Tuesday, 21 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and 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 Governments failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets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 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to Government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 465 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The undersigned are convinced that an alliance, including full military co-operation, between Australia and the United States is indispensable to the defence security of the Australian Commonwealth; that every alliance involves co-operative arrangements of a practical nature; and that the following arrangements are indispensable to the effective conduct of A.N.Z.U.S. and any similar agreement, to wit; the reception of U.S. naval shipping (nuclear and non-nuclear) in Australian ports; the maintenance of the present U.S. installations in Australia; reasonable co-operation by Australia in U.S. missile testing programmes. Your petitioners, therefore, pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled, that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 19 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the dumping or disposal of radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter into the sea. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators and I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems-Report of the Committee of Review-Vols 1-3-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made in the House of Representatives on the 20 May 1985. 2. Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-Annual Report for year ended 13 August 1984-Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. 3. Science and Technology Statement for 1984-85. 4. Australian Egg Board-Financial Statements and Audit Report for 1984-85-Pursuant to section 8 of the Egg Export Legislation Repeal Act 1984. 5. Anglo-Australian Telescope-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Now that he has had a chance to study the draft White Paper on taxation, can he answer the question asked by Senator Short two weeks ago, namely, will the White Paper address the issue of business tax reform? Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the long-running debate over the proposal to acquire new submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Can the Minister say what stage this project is at and whether there will be opportunities for Australian industry in the construction of the submarines? Senator BUTTON —This morning the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, announced the selection of two submarine design teams to undertake project definition studies on the Royal Australian Navy's new submarine project. Two consortia are Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft or HDW of West Germany, and Kockums of Sweden. The Government has announced a clear intention to have six submarines constructed in Australia. A final decision on the construction location and the precise extent of Australian industry involvement will have to await the outcome of the project definition studies. We can be sure that the project will provide real long term opportunities across a wide range of technological and service activities. The Australian build will provide maximum opportunities for Australian industry to become closely involved in the project. Assessments on the project have indicated a high degree of capacity on the part of Australian industry to perform the major construction tasks associated with the project and world class capacity in terms of some of the high technology areas, particularly electronics, involved in the project. This announcement by the Minister for Defence this morning is a major opportunity for Australian industry to demonstrate that it has the engineering capabilities and competitive edge to ensure the success of this very important project. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I remind him that in answer to a question last Thursday he said in relation to the Government's policy on discounting of the consumer price index for devaluation: . . . because it is not likely to be significant in the September national wage case, the Government will not argue for discounting of the devaluation induced consumer price index effect . . . I refer him to the answer that Senator Button gave to a question that I addressed to him yesterday in relation to the same subject and the September national wage case. He said: . . . we will examine the position with regard to that hearing at that time . . . Did the Minister mislead the Senate last week by saying that a decision had been taken on discounting, or was Senator Button misleading the Senate yesterday when he said a decision would not be taken until the hearing in September? Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to what I said last week. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to allegations that local government will have to retrench staff as a result of the Government's decision on Commonwealth funding to local government announced in last week's economic statement? Is there any truth in that allegation? Senator WALSH —I have seen such allegations and they are, of course, baseless. I was a little surprised to be told yesterday that they had been repeated, apparently uncritically, by Senator Peter Rae in the debate on the Appropriation Bills. The decision announced last week is that local government will receive a 2 per cent real increase in funds from the Federal tax sharing arrangements. How anyone could conclude that any organisation which was granted a 2 per cent real increase in funding would, as a result of that decision, be forced to retrench staff, is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture. It is plainly untrue that any local government authority will have to retrench staff because of that decision. It is of course possible that some local authorities may not be able to engage additional staff which they may have planned to engage. For example, I noticed recently an advertisement from the Melbourne City Council advertising a position on a three-year contract at $31,230 a year for a 'sector strategist'. I was not aware of what a 'sector strategist' is or what a sector strategist's duties may be, so I read through the rest of the advertisement and was enlightened in this way: The sector strategist will be responsible for developing -implementing policy in relation to a number of sectors in the inner urban economy and will work closely with a range of public, private and labour movement bodies. And so it went on in similar imprecise terms. I was expecting to come across a line which informed me that the sector strategist would 'interact at the interface' but that was not there! Whether any local government authority decides to retrench an existing staff member in order to engage, say, a sector strategist or a number of sector strategists is, I suppose, a matter for decision of that local government authority. But the fact remains that no local government authority will be required to retrench staff because of the quite generous decision, under the circumstances, of the Federal Government to increase tax sharing payments to local government in the next financial year by 2 per cent in real terms. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment: Is it true that three export woodchip licences operating out of Tasmania are due to expire at the end of 1988 and that the Government is awaiting a final environmental impact statement into the overall impact of the industry? What steps, independent of the EIS, will the Federal Government take to assess prudent and feasible alternatives to woodchipping operations on the National Estate? If, as seems highly likely, the final environmental impact statement fails to provide a proper basis for a decision on whether or not to provide woodchip export licences after 1988 and under what conditions, will the Government consider holding a public inquiry under the Environment Protection Act into this matter of national importance? Senator RYAN —I can give Senator Chipp some information in answer to the questions he asks. It is true that the Government is waiting for a final environmental impact statement on woodchipping in Tasmania and that export licences are due to expire at the end of 1988. A draft environmental impact statement on this subject is now in the hands of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. A period of public comment, as required by the Act, concluded on 15 May, after having been extended for three weeks by the Minister at the request of conservationists. Hundreds of submissions were received and all will obviously take some time to assess. The EIS will be redrafted by the proponents, again, as required by the Act, taking into account the public's comments. A final EIS will then be considered by the Department and the Minister and a decision made as to whether it forms an adequate basis for Commonwealth decision. This process is likely to take some time given the large number of substantial submissions. Any speculation about what the Government may or may not do if the EIS does not meet the requirements under the Act would be premature and would pre-empt the outcome of an established statutory process. However, I say in conclusion that I was just advised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate that he and the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, also have this matter under review. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy indicate the amount of revenue earned by the production of radio-isotopes at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's research establishment at Lucas Heights in the last financial year? Can he outline the costs involved in such production? Can he give an indication of the amount it would cost Australia to import radio-isotopes for its domestic use? Senator GARETH EVANS —The figure for the production of radio-isotopes in 1983-84 is $2.252m. As to the costs involved in producing sales of that order, the overall costs in 1983-84 were $3.073m, which includes administrative costs, sales costs and indirect and direct manufacturing costs. As the Commission competes in the Australian radio-isotope market with multinational companies, giving any more detailed production costs information than that is a matter of commercial sensitivity and I cannot be more precise. As to the question of imports of radio-isotopes, the AAEC is one of several suppliers of radio-isotopes to the Australian market. In meeting its market share, the AAEC both produces and imports radio-isotopes. While the cost to Australia if all radio-isotopes were imported would be market dependent, I note that the AAEC provides a specialised service to customers which would not be available if all radio-isotopes were imported. In addition, and quite crucially, it has to be appreciated that some of the medical radio-isotopes have a very short half-life and if the AAEC did not produce them domestically they would not be available for medical use in Australia. I should add that the whole question of full cost recovery by the Atomic Energy Commission for its radio-isotope production has been the subject of a degree of public interest over a period and of consideration on earlier occasions. The conclusion, however, until now has always been that, given the competitive nature of the market, while full cost recovery is certainly desirable, the character of the market is extremely price elastic and any increase in price would rapidly result in a decline in the Australian share of that market. So it is a nice matter of judgment as to just how far one goes down that track. Senator PARER —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister that at the last election the Opposition presented a taxation policy which contained specific initiatives aimed at providing tax justice to families with children. Can the Minister say whether Cabinet, in the course of its discussions on the White Paper on taxation, has considered two proposals put forward by the Liberal and National parties, namely, income splitting for pay as you earn taxpayer couples with children and the introduction of child care tax rebates for two-income families and single parents? Will the White Paper contain any reference to either of these proposals? Senator WALSH —I do not think Senator Parer can seriously expect that I will have a discussion here about what might have been discussed in Cabinet about tax reform. If he is particularly interested in the view of the Liberal Party being presented at the summit I suggest he ask his leader to reconsider his decision not to participate in the summit despite having an invitation to do so. On the question of income splitting, however, independent of any Cabinet discussion, this was one of the issues raised by the Opposition during the last election campaign. Precisely what it meant was very hard to determine and, indeed, it was a shifting target depending on whether one was listening to Mr Peacock, Mr Howard or Mr Sinclair. Mr Howard, who is the most responsible of that trio, was proposing a somewhat lower cost option. The big hit income splitting arrangement which had been proposed by Mr Peacock and Mr Sinclair would have cost the revenue $1,800m-$1,800m. That is equal to about 6.5 per cent of total tax revenue which would have had to have been recovered from other taxpayers. The tax question is a zero sum game as long as the fiddling and distributing of the income and other tax burden between existing taxpayers are the limits of the adjustments made. The only way it ceases to become a zero sum game for present taxpayers collectively is if the tax base is broadened to bring in people who are currently in one way or another evading or avoiding taxation. If Senator Parer is interested in closing off completely the sorts of contrived neo-fraudulent tax avoidance schemes for which Australia has become notorious in recent years, I suggest he change his vote on the retrospective tax legislation which this Government from time to time brings into the Senate in order to deter for ever this practice. It has been demonstrated that Part IVA of the 1981 Act is not entirely effective or watertight in relation to the charity trust stripping case. It does not impose a prohibition on highly contrived and neo-fraudulent tax avoidance schemes. That has been shown in the trust stripping charity case. Underlining the argument which has been used by the Australian Labor Party for many years, the one action which would kill that sort of tax avoidance, theft or near-theft stone dead was a credible threat of retrospective legislation to ensure that people who indulged in those practices sooner or later would be forced to repay the money which they had effectively stolen from other taxpayers in the first place. Senator COATES —Has the Minister for Community Services seen reports that the Tasmanian Government is considering closing up to 31 small kindergarten centres and sacking up to 50 teaching staff as a result of the decision about Commonwealth block grants to the States for pre-schools? Can the Minister clarify the position regarding the effects of the cessation of the block grants? Are the Tasmanian Government's predictions of inevitable wholesale reductions in pre-school programs justified? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen reports and, indeed, I saw Mr Beswick, I think it was, on television making the claims and assertions that Senator Coates pointed out. I can say initially only that if Mr Beswick and his Government decide to do such a thing it would not, I suggest, be because of any cuts by this Government; it would be because they saw those kindergartens and pre-schools, in their view, as having a low priority. Senator Watson —Why are they not treated the same as New South Wales? Senator GRIMES —I am sorry that the honourable senator does not read the telegrams or statements by Mr Walker. Pre-school funds were provided by Federal governments as far back as 1974. Initially they were provided as capital funds to build pre-schools. Recurrent costs were also provided at that time. For established pre-schools the Commonwealth agreed to meet the differences between State contributions and award salaries provided the States maintained their level of funding. From January 1976 the previous Government reduced those funds and, in 1977, they were reduced to just over $30m. Funding has stayed at that level since then. Pre-schools are accepted as being the responsibility of the State governments. Many State governments, including the Tasmanian Government, have incorporated most of those pre-schools into the education system. Pre-school funds have been eroded by inflation year after year and there has been a general recognition that they are State responsibility. Commonwealth governments, both conservative and Labor, have more and more funded child care centres, family day care, occasional care and a multiplicity of other sorts of care. During the time that the pre-school block grant has diminished in value we have heard very little from Mr Beswick or the Tasmanian Government because, at the time the funds were reduced, there was a conservative government. During the time that the pre-school block grants have been dropping in value there have been considerable increases in other, untied, funds from the Commonwealth Government to the States which can be used by the States. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission report Tasmania has been more than compensated over the years by extra grants which are available for the Tasmanian Government to use. At the moment that Government is spending something like seven times as much as the Commonwealth contribution on pre-schools. To suggest that because it will lose $1m it will have no other sources, either from Commonwealth funds or from its capacity to raise funds itself, to keep these small pre-school kindergartens going and to keep people in jobs is absolutely ludicrous. The problem with Mr Beswick, Mr Gray and his colleagues is that they scream restraint. They call on the Federal Government to cut funds but whenever those cuts affect them they try to blame the Commonwealth. They take it out on small groups in rural areas in the north-east of Tasmania in order to try to boost their votes in those areas. It will not work. If Mr Beswick and his colleagues close those pre-schools it will be because they do not see the priority in that area and do not see that those pre-schools are valuable. I see that they are valuable and I am sure that the parents who send their kids there see them as being valuable. If the Tasmanian Government is not willing to take part in the economic restraint being exercised at the moment that is its choice. I remind honourable senators that over the years when the pre-school funds were being eroded by inflation we heard not one word from Senator Walters, Senator Watson, Mr Gray or Mr Beswick. They are indulging in a party political stunt. They know it and the people know it. Senator COLLARD —As a long time supporter of capital gains taxation does the Leader of the Government in the Senate also believe that there is a new need to broaden the tax base through the introduction of a general consumption tax? Does he believe that the effect of any such tax on retailers would be as serious as has been claimed by representatives of that industry and unions covering retail workers? Senator BUTTON —I certainly see the necessity and desirability of broadening the taxation base, in respect of both direct tax and indirect tax. I have held that view for some time. The question of what sort of taxation regime is introduced is ultimately one for the Government following the taxation summit to be held in July this year. The effect of various taxes-and no taxes are painless to everybody-will have to be considered by the Government in that context and an appropriate decision will be made having regard to the difficulties which taxes impose on various sectors of the community. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. The Minister will recall my question regarding the enforced granting of legal aid to Mr Brian Maher, a prominent business identity. Can the Minister tell the Senate what the current position is with regard to this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Attorney-General that, following proceedings by Mr Maher in the Federal Court of Australia which resulted in the Attorney-General being required, for technical reasons, to reconsider his initial refusal to grant Mr Maher aid, the Attorney proposed arrangements for the defence of Mr Maher at his trial. The arrangements were that the Commonwealth would meet the cost of Mr Maher's defence as follows: For counsel, $5,000 for initial preparation and a fee of $400 per sitting day; for the solicitor, $2,500 for preparation and $250 per sitting day, plus essential disbursements. These terms were established following consultation, I think it should be said, with the Queensland Justice Department and reference in particular to the Public Defender's Office in that State. The Attorney was satisfied on the basis of that consultation that the rates proposed were appropriate in Queensland for a lengthy and complex criminal trial of the kind that this will be. Mr Maher's solicitors, however, have indicated that they are not willing to act for him on the terms authorised. Mr Maher informed the Supreme Court of Queensland on 16 May that he was endeavouring to engage another solicitor on the arranged terms, but he advised the court on 20 May that those endeavours were unsuccessful. His present solicitors have said to the Commonwealth Attorney that, despite wide inquiries within the profession, they have been unable to find any other practitioner who would be prepared to act on those terms-which says something for the quality and professionalism-- Senator Chaney —Everyone is entitled to be represented. Senator GARETH EVANS —It says a great deal, I think, listening to Senator Chaney's interjection, for the quality and professionalism of the legal profession in Queensland. That is one reason, no doubt, why I was booed when I raised the question of costs at a legal convention there in 1983. Senator Chaney —We can give you other reasons. Senator GARETH EVANS —Triumphant vindication. Mr Maher's solicitors have now informed the Commonwealth that he has been granted legal aid by the Queensland Legal Aid Commission to institute further proceedings in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. These proceedings were commenced yesterday and a hearing has been set down for 24 May, with the Commonwealth being required to file any further material by 9 a.m. on 23 May. The trial has in fact started, with the Crown case going ahead tomorrow. However, I understand that a full transcript of the case has been ordered by the trial judge for subsequent use by Mr Maher's counsel in the event that he is ultimately granted legal aid by somebody and finds a lawyer willing to do the job for him. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Finance to the speech by the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Fraser, at the Conference of Economists in Sydney last week, when he said: Given the stimulus that a sustained, large depreciation is capable of imparting to already strong private sector demand (not to mention its inflationary impact), the need to cut back the deficit (and public borrowing in general) is greater now than might have been envisaged at the time the Trilogy commitments were made. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary's assessment? Further, given the Minister's confidence last week that increases in government revenues resulting from depreciation will more than offset higher outlays-a surplus some commentators have estimated at as high as $1 billion-will the Government take Mr Fraser's advice and apply the extra revenue to the deficit reduction process? Senator WALSH —I have read much of Mr Fraser's speech, if not all of it, and have noted that he referred to the strong private sector demand which already exists, something which is the reverse of the position which applied when this Government came into office just over two years ago. One can only agree with his forecast that because of the devaluation there will be further stimulus to the domestic economy, not only in the exporting sector but also in the import competing sector. The Government has been committed for some time to a reduction not only in the deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product but also to the nominal deficit estimated for this year at $6.7 billion. The Government remains committed to a reduction in that nominal deficit. The precise amount of that reduction will be determined in the Budget context, but it ought to be noted that a reduction in the nominal deficit means a very much more substantial reduction in the deficit as a proportion of GDP. With the parameters that were anticipated at the end of last year, the deficit in 1985-86 could have been around $7.7 billion without being a higher proportion of GDP. So a reduction to $6 billion is a very substantial reduction indeed. I cannot give Senator Vanstone the exact size or even an approximation of the deficit that will actually be produced in the Budget process. I can, however, give her a guarantee that this Government will not behave in the irresponsible fashion in which the Fraser Government behaved in its desperate last few months of office when it went on a wild spending spree in the 1982-83 Budget, which, it was ultimately revealed, left us facing a prospective $9.6 billion deficit when we assumed office in March 1983. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Was the matter of the labelling of alcoholic beverages informally discussed in Brisbane last week? Are any steps being taken to place health warnings on alcoholic beverages? Senator GRIMES —I did see an article in one of the newspapers which stated that at the Health Ministers Conference in Brisbane there were discussions about the labelling of alcoholic beverages in the same way as tobacco products are labelled. Dr Blewett, who was at the conference for both days, assured me that he at no time heard any proposals brought forward officially or unofficially, nor does he know of any unofficial or behind the scenes discussions about the possible labelling of alcoholic products in this manner. Certainly, no such proposals were put before the conference or before the Federal Minister. We cannot say that some of the State Ministers did not discuss this matter. I do not know of any such proposals being brought up in the past. I am not sure whether such a proposal was put to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare when we discussed the matter some years ago. It has always interested me that the liquor industry seems at all times to be very afraid of something like this happening, to the extent that it makes statements such as that which it was quoted as making in the article to the effect that it is all right for the Government to label tobacco products because there is good evidence that tobacco is unhealthy but there is no evidence that alcohol is unhealthy. I think that is carrying the argument to pretty desperate straits. Another problem is that the general community's attitude to alcohol is quite different from that which has developed to tobacco. I notice that in all the reviews of new wines and new vintages of wines, in particular in the newspapers, we have long paragraphs about the bouquet, the taste, the after-taste, the tannin content and whether grapes came from one side of a hill or another, but the reviews never report on how quickly wines make one drunk or what sort of hangover they give. We have a long way to go to educate people that alcohol is at times harmful and can even make one fall over. I dare say that at some time the Health Ministers will discuss this question, but there is no such proposal before the Health Ministers at the moment. I make an earnest request to all members of hotel associations and liquor producers associations not to write to all of us giving us their views because their views are quite clear from the article that we have read in the newspaper. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw attention to the presence in the gallery of members of a delegation from the Congress of Mexico, led by Senor Lugo Gil, who are on an official goodwill visit to Australia. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to the members of the Mexican delegation a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the answer to a question on anti-ballistic missiles which the Minister gave to me on 15 May. In particular I refer to his statement: Australia has made clear that it does not endorse SDI or its Soviet counterpart. When and where has the Government previously indicated either to this Parliament or to the Australian public its acknowledgment that the Soviet Union is well advanced in anti-ballistic missile research of the nature with which the Government declines to co-operate with the United States of America, and when and where has the Government previously made it clear that it does not endorse this Soviet research and development? Finally, can the Government state with certainty, as the Minister has in his answer, that the existing Russian ABM system and the nature and directing of its radar system are within the 1972 ABM treaty? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the latter part of the question, I believe that I did state with certainty our impression that the overt physical installations that do exist were within the terms of the ABM treaty. Senator Sir John Carrick —Where is the evidence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take that on notice and I will also take on notice the first part of the question in order to give a more substantial reply than I would otherwise be able to do without a full brief before me. Senator DEVLIN —Has the Minister for Finance seen criticism of the supporting documentation issued by the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs following the Government's May statement of savings? Can he comment on the doubt cast on the Government's actions in respect of the O'Brien decision? Senator WALSH —I have noted criticism of the decision arising from the O'Brien and Nancy Law cases, particularly from the Australian Democrats who, some cynical people might say, have decided that this offers an opportunity to add one per cent to that coalition of single issue groups which they hope to stitch together to enable some of them to survive at the next election. I would not be so cynical as to say that, but I think we ought to look at the longer term implications of those two High Court of Australia decisions. Together within five or six years they would have increased expenditure above previous estimates by some $400m. The Government has not entirely overturned those two decisions, but to the extent that we have announced our intention to change the legislation there will be savings of $8m in 1985-86, $33m in the next year, $78 in the next year and, according to a Press release put out by the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs, some $650m in the peak year-I think some 12 to 15 years down the track. I am not sure whether the Democrats have understood precisely what the Government intends to do. In particular, I am not sure whether the Democrats have understood that under the proposed changes there will be no reduction in the entitlements of Vietnam veterans, at least for 40 years after they ceased to serve in Vietnam. There will be no change at all in their entitlements. The Democrats might well have a guilty conscience over those Vietnam veterans; Senator Chipp in particular has good grounds for having a guilty conscience over the Vietnam veterans because in 1965 he presided over the first of the death lotteries-as they used to be called in those days-when the first potential conscripts were balloted into the Army and subsequently sent to Vietnam, where some- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is debating the issue. I suggest he get back to the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I table the then Prime Minister's answer to a question on notice of 10 March 1965 about that. I assure the Democrats that notwithstanding the well-founded guilty conscience that at least some of their members have, the entitlements of Vietnam veterans will be protected. Of course, we can do nothing for the 600 or so who were either killed in Vietnam or subsequently died because the Government of which Senator Chipp was a member sent them to Vietnam; but those who have survived will be protected. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I ask that the paper from which the Minister was quoting be tabled. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the paper? Senator WALSH —Yes, Mr President. Senator Chipp —And he had better be ready to debate it after Question Time. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Does he recall my question some months ago about the concern of professionals about the lack of representation for the psychiatrically disabled on the Disability Advisory Council of Australia? Does the Minister agree that such representation would be valuable in recognising and meeting the needs in the community? Further, in view of the anticipated additional pressure on the Commonwealth to provide services through the handicapped persons assistance program, the home and community care program and the supported accommodation assistance program, can he assure minority groups such as the psychiatrically disabled that these programs will adequately meet their needs? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I remember the question asked by Senator Messner at that time. I certainly have had representations, particularly from the College of psychiatrists, and groups like that, about lack of representation of the psychiatrically ill on the Disability Advisory Council of Australia. The problem is that we have only a limited number of places on such a body and there are endless numbers of representatives of various groups, including the hearing impaired and others, who claim that they should also be represented on that body, as well as claims at various stages from some of the States and Territories that they were underrepresented. We decided, therefore, to rotate the membership of that Council and, of course, the psychiatrically ill will be under consideration when we make some changes to that Council-I think perhaps in July. As for ensuring that those with psychiatric illnesses are adequately represented by programs in the home and community care scheme and the supported accommodation assistance program, at the moment both those schemes are picking up primarily existing programs that were funded under those Acts. I have had requests from the State governments in particular to pick up under the home and community care scheme the psychiatrically ill, those who are in acute hospitals who can be discharged earlier if home and community services are available. My reply has been that in the future I would expect and hope that that may happen; but at the moment the home and community care program is primarily aimed at groups such as the aged and the disabled who are already covered by the programs we are picking up. If we suddenly expanded that program to include all the psychiatrically ill, we would end up in an impossible situation in a very short time, whereby those who are already covered would be inadequately covered and there would be a general inadequacy of cover because of the huge ballooning out. I also remind honourable senators that for years the States have had responsibility for the treatment of the mentally ill. In fact, they have guarded that responsibility very closely. In recent times they have, certainly with my approval and, I believe, the approval of most of us here, aimed at de-institutionalising those who are mentally ill whom they have had in mental hospitals and other institutions. That has been done at considerable cost to the Federal exchequer because we have had to pick up a lot of the costs through our community care programs and through the provision of invalid pensions which otherwise may not have been paid. I believe that the State governments which take part in such praiseworthy de-institutionalisation programs also have a responsibility to provide the community care which should be available for those whom the States are not putting into institutions or those who are leaving institutions. In my view the States have not done that. In many cases they have diverted the funds which were previously used to care for the psychiatrically ill into other areas which they may think are more politically attractive or more electorally attractive areas. I do not believe it is the Commonwealth's responsibility to pick up the funding for every program that State governments introduce. For that reason I am not willing to open up the home and community care program in particular for psychiatrically ill patients in the way that some of the States would like. But I am certainly conscious of the need for psychiatrically ill people to be represented in such forums as the Disability Advisory Council of Australia. They will certainly be under consideration when the next appointments are made. Senator Chipp —I take a point of order, Mr President. I know that Senator Walsh likes to treasure those little bits of paper which he shoves into his drawer marked 'dirt'. I asked for the papers from which he was quoting to be tabled. The Minister has tabled one paper, an extract from Hansard. I am not the slightest bit interested in that. I want to know the other filth that he was reading from and I want him to table all the papers from which he quoted today in answer to that dorothy dix question. I made that very clear when I asked, in accordance with the procedures of the Senate, for those papers to be tabled. I now ask that they be tabled. Senator Walsh —I was not-- Senator Chipp —Slink back to your cabinet marked 'dirt'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister whether he was quoting from documents. Senator Walsh —I was not quoting from a document. I have a couple of handwritten notes about this and about another question. I am quite happy to table them. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has tabled the document as requested. Senator MESSNER —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for Community Services for his answer. There was just one point on which he did not elaborate. He raised the issue of the States and their demands on funding. I want to make the point: Has he considered the role which self-help groups for the psychiatrically disabled can play through the home and community care program and perhaps also the supported assistance program? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I think it is important that, where possible, we fund self-help groups which provide services, frequently more economically and more efficiently but, what is more important, which provide representation for the groups involved, in this case the psychiatrically disabled, on the boards of those self-help groups. Therefore that is important. I have a preference for funding such self-help groups rather than some others. Whether they will be included in the supported assistance program or the home and community care program in the near future will depend on whether they are included now. If they are included now, they will be in the future. Their inclusion in the future depends upon negotiation between the State and Federal governments as both those programs evolve. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that two Queensland clinics for planned parenthood were raided by State police yesterday, that the records of thousands of patients were confiscated and that many women who were at the clinics awaiting appointments were harassed? In Townsville alone at least four tonnes of records were seized. At a preliminary court hearing this morning police have refused to release these records or to indicate for what purpose they will be used. As this action is a blatant breach of the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, can the Minister offer advice to the thousands of women who are in fear of their private medical records being used in court either as evidence or as a lever to force them to appear as witnesses? What rights are available to these thousands of Queensland women who over a number of years have attended planned parenthood clinics for a variety of surgical procedures, including legal termination of pregnancy on the recommendation of two supporting doctors? The PRESIDENT —Order! In that the honourable senator is not asking for a legal opinion, I will ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator will not get a legal opinion, Mr President. I am not in the business of offering those any more. I have heard radio reports that people attending certain Queensland clinics, including people not involved in any alleged abortion procedure, were photographed, questioned and harassed and had their medical records seized. If the reports are true, it is a matter of grave concern, and it would appear, a graphic example of law enforcement going haywire, ignoring the very values of personal liberty and privacy that the law and the legal system is supposed to be established to protect. The question is, basically, a matter of how a State wants to police and administer its own criminal law. On the face of it it would not appear that questions of Federal law are involved; nonetheless the whole matter is, again on the face of it, an excellent illustration of the need for some overarching national civil liberty standards to be enacted for protection. I recognise, as any lawyer would, that it is possible, pursuant to warrant in every jurisdiction in Australia, to seize more documents than may strictly prove to be necessary. That follows from operational requirements of police in conducting certain quite legitimate law enforcement procedures. But in the case of medical records and the extreme sensitivity of the personal materials there involved, it is obviously the case that any such police powers should be exercised extremely sparingly and again, on the face of the reports this morning, that does not seem to have been the case. I draw the Senate's attention, finally, to the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on privacy which was tabled in this place on 14 December 1983 which, in the context of Commonwealth law and police agencies, laid down recommended guidelines for the conduct of search and seizure excursions of this kind-guidelines which include keeping records securely and restricting access to those who need to use them for the purposes of a particular investigation. I would certainly hope that the Queensland Government would act as the Commonwealth Government is now doing to consider and implement these recommended guidelines. But the track record of the Queensland Government on civil liberties matters over the years gives no cause whatsoever for optimism that any such course of action will occur. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister for Finance to the Federal Government's decision to cut assistance to the Northern Territory Electricity Commission in 1985-86 by $37m and to phase out the funding over the next four years. I ask: In view of the significant financial burden this will place on the Northern Territory, will the Federal Government view sympathetically an approach by the Territory Government for an expansion of its borrowing capacity through the Loan Council to assist the Territory in covering its costs in what will be a difficult first few years? Senator WALSH —As a result of the decision to spread the payments to the Northern Territory Electricity Commission over a longer period than had previously been envisaged-an extension of payment beyond the two year period had been requested by the present Chief Minister of the Northern Territory prior to that decision being made-there will be an increase in the cost to the consumer of providing electricity in the Northern Territory or, alternatively, a cost to the Northern Territory Government. Senator Kilgariff appears to be suggesting that, as a result of that necessity, the Commonwealth ought to take a very lenient view of the Northern Territory increasing its foreign borrowing requirements. I will put that proposition to the Treasurer, but I would be surprised if the Treasurer looked leniently or permissively on a proposition that any State government should borrow money overseas to finance current consumption. In this context that is precisely the proposition that Senator Kilgariff is putting-that this Government ought to look permissively on applications from territorial governments to increase foreign borrowings in order to finance current consumption. Senator COOK —I ask the Minister for Finance whether his attention has been drawn to criticism in the editorial of last Wednesday's Australian Financial Review that: The Treasurer's statement on government expenditure savings for the coming financial year is a disappointment. It shows that despite all its rhetoric the Hawke Government has been unable to face up to the hard issues of government spending restraint. And: The cuts are diffuse, general and unconvincing. My penetrating question to Senator Walsh is: Is there any substance in these criticisms? Senator WALSH —Some of that editorial, which was written by Mr McGuinness, may have contained some defensible criticism, but there is no substance in the specific criticism quoted by Senator Cook or, indeed, in another sentence in that editorial which said: It is another blunt razor gang effort, as shameful and weak as that of the Fraser Government. There is no substance in any of those specifics, whether there is some substance in some of the other criticisms or not. In order to evaluate the merit of that editorial in general it should be noted that the lock-up started at 5 p.m. and Mr McGuinness started typing at 5.05 p.m. Production of that scholarly and well-considered assessment of the May statement started five minutes after the lock-up began. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. In the light of the Press release of 14 February in which the Minister for Communications undertook as soon as possible to place the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers to make program and advertising standards beyond current doubt, I ask: When was the decision taken to drop the draft revision standard powers from the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and by whom was this decision made? If the Minister for Communications was not a party to the original decision, at what stage was he informed of what was being done and what action did he take to try to live up to his concern for Australian film and television production? If the Minister was a party to the original decision, can he explain how the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be able to enforce standards and, as a result, give film producers and script writers a more certain and positive environment in which their projects can develop now that there is an adverse High Court decision-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is a bit too long. I ask him to bring it to a conclusion. Senator VIGOR —There has been a High Court decision today in the Herald-Sun case. What will the Government do now to stop a free- for-all by the television networks in ignoring the Broadcasting Tribunal? Senator WALSH —I have been advised by Mr Duffy that he covered this matter in his second reading speech delivered last Wednesday on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. He has asked me to quote the relevant section, which says: The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers to make program and advertising standards have recently been thrown into doubt by a Federal Court decision. It had been the Government's intention to bring forward amendments at this time to clarify and affirm the Tribunal's powers to make standards. Because of concern about the possible effects of such legislation expressed by some sections of the broadcasting industry, I have decided not to delay the amendments I am now presenting by waiting for the standards provisions to be finally settled. The Government considers that it is important that the provisions of the current Bill on service-based licensing and the new uniform inquiry arrangements be introduced now to give some relief to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by providing for a more efficient system. Further, and most importantly, the Government considers that the new remote, or satellite licenses should be provided for as soon as possible as Aussat's first two satellites are scheduled for launch in some three and six months respectively. To introduce new remote technology-based licences in the absence of the service-based system would be technically very difficult and wasteful. I now give notice, though, that it is the Government's firm policy that the Tribunal should maintain its powers to set both qualitative and quantitative broadcasting standards or conditions. I intend to bring forward amendments in the Budget sittings to give legislative effect to this policy. In the meantime, because of the Government's commitment to a viable and flourishing Australian film and television production industry, I assure the industry and this House that the Government will take all necessary steps to maintain the industry. Should this require making the proposed legislation effective from today's date we will not hesitate to do so. It is my understanding that this path of action has the broad support of all the industry and will ensure the fullest possible consultation with respect to the often controversial area of program standards. Most importantly, it reconfirms in the strongest possible terms the Government's policy that the Tribunal should maintain its powers to set both qualitative and quantitative broadcasting standards and conditions. