb. 1982 Submarine (SSN) USS Blue Ridge Sydney 13-18 Feb. 1982 Amphibious Command Ship (LCC) *USS Truxton Stirling 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Cruiser (CGN) USNS Mispillion Fremantle 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Oiler (AO) USNS Navasota Fremantle 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Oiler (AO) USS Constellation Fremantle 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Somers Bunbury 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Destroyer (DDG) USS Bagley Geraldton 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Oldendorf Fremantle 23 Feb.-1 Mar. 1982 Destroyer (DD) USCGS Polar Sea Sydney 28 Feb. 1982 Icebreaker (WAGD) USS Marvin Shields Sydney 15-22 Feb. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Sydney 15-22 Feb. 1982 Frigate (FF) USNS Yukon Sydney 10-28 Feb. 1982 Transport Oiler (AOT) USS Marvin Shields Sydney 3-6 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Adelaide 10-15 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Albany 18-23 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Sydney 3-4 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Melbourne 6-14 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Robert E. Peary Fremantle 19-25 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS J. F. Kennedy Fremantle 19-25 Mar. 1982 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Josephus Daniels Fremantle 19-25 Mar. 1982 Cruiser (CG) USS Mississinewa Fremantle 19-22 Mar. 1982 Oiler (AO) USS Proteus Fremantle 16-24 Mar. 1982 Submarine Tender (AS) USS San Jose Stirling 19-25 Mar. 1982 Combat Stores Ship (AFS) USS Barney Geraldton 19-25 Mar. 1982 Destroyer (DDG) USS Meyerkord Bunbury 19-25 Mar. 1982 Frigate (FF) USNS Hassayampa Fremantle 22-25 Mar. 1982 Oiler (AO) USNS Chauvenet Fremantle 29-31 Mar. 1982 Surveying Ship (AGS) *USS Sea Horse Stirling 19-26 Mar. 1982 Submarine (SSN) USNS Chauvenet Fremantle 1-3 Apr. 1982 Surveying Ship (AGS) *USS Truxton Brisbane 29 Apr.-5 May 1982 Cruiser (CGN) *USS Truxton Hobart 8-13 May 1982 Cruiser (CGN) USS Duncan Adelaide 30 Apr.-6 May 1982 Frigate (FFG) USS Duncan Hobart 8-15 May 1982 Frigate (FFG) USS Duncan Newcastle 15-19 May 1982 Frigate (FFG) USS Hector Melbourne 4-8 June 1982 Repair Ship (AR) *USS Cavalla Stirling 14-21 June 1982 Submarine (SSN) USS Wichita Fremantle 28 June-3 July 1982 Replenishment Oiler (AOR) USS Pelileu Fremantle 8-13 July 1982 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS Cleveland Fremantle 8-13 July 1982 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Peoria Fremantle 8-13 July 1982 Tank Landing Ship (LST) *USS Indianapolis Stirling 26 July-2 Aug. 1982 Submarine (SSN) USS Fletcher Cairns 27-29 July 1982 Destroyer (DD) USS Goldsborough Brisbane 22-26 July 1982 Destroyer (DDG) USS Goldsborough Hobart 30 July-2 Aug. 1982 Destroyer (DDG) USS Goldsborough Melbourne 4-7 Aug. 1982 Destroyer (DDG) USS Goldsborough Sydney 9-13 Aug. 1982 Destroyer (DDG) USS Ranger Fremantle 4-13 Sept. 1982 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS England Fremantle 4-13 Sept. 1982 Cruiser (CG) USS Paul F. Foster Fremantle 4-13 Sept. 1982 Destroyer (DD) USS Niagra Falls Fremantle 4-13 Sept. 1982 Combat Stores Ship (AFS) USNS Passumpsic Fremantle 4-13 Sept. 1982 Oiler (AO) USS Ouellet Albany 4-13 Sept. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Rathburne Geraldton 4-13 Sept. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Brewton Bunbury 4-13 Sept. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Whipple Bunbury 4-13 Sept. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Kiska Stirling 4-13 Sept. 1982 Ammunition Ship (AE) USS Fox Stirling 4-13 Sept. 1982 Cruiser (CG) *USS San Francisco Stirling 11-18 Oct. 1982 Submarine (SSN) USS Belleau Wood Fremantle 22-23 Oct. 1982 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS Ogden Fremantle 22-23 Oct. 1982 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) *USS Jacksonville Stirling 16-23 Nov. 1982 Submarine (SSN) USS Cayuga Fremantle 29 Oct.-5 Nov. 1982 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Knox Fremantle 11-15 Nov. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Francis Hammond Fremantle 26-27 Nov. 1982 Frigate (FF) USS Knox Bunbury 6-10 Nov. 1982 Frigate (FF) *USS Los Angeles Stirling 20-26 Jan. 1983 Submarine (SSN) *USS Omaha Cockburn Sound 30 Dec. 1982-6 Jan. 1983 Submarine (SSN) *USS Sea Dragon Hobart 27 Jan.-3 Feb. 1983 Submarine (SSN) *USS Enterprise Fremantle 20-26 Jan. 1983 Aircraft Carrier (CVN) *USS Bainbridge Stirling 20-26 Jan. 1983 Cruiser (CGN) USS Harry W. Hill Fremantle 20-26 Jan. 1983 Destroyer (DD) USS Sacramento Fremantle 20-26 Jan. 1983 Fast Combat Support Ship (AOE) USS O'Callahan Geraldton 20-26 Jan. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Reasoner Geraldton 20-26 Jan. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Hepburn Bunbury 20-26 Jan. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Hull Bunbury 20-26 Jan. 1983 Destroyer (DD) USS Waddell Albany 20-26 Jan. 1983 Destroyer (DDG) USNS Ponchatoula Fremantle 20-26 Jan. 1983 Oiler (AO) *USS Los Angeles Cockburn Sound 15-22 Feb. 1983 Submarine (SSN) *USS Sea Dragon Jervis Bay 12-14 Feb. 1983 Submarine (SSN) USS Hoel Darwin 1-4 Feb. 1983 Destroyer (DDG) USS Hoel Townsville 11-14 Feb. 1983 Destroyer (DDG) USS Hoel Sydney 18-28 Feb. 1983 Destroyer (DDG) USS Bradley Sydney 18-28 Feb. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Hoel Melbourne 10-14 Mar. 1983 Destroyer (DDG) USS Samuel Gompers Sydney 12-16 Mar. 1983 Destroyer Tender (AD) USS Bradley Melbourne 10-14 Mar. 1983 Frigate (FF) * USS Drum Stirling 31 Mar.-7 Apr. 1983 Submarine (SSN) USS New Orleans Fremantle 26-27 Apr. 1983 Amphibious Assault Ship (LPH) USS Vancouver Fremantle 26-27 Apr. 1983 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Durham Fremantle 26-27 Apr. 1983 Amphibious Cargo Ship (LKA) USS Barbour County Fremantle 26-27 Apr. 1983 Tank Landing Ship (LST) * USS Guitarro Stirling 5-9 May 1983 Submarine (SSN) USS New Orleans Fremantle 2-8 May 1983 Amphibious Assault Ship (LPH) USS Vancouver Fremantle 2-8 May 1983 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Durham Fremantle 2-8 May 1983 Amphibious Cargo Ship (LKA) USS Barbour County Bunbury 2-8 May 1983 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS John H Sides Albany 30 Jun.-6 July 1983 Frigate (FFG) * USS Carl Vinson Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Aircraft Carrier (CVN) USS Worden Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Cruiser (CO) USS Barbey Bunbury 1-7 July 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Ingersoll Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Destroyer (DD) USS Mount Hood Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Ammunition Ship (AE) USS Kansas City Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Replenishment Oiler (AOR) USNS Ponchatoula Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Oiler (AO) USS Cook Geraldton 1-7 July 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Roark Geraldton 1-7 July 1983 Frigate (FF) * USS Texas Stirling 1-7 July 1983 Cruiser (CGN) USS White Plains Fremantle 1-7 July 1983 Combat Stores Ship (AFS) * USS Phoenix Stirling 1-7 July 1983 Submarine (SSN) * USS Texas Brisbane 14-19 July 1983 Cruiser (CGN) * USS Texas Hobart 18-25 Aug. 1983 Cruiser (CGN) * USS Texas Albany 29 Aug.-1 Sept. 1983 Cruiser (CGN) * USS Boston Stirling 9-16 Sept. 1983 Submarine (SSN) * USS Boston Hobart 20-24 Sept. 1983 Submarine (SSN) USS Lockwood Sydney 7-12 Sept. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Lockwood Fremantle 21-23 Sept. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Sydney 7-12 Sept. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Fremantle 21-23 Sept. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Holland Fremantle 4-7 Sept. 1983 Submarine Tender (AS) USS Marvin Shields Geraldton 13-16 Oct. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Marvin Shields Stirling 17-25 Oct. 1983 Frigate (FF) USS Pelileu Fremantle 29 Oct.-4 Nov. 1983 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS Cleveland Fremantle 29 Oct.-4 Nov. 1983 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Monticello Fremantle 29 Oct.-4 Nov. 1983 Dock Landing Ship (LSD) USS San Bernadino Fremantle 29 Oct.-4 Nov. 1983 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Lockwood Port Hedland 13-17 Oct. 1983 Frigate (FF) USNS Mispillion Fremantle 31 Oct.-5 Nov. 1983 Oiler (AO) USS Cape Cod Darwin 1-4 Nov. 1983 Destroyer Tender (AD) * USS William H Bates Stirling 5-12 Dec. 1983 Submarine (SSN) * USS New York City Stirling 1-8 Feb. 1984 Submarine (SSN) USS Wadsworth Mackay 24-28 Feb. 1984 Frigate (FFG) USS Wadsworth Cairns 17-23 Feb. 1984 Frigate (FFG) USS Schofield Fremantle 27 Feb.-2 Mar. 1984 Frigate (FFG) USS Whipple Fremantle 27 Feb.-2 Mar. 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Bronstein Townsville 20-23 Feb. 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Bronstein Sydney 2-12 Mar. 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Wadsworth Sydney 2-12 Mar. 1984 Frigate (FFG) USS Bronstein Brisbane 22-26 Mar. 