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a letter from Federal Pacific Hotels, signed J. M. Haddad, referring to the circulation by Mr Paul Everingham, MP, of a memorandum prescribing 'the events related to the Northern Territory Government's action with regard to the hotel/casinos in Darwin and Alice Springs'? Does the Minister agree with the claim of Federal Pacific Hotels that the memorandum is in part misleading, in part inaccurate, in part irrelevant and in total a wholly unsatisfactory explanation of an action described by a financial journal as 'totally inexcusable'? Does the Minister see any justification for Mr Haddad's claim for a judicial inquiry into 'the most extraordinary action by a government in the history of the Commonwealth'? Senator WALSH —I think everybody has had the opportunity of seeing the letters and documents to which Senator Crowley referred. I have had a glance at them. Mr Everingham's chronology presents an extraordinary attempt to re-write the history of his Government's heavy-handed dealings in this affair. Without drawing unwarranted conclusions, I can certainly understand the discomfiture of Federal Pacific Hotels and the cause of its subsequent actions. Some of the telling differences between the accounts of Mr Everingham and Federal Pacific Hotels are that Mr Everingham's chronology provides no detail about 1983, except to say that Federal Pacific Hotels put the casino on the market, which is directly and thoroughly contradicted by the statement of Federal Pacific Hotels, which adds that it was asked to sell by Mr Everingham in August 1983 and provided a price only under duress. Mr Everingham also leaves the impression that his Government was attempting to bail out a troubled private company. Federal Pacific Hotels has indicated that its financial problems were solvable and that it had heard that Mr Everingham had threatened to force the sale, an attempt which was ultimately successful. The company which ultimately took over from Federal Pacific Hotels, the Walkers company, has a 57 per cent equity in the company for a risk capital of $10,000. Mr Everingham also fails to mention what Federal Pacific Hotels calls 'the extraordinary financial concessions in respect of casino tax, that have been given to the new operators'. He also fails to mention the involvement of other people in the affair. Perhaps the most crucial point of all is that Mr Haddad, in his letter to all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate of, I think, just a couple of weeks ago-I do not have the precise date-said that 'Federal Pacific Hotels presses for a thorough judicial inquiry with wide and appropriate terms of reference to establish the facts behind the decision to expropriate the company's properties in Darwin and Alice Springs, which demonstrates in the clearest possible way that Federal Pacific Hotels believes that nothing is to be lost, from its side of the case anyway, by having a complete and public airing of the facts'. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he has quoted. Senator Walsh —Does the honourable senator mean all the letters or-- Senator Chaney —I mean the extensive document the Minister has been leafing through and quoting from. The PRESIDENT —Does the Minister claim confidentiality or will he table the document? Senator Walsh —I have no objection. I table the document. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has tabled the document. Senator Chaney —While I am on my feet, Mr President, I address a question to the Minister for Finance. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Government had risen to capture my attention after the Leader of the Opposition had asked the Minister to table the document from which he was quoting. I think Question Time was brought to an end at that stage. Senator Chaney —The Leader of the Government had not asked at that point. Senator Button —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Government had clearly attracted my attention. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I have a supplementary answer to a question asked of me in my capacity as Acting Foreign Minister by Senator Missen on 13 May in relation to Ethiopian relief camps. I seek leave to incorporate the supplementary answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Government understands that the United Nations Co-ordinator in Ethiopia, Mr Jansson, met Chairman Mengistu on 7 may to express the deep concern of the United Nations and donor countries represented in Addis Ababa about the forced evacuation of the relief feeding centre at Ibnat. Further, Heads of Mission of donor countries, including the Australian Charge d'Affairs met with Ethiopian Foreign Minister, Goshu Wolde, on 17 May. They expressed their concern over both the Ibnat incident and the more general problems hampering the relief effort such as a lack of transport and the need to improve distribution of relief supplies in the north of Ethiopia. Both Chairman Mengistu and Foreign Minister Wolde, gave assurances that actions like that at Ibnat would not be allowed to re-occur and that adequate preparation, consultation and non-use of force would be used in implementing the Ethiopian Government's policy on disbanding relief centres. They also undertook to establish new food distribution points in Eritrea and Tigre provinces, through the auspices of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). The Government understands that most of those forced to leave Ibnat have now returned and, with the help of extra relief supplies being co-ordinated by the UN together with the Ethiopian Government's Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, are being provided with food and shelter. Urgent priority is being given to the task of improving health and sanitary conditions at Ibnat. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I have another supplementary answer to a question asked of me in my capacity as Acting Foreign Minister by Senator McIntosh on 16 May on the question of the Indonesian transmigration program. I seek leave to incorporate the supplementary answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Australian Government maintains a continuing dialogue with the World Bank on a range of issues. Since the 1970s, the Indonesian authorities have been engaged in moving large numbers of people from Java to less populated areas, especially Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and more recently Irian Jaya. The stated aim of the program is to reduce population pressure in Java and to stimulate economic development in outlying regions. Planning figures indicate that in the period 1984-89, 600,000 people are to be moved to Irian Jaya, out of a program involving approximately four million transmigrants. The Australian Government has expressed the view to the World Bank, and to other concerned agencies, that support for the transmigration program, particularly as it applies to the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya, should be based on ensuring that social and cultural differences of indigenous peoples should be taken into account in the implementation of the program. Recently, Indonesia agreed to an Australian proposal made at the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia (IGGI) meeting in The Hague in June 1984, that the Indonesian Government arrange a briefing on the transmigration program as a whole for interested IGGI representatives in Jakarta. This was held in Jakarta on 20 March 1985 and was attended by senior Indonesian officials and officers of the Australian Embassy. The Australian Government is grateful for this briefing and the opportunity to discuss Indonesia's transmigration program. The Government looks forward to further constructive discussions on transmigration with the Indonesian authorities. The Australian Government has received no information or evidence to suggest that implementation of the Indonesian transmigration program to date has caused any basic or major violations of human rights. It acknowledges that there might in certain circumstances be scope for problems to arise and has therefore urged a sensitive and cautious approach to the question on the part of all concerned. The transmigration program has clearly been an important factor in Indonesia's continuing economic progress. It has worked well in the areas of initial settlement. The Government is conscious that the extension of the program to areas where there are pronounced cultural and social differences, especially Irian Jaya, requires a considered and sympathetic approach if potential problems are to be avoided. Australia, as a close neighbour to Indonesia, would naturally be concerned if difficulties in the transmigration program were to lead to complications in Indonesia's relations with its neighbours. Concern in this regard has been brought to the attention of the Indonesian authorities since late 1983 and has been reaffirmed on a number of subsequent occasions. Australian representations have been made in a constructive manner and with full regard to the priorities of the Indonesian Government and the difficulties it faces in encouraging broadly based economic development in Irian Jaya as elsewhere in the country. The Australian Government has indicated to the Indonesian authorities its belief that Melanesian cultural values should be accommodated within the framework of Indonesia's national development, and that the transmigration program in Irian Jaya should be conducted in such a way as to avoid any adverse effects on Indonesia's relations with neighbouring countries. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to the Government's response to the Costigan report. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, as it became known, attracted enormous interest, both from the media and the general public, giving the name of Frank Costigan and his investigations common currency among just about all Australians. The Commission was established by the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments in September 1980. What began as a one year inquiry into a small Victorian union with a reputation for violence, became a four year investigation into a wide range of criminal activity cutting across the whole spectrum of Australian society. The Commission delivered five interim reports prior to its final report being presented on 26 October 1984. Much of the content of the reports outlined the Commission's investigations and consequently was confidential to ensure continuing investigations and/or prosecutions were not prejudiced. The five public volumes of the Final Report were tabled in the Victorian Parliament, as well as in a number of other States, on 1 November 1984. The Commonwealth Parliament had by then been dissolved prior to the election. Nonetheless, copies of the public volumes were sent to all members and senators, with a full set of the confidential volumes being made available to the Leader of the Opposition. A copy of the public volumes was also tabled by the President of the Senate on 22 February 1985. But the Costigan Commission's legacy is not just its reports. Its work ranks with that of the Moffitt, Woodward, Williams, Stewart and McCabe-Lafranchi inquiries in heightening our perception of the nature and extent of organised crime in Australia. The Problem of Organised Crime Commissioner Costigan reminded us that crime in Australia has come of age-it no longer involves small isolated pockets of criminal activity removed from the mainstream of Australian society. Taken in conjunction with the other inquiries to which I have referred, the Costigan Commission showed a complex web involving all manner of criminal activity, with links throughout Australia, and cutting across social classes and professions. He found that members of the Painters and Dockers Union had apparently offered their services as general criminal hands and were involved in such diverse activities as 'bottom-of-the-harbour' tax fraud, SP bookmaking, social security fraud, crimes of violence, and fraud and extortion on the waterfront. It is important to note that for the most part Mr Costigan's reports were devoted to criminal intelligence and information and not the gathering of admissible evidence-a point I shall return to. The Government recognises that organised crime is a national problem requiring a national response. Accordingly, we have taken action on a wide variety of fronts to tackle the diversity of criminal activity uncovered by the Commission. First and foremost, we have established the National Crime Authority. For the first time, there is now an Australian law enforcement agency which is able to investigate matters covered by the laws of both the Commonwealth and the States. The Crime Authority has the support of all Australian governments. It has many of the powers available to Royal Commissions, including the Costigan Royal Commission; it has all of the Costigan Commission material, its computer systems and its data bank; and it has available to it much of the expertise of the Commission's former staff. The establishment of the National Crime Authority was the subject of extensive debate in the Parliament and the Community at large-but we should not let the complexities of that debate obscure the fact that the establishment of this body is a very considerable achievement. The most important action required from the Government arising from the Commission was the need to maintain the fight against organised crime. The establishment by the Government of the National Crime Authority meets this requirement. The Commission's Unfinished Investigations A number of the Commission's unfinished investigations featured prominently in the Commission's Final Report. Copies of the full report were immediately passed to the relevant Commonwealth agencies, particularly the National Crime Authority, the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, to ensure that all appropriate action was taken. Recognising the importance and urgency associated with the Commission's recommendations relating to the death of Mr Ian Coote, the Government acted quickly in providing a copy of confidential volumes 9 and 10 to the Queensland Government. The second inquest established by the Queensland Government into Mr Coote's death confirmed the original verdict of suicide. Confidential Volumes 6 and 7, and the full version of volume 5 of the Final Report, were subsequently provided to the Queensland Government to enable them to pursue their investigations. Similarly, these volumes, together with volume 9, were provided to the New South Wales Government. I have already indicated that the major task for this Government arising from the Commission was to maintain the fight against organised crime. This was one of the major purposes in establishing the National Crime Authority. The Commission handed over to the Authority during the four months of July to October 1984. The Chairman of the Authority has repeatedly stressed that this transition was effective and the Authority is now hard at work. During the transition, the Costigan Commission provided the Authority with summaries of 42 matters relating to its outstanding investigations. The Authority held a public sitting on 13 December 1984 to outline the position with respect to each of the 42 matters. The Chairman of the Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, stated that the 42 matters were at very different stages of development when received by the Authority. In particular, he noted that while some matters had undergone extensive analysis by the Commission, other matters had not been analysed at all and that some had not advanced beyond the receipt of police intelligence files. At that public sitting, the Authority also indicated that it had resolved to take action with respect to all of the 42 matters, save three in which proceedings have either commenced or concluded. It then outlined the action it proposed to take with respect to the remaining 39 matters, including referring some matters to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, undertaking further investigations using its general investigative powers or undertaking intelligence operations. Of the 42 matters, the Commission suggested that 20 be the subject of a reference. To date, the Authority has requested and been granted four references to undertake special investigations-all of which involve drug related matters. Three of these references arose directly from several of the 42 summaries provided by the Commission. Furthermore, the Authority has recently requested additional references relating to some other matters contained in the summaries which to date have been the subject of general investigations by the Authority. These additional references will be considered by the Inter-Governmental Committee at its meeting at the end of this month. Action against Organised Crime The Authority, however, is only one aspect of the response that is needed to tackle serious crime in Australia. As demonstrated by the inquiries I have mentioned, a wide range of law enforcement responses is required. With the establishment of the National Crime Authority, that range is now complete and includes: investigations by a single police force; joint task force operations to cover more than one jurisdiction and to bring together special expertise; special co-operative efforts, such as the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, to ensure full co-ordination across Australia; and investigations by the National Crime Authority to tackle those matters which require powers beyond those available to the police. The Government has taken action across this spectrum of responses. In particular: we have increased the resources available in all aspects of law enforcement-for example, the expenditure in the law enforcement areas of my portfolio has been increased by 16.5 per cent from 1982-83 to 1984-85; in particular, between 1982-83 and 1984-85 we increased Australian Federal Police numbers by 420, a growth of 14 per cent-we are now providing, over the next three years, $10m to recruit a stronger force and $7m for improved computer equipment; we have moved to increase the powers available to police-we have offered State Governments telephone intercept powers for drug trafficking investigations subject to, inter alia, similar conditions to those applying to the Australian Federal Police. We are also considering granting access to tax information by law enforcement agencies, if suitable safeguards against the misuse of such information can be formulated; we have introduced legislation in the Parliament to establish an independent Australian Customs Service with its own Comptroller-General to provide an appropriate focus for the management of that Service and we have also approved additional resources for the Service to interdict illicit drugs entering Australia; we have established the Director of Public Prosecutions, streamlining the Government's prosecution system, to overcome the deficiencies in the earlier arrangements noted by the Costigan Commission in its fourth Interim Report; in conjunction with the New South Wales Government, we have made the Commonwealth/New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking a continuing weapon in our fight against the menace of illegal drugs; we have allocated an additional sum of the order of $1.5m to upgrade the automatic data processing capacity of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence over the next two financial years; and we are also examining the possibility of introducing crime impact statements to try to overcome, in advance, the possibility of legislation being abused or circumvented by criminals, thus decreasing the incidence of fraud on the revenue. 'Bottom-of-the-Harbour' Tax Fraud The Costigan Commission also played a significant role in focusing public attention on 'bottom-of-the-harbour' taxation fraud, the subject of interim report No. 4. Following on the McCabe-Lafranchi report, it made the public aware of the magnitude of the problem and was instrumental in changing public attitudes so that tax evasion is no longer considered to be a sport, but is recognised as irresponsibly placing a burden on the rest of the community. These investigations resulted in the appointment, by the previous Government, of Special Prosecutor Gyles to handle 'bottom-of-the-harbour' tax matters and Special Prosecutor Redlich to handle all other matters. The purpose of appointing Special Prosecutors was to develop admissible evidence using the criminal intelligence and information furnished by Mr Costigan. This Government fully supported the work of the two special prosecutors, now being carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In addition, the Government has also continued action to overcome other weaknesses in the taxation laws. In October 1984, the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 strengthened existing mechanisms for the collection of tax, increased the levels of penalty for breaches of the taxation laws and modernised provisions for prosecution for such breaches. These amendments pre-empted concerns expressed by Mr Costigan in his final report. The Government's action in relation to tax fraud is on the record. Indeed, significantly more evaded taxes could be recovered if the Opposition did not continue to block the legislation the Government has put before Parliament in relation to tax evasion schemes. Waterfront Crime Another area which Commissioner Costigan investigated was, of course, crime on the waterfront. He pointed to problems including the level of security on the waterfront and co-ordination between all the Commonwealth and State agencies involved. To overcome these problems, he recommended that a Port Security Authority be set up in each major port to collect and disseminate information relating to ports and to prepare and co-ordinate the targetting of major criminal groups. The Government also has before it the report of the Joint Commonwealth-New South Wales Task Force on the Security of Wharves and Containers, which was tabled in both the New South Wales and Commonwealth parliaments on 23 April 1985. The Task Force favoured a different approach to the Costigan Commission. Recognising the considerable cost and likely duplication involved in establishing a new body, it favoured a cargo security co-ordinating committee in each State. The Government supports the need to upgrade waterfront security. The Government has given the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police the task of co-ordinating and disseminating all Commonwealth waterfront information and intelligence, to improve the Commonwealth's law enforcement efforts on the waterfront. Clearly this is a matter involving both the State and Commonwealth governments, given the concerns of the Task Force and the Costigan Commission regarding the lack of co-ordination. Accordingly, the Government has referred both reports to the Australian Police Ministers' Council to ensure the problems identified are tackled on a national basis. The Australian Transport Advisory Council is also considering the reports and will liaise with the Australian Police Ministers' Council. This action was endorsed by the special Premiers' Conference on drugs on 2 April 1985. To parallel the work on waterfront security, the Government has established a committee to review existing security arrangements for air cargo, with a view to minimising the opportunity to use air cargo to transport illicit drugs. This Committee includes membership from the Department of Aviation, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service and the State police forces. Investigative Techniques One of the major contributions made by the Commission was in the development of investigative techniques, described in volume 2 of the final report. While the Costigan Commission followed the lead of other inquiries by bringing together lawyers, accountants, civilian intelligence analysts and police investigators, its special contribution was the development and use of modern computer technology as an investigative tool. These techniques led to the uncovering of links between a variety of persons involved in diverse legal and illegal activities, and illustrated how criminal activities can be intermingled with legitimate activities to effectively mask the source of funds. One technique advocated by the Commission not accepted by the Government is the concept of public exposure of persons not charged with any offence and the National Crime Authority Act has been carefully drafted to prevent the use of any such technique. Other techniques established by the Commission are available to the National Crime Authority. The Authority, however, is going one important step further than the Royal Commission. The Authority collects admissible evidence for the prosecution of persons involved in organised crime. This necessarily imposes on the Authority a difficult and painstaking requirement. The Government strongly supports the use of modern computer technology in the fight against crime. The National Crime Authority has, of course, inherited the computer facilities and the data bank of the Costigan Commission. The system is being upgraded to a fourth generation language and other developments are taking place which should ensure that the system operates more efficiently. When this conversion is completed, detailed proposals will be prepared by the Authority on making the system available to other law enforcement agencies. It should, however, be recognised and firmly borne in mind that computer technology is not magic. It is but a tool, albeit a most important tool, in this critical fight against organised crime. Recognising the important role the tool of computer analysis has played in the fight against organised crime, the Government-as I mentioned earlier-is providing $7m for upgrading the computer facilities of the Australian Federal Police and will provide an estimated $1.5m to improve the ADP capacity of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. The Costigan Commission reinforced the importance of being able to follow the money trail to determine the ultimate destination of profits from criminal activities. This Government has repeatedly stressed the importance of concentrating law enforcement efforts against those at the apex of the organised crime pyramid, rather than those on the bottom rungs. It is the drug financiers and traffickers, not the users; the crime bosses and their lieutenants, not the hired hands, who must be the primary targets. This is the main purpose of the National Crime Authority. It will concentrate on those who have successfuly eluded ordinary police methods. The Government has ensured that the Authority has the appropriate powers, particularly in the area of following the money trail. Like the Costigan Commission, it has access to income tax information. In addition, the Government has introduced legislation to extend this access to other tax information, including sales tax information. Like the Costigan Commission, it has access to banking and other financial records; and like the Costigan Commission, it has financial analysts and experienced corporate affairs investigators working for it to track down those who profit from organised crime. But this is not just a matter for the National Crime Authority. The Government is considering providing other law enforcement agencies with access to taxation information if suitable safeguards against the misuse of such information can be formulated. In addition, a working party of officers is examining proposals, in consultation with banks and other financial institutions, to reduce the possibility of financial institutions being used to facilitate serious crime. One of the most effective ways of striking at top line criminals is to take away their profits. The Government firmly endorses a multi-pronged approach to wrest illegal gains from criminals and make organised crime unprofitable. Central to this approach is the continuing enforcement of the tax laws in relation to profits from illegal activities, and the introduction of legislation providing for the forfeiture of assets which can be shown to be derived from criminal activities. The Report of the Royal Commission points out that as a direct result of its activities tax-including additional tax-of $25m has been assessed. The Commonwealth-New South Wales joint task force on drug trafficking also has demonstrated the usefulness of using the tax laws. The Australian Taxation Office, acting on information from the joint task force, has identified significant amounts of understated income and has assessed several million dollars as additional taxation and penalties. The Costigan Commission recommended in its final report the continued use of the taxation system to remove illegal profits. Again, the Government firmly supports this. We are confident that the Australian Taxation Office, together with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Crime Authority and other law enforcement agencies, can effectively pursue this line. The Commission recommended establishment of a new taxation investigation tribunal and special taxation investigator. The Government takes the view, however, that it is better to leave the task to the existing authorities. Creating new bodies runs the risk of overlap and inefficient use of resources. For some time there have been Commonwealth provisions for assets forfeiture with respect to drug trafficking offences. A number of States have, or have proposed, similar legislation. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Costigan Commission and others and has introduced legislation to Public Prosecutions to pursue civil remedies on behalf of the Commonwealth to recover unpaid taxes and other duties owed to the Commonwealth. In addition, the Director will be authorised to take proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties against those involved in narcotics dealings. Repeating recommendations made in the other reports I mentioned earlier, the Costigan Commission also supported the extension of forfeiture legislation from drug trafficking to other areas of crime. In this regard, the final report cited the American Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations legislation, noting the constitutional differences between the United States and Australian systems. While this specific style of legislation is not appropriate for our situation, the concept of broader forfeiture legislation is being developed. It is supported by the Australian Police Ministers' Council. The Special Premiers' Conference on 2 April also endorsed the concept of forfeiture of assets in drug trafficking offences. At its meeting on 2 May this year, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General considered model drafting instructions prepared by the Commonwealth. The Standing Committee also agreed to the setting up of a joint working party of officials in conjunction with the Australian Police Ministers' Council to enable the matter to be finalised as soon as possible. The aim is to achieve uniform legislation throughout Australia so that the profits of organised crime will not be safe from confiscation in any jurisdiction and all jurisdictions will have an effective weapon to discourage participation in this kind of criminal activity. Drug Trafficking The Costigan Royal Commission was specifically encouraged by this Government from early in 1983 to concentrate its energies on drug trafficking. The National Crime Authority is continuing to pursue this fight with vigour and determination. A co-ordinated national response is especially important in the fight against drug trafficking. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), all the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory met in Canberra in a Special Premiers' Conference-the Drug Summit-on 2 April 1985 and agreed to mount a national campaign against drug abuse. The campaign will place a major emphasis on reducing the demand for drugs through education, treatment and rehabilitation programs. The Conference agreed that it was essential that government efforts to combat drug trafficking and to prevent supplies of illicit narcotics coming into the country be intensified. The summit agreed particular attention will be paid to those who control, direct and finance such activities. As I indicated earlier, this is a central theme of this Government's policies on organised crime. Apart from initiatives I have already mentioned we are providing substantial additional resources-$5.5m over 2 years-to strengthen the capacity of the Australian Customs Services to interdict drugs entering Australia. In addition, the Customs Service is revising its northern strategy. We had previously introduced revised coastal surveillance arrangements including the Coastal Protection Unit with the Australian Federal Police. We recognise, as did the Premiers' Conference, the importance of ensuring adequate surveillance of the Australian coastline. The Commonwealth also announced at the Premiers Conference the intention to create a new offence of sending illicit drugs through the mail, with the Australian Federal Police to have powers to examine suspected mail. Furthermore, the Customs Act is to be amended to clarify powers to detain and search persons concealing drugs internally to bring them into Australia. In consultation with the States, the Commonwealth is developing a model legislation package covering the regulation of the manufacture, distribution and medical use of drugs of dependence, diversion for treatment and penal provisions. The Costigan Commission reaffirmed that the drug problem was a national problem with significant international links. Recognising that a major source of illicit narcotics coming into Australia is the south-east Asian area, the Government has committed significant resources to an aid project in Thailand. This project involves approximately $7.2m from the Australian Government, over five years, for computer equipment and automatic data processing personnel to the Thai Office of the Narcotics Control Board. Australia's strong commitment to international efforts to combat drug trafficking will continue. We are seeking re-election to the United Nations' Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Increased co-operation with other countries-specifically Malaysia-is being actively pursued. The Government is also moving to strengthen our international treaty arrangements-by modernising existing extradition arrangements (including those with Western European States) and securing new agreements with other countries, such as the Philippines, where we do not already have them. We are also giving high priority to concluding mutual assistance treaties with selected countries to extend international co-operation in the pursuit of organised criminals. Conclusion I have outlined the approaches and techniques of the Costigan Commission and the action this Government has taken to ensure these are continued as appropriate. I have also touched on a number of the Commission's recommendations and our response. I now table a schedule outlining all of the recommendations of the Commission and the action taken to date. Two words probably best sum up the public's view of the Costigan Royal Commission's work-'organised crime'. The Opposition has repeatedly tried to accuse this Government of a lack of commitment in fighting organised crime. Nothing could be further from the truth: We ensured the Costigan Commission had appropriate resources-out of a total cost of more than $14m over five years this Government provided $8m in only 2 years. In particular, we increased the Commission's budget from just under $3m in 1982-83 to just under $6m in 1983-84; we have established the National Crime Authority to lead the fight against organised crime; we have established the Director of Public Prosecutions to streamline the prosecutions area and overcome earlier problems; and we have substantially increased the resources available to the Australian Federal Police and have instituted a whole host of improvements and measures of assistance in just about every aspect of the fight against crime. But we are not finished yet-we remain committed to ensuring that organised crime is attacked relentlessly in this country with every weapon that a democracy can marshal. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.06) — The Opposition has been expecting a statement from the Government on this subject for a long time. The final report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was handed to this Government on 26 October last year, which I think was the very day that the House of Representatives was dissolved for the election on 1 December. I do not need to go over again the circumstances which led to the delays and so on last year in the Costigan report being made available. It was made available only after extraordinary steps had to be taken simply because the Government had intercepted the ordinary process of that report being tabled in the Parliament and being made available to the public by its calling of the early election last year. The final report-five volumes were made public and a number of volumes remained confidential-was the culmination of the work of that Commission which had been going on for about four years. It had previously submitted five interim reports, four of which had been received by the Fraser Government. The fifth interim report was handed to the present Government, as was the final report, albeit in its caretaker phase last year. The extent of the Costigan Commission's work, its methods and the great variety and importance of its recommendations are, I think, for all to see in that great record, apart from those parts which remain confidential. What is certainly not being matched by Costigan's performance is the performance of this Government in responding to that work. In passing I refer to the very firm and expeditious way in which the Fraser Government responded to the recommendations of the Commission, particularly those major recommendations in the interim fourth report, which was given to the Government in mid-1982, and which were acted upon by that Government within a few weeks. This Parliament was so informed. When the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission was received by the Government and, by indirect methods, made available to the public, as I have said, the Government's first response was one of delay. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) delayed a response on several occasions. That probably set the scene which has now become the familiar pattern of the Government in dealing with the Costigan report and its recommendations. The first reaction of the Prime Minister, when he received the report last year, was to take the view that because an election was pending and because the Government was only a caretaker government it could not make any decisions in relation to that report. That was a smokescreen, a diversion from the responsibilities which that Government certainly had. As a caretaker government the Government could not there and then have made decisions to implement the recommendations of the report. In fact, many of those recommendations require legislation. But there was no reason whatever why the Government could not have said within a reasonable time-say, a few weeks, but certainly before the election-what its view was in regard to some of the major recommendations. The very first indication of the weakness of this Government in response to the Costigan report was its use of the election and the fact that it was a caretaker government as a complete diversion and smokescreen to prevent it from facing up to the issues which it squarely should have faced. After the election, just before Christmas, the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) made a statement about the Costigan report. He said simply that the Government would study this aspect and that aspect of the report. We have been waiting ever since for a formal and what we hoped would be a reasonable and adequate response to the many major recommendations of Costigan. Seven months later, in the latter stages of the sittings of this Parliament, at a time when the Parliament is absolutely overwhelmed by a great flood of government business that has been brought in at the last minute-every honourable senator in this chamber and every honourable member in the other place is completely overwhelmed by this volume of legislation, its variety and importance-the Government brings in this response, adding further to the amount of work which honourable senators and honourable members have to face. I suppose this has not occurred by chance. The Government believes that by bringing in its response now, it will be buried, lost and, hopefully, forgotten. Indeed, it might be better if it were forgotten as soon as possible because it is a pathetic response. There is very little of substance in it. To the Opposition it is a totally disappointing and entirely inadequate response. The Government has proceeded little further from when the statement, to which I referred, was made by the Attorney-General on 18 December last. In that statement the Attorney was most expansive about the Costigan report, which he said would be one of the first priorities of the Government. We were promised a detailed response during the autumn sittings, not right at the end of the autumn sittings at a time when the attention of honourable senators and honourable members is concentrated on a flood of last minute government business. This statement, which presumably is the one which the Attorney-General promised, takes the matter very little further, if any further at all, from the very general response that he made in December. The bulk of the Costigan recommendations has neither been accepted nor rejected by the Government. Most have been confined to the limbo of the Police Ministers Council, the police or some other body for further deliberation. The Government has rejected out of hand, however, the one and only recommendation Mr Costigan made on the National Crime Authority which the Government presents as the centrepiece of its fight against organised crime and its response to Mr Costigan's work. It has certainly acted on the recommendation made in relation to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that was done a year after it had been first made. The most frequent and common response given by the Government to a whole host of Mr Costigan's recommendations is: 'This recommendation is under consideration by the Government'. As I have said, that is virtually the same response as it made last December, nearly six months ago. The Government's response is half-hearted and weak. If this is an indication of what further consideration is being given to the report, we cannot expect any firm and positive response to be made to any of the recommendations which are said to be still under consideration. The Opposition is very ready to give praise or credit to the Government where it is due, and clearly the Government has taken some steps over the last year or so, such as increased expenditure on law enforcement, increased numbers for the Australian Federal Police, a new automatic data processing capacity for the Australian Bureau of Criminology, improved coastal surveillance and a few others are developed in the statement. The statement is very much padded out, referring to a number of administrative improvements and increased resources that have been given to law enforcement. The Opposition welcomes them and gives credit to the Government for them, but none of them are responses to Costigan's recommendations, and that is what this statement is supposed to be about. The Government has rejected or deferred virtually all the Costigan recommendations and dressed up all of this with a recital of everything positive that it says it has done in the field of law enforcement during the period it has been in office. There have been a number-I do not propose to go through them-of steps which the Government says it has taken. Where do we go from here? What else will be done by the Government? What has the Government to show for its labour since it received this succession of Costigan reports and the lofty promise of last December? As I said, virtually nothing. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in this statement highlights waterfront crime. He says that it must be tackled on a national basis. What is his response? He has referred the problem to the Police Ministers Council. He says that security of air cargo is a problem. What has he done? He has established a committee to review this. He says that modern computer technology is important in the fight against crime, but his response is a promise to prepare detailed proposals for the use of the Costigan databank. In view of some of the past statements by the Government, I suppose there is something to be said for the fact that it has now recognised the importance of the money trail and tracing the money trail in criminal investigations and enforcement. Here the response is the ultimate evasion of any decision at all. A working group of officers has been set up only as recently as 17 April to examine the Costigan recommendations on this matter. That is a very interesting date. The committee was set up only on 17 April this year, when back in December the Government said that it would give consideration to all the Costigan recommendations. The Government took from the middle of December until April even to set up a committee to look at this absolutely vital aspect of not only Costigan's recommendations but the whole proven record of Costigan in his methods emphasising the importance of tracing the money trail. It has taken the Government months to set up a committee to investigate those matters. Another major recommendation-this is more than a recommendation; it proved successful as one of Costigan's methods-was that taxation information be used. There is absolute confusion about what the Government intends to do about that recommendation. Mr Costigan recommended that there should be a new taxation investigation tribunal and a special taxation investigator. Last December, when the Attorney-General spoke about that recommendation, he gave the very clear impression that something positive would be done about it. On the day after the Government promised a detailed response to the report, the Attorney-General was asked on radio whether the Government would definitely implement Mr Costigan's proposal that a taxation tribunal be set up. The Attorney said: No risk about that. We're going to leave no stone unturned. What have we been told today? The Government's position now is that it is better to leave the taxation task to existing authorities and methods. The Attorney-General's statement turned out to be more literally true than he expected. The response by the Government to the report is simply a succession of deferments and compromises and generally one of 'doing nothing'. The Costigan report is clearly a remarkable document. It marks the culmination of the most thorough examination of organised crime ever undertaken in Australia. At one stage that was recognised by the Prime Minister, who referred to Mr Costigan's work as a 'significant contribution to the exposure of the role of organised crime and drug trafficking'. On another occasion the Prime Minister, speaking about Mr Costigan's work, said: . . . exposure of tax frauds and related tax evasion schemes is a major achievement. The Prime Minister's immediate response to the Costigan report was his first cop-out. He said that because the report was received by the Government in its caretaker phase it could not really say what it would do about it. Who will ever forget all those buckets of crocodile tears that the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, shed for civil liberties and natural justice and the dangers of naming people and so forth during the election campaign? That was the second indication that the Prime Minister wanted to back off and away from doing anything significant about the Costigan recommendations. Today in this pathetic document we have the final proof as to the Government's real intentions, despite all its rhetoric. I do not propose to go through the issues in any further detail. I have given indications of the sort of Government response to a number of recommendations. Many recommendations are still being considered. I referred to the proposal for a taxation tribunal and I refer also to the important recommendation that the National Crime Authority be given real, effective powers to investigate of its own initiative and not to be hog-tied by the necessity for references to that Authority and the sort of political control and delays that that limitation creates. Incidentally, it is most interesting to note what is reported in the Government statement about the handing over to the National Crime Authority from the Costigan Royal Commission of matters that it had under investigation. The Senate will remember our discussion last year about the summaries which Mr Costigan had prepared on 42 matters which he felt should be the subject of ongoing work by the National Crime Authority following the handover of his responsibilities to the Authority. The Minister's statement records that the Commission decided, I think in early December last year, that of those 42 matters 20 were worthy subjects for formal reference. Of those 20, only four have been granted to date. So, of the 42 matters Mr Costigan recommended for continued investigation by special powers-not just ordinary investigation-only four were granted formal reference, even though the Commission itself recommended that 20 of them could be the subject of formal reference. That is an example of the way in which the Crime Authority is being hog-tied by the form and powers that have been given to it by this Government. The Government has nothing to be very proud of in the way it has structured the National Crime Authority, yet it presents the Authority as the centrepiece of its fight against organised crime. They are probably the two major weaknesses in the response. I have referred to a number of other cases in which the Government has simply brushed off a recommendation, saying it is looking at it, it has set up a committee to look at it, or it has referred it to some other committee. An interesting example of that is the way in which the Government has dealt with the recommendation concerning civil proceedings by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We will be debating that shortly in the Senate. The legislation to give that power to the DPP is something that the Government has finally acted upon, but it acted upon it only after the Opposition took the initiative. The Opposition said in the course of the election campaign-not just a few weeks or months ago-that it would take that initiative, and that statement was repeated by the shadow Attorney-General early in the life of this Parliament. The Government was shamed into taking some sort of action. The legislation will come before the Senate for debate and more will be said about that then. Even though the Government has acted on the recommendations of Mr Costigan, I do not think it can take much credit for it. Some major recommendations were made by Mr Costigan in relation to unions. He recommended that there should be legislation similar to the American Labor Management Reporting and Disclosing Act to counteract extortion by trade unions. Again, during the election campaign the Opposition said it would act on this. Of course, it is far too much to expect that this Government will take any action against unions. The Government's response shows clearly just how it has been intimidated by union pressure. It is a weak response to say simply that this matter is under examination. In regard to racketeering organisations, the Costigan Commission recommended legislation along the lines of the American Racketeer and Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Statute. We in opposition have said that we will act on it. We said that during the election campaign, within four weeks of the Costigan report being made public. What is this Government's response? It has a joint working party looking at it. That is the pattern throughout the whole of the Government's response. Probably the most pathetic non-effort of the Government in this matter has been its response to an earlier report, Interim Report No. 5, by Mr Costigan. One of the first recommendations Mr Costigan made in his final report was that the Government should give some response to recommendations in his fifth report. That was in October last year, seven months ago. At that stage this Government had had Interim Report No. 5 for 16 months. After 23 months we still have responses along the lines that this matter is under consideration by the Government. In summing up on this dismal and pathetic response that we have today I have to say that the Government has done nothing since last December to advance its action in relation to the recommendations of the Costigan report. It has avoided making decision by a cowardly use of committees, working groups and promises of further consideration. It has shown that it does not have the courage to take any of the hard decisions needed in the fight against organised crime. The Government should be condemned for the thoroughly inadequate statement which the Minister has tabled today. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.31) —The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, as has already been pointed out by Senator Durack, has gone some way to addressing the problems of organised crime in this country. The Commission was established as a joint venture, so to speak, by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments in September 1980. It was originally intended to be a limited inquiry, of 12 months duration only, into the activities of one Victorian union, namely, the infamous Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. That the inquiry eventually developed into a four-year investigation into an extensive range of criminal activities right across Australian society says a great deal about the alarming penetration and entrenchment of organised crime in this country, as indeed does the fact that the National Crime Authority has taken over from the Royal Commission to continue monitoring and investigation of, and, hopefully, prosecutions against, organised crime. Before presenting its final report on 26 October last year the Commission delivered five interim reports, some of which were debated in this place, dealing with an extraordinary range of criminal activities. As the Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, representing the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), has pointed out, the Commission has played an invaluable role in heightening our perception of the nature and extent of organised crime, and reminding those people who needed reminding that criminal activity is a complex web affecting all strands of Australian society. Senator Durack, too, acknowledged that the work of the Commission was very valuable indeed. In his final report Commissioner Costigan detailed the various ways in which organised crime operates and urged the introduction of sweeping new powers to combat it. In support of this approach he pointed to what he called the 'constant ravaging' of the public by organised criminals and noted that: . . . the resources of the police force or any other law-enforcement agency in Australia or any other country, are too limited to permit success. Anybody who was in this chamber some time ago when what was then known as the National Crimes Commission Conference was taking place could not help but be struck, as indeed I was, by the constant reference of speakers to the paucity of resources Australia-wide in law enforcement agencies and in the police force. The sense of frustration from speakers who were members of the police force was quite intense. Clearly, one of the most important ways of making the fight against organised crime more effective is to increase those resources to a realistic level. As Senator Durack has already pointed out, some of us are pleased to note that this has been done to a certain extent. Commissioner Costigan's recommended approach to solving the problems of limited resources and inadequate other means of dealing with organised crime required the selection of bigger and more worthwhile targets, rather than simply concentrating on the small fry of organised crime, and a better concentration of resources. Certainly, while we can notch up a few arrests and convictions by concentrating on the small fry, we are faced with the fact that it is impossible to eliminate organised crime until the big men-and they are very largely men-are caught and stopped from engaging in the activities which have such a dramatic and deleterious impact on Australian society as a whole. While some people may have seen Mr Costigan's key proposals as radical, a rational and detailed assessment of them shows their importance in fighting crime effectively. It is an unfortunate fact of life that criminals have a tendency to have access to better accountants, smarter lawyers and more imaginative minds than governments and parliaments seem to have. Therefore, it is essential that strong and immediate action takes place and that we do a little less talking and a little more doing. The Commissioner, in his report, exposed the most outrageous and widespread tax fraud that we have ever seen and he recommended a strengthening of the taxation laws. We were reminded yet again by Senator Walsh, in one of his set pieces in Question Time today, that this Senate had been a little loth to support retrospective tax legislation. That, in itself, is hardly an answer either to the increasing deficit or to combatting organised crime through tax legislation. The criminals are up and away, well and truly, before anything retrospective can affect them, and it is only ordinary innocent people who are caught by retrospective legislation. Clearly, we have to close loopholes when they are first used and noticed, and, even better, close avenues for criminal activity via the tax laws before they are used. In particular, Royal Commissioner Costigan recommended the establishment of a taxation investigation tribunal, a special tax investigator and a port security authority, amendments to criminal legislation and company bankruptcy legislation, and executive and legislative action against union racketeering. It seems rather appalling when we read in the newspaper that Brian Maher is to receive about half a million dollars worth of legal aid to fight against charges of illegal activity. The legislation needs to be attended to so that those sorts of people cannot turn themselves into technical bankrupts and, having drained the taxpayer in one way, can then drain the purse a little more. The Government has now responded to some of Mr Costigan's recommendations. It has asserted that it is committed to crime fighting. As Senator Durack has indicated, the Government has a tendency to be committed more in talk than in action, but it has taken some steps to put its rhetoric into force. It has detailed the areas in which it claims there has been an adequate response, but, as has been noted by the Opposition already today, some limitations are apparent. Much has been made by the Government since the report was tabled last year of the abuse of civil liberties. Indeed, we must recognise the fundamental dilemma of balancing civil liberties with effective crime fighting. I am sure this is something that has been considered by Senator Missen. Senator Missen —Hardly noticeable. Senator HAINES —Well, some of us do pay attention occasionally to the matters raised by Senator Missen with regard to civil liberties. Senator Missen —We seek to find out. We cannot find out much in this report about it. Senator HAINES —Senator Missen might care to raise the matter at some more length in a moment. Notwithstanding the comments from Senator Missen and others about infringements of civil liberties, we should not lose sight of the invasion of civil liberties of the victims of organised crime; for example, the thousands of young people who suffer at the hands of drug traffickers, and the immense damage done to the community as organised crime pervades all areas of community life. We have to recognise that there is very little point in this Parliament's making laws for the rest of us if the reality is that the country is run by a criminal subculture which is able apparently at will to avoid those very laws and to go on its way, making life miserable for everybody else, and running this country effectively in a way which is beyond the reach of governments and parliaments. I understand that profits of organised crime from drugs, prostitution, tax avoidance and gambling are of the order of $5,000m annually. At this level we are not concerned just with individual offences; we are concerned with the integrity of our judicial and political systems as a whole. We cannot afford to allow the sort of behaviour that has been undertaken by an increasingly significant element of the community to run roughshod over the judicial and political systems in Australia. One of Mr Costigan's greatest achievements was to demonstrate the interconnected web of organised crime in Australia, indicating that it reaches into every level of our society. He has shown that the planners and major beneficiaries are able to reap the benefits of their criminal activities even though they are far removed from the scene of the crime which is carried out at their command. He has shown that greed can corrupt apparently respectable institutions. Perhaps his most important contribution is his pioneering of the use of sophisticated computer analysis which for the first time has shown the depth of corruption in our society and has opened the way to combat it effectively. Again, of course Senator Missen would say, and I would agree with him, that we have to make absolutely sure that those computerised systems are not used to the detriment of people who are inadvertently caught up in the web and who are perhaps innocently associating with people who have been known as major criminals. As Senator Durack mentioned, the forthcoming Director of Public Prosecutions legislation and the telecommunications interception legislative amendments, as well as the establishment of the National Crime Authority, go part of the way towards signalling to organised crime that it is not being given a free hand in Australia. It is essential therefore that the Government continue to match its rhetoric and its apparent good intentions with whatever other appropriate actions are necessary before Australia reaches the stage, which it seems the United States of America is perilously close to reaching, of being in the grip of organised crime to such an extent that we are powerless to do anything about it or to break free of it, and to the extent that we offer to future generations life in a society which is controlled by a large corrupt element that is free to do as it pleases and to ignore with impunity the judicial and political systems in this country. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.45) —I wish to speak to the motion that we take note of the statement because, like Senator Durack, I find this a rather extraordinary statement. It is no coincidence that it is introduced at the end of a very hectic period, in the same way as we received the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union just prior to the previous election. That was no fault of Mr Costigan; it was the fault of that Government in its determination to have an early election. Then, of course, just on the eve of Christmas, on 18 December 1984, we had the statement which was a preliminary forecasting of this report. It does not appear that we have advanced very much further since that time. We are now in the period at the end of a session when the Government engages in what I call the sausage machine type of justice. It produces Bill after Bill in this period after a very slack beginning to the session. Now we are landed with a very important statement. The statement is very deceptive in a way because it begins with a general statement of the attitude of the Government to the Costigan Royal Commission and to its report. Many worthwhile things are mentioned. One gets the impression from this statement that we will find some action when we reach the recommendations. But in fact there has been very little action. One can see the importance of the Costigan Royal Commission in the investigation of organised crime when one reads this part of the statement: Taken in conjunction with the other inquiries to which I have referred, the Costigan Commission showed a complex web involving all manner of criminal activity, with links throughout Australia, and cutting across social classes and professions. He found that members of the Painters and Dockers Union had apparently offered their services as general criminal hands and were involved in such diverse activities as 'bottom-of-the-harbour' tax fraud, SP bookmaking, social security fraud, crimes of violence, and fraud and extortion on the waterfront. Indeed, the Costigan Commission did that. We are indebted to it for the four years of extremely hard work that it did; for the villainy which it has had to suffer and which Mr Costigan has had to suffer at the hands of certain persons since that time, and which he had to suffer at that time; for his work which has opened our eyes to some extent to the seriousness of this whole problem. One cannot get from the Government anything like a response which would show that it realises the seriousness of this problem. When one leaves the initial statement, which is the greater part of this report and which refers to the very valuable work which the Commission has done in regard to discovering the money trail, the financiers of business and so forth, one expects that the recommendations at the end will show some initiative and sense of urgency on the part of the Government. Senator Durack has pointed out that this is not so. We have found, from reading it, that it is what one might call a report from a looking glass government. It contains sentences such as: 'We are still looking at this', 'we are providing that so and so will look at this', 'the Queensland Government will look at this' or 'some other body will look at this'. Rarely can one conclude that these matters will be dealt with by the Government with the sense of urgency which led to the very existence of the Costigan Commission. I speak not only as a member of the Senate but also as a member of the monitoring committee on organised crime, the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, which has not yet reported to this Parliament and which has not yet considered the main issues which I think ought to be before it. We have not yet investigated the changeover from the Costigan Commission to the present National Crime Authority. We have not established, and we cannot assure the Senate that we are satisfied in any way, that the investigations that were left behind by the Costigan Commission have been properly carried on. If one could find some satisfaction in this document that the Government was doing things, one would not be so worried. But, for a vicissitude of reasons, we have been denied the opportunity of asking certain questions in the monitoring committee. I hope this will come to an end in the next couple of weeks and that we will be able at last to ask sensible questions of the Authority so that we can satisfy ourselves about the extent to which these matters are being investigated. As Senator Durack pointed out, 42 matters were referred to by Mr Costigan as requiring, in his opinion, further investigation. Of those matters it is suggested that 20 should be the subject of a reference. In fact only four have been the subject of a reference to the authority. Only two or three of them arise from the Costigan Commission. We want to know why others have not been dealt with. What is the sense of urgency that is overwhelming the Authority and the Government in ensuring that these other matters are investigated? Undoubtedly time is of the essence. In this case, once the trail becomes cold it will be more difficult to pick up these things in the new Authority. The Costigan recommendations in volume 1 of the report are substantial. They were referred to very briefly in the statement today. Of interest is the reference to volume 9. I will just give one or two examples. The Government had before it recommendations from Mr Costigan that investigations should be continued into the activities of Ray and Packer. The matters in volume 9 are unknown to us because they form part of the secret documents. The commission recommended that certain matters be taken up. Recommendation 10.040 states: That all the investigations in volume 9 be under the supervision of the National Crime Authority and that consideration be given to the grant of a reference to allow their proper completion. That is very clear. How does the Government, in this response today, reply to that? It says: The National Crime Authority is examining the relevant Costigan Commission material and further action will be taken or co-ordinated by the Authority. That tells us nothing. It does not tell us whether the matters are all being dealt with by the Authority, whether they have been passed over to other persons to deal with them or whether they have been put aside and not dealt with at all. As a member of the Senate, I want to know whether the matters are being genuinely and properly dealt with. We have heard a lot about Mr Packer. He has had a lot to say in recent times. He has talked a lot about the matters which have been before the public, but he has not talked about the matters which are contained in the secret volumes of the Costigan report. I am not satisfied that they are being properly and vigorously investigated. Reference was made by Senator Durack to the recommendations in the fifth interim report of the Commission. He mentioned recommendation 10.002, which states: The recommendations summarised in this chapter should not be read in isolation from the volume of the report in which they are primarily found. This did occur in respect of the Fifth Interim Report, and led to a number of misinterpretations which would not have occurred had the critics known the circumstances in which the recommendations had been made. This should not be allowed to occur. In the document before us today there is no reference whatsoever to that recommendation. There is obviously no conclusion to be drawn that either the Authority or the Government is expected to continue with the investigations of those recommendations. They are not referred to in this volume at all. One could take other examples. It has been pointed out that what is said in most of the recommendations-for example, what it says about changes in the law and the importation of the American law in regard to crime investigations-could be implemented here but is not being implemented. Only the recommendation in respect of the opportunity for the Special Prosecutor to take civil action is, at long last, coming before this Parliament and being dealt with. Other matters of the law are being looked at by Mr Justice Watson, the Queensland Government or some other government, but they do not appear to have any sense of urgency about them whatsoever. Senator Haines referred to the civil liberties that are affected by some of the powers of the National Crime Authority. I do not think civil liberties come into much question at all. One is fearful that the civil liberties of a community which expects to be protected against organised crime are being greatly neglected by this Government. Far from the National Crime Authority doing anything to harm civil liberties, it is a poor and weak organisation. It is an organisation which obviously needs strengthening. It is one which could have been strengthened had the Government taken up Mr Costigan's recommendations. The Government did take away the old riding power of the inter-governmental committee, which remains a bugbear to the effectiveness of the new Authority. The power of publicity, which I know many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber do not agree with, is-I recommended this when I made my report on the Bill itself-an essential need of the Authority. The Authority is finding this out, as we have seen from the attempts and threats which it has made to go public if it is refused references by the Government. We do not know whether it is being refused references or whether this is a serious concern. This is something we have to find out, and find out pretty soon. I believe that the statement indicates a very shoddy attitude on the part of the Government. It shows that over a period of nearly one year-since Costigan brought down his final report-the Government has done very little. As Senator Durack has pointed out, the Government has provided some money and some increase in resources and things of this sort, but basically it has not put the weapons in the hands of members of the new National Crime Authority. A great and unfortunate delay has taken place. We do not know what has happened to many of these recommendations. On reading the recommendations that are set out in this document one can gain very little, except that matters are being looked at further. It is time that both the monitoring committee and members of this Parliament took a much closer and sharper look at the activities of the Government and the activities of the Authority. We should satisfy ourselves that we are not being misled by the statements which come in at the end of parliamentary sessions, when they can easily be overlooked by the people. I believe the people are being poorly served by this Government in the attack on organised crime. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.58) —in reply-If one discounts all the familiar rhetoric we have heard during the contributions to this short debate, it would appear that there is only one matter on which some further comment is desirable in reply; that is, the question of the taking up by the National Crime Authority of investigations recommended to be further pursued by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The situation is that of the 20 matters identified by Mr Costigan as perhaps properly being the subject of reference to the Crime Authority, it has, to date, been granted references in respect of only three of them. There have been four references altogether. Three of those references relate to Costigan initiated matters, although I should just put the record absolutely straight and make it clear that those three references given to the Crime Authority in fact deal with four matters in the original Costigan list of 20. There are no recommendations from the Crime Authority itself for further matters to be referred to it which are presently outstanding and not dealt with by the Government. We are not sitting on any package of proposals from the Crime Authority for formal references which have not been addressed or made the subject of decision by the Government. There is one further possible reference to the Crime Authority covering two matters raised by Mr Costigan which will, however, be considered by the Inter-Governmental Committee at its meeting in Perth on 30 May. So the score card, if one wants to be crude about it-and there seems to be a passion for keeping track of things in this way on the other side of the chamber-is that after the IGC meeting at the end of this month, if the request for a reference to which I have referred is acceded to, there will be a total of five Costigan matters that have been picked up as formal references. As to the remaining 15 matters, I should say this: The Authority has noted that the material handed over by Mr Costigan ranged extraordinarily widely in the amount of detailed information collected and in the degree of investigation to which it had been subjected. Quite a lot of the material required a great deal of further sifting, analysis and examination before it could be made the subject of any sensible reaction by the Authority. The Authority has in fact now considered all the matters handed over by the Costigan Commission and has made some determination as to the appropriate further action to be taken on each matter. In respect of the references to which I have referred, a decision has been taken to seek references to the extent that I have indicated. As to the other remaining matters, they are all the subject of a decision so far to merely be further investigated under the Authority's general investigative power without the attraction of the special power that is provided for through the reference mechanism. It may be that in due course the Authority will seek one or more further references arising out of that further investigation, but that has not been the case so far. I do not propose to comment on the detail of any individual matter, notwithstanding that at least one has been raised by Senator Missen in his contribution to the debate. To do so would be either to prejudice the investigations and possible prosecutions on the one hand, or to prejudice the individuals concerned in terms of their reputations or, perhaps, both. I simply do not propose to enter into that kind of discussion on this occasion for the reasons that I have mentioned. I do not think that it advances the cause of rational debate on matters of law and order and organised crime in this country to make the kind of suggestions that have been made with varying degrees of bluntness in this debate about the Government dragging its heels or the Authority not acting with conviction and speed in performing its functions. Senator Durack —Throughout this whole debate you have been dragged screaming into action. Senator GARETH EVANS —For the pot to have quite as much chutzpah as to make that particular allegation against this kettle over here is really quite a feat. The Government has nothing whatsoever to apologise for in the systematic way in which it has gone about responding to the Costigan reports and recommendations, many of which have not quite lived up to the expectations that have been generated about them in various quarters. However, we acknowledge that there were a great many matters that have required attention. Where it has been possible to give them speedy attention that has occurred. Where it has involved a process of further investigation, as is the case with the particular matters that I have been talking about that are within the jurisdiction of the Crime Authority, that too has occurred. The Government retains complete confidence in the Chairman, members and staff of the Crime Authority. We believe that the cause of law and order in this country is best served now by allowing the Authority and the machinery that has been established to get on with the job and stop the kind of second rate carping that we have heard from the contributors to this debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is a pity that this report has been brought down in the Senate today rather than yesterday because it suggests that we appear to be reacting to the news rather than making it. The point is that many statements have been made about the introduction of the so-called Hancock report on the industrial system in this country and many of the points have been made in the newspapers, by spokesmen from the Opposition and of course by the Minister himself. The point on which I would like to focus today is that the Government must be particularly well pleased with this report in terms of its responding to the kind of fundamental concept that it has of the industrial relations system in this country. Since coming to power in March of 1983, the Hawke socialist Government has sought to establish the corporatist model in this country. The belief in big unions, big government and big business is fundamental to its understanding of the way in which society works. The individual is of no concern and neither is the small businessmen. All is concerned with the power of the three-the triumvirate of corporations-which work together in the interests of the country according to the Government's dogma. The report of Hancock reinforces this very strongly. Let me quote specifically from page 170 of the report. It says: The network of consultative arrangements does not purport to secure agreement on specific issues (including the desirable outcomes of particular wage cases); but it does seek to ensure (among other things) that proceedings in the Commission occur in a context of agreement between the major 'social partners'. I think that gives us a hint of the underlying philosophy of the report. It goes on to say in paragraph 4.49: Encouragement to believe that this offers better chances of success than more prescriptive approaches to policy making is afforded, perhaps, by the work of Schott. It goes on: This suggests that the countries with better records (in terms of inflation and unemployment) are those described by Schott- he is the author of a recent study of European incomes policies-- as strongly corporatist, while those ranked medium on the corporatist scale fare better than those where corporation is weak. 