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Wadsworth Brisbane 22-26 Mar. 1984 Frigate (FFG) USS England Darwin 20-26 Mar. 1984 Cruiser (CG) USS Copeland Darwin 26-30 Apr. 1984 Frigate (FFG) USS Prairie Hobart 2-8 May 1984 Destroyer Tender (AD) * USS Tunny Stirling 4-11 May 1984 Submarine (SSN) USS Belleau Wood Fremantle 12-14 May 1984 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS Dubuque Fremantle 12-14 May 1984 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Ponchatoula Fremantle 12-14 May 1984 Oiler (AO) USS Bristol County Fremantle 12-14 May 1984 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Belleau Wood Fremantle 19-24 May 1984 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) USS Dubuque Fremantle 19-24 May 1984 Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD) USS Ponchatoula Fremantle 19-24 May 1984 Oiler (AO) USS Bristol County Fremantle 19-24 May 1984 Tank Landing Ship (LST) USS Copeland Fremantle 19-24 May 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Kitty Hawk Fremantle 22-27 June 1984 Aircraft Carrier (CV) USS Chandler Fremantle 22-27 June 1984 Destroyer (DDG) USS Wabash Fremantle 22-27 June 1984 Replenishment Oiler (AOR) USS Berkeley Fremantle 22-27 June 1984 Destroyer (DDG) USS O'Brien Fremantle 22-27 June 1984 Destroyer (DD) USS Mispillion Fremantle 22-27 June 1984 Oiler (AO) * USS Long Beach Stirling 22-27 June 1984 Cruiser (CGN) USS H.E. Holt Geraldton 22-27 June 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Davidson Geraldton 22-27 June 1984 Frigate (FF) USS L.B. Puller Bunbury 22-27 Juney 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Stein Bunbury 22-27 June 1984 Frigate (FF) USS H.E. Holt Exmouth 28-29 June 1984 Frigate (FF) USS Chauvenet Darwin 2-7 July 1984 Survey Ship (AGS) USS Proteus Stirling 13-19 Sep. 1984 Submarine Tender (AS) USS Proteus Darwin 28 Sep.-5 Oct. 1984 Submarine Tender (AS) * USS City of Corpus Christi Stirling 18-25 Sep. 1984 Submarine (SSN) * USS Aspro Darwin 28 Sep.-5 Oct. 1984 Submarine (SSN) USS Cimarron Fremantle 28 Sep.-5 Oct. 1984 Oiler (AO) USS Cushing Fremantle 28 Sep.-5 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DD) USS Waddell Fremantle 28 Sep.-5 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DDG) USS Waddell Adelaide 9-13 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DDG) USS Waddell Newcastle 18-22 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DDG) USS Cushing Melbourne 11-15 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DD) USS Cimarron Melbourne 11-15 Oct. 1984 Oiler (AO) USS Cimarron Hobart 16-20 Oct. 1984 Oiler (AO) USS Cushing Sydney 18-22 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DD) USS Paul F Foster Port Hedland 11-13 Oct 84 Destroyer (DD) USS Paul F Foster Fremantle 22-27 Oct. 1984 Destroyer (DD) * USS Dallas Albany 1-4 Nov. 1984 Submarine (SSN) * USS Dallas Stirling 6-12 Nov. 1984 Submarine (SSN) * USS Indianapolis Stirling 30 Jan.-7 Feb. 1985 Submarine (SSN) * Denotes vessel nuclear powered. (Question No. 21) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Which specific charities and non-government organisations received Federal funding in 1984-85. (2) What amount of Federal funding did each of these organisations receive in 1984-85. (3) For what specific projects and purposes will these funds be used. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Non-government organisations receiving federal funding of some form include business, union, educational, sporting, welfare, consumer, environmental, ethnic and other groups benefiting under a diversity of programs. Extensive effort would be required to identify satisfactorily the bodies concerned. Once identified, further significant effort would be required to identify the specific projects and purposes for which the payments or subsidies were made. The cost incurred in collating that information could not be justified. However details of funds provided to organisations under the Grant-in-Aid scheme are set out in the following table. 1984-85 Grant $ Attorney-General's Council for Civil Liberties 5,000 Shorter Trials Committee of Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporation 5,000 The Law Association for Asia and the Western Pacific 5,000 Aviation General Aviation Association of Australia 15,000 Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia 30,000 Communications The Australian Council for Radio for the Print Handicapped 25,000 Defence Royal United Services Institute of Australia 16,000 Education and Youth Affairs Australian Association of Adult Education 22,000 Australian Council of State School Organisations 45,000 Australian Parents Council 16,500 Australian Outward Bound Memorial Foundation 25,000 Employment and Industrial Relations National Safety Council of Australia 170,000 Foreign Affairs Australian Institute of International Affairs 40,000 United Nations Association of Australia 33,000 Home Affairs and Environment Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations 130,000 Museums Association of Australia 6,000 Federation of Australian Historical Societies 2,000 Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material 2,500 Housing and Construction Australian Fire Protection Association 30,000 Shelter Incorporated 35,000 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia 60,000 Industry and Commerce Australian Institute of Urban Studies 35,000 Prime Minister and Cabinet Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women 5,000 Young Women's Christian Association of Australia 5,000 ACTU Working Women's Centre, Melbourne 40,000 Country Women's Association of Australia 5,000 National Council of Women of Australia 8,000 Women's Electoral Lobby 5,000 Resources and Energy Australian Geoscience Council 3,000 Science and Technology Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science 10,000 Social Security Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded 35,000 Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled 220,000 Disabled Peoples International 100,000 Australian Council of Social Services 230,000 Australian Council for the Ageing 200,000 Australian Early Childhood Association 105,000 ACTU's Social Welfare Research Unit 25,000 Association of Civil Widows (ACW) 3,000 Special Minister of State Australian Institute of Political Science 3,500 Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration-National Council 7,500 Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration-(ACT Group) 4,000 Royal Humane Society of Australia 10,000 Transport Australian Motor Cycle Council 5,000 Veterans' Affairs Returned Services League of Australia 30,000 Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia 5,000 (Question No. 28) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: Was a vehicle, registered number ZHM 755, used by Telecom on 23 January 1985, if so: (a) was it being officially driven on the Gold Coast-Brisbane Highway between about 2pm and 2.30pm on 23 January 1985; (b) Is it Telecom policy that: (i) its drivers should show courtesy to other road users; and (ii) Its vehicles be driven no faster than speed limits set by State authorities; and (c) was there any valid reason for the vehicle being driven far in excess of the speed limit of 100 kph on this occasion. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: Yes. (a) Yes. (b) (i) Yes. (ii) Yes. (c) The driver concerned has stated to his supervisor that he is aware of Telecom's expectations regarding courtesy to other road users and observance of speed limits and cannot recall being discourteous to any other driver or exceeding the 100 kph speed limit on the return journey to Brisbane on 23 January 1985. (Question No. 30) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) Will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment inquire and obtain answers from each and every member of the Hawke Ministry to the question asked in Question on Notice No. 800 of the previous Parliament (see Hansard, 29 May 1984, page 2098). Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. If Senator Missen wants to pursue the subject, I suggest he approach individual Ministers himself. (Question No. 33) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: Is there a proposal to spend $60m for a new Australian Embassy in Poland; if so: (a) what stage has any such proposal reached; and (b) What is the reason for the apparently high cost of what could have been anticipated to be, of necessity, only a moderately-sized Embassy. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no such proposal. (Question No. 35) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Has the Australian Tourist Commission ever collected data on the value to the Australian tourist industry of the Australian duty free shopping industry, both at on-airport and off-airport sites; if so: (a) what is the estimated value to the Australian tourist industry of the duty free shopping industry in Australia, divided between the on- and off-airport sites; (b) if this information is available, why has no reference to the value of the duty free industry to the Australian tourist industry in general ever been mentioned in the Annual Reports of the Australian Tourist Commission, including the Annual Report for 1983-84 which was recently presented; and (c) if no such statistics have ever been sought or collated, why not. (2) What discussions (if any) have ever taken place between the Australian Tourist Commission and representatives of the Australian duty free industry, such as the Australian Duty Free Operators Association; if no such discussions have ever been initiated by the Australian Tourist Commission, why not. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) and (b): The ATC has not collected this data. (1) (c) Other activities have a higher priority. (2) Frequent discussions are held with members of the Australian duty free industry to update material in the Commission's publications. (Question No. 41) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Has the Ranger Uranium Mine constructed a pipeline from its water retention system to the Magela Creek with the intention of releasing radioactive and chemically contaminated water to the floodplains of the World Heritage Kakadu National Park. (2) Has the Office of the Supervising Scientist given permission for the contaminated water to be released; if permission has been or will be given: (a) when would release occur; (b) what water quality standards would apply; and (c) is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment satisfied that no damage will occur to the environment, and that tourists who fish in the area and traditional owners who collect considerable quantities of food from the area will be at no risk. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) (a) (b) (c) Ranger Uranium Mine has recently constructed a pipeline to enable release of water from water retention ponds directly to Magela Creek. Ranger has submitted an application to the supervising authority, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, for approval to release a quantity of mildly contaminated water from within the Restricted Release Zone of the mine by way of the pipeline. The Northern Territory Minister has not approved this application. However, the Minister for Mines and Energy has announced that he has authorised controlled release of good quality water from Retention Pond No. 4 at the Ranger uranium mine. Retention Pond No. 4 is outside the Ranger restricted release zone, and water has been released from it in previous years. The Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region has advised me that release of waters from Retention Pond No. 4 could take place such that no damage to man or the environment would occur. (Question No. 57) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: Who made the decision to advise Australians to prepare shelters and other necessities for survival in the event of nuclear war as outlined on page 20, section 3.5, of the Defence Department Booklet 'Nuclear Weapons-Their Effects and Your Protection.' Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The booklet ''Nuclear Weapons-Their Effects and Your Protection'' was produced by the Natural Disasters Organisation at the request of State and Territory Emergency Services. The Commonwealth Department of Health and the Department of Defence co-operated in the production. The booklet consolidates and updates information already available to the public in several other publications. It should be noted that page 20 section 3.5. of the booklet does not advise Australians to ''prepare shelters or other necessities.'' Such actions are listed along with other measures which could be taken should warnings of nuclear attack occur. The Senator is advised that the Minister for Defence has asked his Department to re-examine the booklet with other appropriate Departments, with a view to taking account of concerns such as expressed by the Senator during the adjournment debate on 27 February. It is expected that a revised booklet will be completed this year. This will be examined by the Minister for Defence prior to publication. (Question No. 60) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) What is the total number of successful land claims made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (the Act), including the: (a) names of the areas claimed; (b) dates upon which the claims were lodged; (c) area of land which each claim involved; and (d) dates upon which the grants were confirmed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (2) What is the total number of partially successful land claims made under the Act, including the: (a) names of the areas claimed; (b) dates upon which those claims were made; (c) area of land which was granted to Aboriginal owners in respect of each claim; and (d) dates upon which the grants were confirmed by the Minister. (3) What is the total number of unsuccessful land claims made under the Act, including the: (a) names of areas claimed; (b) dates upon which those claims were made; (c) area of land which each claim involved; and (d) dates upon which the Minister confirmed rejection of the claims. (4) What is the number of land claims made under the Act which have been lodged but are yet to be determined, including the: (a) names of areas claimed; (b) dates upon which those claims were lodged; and (c) area of land which each claim involves. (5) What is the anticipated number of claims still to be made under the Act, including the: (a) names of the areas yet to be claimed; and (b) area of land which each claim would involve. (6) What number of public reserves have been successfully claimed under the Act, including the: (a) names of those reserves; (b) area of land involved in each claim; (c) dates upon which the claims were lodged; and (d) dates upon which the grants were confirmed by the Minister. (7) What number of public reserves have been unsuccessfully claimed under the Act, including the: (a) names of the reserves; (b) area of land involved in each claim; and (c) dates upon which rejection of the claims was confirmed by the Minister (8) What is the number of claims upon public reserves made under the Act which have yet to be determined, including the: (a) names of the reserves; (b) dates upon which the claims were made; and (c) area of land which each claim involves. (9) What is the anticipated number of claims upon public reserves to be made under the Act, including the: (a) names of the reserves; and (b) area of land which each claim would involve. (10) What number of stock routes and reserves have been successfully claimed under the Act, including the: (a) names of the stock routes and reserves involved; (b) area of land involved in each claim; (c) dates upon which the claims were lodged; and (d) dates upon which the grants were confirmed by the Minister. (11) What number of stock routes and reserves have been unsuccessfully claimed under the Act, including the: (a) names of the stock routes and reserves involved; (b) area of land involved in each claim; (c) dates upon which the claims were lodged; and (d) dates upon which the Minister confirmed rejection of the claims. (12) What is the number of claims upon stock routes and reserves made under the Act which have yet to be determined, including the: (a) names of the stock routes and reserves involved; and (b) area of land which each claim involves. (13) What is the anticipated number of claims upon stock routes and reserves to be made under the Act, including the: (a) names of the stock routes and reserves involved; (b) area of land which each claim would involve. (14) What pastoral leases under Aboriginal ownership have been successfully claimed as Aboriginal freehold land under the Act, including the: (a) names of the properties involved; (b) area of land which each claim involved; (c) dates upon which each claim was lodged; and (d) dates upon which the grants of freehold land were confirmed by the Minister. (15) What pastoral leases under Aboriginal ownership have been unsuccessfully claimed as Aboriginal freehold under the Act, including the: (a) names of the properties involved; (b) area of land which each claim involve; (c) dates upon which claim was lodged; and (d) dates upon which rejection of the claims was confirmed by the Minister. (16) What number of pastoral leases under Aboriginal ownership have been claimed as Aboriginal freehold land, but are yet to be determined, including the: (a) names of the properties involved; (b) dates upon which the claim involves; (c) area of land which each claim involves. (17) What is the anticipated number of claims yet to be made upon pastoral leases under Aboriginal ownership for grants of those leases as Aboriginal freehold land, including: (a) names of the properties; and (b) area of land which each claim would involve. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to Senator Kilgariff's question: Past and present Ministers have implemented and maitained a throughly public process in respect of land claims under the Aboriginal Land rights (Northern territory) Act 1976. This has involved the tabling in both Houses of this Parliament of all Reports by the Aboriginal Land Commissioners in respect of Land Claims, and all of their Annual Reports. In addition Ministers have publicly announced their decisions, and the Office of the Land Commissioners periodically forwards to the Senator notices in respect of new claims lodged as well as details of the disposition of all land claims under the Act. The information sought is therefore publicly available and consequently I am not prepared to direct the resources of my Department to undertake what is essentially a compilation exercise. (Question No. 62) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Was the Australian Government advised by Dr Warwick Raymont in February 1967 that the chemical o-TOLIDINE, used to test the chlorine content in swimming pools and drinking waters, had been banned in 1966 by most civilised countries because it was found to be one of the most dangerous cancer causing chemicals known. (2) Is there a risk to a person whose skin comes into contact with the chemical o-TOLIDINE, even in one part per billion concentration. (3) Do re-agent kits used in Australia to test pool chlorine contain o-TOLIDINE and is this chemical referred to as 'OT'. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My Departmental staff cannot find any record of advice from Dr Warwick Raymont on this subject. If the honourable senator is able to provide information on the capacity in which Dr Raymont may have given such advice, and the administrative area to which the advice may have been directed, then I shall arrange for further enquiries to be made. I am not aware of any country where all use of o-tolidine is banned, although regulations governing its use vary widely. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commenting on the toxicity of dyestuffs, issued the following recommendation in 1980: 'The available literature on dyes based on o-tolidine and o-dianisidine, while less extensive and definitive than that for benzidine-based dyes, suggests that these compounds and/or their contaminants may present a cancer risk to workers and should be handled with caution and exposure minimised'. O-tolidine is certainly not one of the most dangerous cancer-causing chemicals known. It does not appear in the lists of known or probable carcinogens issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in October 1982. The use of this substance in test kits for chlorine has been kept under review by the National Health and Medical Research Council. It was last discussed by the Poisons Schedule Committee on 6 February 1985, where the following points were made: (i) Evidence of carcinogenicity in animals was inconclusive. (ii) There was no evidence that alternative test substances for chlorine were any safer. The Committee therefore recommended against further restriction of o-tolodine. It remains in Poison Schedule 6, when packed for use in water testing. (2) Judging from the evidence available, any such risk is likely to be minuscule. However, it is not possible to guarantee that there is no risk whatsoever. (3) Some reagent kits used in Australia do contain o-tolidine. It is generally referred to as OTO. (Question No. 63) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: Is the 'People for Nuclear Disarmament' peace bus, which was present in Brisbane during February 1985, receiving funding through any of the Government's employment schemes; if so: (a) through which scheme is this group receiving funding; (b) how much funding has been granted; (c) on what grounds was the funding granted; (d) has funding under any of the Government's employment schemes been granted to any other political groups, and, if so- (i) what are the names of those political groups, and (ii) on what grounds were grants given. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. Yes. (a) The Community Employment Program (CEP). (b) $74,756. (c) To provide up to 39 weeks work experience and training for 6 people, from the CEP target groups of the long term unemployed and other people especially disadvantaged in their job search, to refurbish a bus as a mobile facility and to promote disarmament education in schools, shopping centres and local communities. The project was approved and funding granted in accordance with the CEP guidelines and agreed Commonwealth/State administrative procedures. (d) This information is not available as prospective sponsors of projects under the Government's employment schemes are not required to declare whether or not they are ''political groups''. (Question No. 73) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Do patients who travel from remote areas of New South Wales to the Royal North Shore Hospital for the performance of an abortion have entitlement to a refund of their travelling costs under the Isolated Patient Travel Scheme, but if they travel to the same hospital for procedures connected with the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) program they are not entitled to a refund under the Scheme; if so: (a) does this situation arise because simply there is no ''item number'' for IVF procedures, and for no other reason; and, if so, does the Minister consider this a valid and proper reason; and (b) what is the Government doing to ensure that this scandalous bureaucratic maladministration of the health system is corrected. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Provided all other eligibility criteria are met, IPTAAS benefits are available for termination of pregnancy by specialist medical practitioners because this procedure is listed in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Benefits are not presently available for IVF related travel because this service is not a specific item within the Schedule. The Scheme is administered in accordance with Part III of the National Health Act. Since the establishment of IPTAAS in 1978 a nexus between the Schedule and IPTAAS has been considered appropriate, not only to define the range of services covered by IPTAAS, but also to ensure taxpayers' funds are used only in connection with proven forms of medical treatment. Obviously there will always be a period of necessary investigation and evaluation before a new medical procedure can be considered for inclusion in the Schedule. The decision on IVF procedures has been further complicated by unresolved legal and ethical issues. A committee established by the Government is reviewing the Medicare Benefits Schedule and has received and considered submissions on the inclusion of IVF in the Schedule. While I am not in a position to speculate on the committee's findings, if IVF as a procedure were to be included in the Schedule, benefits would become available for IVF related travel provided the remaining IPTAAS eligibility criteria were met. (Question No. 80) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of a submission made by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) of Australia (Queensland Branch) to a Queensland Government Committee of Enquiry into the Transport of Petroleum Products; if so: will the Minister investigate the TWU allegations of phantom free trade between States and delivery of petroleum products to bogus depots while subsidies are claimed and received by independent wholesale distributors, or 'jobbers', for delivery to country areas, and of dangerous overloading of tankers threatening community safety. (2) Does the Minister agree with a suggestion made by the union in its submission that the freight subsidy scheme should be abolished as it is being abused by 'jobbers' at tax payers' expense. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I am not aware of the specific allegations of abuse of the Scheme contained in the submission to which Senator Jones has referred. Senator Jones previously asked a question on the allegations of abuse of the Scheme made by the TWU and reported in the Brisbane Daily Sun on 27 February 1985. As I advised Senator Jones at that time, I have arranged for the Collector of Customs Queensland to have senior officers contact the Queensland Branch of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) of Australia and enquire into the nature of these allegations. I might add that the allegations of overloading which imply some danger to community safety are matters for the Queensland Government. (2) Any allegations of abuse will be investigated and if substantiated appropriate action will be taken. (Question No. 81) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to a submission put to the Queensland Minister for Transport, the Hon. D. F. Lane, in January 1985 by the State Service Division of the Motor Trades Industry of Queensland which recommends the consideration of the withdrawal of the Federal Government's freight subsidy on all petroleum products delivered by road transport because of allegations of a series of malpractices involving price-hiking and safety factors and the consideration of a freight subsidy to petroleum products only when these products are despatched by rail; if so, will the Minister examine and identify the reasons for these recommendations relating to Federal subsidies. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am not aware of the contents of the submission made to the Queensland Minister for Transport by the State Service Division of the Motor Trades Industry of Queensland. The issues involving the methods of transportation of petroleum products were, I understand, covered by the inquiry initiated by the Queensland Government. The purpose of the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme is to subsidise the cost of transporting eligible petroleum products namely motor spirit, automotive distillate and aviation fuels to country areas, so that consumers pay no more than 1.2 cents/litre of transport costs. The subsidy is paid on deliveries of eligible products to country locations regardless of the method of transportation. As I have previously advised Senator Jones concerning the allegations of abuse reported in the Brisbane Daily Sun, the Collector of Customs, Queensland will arrange for senior officers to contact Mr Harris, executive director of the Motor Trades Industry in relation to these allegations. (Question No. 82) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of claims, by the Transport Workers Union of Australia (Queensland Branch), that conditions in petroleum product depots in some areas of Queensland, are totally unsafe and that many of these depots are operated by firms in receipt of Federal Government subsidies. (2) Will the Minister order a thorough investigation before further Commonwealth money is expended to shore up the unsafe operation of some independent wholesalers of petroleum products who allegedly have depots without connected water, telephones or fire extinguishers, broken electricity cables leading to the danger of static electricity and petroleum products becoming a volatile cocktail and a general run-down of safety standards leaving the community as a whole at risk in several areas of south-east Queensland, notably Toowoomba and Ipswich. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The safety aspects of storage depots are the responsibility of the Queensland Government. (2) See also my answers to Questions No. 80 and 81. (Question No. 83) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of a regular practice adopted by some wholesalers, subsidised by the Federal Government under the petroleum freight subsidy scheme, of paying their drivers by the trip, and in one case forcing them to maintain average speeds of 75 kilometres per hour; if so, will the Minister consult with the Transport Workers Union of Australia (Queensland Branch), which identified this practice to obtain details with a view to removing offending companies from the subsidy scheme. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The points raised do not fall within the administration of the subsidy scheme. The enforcement of speed limits is the responsibility of the Queensland Government. See also my answers to Questions No. 80, 81 and 82. (Question No. 85) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Are Aboriginals being trained as pilots; if so, are they limited to training on single-engined aircraft and would increased training, including as paramedics enhance their value in the medical air ambulance service. (2) Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree that it is important for Aboriginal pilots to be involved in any service which maintains contact with those Aboriginals living in isolated areas; if so, is it not necessary for these pilots to receive training on twin-engine aircraft in order to be so involved. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) A number of Aboriginal people throughout Australia have been trained, and are training, as pilots under the Training for Aboriginals Program (TAP) which is administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Pilot training under TAP is not limited to single-engine aircraft. Training commences on single-engine aircraft and some trainees progress to a full commercial pilot's licence (twin-engined aircraft). Paramedic training is not a requirement for appointment to the Royal Flying Doctor Service or the medical air ambulance service. The RFDS requires a commercial pilots licence, first class instrument certificate and 3,000 flying hours of which 1,500 hours must be in a twin-engined aircraft. The pilot training programs are approved for Aboriginals on the basis of obtaining employment generally in aerial mustering or in servicing remote communities with medical supplies and other goods. (2) Yes. While twin-engined certification is considered to provide the best employment prospects, in many areas single-engined aircraft are as readily available as twin-engined aircraft and therefore the level of training and certification is determined by the particular job aspirations of individual trainees. (Question No. 86) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What is the current establishment and how many staff are actually employed at the Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland. (2) How many staff positions are vacant at the Greenslopes Hospital and how long have these positions been vacant. (3) Why was it considered necessary to reduce the number of beds in Ward 14 at the Greenslopes Hospital from 30 to 20 when there is still such a large number of veterans requiring psychiatric specialist treatment. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The establishment for the Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes at 1 April 1985 was 1235 full-time positions while the staffing was 1170 full-time and 105 part-time operative staff (which equates to 65 full-time). It should be noted that the 1170 full-time staff include 191 supernumerary staff employed without establishment cover. A large proportion of these additional staff comprised officers entering employment at the base levels for which establishment cover is not necessary. (2) There are 183 vacant positions at the Repatriation General Hospital and 101 positions have been vacant for longer than three months. (3) The number of available beds in Ward 14 at Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes remains at 30. However, following a review of Psychiatric Specialist resources in October 1984, it was decided to restrict the number of in-patients to 20. This is subject to continual review. There is a general shortage of specialist psychiatrists in Queensland and considerable difficulty has been experienced in attracting both full time and visiting staff to Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes. There are currently no staff psychiatrists despite the regular advertising of vacancies. It is anticipated that a Senior Specialist will be able to take up appointment in a few months. Applications for a further visiting psychiatrist were invited in February and are being processed. I am not aware of any patient requiring hospitalisation who has not been able to be treated either as an in-patient at Repatriation General Hospital Greenslopes or through other hospitals as arranged by my Department. (Question No. 87) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Why is the over 70's Age Service Pension of $102.90 per fortnight not indexed to accommodate movements in the consumer price index, given that the pension rate for under-70 Service Pensioners is so-indexed, and why does it not attach any fringe benefits or even a pension card which ensures concessions on travelling expenses, etc. (2) Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs approve this discrimination between service pensioner groups. (3) Does the Minister consider that over 70's Age Service Pensioners are immune from the effects of inflation and price rises. (4) Will the Minister act before the 1985-86 budget to have the over 70's Age Service Pension rate indexed and/or raised so that this group's purchasing power is not further eroded below the present $39 per week (in 1978 terms); if not, why not. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) Service pensioners aged 70 years and over are eligible to receive an indexed pension subject to the regular income test which applies to all pensioners. Under this test, pension is reduced when income is in excess of $30.00 a week for a single pensioner or $50.00 a week combined for a married couple. Pension ceases to be payable when income reaches $213.80 or $356.60 a week respectively. (b) Pensioners over 70 years of age with levels of income (that might otherwise prevent them from receiving a service pension or result in a small pension under the regular income test) are subject to a special, more generous income test. The special income test, operative since 10 November 1983, applies only where application of the regular income test would result in an amount of pension payable that is less than $51.45 a week ($102.90 a fortnight) for single pensioners or $85.80 a week ($171.60 a fortnight) combined for married pensioners. This rate does not begin to reduce further until a 70 year old single pensioner's income exceeds $200.00 a week or $333.00 a week combined if married. Pension under this test does not cut out until income reaches $302.90 a week for a 70 year old single pensioner or $504.60 a week in the case of a married couple. (c) A pensioner aged 70 years or over can qualify for the full range of pensioner fringe benefits, including travel concessions, subject to the same income limits as apply to pensioners under 70. A pensioner whose other income has resulted in reduction of pension to $51.45 a week does not qualify for fringe benefits because his/her income is in excess of the prescribed limits. (d) To index the rate of pension at which the special income test applies would assist service pensioners who already enjoy an advantage over other pensioners and would necessitate Government expenditure which could otherwise be used to help more needy members of the community. (2) The discrimination between service pensioner groups is, in this case, to the advantage of pensioners at or over 70 years of age with higher levels of income. (3) No. Pensioners of or over 70 years of age already receive indexed pensions unless their other income is such as to have their pension assessed under the special income test. (4) As indicated above, service pensions are already indexed. No further provision is warranted for those who already can take advantage of the special income test. (Question No. 89) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Was Signalman Thomas Peter Gorden Bladen (NX5872) discharged from the Australian Imperial Forces Class D because of a psychopathic personality on 7th October 1943 at the Australian Defence Forces Hospital at Concord, Sydney; if so (2) Did the Repatriation Board, in Sydney on 1st February 1944, accept this disability, psychopathic personality, as due to the soldier's war service; and (3) Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs advise whether there was any supporting evidence, written or otherwise, that this soldier was in fact a psychopath; if there was no supporting evidence, will the Minister explain the reason for such deliberate slander. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) From early 1943 Mr Bladen was for some months in 7 Australian Camp Hospital (ACH) and in May 1943 he was described by an Army medical officer as 'borderline psychosis-schizophrenic'. On 29 July 1943 he was referred to a Medical Board with a provisional diagnosis of 'anxiety state'. He was made Class C and transferred from 7 ACH to 113 Australian General Hospital (AGH), Concord, for further investigation. A medical examination for reclassification on 16 August 1943 recommended Class D and he was referred to a Medical Board on that day with a diagnosis of 'psychopathic personality'. On 26 August 1943 the Medical Board reported that the veteran appeared and felt well but was unlikely to become an efficient soldier. The Board supported the diagnosis 'psychopathic personality' and assessed him Class D. The classification was approved on 1 September 1943. The veteran was transferred out from 113 AGH to General Details Depot on 3 September 1943. His date of discharge from the Army was 7 October 1943. In early 1981 the veteran contacted the Department of Veterans' Affairs and protested against the diagnosis 'psychopathic personality'. He was referred on 1 April 1981 to a psychiatrist who advised that his disability would be more appropriately described as 'personality disorder with depression'. On 20 May 1981 a delegate of the Repatriation Commission amended the service-related incapacity from 'psychopathic personality' to 'personality disorder with depression'. I have provided this detailed information because I understand that Mr Bladen has sought it by means of a Parliamentary Question on Notice and Answer. (Question No. 97) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) In light of shortages in the labour market for foreign exchange dealers reported in the 1984-85 Budget Statements, Budget Paper No. 1, does the Minister for Finance anticipate further shortages in the future. (2) Has the entry of foreign banks into Australia affected the labour market for foreign exchange dealers. (3) Can the Minister detail the States in which shortages in the labour market for foreign exchange dealers have occurred. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The current shortages in the labour market for foreign exchange dealers are expected to persist to some degree over the next 12-18 months. The shortages result from a major increase in demand for this occupation arising from the deregulation of the Australian financial system, the granting of additional licences for foreign exchange dealers, and the recent decision to allow entry of foreign banks into Australia. To compensate for the shortfall in domestic sources of supply, I am advised that approval has been given to the recruitment of foreign exchange dealers from overseas as part of an arrangement negotiated between the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Australian Merchant Bankers Association. The terms of this arrangement require the member banks of the Association to boost their domestic training efforts to provide for the long-term needs of the industry. Likewise, any further applications for overseas recruitment of foreign exchange dealers will be assessed having regard to the Government's policy objective of enhancing employment and training opportunities for Australians. (2) The entry of foreign banks into Australia is expected to add significantly to the demand for foreign exchange dealers and related money-market workers. (3) Shortage of foreign exchange dealers have been reported in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. (Question No. 110) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Will construction of the natural gas pipeline from Young to Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow in New South Wales cost approximately $30m, according to current estimates. (2) To what extent, if any, is it proposed that the users of the natural gas provide a proportion of the cost of this construction. (3) Has it been agreed that the amount provided by users should not be more than 10 per cent higher than the Sydney tariff. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) If a decision were made to construct a natural gas pipeline from Young to Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow, it has been estimated that the cost would be about $35m (at current prices). (2) If the pipeline were constructed and operated by the Pipeline Authority, the Commonwealth instrumentality responsible for the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines, the Authority would be required to recover all of the costs involved over the period of contract. The tariff payable by gas users would be a matter for negotiation or determination by the organisation or organisations responsible for reticulation, subject to any price controls imposed by the State Government. (3) No. (Question No. 111) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Who is responsible for arts funding in so far as it relates to Arts Councils throughout Australia. (2) Who has primary responsibility for Arts Councils in Australia. (3) What are the levels of funding by Federal and State governments to Arts Councils for each year from 1980 to 1985. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am advised by the Australia Council that no single organisation is responsible for funding Arts Councils throughout Australia. Various bodies with arts support responsibilities fund the Arts Councils according the specific assessment criteria and the availability of funds. Traditionally, the major sources of support have been the State Arts funding authorities and the Australia Council. Within the Australia Council the support has predominantly come from the Community Arts Board. (2) I am also advised by the Australia Council that each State Arts Council operates independently and, with the exception of Western Australia which has a statutory basis, the Australia Council is not aware of any other government agency at either State or Federal level, which has a declared statutory responsibility. (3) I am further advised by the Australia Council that State arts funding authorities have provided between 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the aggregate of Government support to Arts Councils throughout Australia. Between 1980/81 and 1982/83 the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council approved a total amount of funds to the Arts Council of Australia, Federal Division, which distributed the funds to the Arts Councils in each State according to a standard formula of funding which took into account, among other things, geography and demography. Funds provided by the Australia Council to the Arts Council of Australia during that period are as follows: $ 1980/81 715,000 1981/82 643,000 1982/83 756,000 In 1983/84 the Community Arts Board, after consultation with the Arts Councils federally and at state levels, adopted a new basis for funding the State Arts Councils which dispensed with the previous formula and enabled base grants, plus any additional grants, to be paid direct. Funds provided by the Australia Council since 1983/84 are as follows: 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ Arts Council of Australia, Federal Division 120,000 5,000 Arts Council of New South Wales Ltd 149,362 159,000 Victorian Arts Council 103,200 82,600 Queensland Arts Council 107,850 86,300 Arts Council of South Australia Inc. 68,200 73,000 Western Australian Arts Council 72,200 77,000 Arts Council of Australia, Tasmanian Division Inc. 59,200 63,000 Arts Council of Australia, (Northern Territory Division). 51,350 51,400 Arts Council of Australia, A.C.T. Division 29,800 24,000 761,162 621,300 (Question No. 114) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Did the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism receive a request from the Australian Duty Free Operators Association for a copy of a report prepared by an inter-departmental committee chaired by the Minister's Department on the subject of Inward Duty Free Shopping; if so: (a) did the Minister write to the President of the Australian Duty Free Operators Association (Mr P. Spies) on 18 October 1984 and inform him, inter alia, that 'the sponsoring Departments did not proceed with a report on the subject', and (b) does the Annual Report 1983-84 of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism state (at page 110), in regard to this inter-departmental committee on Inward Duty Free Shopping, that: 'The Inter-Departmental Committee completed its report . . .' (2) If the answer to both (1) (a) and (b) above is yes, which statement is correct. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes (a) and (b): Yes. (2) A specific report per se was not prepared by the IDC on this matter. The report referred to in the Department's Annual Report 1983-84 relates to the inputs by Departments into the preparation of the Cabinet submission. (Question No. 119) Senator Rae asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Has the review of the add-on cost of employment, foreshadowed by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, in October 1983, occurred; if so: (a) by whom was the review undertaken; and (b) what were the review panel's recommendations, and when will they be implemented; and, if the review has not occurred; (c) when will the Government review this significant cost burden on industry; and (d) why has the delay of some 18 months occurred since the Minister foreshadowed the review. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The issue of on-wage labour costs continues to be of concern to the Government. When I spoke in October 1983, I made the point that although on-costs in Australia are not significantly different from the OECD average, this was, nevertheless, an issue that had to be addressed. In answer to ensuing questions, I said that Governments had to address some of these costs but unions and employers also had some responsibility. I did not foreshadow any formal review and there is no formal review, as implied by Senator Rae's questions, but a number of initiatives have been taken by the Government, the progress of which have been hindered by the lack of statistical information and resources. It has been proposed that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should carry out a feasibility study of surveying of labour costs. The ABS Submission for increased funding required to carry out this study, has been put to Cabinet for consideration, a program for the study is being devised and the first survey should be conducted in the second half of 1987. Since the issue of on-costs impinges on the Prices and Incomes policy, the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes has spent some time examining this. A draft report on developments in total labour costs, including on-costs, will be considered at its next meeting in late June. It is intended that this report will be published following discussion within the Committee. In addition, the Committee is to undertake further research into all aspects of labour on-costs. In any case a large range of labour on-costs arise from conditions of employment which are prescribed in awards. The potential cost impact of developments in employment conditions has been recognised by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the formulation of the wage fixation principles. In the preamble to these principles the Commission states: 'Increases outside national wage-whether in the form of wages, allowances or conditions, whether they occur in the public or private sector, whether they be award or over-award-must constitute a very small addition to overall labour costs'. (Question No. 126) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Do many Australians encounter quite considerable difficulty, and expense, when endeavouring to renew Australian passports while travelling overseas because Australian passports are only renewable by physically presenting oneself at an Australian Embassy or Consulate; if so, is there any way that the procedure for the renewal of passports can be streamlined to minimise such inconvenience and expense. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australian passports are issued for a maximum of five years, and after that period of validity the holder applies for a new passport. My Department has received very few reports of difficulties and expense encountered by Australians travelling overseas as a consequence of the requirement since 1 July 1984 that applicants for Australian passports should attend an Australian Embassy or Consulate for a personal interview. This is not surprising as authorised officers have the discretion to waive the requirement for personal attendance when an applicant for a replacement passport has an urgent need to travel and the applicant's bona fides are not in doubt. A passport issued in these circumstances is made valid only for a period sufficient to enable the applicant to attend for a personal interview at any Australian post overseas or a Passports Office on return to Australia. (Question No. 128) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) In the view of the fact that recently released details from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that mineral exploration expenditure has fallen from $32m to $11.6m in just three years in the Northern Territory, and in view of the fact that the Northern Territory mining industry has repeatedly indicated that the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is one of the causes of the rapid drop in mineral exploration activity in the Territory, what proposals within the Federal Government's preferred national Aboriginal land rights package will ensure that access to Aboriginal land for mineral exploration will be permitted. (2) In view of the fact that not one single mineral exploration agreement has been negotiated on granted Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory during the past eight years, during which the Federal Government's Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 has been in operation, and in view of the grave concern of the Northern Territory mining industry at the implications of the Federal Government's preferred national land rights model, what initiatives does the Minister for Resources and Energy propose to undertake to overcome the difficulties the Northern Territory mining industry anticipates will result from the operation of the legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Federal Government's preferred model for Aboriginal land rights seeks to address the major constraints on access to Aboriginal land for mineral exploration purposes. The model makes clear that there will be no veto or defacto veto over exploration or subsequent development of Aboriginal land for mining or petroleum purposes. Consistent with the concept of balancing competing interests in land, provision is made for Aborigines to indicate whether they wish exploration and mining to proceed on their land and to reach a negotiated settlement on the terms and conditions to apply. In the event of a dispute, or if agreement cannot be reached within a six month period, the preferred model provides for the matter to be referred automatically to a tribunal for consideration with each party having the opportunity to argue its case. The final decision on whether and on what terms exploration is to proceed will rest with the Government. Approval to explore on Aboriginal land carries with it the right to proceed to development if successful, subject to agreement of, or arbitration on, satisfactory terms and conditions at that stage. The preferred model also addresses the questions of the costs, delays and uncertainties experienced in the past in obtaining approval to explore and mine on Aboriginal land. Compensation payments will be determined on the basis of actual damage or disturbance incurred and will not be based on the value of minerals likely to be discovered or mined, or the capacity of the company to pay. The terms and conditions under which exploration may proceed on Aboriginal land, including protection of declared sacred sites and compensation for damage and disturbance to the land, will be set out in legislation and will be taken into account by Government in determining whether exploration may take place. The dispute resolution process will be subject to specified time limits. Having obtained approval to explore, the company will be able to seek renewal of that title without the need for further negotiation, subject of course to the terms and conditions remaining appropriate. The Government believes the preferred model provides an effective framework for addressing issues associated with exploration and mining on Aboriginal land. The Government has invited Aborigines, the mining and petroleum industries and other interested parties to examine the proposed mechanisms in detail and to put forward suggestions that will lead to a workable arrangement. The Government will be finalising its position in the light of submissions from all interested parties. (2) The Commonwealth has had the question of amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act under review for some time. The Government's preferred model for national land rights makes it clear that the Northern Territory Act would be amended consistently with the preferred model. Consultations have been held with the Northern Territory Government and the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines on this issue. In general they have welcomed the recognition given in the preferred model to the difficulties facing exploration and mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and have indicated their willingness to put forward suggestions to find a workable arrangement as far as the Territory is concerned. My Department will continue to work closely with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Northern Territory authorities to ensure that an equitable balance is achieved between the interests and expectations of the mining and petroleum industries and the Aboriginal community. (Question No. 143) Senator Reid asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) How much money was allocated in 1984-85 for technical equipment for disabled Commonwealth employees. (2) What moneys have been spent to date in 1984-85 for technical equipment for disabled Commonwealth employees. (3) What types of disability amongst public servants have been assisted by the availability of technical equipment in 1984-85. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In 1984-85 $30,000 was allocated to the Public Service Board to purchase technical aids for Public Service Act staff with disabilities, to be provided under the Technical Equipment for Disabled Commonwealth Employees Program (TEDCEP), (formerly known as the Aids for Disabled Commonwealth Employees Program and initiated with a grant of $60,000 in 1983-84). (2) $29,552 (which included freight costs) has already been expended, allowing a small amount for contingencies still to come, such as repairs to items on loan, and relevant freight costs. (3) Technical equipment purchased this financial year under TEDCEP has permitted public servants with the following types of disability to be assisted to some extent: nine people with hearing impairments have been provided with items to the value of $8,315; nine people with visual impairments have been provided with equipment worth $20,134; one person with haemophilic arthritis have been lent equipment valued at $515; and one person with upper limb deformity has been lent equipment valued at $354. (Question No. 144) Senator Reid asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) How many public servants are attending courses run by the Public Service Board or tertiary institutions for members of the Commonwealth Public Service. (2) How many interpreters and note-takers are available to assist a deaf public servant participate in such courses. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The training and development statistics for the period 1 July to 31 December 1984 indicate that 9 031 public servants attended courses run by the Public Service Board. Since 1 July 1984, 85 public servants have attended, under the sponsorship of the Public Service Board, courses run by tertiary institutions; these courses are not specifically designed for members of the Commonwealth Public Service. Departmental statistics on the numbers of public servants attending public sector orientated courses run by tertiary institutions are not centrally collated by the Public Service Board. (2) The Public Service Board knows of only two people in Canberra who are sufficiently proficient to provide interpreting for in-service training. A further 18 casual interpreters of varying degrees of experience and proficiency have recently indicated an interest in providing their skills. The Board is hoping to have their level of skill assessed shortly by the National Accreditation Authority for Interpreters and Translators (NAATI). The Public Service Board is unaware of any full-time notetakers in the ACT. NAATI has advised that there are in Australia 36 accredited sign interpreters and 35 accredited lipspeakers available as interpreters but not only for the Commonwealth Public Service. The table below indicates the availability of these interpreters Australia-wide. Sign Interpreters Lip Speakers Level 3 (never Level 1 Level 2 tested) Level 1 Level 2 N.S.W. 3 7 0 4 9 Vic. 3 8 0 4 8 Qld 0 5 0 0 3 S.A. 3 0 0 4 0 W.A. 0 7 0 0 3 Tas. 0 0 0 0 0 N.T. 0 0 0 0 0 A.C.T. 0 0 0 0 0 Australia 9 27 0 12 23 The associations for the deaf in each State have also advised that there are a further approximately 16 full-time interpreters, 39 casual interpreters and 20 casual notetakers but their availability to the Commonwealth Public Service is not a high priority. (Question No. 158) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What mechanisms are used by the Australian Government or by international bodies to monitor the abuse of human rights in the Philippines. (2) What measures are being taken to evaluate the sale or donation of military equipment to the Philippines and the training of Philippine military servicemen in Australia. (3) Is ASIS involved in the training of Filipino military intelligence agents at its Swan Island facilities. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government devotes considerable time and resources to keeping itself informed about human rights developments in countries throughout the world, including the Philippines. The Australian Embassy in Manila is under standing instructions to provide regular reporting on the human rights situation and to follow up specific cases which have been referred to it. The Embassy obtains information from a variety of sources, both official and non-governmental. The Government complements reporting from Manila with information from other sources including the press, publications such as the United States Department of State's 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' submitted to Congress annually, and reports from a number of non-government organisations, including Amnesty International, which follows developments in the Philippines. The Government also takes note of reports submitted by the Philippines to United Nations bodies, notably the Commission on Human Rights, and also the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to which the Philippines reports as a State Party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (2) The Defence Co-operation Program with the Philippines ($1.755 million in 1984/85) comprises mostly training and technical advisory assistance related to Australian equipment supplied previously under the Program. The Program is determined in accordance with Philippines priorities and is designed to develop defensive capabilities and to assist in the transfer of technical and managerial skills which the Australian Services are well placed to provide. It is evaluated regularly through annual DCP consultations with the Philippines; annual visits to assess training requirements; visits to monitor progress of the various projects; reports by Australian project team leaders; visits by Australian experts to projects; and reports by the Australian Defence Attache. No military equipment has been sold to the Philippines in recent years. (3) In accordance with the well-established and bipartisan practice followed by successive Australian Governments, I do not intend to comment on the matters raised in this question beyond noting that the activities and effectiveness of Australia's security and intelligence organisations have been reviewed by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies whose reports are currently being considered by the Government. (Question No. 177) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 March 1985. (1) Are the present whereabouts of Robert Trimbole known to the Government? (2) Did the Government instruct any Australian law enforcement personnel to maintain knowledge of Trimbole's whereabouts following his release from Mountjoy Prison on 6 February 1985; if no such instruction was given, why was it not given; if such an instruction was given, what reasons are there for a failure to monitor Trimbole's whereabouts. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As I stated in a telex to Senator Mason on 19 February 1985, the Government is taking all steps available to it to secure Mr Trimbole's return to Australia. The Government is being kept informed of current international investigations to locate Mr Trimbole. I am not prepared to give any further information, at this stage, on the present whereabouts of Mr Trimbole because it may prejudice those investigations. (2) Yes; as to the consequential question, see my answer to question 1. (Question No. 186) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What recognition is the new Community Services Department giving to regional development in establishing personnel and offices throughout Australia. (2) Will the Department give special consideration to the highly decentralised nature of Queensland and establish positions in major regional cities to facilitate more effective communications and reduce travel budgets. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Community Services (DCS) has no immediate plans to establish regional offices outside State capitals. The Department already has some regional capability through its Rehabilitation Centres. (2) Once the Department has been fully established, the question of establishment of greater regional capability will be further considered. Senator Walsh —On 28 February (Hansard, page 330) Senator Sir John Carrick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question: My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, refers to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, and public broadcasting generally. Did the Government announce in the Governor-General's Speech any intention at all to make any legislative or regulatory changes in these fields? Does the Government have any such intention and, if so, what is the nature of that intention? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 27 February 1985 I announced that amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act) and associated legislation would be introduced as soon as possible to provide for the determination of service areas and related technical conditions for licensed broadcasters, the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). The introduction of the service area amendments will streamline and modernise existing legislation and enable it to cope with the demands for new and technologically advanced services. While it is proposed to apply the service area concept to the SBS, no changes will be made to its operating provisions until the Government has made a decision on its future role. The Committee of Review of the SBS reported to the Government on 31 December 1984. A number of recommendations contained in the Report would, if accepted, require changes in the present legislation. I will also be making a statement on this aspect when the Government has had an opportunity to consider the Report. The Government intends to introduce amendments to the ABC Act during the Budget sittings which will invest the ABC with a greater degree of freedom in the exercise of its powers and functions under the legislation. Specifically, the amendments will empower the ABC to: establish subsidiary companies to undertake business activities appropriate to the activities of the ABC in association with private companies; provide for the forfeiture of office of ABC employees on certain grounds consistent with the provisions of the Public Service Act; and enable the ABC to employ staff as unattached officers consistent with the Public Service Act. Amendments will also repeal the Minister for Communications' power to prohibit broadcasts as this is a power which is considered to be incompatible with the freedom of a democratic society in time of peace. The position of the staff elected Director on the ABC Board will also be formalised in time for future elections. Senator Grimes —On 19 March 1985 (Hansard, page 379), Senator Hearn asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question concerning hospital fees in respect of new born babies. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The general position is that benefits provided by registered health insurance funds are payable only for an eligible person who is an 'in-patient' at a hospital. This applies also to the Commonwealth bed day subsidy payable to private hospitals. The definition of 'in-patient' for the purposes of the Health Insurance Act excludes a newly born child whose mother also occupies a bed in the hospital except under the following circumstances: (a) a newly born child who occupies a bed in an intensive care facility in a hospital, being a facility approved by the Minister for the purposes of this sub-section, for the purpose of the provision of special care shall be deemed to be an in-patient of the hospital; and (b) where there are two or more newly born children of the same mother in a hospital and those children are not in-patients of the hospital by virtue of paragraph (a)-each such child in excess of one shall be deemed to be an in-patient of the hospital. A newly born child is regarded as a child 10 days old or less. These arrangements are long standing and well understood by both hospitals and health insurance funds. Senator Ryan —On 25 March 1985 (Hansard, page 702) Senator Reynolds asked me the following question without notice: Is the Minister for Education aware of teacher and parent concern about the way in which Federal education funds are allocated in Queensland? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that State schools are being repainted with community employment program funds? Will the Minister discuss accountability procedures with her ministerial colleague, Ralph Willis, and ensure that the Queensland Government is not propping up its ailing economy by misdirecting Federal education and job creation funds? In my reply, I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, who has provided the following response: A number of schools on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, are receiving Community Employment Program (CEP) funding for internal and external painting and rust removal. The total cost is $211,479, of which the CEP is providing $139,576. State Government departments and authorities are bona fide sponsors under the CEP and State government submissions, like all applications, are assessed against the CEP guidelines and considered by a broad-based CEP Consultative Committee on a comparative assessment basis having regard to agreed objectives and priorities. The CEP Guidelines allow sponsors to seek funding for planned projects where the projects are brought forward by a period of more than 12 months. The project was funded on the basis that it represented an acceleration of work previously planned by the State Government and that it provides worthwhile work experience for six disadvantaged job seekers from the CEP target group. As such, it meets the CEP guidelines for funding and in no way involves a misdirection of job creation funds.