'Corporatism' involves very much the notion of policy-making by agreement at a centralised level. Obviously, when this is read with other recommendations of the Hancock report-especially those relating to the way in which independent contractors will be sucked into the industrial relations system and treated as employees without any choice in the situation that is envisaged-it means that the small businessman will be under attack, just as much as he is under attack by the Hawke Labor Government at present. Obviously this report must be a godsend to the philosophy makers of the Australian Labor Party and its various factions as it seeks to work out various aspects of its philosophy. I draw attention particularly to the importance of independent contractors in this country. The Hancock report itself acknowledges the existence of contractors in road transport, the housing industry and so on and makes the point that they have made significant contributions. In the report the Housing Industry Association of Australia is quoted as saying that, as a result of the activities of independent contractors, the housing industry is highly efficient. Yet this report seeks to bring those contractors under the control of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Furthermore, it seeks, obviously, to attack the basis of small enterprise in this country. We on this side of the House do not hold to that view. We believe that the Government should act for the benefit of all Australians, certainly not for the triumvirate which Hancock appears to say is typical of the kind of society which ought to be established in this country and which certainly is being encouraged by this Government. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.11) —We have just heard an ideological barrage from the Opposition. While we are commenting on the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, perhaps I should say one thing about what is being said opposite; that is, that industrial disputation in this country is at a 17-year record low because of the policies of this Government. The latest statistic I can give honourable senators is that figures for working days lost to industrial disputes for the 12 months to February 1985 compared with those for the 12 months to February 1984 show a further reduction of 8.8 per cent. However, in the State for which the honourable senator opposite, Senator Messner, would hold a greater ideological allegiance, namely Queensland, they show an increase in industrial disputation-for February to February, before the latest unpleasantness broke out-of 184.1 per cent. In those figures is embodied the contrast between the two approaches-the approach being espoused by the Opposition, which is one of dispute, dispute, dispute, and the approach being espoused by the Government, which is one of harmony, consensus and an improving economy. I am pleased to see that this Committee looked at all the possible alternative ways in which Australia could manage its industrial relations system and, after examining the alternatives exhaustively, the Committee, composed of veteran experts in industrial relations, came to a conclusion about modifications to the present system. It is important to say that the Committee had a charter, which was adopted by all States-Queensland and Tasmania included-and the Northern Territory, that supported the terms of reference of this inquiry. It had, it might also be said, the backing of the National Labor Consultative Council, employers, unions and governments, which all supported the terms of reference. Nothing in the terms of reference precluded this inquiry from examining alternative methods of dealing with industrial relations outside the arbitration system. Indeed, a seminar was held by the inquirers to invite those who had the ideological predilections of the Opposition coalition to come forward and put up or shut up. What did we get? We got a vacuous series of arguments which, when tested, in practice, were proved to be wanting and not applicable to the Australian scene. We embarked upon the inquiry. We did so with an open mind and with the consent of all parties, the States included. We asked the Opposition to come forward. It made some offer, which turned out in the end to be nothing more than a puny attempt to justify the ideological conditioning it has imposed on itself and which it now seeks to impose on the rest of the country. Fortunately, however, it will not get that opportunity. Having said all that, I turn to what is an unfortunate comment made by a number of Press reports this morning when reporting and editorialising on the findings of this Committee. It seems that there is a feeling that if things are going well, as good news does not sell newspapers, one should find something to attack, to carp at or to pick on. The man who edited the Good News newspaper went broke. We all know that. So it is not surprising that the newspapers today say things which are at the margin and which do not come to grips with what this report is on about, in order to try to create some controversy. That is unfortunate because it obstructs a proper, analytical analysis of what truly is the case. What truly is the case is that the conciliation and arbitration system is enshrined centrally in Australian industrial relations. While we now hear the latest ideological clamourings from the Opposition, let me, as somewhat of an industrial relations cynic, hark back to a time when I, and I am sure Senator Harradine, were operators in the industrial relations field. Senator Harradine will remember that back in the early 1970s the argument for a deregulated industrial wage fixing system-the arbitration system-was being put by unions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions argued that unions should come back to book and work through the arbitration system. That argument is now being put by employers. Why was it put by unions? Why is it now being put by employers? The answer is very simply the economy. Back in the early 1970s there was full employment and the bargaining shares favoured unions. Now there is high unemployment and the bargaining shares favour employers. The real reason behind the Opposition's latest ideological dress is that it is in a favourable bargaining position to lower the conditions of employment for Australians. That is exactly why it is now propounding its so-called ideological theory. All of the commentators have seemingly missed that, because they take their latest brief from the Adam Smith institute. They now propound this free market theory. The Chairman of this Committee was involved in the report dealing with the financial system, in which he recommended deregulation. He was Chairman of this Committee and recommends the regulation of the system. I commend the report. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.17) —I rise to speak in a debate which I imagine could be entitled Hancock's Half Hour, judging by some of the original contributions I have heard from the other side. I commend Mr Hancock for the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and all those people who put time and effort into it, all those people who have given the benefit of their years of experience in the industrial relations arena, who have come through what must be one of the worst periods of industrial relations history for at least 20 years and who, from those experiences, have given us something that will be a very valuable blueprint for the future. I do not agree with everything in the report; however, I believe that it is something which, for the first time in many years, has given the Government something to grapple with. I remember being involved in a number of conferences during the late 1970s and early 1980s as a State Minister for industrial relations and going to endless working party meetings called by a harassed Malcolm Fraser as he attempted to grapple with the problems that were afflicting his Government at the time. Not since at least the late 1940s has there been such a disruptive period in industrial relations as that which prevailed during the period when Malcolm Fraser was in the cockpit. The problem basically was that the Prime Minister of the day was unable to prevent himself from intervening in issues from time to time, setting back all that had been achieved by the co-operation of unions and management. At last we have a government that is able to say to unions and management: 'We want you to get together. We want you to ensure that you improve the industrial relations record of this country. In passing, we want you to improve the sorts of results that are achieved in terms of a real increase in wages-that is, a proper social wage-to improve the situation for the average consumer and citizen who is hurt by continual industrial disruption. In other words, we want you to ensure that, as we go into the latter part of the 1980s, we have an industrial relations system we can be proud of, not one that we are ashamed of'. Every honourable senator opposite can recall the sorts of statements that were made by Japanese businessmen and other people overseas about the condition of the Australian industrial relations situation. Every comment we heard from overseas was a critical comment. It was critical simply because we had a government that was not prepared either to create the right relationships between unions and employers or to set about changing the structures so that those relationships could be improved. Senator Messner, for example, objects to what he calls the corporatism of this report. He says that it is creating a situation in which the major groups in the community carve up the benefits between them. Yet what more perfect example of the corporate state could one find than Queensland, the State that Senator Messner so willingly sets out to defend? In Queensland there is excessive government influence over the media. The Queensland Government is prepared to legislate right down the line to punish unions and individuals for what would be considered minor transgressions elsewhere in Australia and to impinge upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Yet what do we hear from the other side? We hear nothing. In other words, relationships in Queensland have gone totally askew. Yet Senator Messner is prepared to come in here and say that he objects to the corporate state. What is the alternative that Senator Messner and others on the other side put up? I will tell honourable senators what it is. It is the law of the jungle; it is deregulation, as they put it. It is the situation that we had in 1981-82 when the whole industrial relations system in this country fell apart. For example, Malcolm Fraser could not even get to, I think, a royal wedding because he had to come back here and beg the cool heads in the Australian Council of Trade Unions to intervene on his behalf to stop a strike by the Transport Workers Union. Senator Harradine —He paid out Telecom. Senator AULICH —He paid out the strongest unions in the country at certain times but at other times he went in hard on the weaker unions. In other words, the way the former Government ran industrial relations in this country was a disgrace. Here we have a government that, for the first time in many years, has been able to halve the number of days lost through industrial disputes. What do we get? We get criticism from people over there who are not even on side with the business community, which is supposedly their traditional ally. I have sat in on conferences in this country for years and heard businessmen criticise the government of the day for doing nothing, for having the wrong attitudes. This report is a step in the right direction. I believe the Government will look very seriously at the recommendations that have been made. I support the majority of the views expressed in this report. I commend those people, including the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, for the work he has done in bringing this about. It is an example of the right approach to industrial relations and it is long overdue. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.22) —The report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems has rightly received wide publicity and appraisal. The relationships between employer and employee, between management and the shop floor, between organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and between peak councils are crucial to the functioning of this community and to the perception which the community has of itself. Aluminium, iron ore, wheat, meat, machinery and manufactured goods are all commodities. The legitimate subject matter for debate is whether their sale should be subject to free market forces, to a regulated market or to some other system of disposal. However, labour cannot legitimately be considered as a commodity in the sense that those things are. Work is the activity of people, of citizens. People are not inanimate objects but thinking and feeling human beings who experience emotions, who have ambitions and who know hardship and disappointment. The job a person does is seen, whether rightly or wrongly, as a measure of that person's worth. If someone is denied employment or treated unfairly as a worker his dignity and standing are grievously injured. Work is vital not only for the well-being of a person who earns a livelihood but for the spouse, children and other dependants of that person. The breadwinner who brings home wages earned at work sustains the well-being and morale of the whole family. The well-being and morale are prejudiced when that work is lost or its rewards are reduced. Those matters must be kept in mind when appraising the Hancock report. The structure by which industrial relations is regulated in Australia is aimed at adjusting the rights and obligations placed on employers and employees so that fairness is maintained in the work place. Although the rate of remuneration is a crucial issue in establishing that fairness it is only one factor involved. The establishment of proper hours, of a proper work environment, of a proper provision for recreation and of proper employment security are other crucial issues with which the structure deals. Fairness in the work place is put at great risk if it is deregulated. Some employees will gain and some will suffer. The relative industrial strengths of different unions and different employers will affect the quality of employment offered to different workers. The ability and industry of two workers may be the same but the conditions of their employment may be incongruously different and a just society will avoid that situation. The report prepared by Professor Hancock, Mr Polites and Mr Fitzgibbon is happily more consistent with the proposition that human and spiritual dimensions are involved in a person's work than with the proposition that work is solely the subject matter of the market-place to be bartered for a price. The report has recommended reform rather than abolition of the present system which has become embedded in our society. In this context it is to be remembered that because a system has faults it does not follow that another used to oust it will have no or fewer faults. The report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems deserves calm and exhaustive consideration. It should, as far as possible, be considered in that light apart from the political content that we all might want to put in it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.25) —The task of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems was indeed a formidable one. Its fixed terms of reference included: With the aim and for the purpose of developing a more effective and practical industrial relations system in accordance with social, economic and industrial changes which have occurred and are taking place in Australia . . . In attempting to discharge that task it has obviously entertained a great number of submissions, studied them deeply and come to certain conclusions. I must say in passing that some of the conclusions do not seem to be argued cohesively in the report, but that is not to say they have not been arrived at and the evidence that no doubt will be available to us at some time will show that those conclusions are correct. That is a possibility. One thing that concerns me is that some people have castigated this report and asked why it did not examine a deregulated system. For example, on the front page of today's Australian there is a statement by a contributor to that effect. He asks the question: Why did not the Hancock report come down with a recommendation for the same number of unions as there are in West Germany? There are two things I want to say about that statement. Why did not somebody, such as the writer in the Australian, bell the cat? Why did he not give evidence to the Commission? Senator Robert Ray —That would mean work. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, that would mean work, but it would also have forced those people to set down, if they could, their propositions in a cohesive fashion. They were freely able to bandy them about in the headlines of the newspapers but they were not prepared to subject them to proper analysis. I might say that the writer was not prepared to bell the cat before the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation and put forward these propositions. I am sure those people would have appreciated the consideration by all of those concerned would have found those propositions to be wanting. On the one hand they complain about the corporate nature of the industrial relations system in Australia-big unions, big government and big employers-and on the other hand they want bigger and bigger unions. The proposition in the Australian this morning was for the same number of unions as in West Germany. What has that got to do with the price of fish? For the benefit of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) I notice that the Hancock inquiry quoted large chunks of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation. Senator Button —A very distinguished committee. Senator HARRADINE —A very distinguished committee. Our Committee mentioned the doubt that union structures predominantly determine industrial relations outcomes. Union structures do not predominantly determine industrial relations outcomes. I will briefly make a couple of points in regard to the Committee's recommendation. My concern is that it has not given an adequate definition of what it means by 'craft' or 'occupation', what it means by 'industries' and what rights individuals who are long-standing members of unions would have when their unions are faced with abolition under these proposals. I would like to mention a number of machinery matters. Perhaps they have escaped the minds of members of the Committee but they are evident to those of us who have been involved in preparing rules for registration at both the Federal and State levels. No doubt there will be opportunities for input on these matters and if and when legislation comes forward that will give us further opportunity for their full consideration. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Page 14 of the report of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission reveals statistics relating to matters that were put before the Commission over the last year upon which the report was based. I notice that of a total of 2,981 applications to the Commission, approximately 1,865 have been in relation to wage indexation. The second highest group relates to special allowance. That number is 355. There is no specification as to what that might be. I take it that it does not include the superannuation arrangements which have been pursued by various unions against employers. Senator Button —It is more an electoral allowance and things like that. Senator MESSNER —I take it that the special allowance refers only to Ministers, not to members of parliament generally. The superannuation arrangements that are being pursued by trade unions at the moment against employers are not superannuation at all. They are merely deferred wage increases. No arrangements are made by which employees contribute to their own welfare during their working lives such as the arrangements that have been established, for instance, under the building unions' superannuation scheme. It is merely a way of circumventing the accord. Union members on the other side of the chamber smile at that because they know it is right. It is just a way of getting around the accord and giving wage increases to the most militant union leaders in order to keep some kind of faith with the public on this matter. I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that the report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems is very clear. It states that the current pursuit of superannuation within the industrial arena ought to be brought under the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The statistics in the report of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission reveal that that has not been done. Again, the Government is giving some kind of aegis and respectability to the claims of the trade union movement on superannuation. This is at a time when the Government has not yet determined its policy in relation to occupational superannuation in the way in which it will be determined in the public arena, particularly in the union movement. As I understand it, from questioning Senator Grimes, the Government has made no determinations upon a general kind of occupational superannuation arrangement that might apply to all Australians and not just to trade unionists who are in a special position to be able to push their own barrows. For that reason I believe that we have a direct example in this report of one of the problems that is existent in the Hancock recommendations that were put down today. This is obviously an area in which there will be some contention on the part of the Opposition in the months ahead. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present report No. 229 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts which examines the reports of the Auditor-General for 1981-82 and September 1982. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a short statement relating to the report. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Honourable senators will be aware that each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor-General. Following the tabling of the reports of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1982 and for September 1982 the Committee sought written submissions from 15 departments and authorities in respect of 18 items. This report analyses the responses by departments and authorities to the Public Accounts Committee explaining the criticisms raised by the Auditor-General in his reports. The Committee has continued to monitor developments in the matters raised in these reports of the Auditor-General. The Committee took public evidence on only one item-Australian industrial research and development incentives, administered by the Department of Science and Technology. Honourable senators will know that the object of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 is to promote the development and improve the efficiency of Australian industry by encouraging industrial research and development in Australia in matters relating to science and technology. The Committee is aware that much has been done to redress the general lack of administrative control over grants made under the Act. The Committee remains concerned that there is not enough time or resources to carry out necessary administrative procedures on all applications and reviews of projects. For instance, only 17 of the 600 operating and 71 of the 220 completed project grants in 1983-84 were assessed technically. One of the most time consuming tasks outlined by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board is verifying that expenditures were made in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The Committee has recommended in the report that a verifying statement from a professional accountant certifying that grant moneys have been expended in accordance with the requirements of the Act be provided. The Committee remains concerned that some administrative changes may not be adequate to control effectively the disbursement of significant sums of public money, $65.9m in 1983-84. The Committee reviewed internal audit sections in three departments. The Committee believes that progress by the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Social Security has been satisfactory. However, the Committee found that the Department of Communications has not been able to keep its internal audit section fully staffed nor has it been able to commence ADP auditing. The Committee finds this unsatisfactory, particularly as the Department of Communications provides internal audit support to two statutory bodies, the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, as well as its own. Many reports of the Auditor-General-the latest being the March 1984 report-have referred to the potential for overpayments and the need for review of the continuing eligibility of pensioners in receipt of telephone rental concessions. Following earlier Auditor-General's Office representations regarding eligibility of those receiving the concession, individual reviews were made by departments in all States resulting in annual savings of $1.8m. A working party has been established comprising representatives from Telecom and the Departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs to examine the rationalisation of the administrative arrangements. The Committee is concerned that this matter continues unresolved. I commend this report to honourable senators. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That Government Business, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes) relating to the Australian Constitutional Convention, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill, together with its companion Bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985, by which date it is expected that the equivalent Appropriation Bills, which will form part of the Budget for 1985-86, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $7,189.6m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $580.3m, or about 8.8 per cent, greater than the equivalent amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1984-85. A significant part of the increase reflects the flow-through of staffing approvals in 1984-85 and salary and other cost increases including the effects of the national wage case decision handed down on 3 April 1985. The increase also includes: $36m for the effects of price increases and the decrease in the value of the Australian dollar on new and replacement defence equipment and stores, and on repairs and overhaul; $39.2m reflecting substantial increases in allowance levels approved for 1985 and increased participation levels in both secondary and tertiary education under student assistance programs; $140m in respect of the first home owners scheme, provision for which in 1984-85 was made by a standing appropriation under the First Home Owners Act 1983; and $32m under the Department of Resources and Energy reflecting an arrangement with Queensland Mines Limited to purchase that proportion of its total uranium production originally destined for export to the French authority Electricite de France. This follows the Government's decision to impose an embargo on uranium sales to France. I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks interim provision only in respect of approved ongoing policies of the Government. It does not anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the 1985-86 Budget context for which provision will be sought in the Appropriation Bills. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling $1,752.6m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985. The amount sought is $40.8m, or about 2.4 per cent, greater than that provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1984-85. The main increases relate to: $32m for payments to the States by way of assistance under section 96 of the Constitution for the purposes of legal aid commissions, which payments were previously appropriated as cost reimbursements under the No. 1 Bill; $45.9m under the Department of Community Services reflecting the expected introduction on 1 July 1985 of the new home and community care program; $93.5m under the Department of Health for payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, mainly reflecting the increasing proportion of patients electing to be treated as public patients under Medicare; and $58.4m under the Department of the Treasury for increases in funding to the Northern Territory under the existing terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Government, largely consequent upon the expected strong growth in Commonwealth tax revenues in 1984-85. This provision is without prejudice to forthcoming negotiations on the funding arrangements. Certain new provisions in respect of which Government decisions have been taken have been separately itemised in the Bill in accordance with convention. As indicated with respect to the Supply Bill No. 1, the provisions in this Bill do not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1985-86 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Rae) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.41) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditure by the Parliamentary Departments during the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985. They total some $19.5m which is $2.3m or about 13.4 per cent greater than the amount provided for the same functions in the Supply period 1984-85. An increase is necessary to maintain the on-going operations of the Parliament, and to meet unavoidable salary and other cost increases arising partly from the increased numbers of members and senators. However, the appropriations reflect the need for maximum restraint in all areas of public expenditure in 1985-86. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is for an Act to establish the Australian Sports Commission as a Commonwealth statutory authority. The Bill sets out the objectives, functions and powers of the Commission. It also covers a wide range of issues relating to its management and operation. The Bill defines the relationship between the Commission and the Government within which the Commission will undertake its tasks. It also authorises the establishment of an Australian Sports Aid Foundation. Background Federal government involvement in sports development assistance began in earnest a little more than a decade ago. Under the guidance of the late Frank Stewart in the Whitlam Labor Government, the Federal Government established a sports assistance program under the auspices of the first national department with direct responsibility for sport. The program covered assistance to sporting organisations as well as an attempt to increase the number and improve the quality of sports facilities throughout the community at various levels. Under the previous coalition Government, the pattern of funding and support from the Commonwealth Government was erratic and unreliable. Indeed, in 1976, just before Australia's undistinguished performance at the Montreal Olympic Games, the Federal Government withdrew entirely from direct support of sports development. Our performance at those games, together with some concerted pressure by the sporting community, saw a measure of support reinstated. The decline in funding came to an abrupt halt in 1983. Since the last year of the Fraser Government total sports funding through my Department has increased enormously to reach $54m under this Government in 1984-85. It has often been suggested that Australia's sports effort has been fragmented and that consequently we have been unable to realise fully the basic objective of developing opportunities for sporting excellence and participation for all Australians. The Federal Government, the argument continues, should take a stronger leadership and co-ordinative role. Prior to our election in 1983, we published a major policy statement outlining our plans and objectives for sports development assistance. Central to those plans was the creation of the Australian Sports Commission to more effectively draw together our national sporting effort. In September 1983 the Government appointed an interim committee to advise on the role, functions and responsibilities of the proposed Commission. The interim committee reported to me in March 1984. During its investigations, the interim committee identified a range of problems and issues confronting contemporary sports development in Australia. Although the priorities and emphasis placed on those problems understandably varied between a range of groups and individuals, two persistent themes emerged: The need for a mechanism that allowed a much greater direct involvement by sport itself in determining needs, priorities and strategies for action; and the need to develop alternative sources and funding for sport both to supplement existing public sector sources of funds and also to provide a measure of certainty and stability in the flow of resources. Undertaking those two fundamental reforms provides the most effective foundation upon which to build a more cohesive, co-ordinated sporting system throughout Australia. While it is generally acknowledged that the departmental structure that has existed in the past has serviced governments well in its programs of support for sport in Australia, it is also recognised that there are some restrictions on the flexibility of such a structure. The Commission, on the other hand, will be able to forge stronger links between the sporting community and the decision making process as well as to operate, through the proposed Australian Sports Aid Foundation, in the entrepreneurial and highly competitive world of private sector sponsorship and fund raising. The Australian Sports Commission will be able to provide the necessary flexibility and autonomy to address those major reforms, while working within a framework of stated Government policies. Government Announcement On 13 September last year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the Government's intention to establish the Commission as a statutory authority. He also indicated the membership of the Commission, to be chaired on a part time basis by Mr Ted Harris, Managing Director of Ampol Ltd, who had chaired the interim committee. The part time Deputy Chairman will be former Olympian Mr Herb Elliott. Current members who will be confirmed are Mrs Vicki Cardwell, Mr Pat Clohessy, Mr Phil Coles, Miss Betty Cuthbert, Mr Mick Fitzpatrick, Mr Neale Fraser, Mr Colin Hayes, Mr Grant Kenny, Mr Andrew Lederer, Mr Ray Lindwall, Mr Bruce MacDonald, Mr Roy Masters, Mr John Newman, Mrs Glynis Nunn, Mrs Wendy Pritchard, Mrs Margaret Pewtress, Mr Mark Tonelli, and Mr Jim Yates. They provide a wide range of sporting experience and knowledge, as well as skills in business management and other fields. Since that announcement, the Commission has assumed a number of significant existing policy and program management responsibilities, and has addressed itself to some exciting, new priority areas which we believe required urgent attention and action. I shall mention some of these later in this speech. Major Features of the Bill The Bill, which builds on the experience of the last seven months, outlines the Commission's objectives, which are to maximise funding for sport from the private sector, to provide leadership in the development of Australia's performance in international sport and to increase the level of participation in sport by all Australians. It also defines the functions of the Commission, which include program management, the co-ordination of our national sporting effort and the requirement to consult widely with the sporting community. The Bill also describes the powers that the Commission will have to undertake its work. These include the vital provision to establish and operate an Australian Sports Aid Foundation, through which to increase the volume and value of funds for sports development from the private sector. I would draw the attention of honourable members to those aspects of the Bill that define the powers and responsibilities of the Minister. The Government is anxious to ensure that the Commission operates within the framework of overall Government objectives and policies, which will guide the strategic plan to be prepared by the Commission for consideration by the Minister. These provisions make it clear that the Commission will remain directly responsible to the Government. Together with the provision to allow the Minister to issue directions to the Commission, they will ensure a due and proper degree of ministerial overview and responsibility. The Bill contains the usual sorts of provisions relating to a range of administrative and operational issues, including membership and appointment, the committee system, remuneration and financial management. It should be noted that the Commission will be required to submit estimates in respect of its proposed budget-it will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and the production of an annual report. Financial Impact Statement Following the establishment of the Commission on 13 September 1984, the administrative and operational expenses relating to staff, travel, meetings and day-to-day running of the Commission are estimated to be $937,000 in 1984-85. These costs reflect the Government's concern to ensure that the Commission has sufficient funds available in this important establishment phase to undertake a number of projects in line with Government sports development priorities. In addition, the funds cover the payment of fees and allowances to Commission members. At the same time, the Government recognises the environment characterised by a need to control overall levels of Government spending. The cost in 1985-86, being the first full year of operation of the Commission, will be determined in the Budget context. Under the legislation the Commission will have the power to set up a company, the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, whose prime function will be to raise funds from the private sector to supplement public funds made available for sports development. This Bill, especially those provisions relating to the Commission's strategic plan, places the organisation in the vanguard of the Federal Government's commitment to overall management improvement within the public sector. Within the context of the strategic plan, which has to be endorsed by the Minister, the Commission will be required to develop objectives for its programs and activities, to define measures against which it can test performance and to subject all aspects of its operations to regular evaluation. In broad terms, of course, the provisions of the legislation itself, to the extent that they set out the objectives and functions of the Commission will offer a primary measure against which to constantly monitor its performance. Achievements and Priorities I mentioned earlier that, since it commenced operations in September last year, the Commission has addressed itself to a number of priority areas which we believed required urgent attention. For example, it has advanced considerably in the development of a major children in sport campaign. This has involved extensive consultations with the sporting community, with State and Territory education and sport departments, and with expert researchers in the field. The result has been the publication of an action plan entitled 'Young Sport 88'. The plan, itself the subject of wide consultation amongst the various groups that will play an important part in its implementation, is directed towards a series of specific outcomes or targets. These targets are based on the simple, but vital, objective of providing every child in Australia with the skills and experience in a range of sporting and fitness activities. The plan is to introduce a high proportion of those children to those skills by 1988, Australia's bicentennial year. Depending on availability of funds in the Budget, I would want to see an early start made on an agreed program of this sort. At the other end of the spectrum, the Commission is developing a plan that will spell out some basic principles to assist the development of programs to cater for the sporting needs of older Australians. By the year 2000, some 15 per cent of Australians will be over 65. We have heard much of the trends in our technological age, towards earlier retirement and increasing leisure time. These changes impose priorities to which it is imperative we respond right now. The Commission is doing just that. The Commission has taken two major Government commitments-the Sports Aid Foundation and the provision to allow sportspeople with short, high earning careers to average their incomes-and is urgently developing specific proposals for our consideration. With reference particularly to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, the Government recognises that it is essential to provide sufficient incentive to ensure that the Foundation receives the maximum support possible from individuals and corporations within the community. In line with a commitment given during the last election campaign by the Prime Minister, the Government is giving full consideration to the provision of full tax deductibility for donations to the Foundation. As well as these and other major new areas of activity and involvement, the Commission is running major programs of sports assistance taken over from my Department; for example the sports development program and the national athlete award scheme. In 1984-85, the SDP will provide some $7m to national sporting organisations and other bodies to assist with, among other things, administration, junior development programs, coaching development and travel to international competition. This year, NAAS will allocate more than $700,000 to over 155 individual athletes and 18 teams to assist with training and competition expenses. A major new program of assistance to our top sportspeople-the sports talent plan-has been foreshadowed and its full development will occur as soon as funds are available. Consultation Perhaps most importantly, the Commission has already developed avenues of consultation through which the sporting community can become closely involved in, and fully informed about, the Commission's activities and decision making processes. Consultation is necessary not only with other organisations within the Commonwealth, such as my own Department, and the Australian Institute of Sport, but also with State and Territory governments, major umbrella groups and individual bodies responsible to such a large extent for the primary delivery of sport to the Australian community. I believe the Commission's conduct even in these first, brief months of its existence provides ample and compelling evidence of the co-operation and consultation that will be the cornerstones of its overall approach. The Commission has no power or charter to intervene in or direct without the direction of the Minister, the affairs of any individual organisation. It has neither the power nor the competence to effect some sort of unilateral 'takeover' of sport. Its charter is clear and simple: To ensure that Taxpayers' money is used, wisely, to achieve the most effective outcomes for sport and for the community. The Government has no intention of allowing any compromise of the proud tradition of independence and autonomy of sporting organisations that lies at the heart of Australia's sporting achievements. The Commission is to have powers that are independent of my Department and will have primarily an entrepreneurial role, as well as being responsible for recommending the allocation of funding to various sporting organisations and groups and the management of relevant assistance programs. My Department, on the other hand, will continue to provide an avenue of advice on sports policy issues as well as maintaining responsibility for those areas in sport where co-operation of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments is a major factor. I am referring here to such things as the provision of sporting facilities and assistance with major multi-sports events of an international flavour where assistance could not normally be provided through appropriations available to the Commission. The Department is also to assume a more active role in the development and implementation of the Government's policies relating to community recreation and fitness. A New Era in Sport Australia has suffered in the past from a curious form of schizophrenia about sport. While proud of their sport, Australians have been uncertain as to where it fits into community life. And this is despite the fact that we are one of the most 'sports crazy' nations of earth. Our people spend vast amounts of their time, energy and money playing, watching and enjoying sport. It is widely accepted that sport has been, and continues to be, a major expression of an enormous range of personal, emotional values and experiences as well as a vital and vigorous element of our national identity and culture. The Prime Minister recognised these values when he commented, in a speech in November 1984, that 'over the years Australia's high performance athletes and coaches have been treated so shabbily by coalition governments'. He went on: Sportsmen and women, through their dedication and sheer hard work, have been great ambassadors for this country and have been great morale boosters at home. It is simply unfair and unjust for governments to underestimate-and hence undervalue-the role played by our sporting community in the projection of our image and prestige overseas and in the focus they provide for national pride and national achievement at home. These values have not been lost on private enterprise and shall not go unheeded by this Government. We already estimate that direct sponsorship of sport by the private sector is at least $50m, and takes no account of the value of sports related advertising. We will not only help sport-we will ensure that the efforts of business to promote and assist sport are encouraged. We recognise that sport delivers not only valuable primary 'products' such as fun, fitness and involvement, but consistently provides such vital secondary outcomes as better health-mental and physical-a sense of national pride, and one of the most marvellous manifestations of human striving after excellence and performance. But we are also beginning to understand more accurately the impressive dimensions of the involvement in sport by the community and its contribution to our national life. For example, we know that in 1983-84 registered participants in cricket, Australian rules, bowls, netball, soccer and tennis exceeded a total of 2.5 million people; the total registration of all national sporting organisations assisted by the Government reaches well beyond five million Australians-35 per cent of our population-and takes no account of those who play sport without formal registration with an organisation; a study into recreational fishing-one of Australia's most popular sports-identified a $2 billion contribution to the economy; and in the 1981 census, 6 per cent of the population was working in the leisure industry-that is a 27 per cent increase over the figure in the 1971 census. Sport is becoming a major facet of the advertising industry, the insurance industry and the media, all multi-million dollar activities of immense value to our country. Production of sports equipment alone accounts for over $75m in Australia per year. Sports related industries, of course, account for far more. Yet, for all that, we have been strangely reluctant to see sport as a serious or significant area for government support and assistance. While we invest heavily in many other areas of our national life, Federal governments have not seen assistance to sport, despite all the enormous benefits it can deliver to our community, as the investment in national development that it truly represents. We will not only look to helping sport, but also to active co-operation with the private sector in their efforts in this field. I have already mentioned the remarkable record achieved by this Government in the provision of more adequate funding for sport. To adopt a particularly apt metaphor, I can confidently say that the runs are well and truly on the board. But money is not the simple or singular answer. There must be a sound infrastructure of efficient and effective management to ensure that what we spend has the most beneficial impact on our community. We must put in place machinery to undertake the increasingly complex task that is sports development in the 1980s, or we shall fail to achieve the high aspirations we have for sport and for what sport can provide to all Australians. The Government believes that the Australian Sports Commission will achieve those vital objectives and, working closely with the sporting and wider community, will become an integral element in Australian sport's brave new world. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had disagreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. (Quorum formed) Consideration resumed from 20 May. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $232,000. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $11,974,000. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $1,756,000. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $2,282,000. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $12,201,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.49) —When Estimates Committee C met, which I think was on 15 April, a number of questions were asked concerning the cases brought by the Premier of New South Wales against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the cost of the settlement of one of those cases. The case was in fact the Four Corners program. It was determined at that sitting, as I understand it, that the legal advice to the ABC was not to settle, but to fight the case; that the legal advice from the in-house lawyers in the ABC was not to settle but to fight the case; and that the advice from counsel was not to settle but to fight the case. Nevertheless, the ABC Board, ignoring all that advice, reached a settlement with the Premier of New South Wales. At the Estimates Committee hearing we were able to elicit that the Premier of New South Wales received no damages at all for the action which he had brought. That is not surprising since all the legal advice available to the ABC was that it would have won. What has emerged is that the ABC agreed to meet the legal costs of the Premier of New South Wales in a case which, on the face of it, seemed to have little merit and which he would not have won had it gone to court. All the advice given to the ABC was that it should fight because it would have won. I asked a question at the Estimates Committee hearing as to the legal costs to the ABC-that is to the taxpayer-that it was agreed to meet on behalf of Mr Wran. The questions I wish to ask now relate to an answer to a question taken on notice that was forwarded to the Committee by Mr Johnman on 17 May. The answer I received to my question was as follows: The legal costs to the ABC are being collated and will be provided to the committee as soon as possible. The legal cost to Mr Wran. The Wran action was settled on the basis that his solicitor and client costs as assessed (i.e. agreed) or, failing agreement, taxed by the Supreme Court, would be paid by the ABC. Although a detailed bill has not been prepared, Mr Wran's solicitors have written assessing their costs at $46,275,20 in the Breakfast Program Action and $49,848.10 in the Four Corners action. Two questions arise from that reply. First of all, are the legal costs to the ABC yet available? They were promised to the Estimates Committee as soon as they were available. Secondly, and more importantly, since we are talking about the expenditure of public money-taxpayers' money-for which the ABC is only a trustee, I want to know whether the sum of money amounting to a bit more than $94,000 has been taxed. That is, has it been assessed by the Supreme Court as being appropriate? If this has not been done, I put this question to the Minister in the chamber, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), through you, Mr Acting Chairman: Is it not proper that when amounts of this magnitude are sought for payment from the public purse on behalf of a politician who has brought two cases which were clearly without much merit- Senator Robert Ray —That is according to you. Senator PETER BAUME —According to me and according to the legal service. The Premier was not willing to pursue the matter in court and he settled for no damages. Senator Peter Ray —So what. Senator PETER BAUME —Nevertheless, I simply want to know whether or not the costs will be taxed so that the public can know that the legal costs have gone through the normal processes which they should go through to ensure that they are appropriate to be met. Senator Button —It is not the normal process to tax costs in settlement and you ought to know better. Senator PETER BAUME —It was stated in the answer. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.54) —My advisers inform me that the legal costs to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which Senator Peter Baume specifically asked for are not yet available. I am advised that the costs mentioned in the answer provided by Senator Peter Baume that were suggested by Mr Wran's solicitors are going through the process of being taxed, if that is the right term. We have no indication yet as to when that process will be completed. I will ignore the imputations made by Senator Baume about the likelihood of the success or otherwise of Mr Wran's action. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.55) — After some publicity which was given by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program to the hearing of Estimates Committee C proceedings and some of the matters that arose in relation to the National, I received a great deal of correspondence. I do not intend to refer to all of the correspondence that I received. I indicate simply to all the people who wrote in with a variety of suggestions on what ought to happen to the ABC that I shall summarise those suggestions and send them to the ABC. There is one exception that I wish to pursue, not solely because of the person it comes from, although the person it comes from holds a special position in relation to the Parliament. That person raised an important matter which was pursued at the Estimates Committee C proceedings and which should be pursued a little further. That person sent me a letter which stated: Isn't something going to be done about Wendy McCarthy being permitted to draw a salary from the Australian Bicentennial Authority while at the same time being paid a stipend as Deputy Chairman of the Corporation? I find it astonishing that no one appearing before your Committee could say what she receives by way of stipend from the Corporation. What on earth were those fifteen officers doing in Canberra if they didn't know more than they claimed? Why didn't Mr Whitehead appear before the Committee personally if his Staff are so bereft of information? That letter came from the Hon. Clyde Cameron, AO. It is a fairly lengthy letter, and it relates to a cross-section of matters which arose from his reading of the Hansard of the Committee's proceedings. The question he has raised is a question which a number of other people have raised. Is it reasonable that someone who, judging from an answer to a question asked by Senator Peter Baume, appears to be receiving a Remuneration Tribunal allowance of $13,564 per annum as Deputy Chairman of the ABC-I have a document here which shows that amount is paid to Wendy McCarthy as Deputy Chairman-should also receive payment as a full time member of the Australian Bicentennial Authority? Does the Bicentennial Authority expect its officers to devote their full time and attention to the duties to which they were appointed? Since she was appointed to the Bicentennial Authority, has she devoted any time during normal office hours to ABC business? If she has devoted any time to ABC business has she been given special leave by the Bicentennial Authority? If so, has her salary been adjusted downwards accordingly? Many of these sorts of questions have been raised in correspondence sent to me. I have summarised them by reading the questions raised in the letter from the Hon. Clyde Cameron. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.58) —The facts as Senator Peter Rae puts them are correct, although I understand he has overstated, or Clyde Cameron has overstated, the number of officials who were present at the Estimates Committee hearing. I understand that the answer given at the Estimates Committee hearing was that Wendy McCarthy did get a stipend and that the officers present would find out how much she got. That question has been answered. The Bicentennial Authority is a company limited by guarantee which is composed of State and Federal elements. When Ms McCarthy, who, I must admit, seems to have raised great interest amongst Opposition Senators, was to be employed by that Authority, she raised the matter of her remuneration from the ABC with the Authority. As I understand it, the Authority raised it with the Public Service Board. As a result we have the situation which exists now. In the light of what Senator Peter Rae has said, I wonder what is the difference between someone who is employed in a private, legally limited company, who receives a similar stipend from the ABC, and Ms McCarthy. Is it just that the Opposition has a hang-up about Ms McCarthy? Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.00) —I do not have a hang-up about anybody in particular in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, nor do I have a hang-up about the Corporation itself. I am asking questions about the administration of a Commonwealth statutory authority which has a budget of almost $400m a year and about which there is considerable public interest, as evidenced by the huge number of letters, questions and media items we have seen. Ms McCarthy's potential conflict of interest as a Board member and as an author, as a journalist for the magazine Look and Listen, who receives a salary for writing about what happens on the Board of the ABC, has been the subject of some attention; she is employed by what appear to be two publicly funded bodies which receive considerable public attention-that is, the ABC and the Australian Bicentennial Authority. She has been the subject of much correspondence. Mr Jackson of the ABC was the author of one of the letters defending Ms McCarthy. All of those things have drawn attention to the matters I am pursuing. Were I to pursue every one of these matters I would take a very long time. I have tried to be selective in regard to the matters raised in the correspondence. I proposed to do no more than ask about four matters, and potential conflicts of interest in dual roles is one of them. I have summarised that as briefly as I can using, in particular, the example of Ms McCarthy. Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether there is anything in the answers provided relating to the potential conflict of interest of a journalist, who is also a Board member of the ABC, being employed and paid by Look and Listen, which is funded under a special arrangement by the ABC, to write repeatedly for issues of that magazine about what happens in regard to the Board. It has been described to me as follows: It is therefore inescapable that Ms McCarthy derived income from writing about ABC affairs with the distinct advantage of inside knowledge derived from her appointment to the Board for which she was separately remunerated. This letter I have received further states: Ms McCarthy wrote about major issues of policy and practice in her columns, e.g. the appointment of the Managing Director and other senior staff (October 1984 edition) and the achievements of the first year of the Board (August 1984 edition) and the corporate advertising campaign (January 1985 edition). Does the Government or the ABC see any conflict of interest in this situation? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.03) —Senator Rae knows that Look and Listen is published by the David Burton publishing company and that it pays royalties to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Ms McCarthy was commissioned by the then editor of the magazine and, as the answer says, was paid at the standard page rate for writing reflective articles on the ABC. She no longer contributes to the magazine and notified the Board in advance of her decision. It is easy enough for Senator Rae to suggest that this is a great conflict of interest. Maybe it was and maybe it was not wise for Ms McCarthy, as a journalist, to do this, but as Senator Rae said, we are talking about an organisation which has a budget of around $400m, so we are not talking about small bikkies in this instance. Even though it is important to all of us that we do not have a conflict of interest, I would have thought that it was drawing a very long bow to make a great issue of this matter at this time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.05) —I did refer to a number of other potential conflicts of interest during Estimates Committee C proceedings. Answers have been given. Perhaps between now and the next Estimates Committee hearings some consideration could be given to whether there are or are not conflicts of interest in the matters I have raised and whether a policy statement should be made publicly available on what constitutes a conflict of interest in contracts between members of the Board and the ABC for the provision of a variety of services, either directly or indirectly, for example in relation to films. I take it no further than that at the moment; I simply extend that request and hope that it may be taken into account. The next matter I wish to refer to-I will be as brief as I can in relation to this-is the Special Broadcasting Service's recent advertisement for an executive director. The position was widely advertised, and among other things the advertisement contained the statement: To be eligible for appointment applications must be Australian citizens, however applicants who have permanent resident status may be offered fixed-term employment pending the granting of citizenship. It is noticeable that these conditions applying to the position of SBS Executive Director and the other recently advertised job with the SBS, that of Director of News and Current Affairs, are not conditions which apply to the very senior positions at the ABC-for instance, the Managing Director and the Director of Television News and Current Affairs. Is there any Government policy in relation to this? Is it considered that the nation's multicultural channels require Australians at the helm but the nation's broadcasting service does not? I further ask: Has there been any change of policy since the appointment of the present senior officers of the ABC including the Managing Director? If that position is readvertised, perhaps because of the present Managing Director walking under the proverbial bus, would there be a similar requirement to that applying to positions in the Special Broadcasting Service; that is, that the applicant must be an Australian citizen, though a non-citizen might under special circumstances be offered fixed term employment pending the granting of citizenship. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.08) —Employment within the SBS comes under the Public Service Act, therefore under the provision that applicants be citizens or that successful applicants be contracted for jobs pending citizenship. The ABC is not in that situation. The ABC Board, in its wisdom, tried to get the best person for the job-as I dare say the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation did when it got the same person. The vast majority of jobs in the ABC in fact go to Australian citizens. Only a few jobs have gone to people who are not Australian citizens and because they have been high level jobs it has caused a bit of a furore. Although I am not supposed to give personal views, I think it is an extreme example of chauvinism to suggest that we should limit employment in sensitive jobs purely to Australian citizens. I thought we would be after the best person for the job. Whether or not in the view of Senator Rae, me or anyone else the person selected is the best person for the job is a matter for judgment. I would have thought that to hamstring the ABC in the way suggested by Senator Rae would be a bit silly. As to the remarks about Ms McCarthy and others, I will certainly seek from the ABC and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) an answer to the questions on policy. I think it is important that we do have such answers. It is equally important that senators, in asking questions in Estimates committees, do not make imputations about people, such as the claim that Ms McCarthy's books were sold in the ABC bookshops and that she was getting royalties from that through the ABC. It could have been easily determined to be false, but it was thrown into the questions obviously in an attempt to discredit Ms McCarthy and the ABC. If we on this side are going to be responsible, I think there is an obligation for those on the other side to be responsible. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.10) —In relation to that, there was one apparent error in about 40 specific examples given. I do not think that is bad. If the honourable senator could be as accurate, I think he would be doing quite well. Senator Grimes —That would be very easy to check, but you obviously did not bother. Senator PETER RAE —The information given to me was that the books were in the bookshop. I had not personally been to check that. Perhaps, after this, I will make a personal check, and do a double check as to the information which is provided to me. However, I find that that is a rather cheapskate sort of remark not really deserving of the nature of the debate which has taken place and which I have been trying to keep on a proper level. I refer to another matter, the thirtieth anniversary of the Bandung Conference in Indonesia and the efficiency or otherwise with which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is now able to organise the co-ordination at an editorial level of the coverage of events. What mechanism is there in the ABC for the co-ordination at an editorial level of the coverage of events, both at home and overseas, by different elements of the ABC, especially between television and radio and between separate elements within each medium, bearing in mind that apparently for the not exactly world spectacular thirtieth anniversary of the Bandung Conference the ABC had about nine members of staff representing four different program outlets present, all I think, travelling to Indonesia to cover events? Certainly there were some from Singapore and some from Australia. What has been done under the restructuring of the ABC which, as I understood it from what had previously been said by the Managing Director, was to be the media split of the organisation between the television and radio divisions to make the ABC 'more streamlined and efficient'? I wonder whether having nine people representing four different program outlets at the conference, most of them travelling very considerable distances at considerable cost, is an example of streamlining and efficiency? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.12) —To show that I can be charitable, Senator, I will say that it does not seem to me on the face of it to be very satisfactory that so many different groups from the one organisation should go to such a conference-although I suggest that there is a very great difference between Four Corners and ABC radio and ABC television, if they were there. I understand that under the new arrangements there is more co-operation than there has been in the past. I hope that co-operation continues; but as this is not within my area of expertise, I cannot give any guarantees. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.13) —I wonder whether the Minister could ask the ABC to give a more detailed answer to that question as to what is happening with regard to the mechanisms for co-ordination at an editorial level of the coverage of events. Perhaps some information could be given in writing at a later stage. Senator Grimes —I will refer that to the ABC. Senator PETER RAE —Thank you, Senator. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.14) —Since the National has been in progress, for some weeks, I have received two complaints about the National-which I would not say is a very high number. I have had about 25 complaints, not in an orchestrated way, about the cancelling of the football replay on Saturday nights. Honourable senators from other States may laugh, but they do not realise the seriousness of this. As Channel 2 can no longer broadcast the programs on Saturday nights at 6.30, through pressure from the Victorian Football League and Channel 7, many people in country areas get no coverage because the commercial channels in country areas pick up the replays very late when people are already in bed. The 6.30 p.m. program, uninterrupted by advertisements, was extremely popular in country areas. For those who live in the city and like going out to restaurants it was also very good, because they could watch the half hour and then go out. It appears that the main reason for not putting the program on is lack of finance to be able to compete with a commercial channel. I know that this is an old and difficult story with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In this case, however, I would have thought that if we could lop $1m off the $30m-a-year budget of the National, a program which apparently very few people in Victoria watch, and put it into financing the football replay, that would be very much appreciated. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.15) —Senator Robert Ray may or may not be surprised, but I am informed that the ratings of the National have actually increased considerably recently. I am also informed that the cost of the National, compared with that of what it replaced, is in fact only a matter of $1m here and $1m there. As to the VFL and football replay, I suppose it depends on one's views. As an ex-New South Welshman and a player of that vulgar game rugby league, I am always very pleased with the ABC because I can watch the Sydney rugby league on a Saturday afternoon. I feel very badly about country people missing out on the VFL. I will refer that matter to the ABC to see whether it can be corrected. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.16) —I acknowledge that the National has changed both its format and its ratings. Perhaps some good came out of what otherwise might have been seen as some undue publicity received by the National. From some of the comments which have been received, it would seem that there is some room to go, but the program is certainly improving its acceptance ratings. I refer to page 3 of the answers given by way of information in which a response refers to pages 116 and 117 of the Hansard of the Estimates Committee in which I asked about details of cuts of $8m and $30m which Mr Whitehead claimed he had effected to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's budget. That claim was made in an interview. The answer is: The cuts referred to were related to proposals made by ABC departments and divisions which were rejected or considerably pruned by the Managing Director before submission to the ABC Board. It is not unusual, though perhaps not technically accurate, to refer to such reductions as savings. In the broadcast interview which was extemporaneous and live to air, Mr Whitehead was speaking in the context of accountability at all levels of the ABC and giving examples of the need to examine critically all proposals for expenditure. I suppose one can only say: 'There we go again'. This is almost similar to the mini-Budget debate, as to what constitutes a cut and what constitutes the normal reductions which take place in the preliminary bids. Is my understanding correct that Mr Whitehead was really not strictly accurate in saying that he made cuts of $8m and $30m during his first period as Managing Director, but rather that in the assessment of proposals which were made, in putting them to the Board, he pruned them before they went to the Board? In other words, this was not committed expenditure which was cut, but rather proposals for expenditure which were pruned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.19) —I suppose that that is right, Senator. I suppose the answer is that if Mr Whitehead had not been there to prune those proposals, on past record they would have gone through. I think he is trying to modernise the ABC and its procedures. To do that he had to hack around at some of its proposals, and he did so. Whether it is reasonable to call those proposals cuts is, I suppose, a matter for conjecture. However, I think the intent and the meaning is clear, now that the extra answer has been given. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.19) —So that we may understand the nature of the claims that were being made by Mr Whitehead and the answer that has been given, could some broad summary be given in writing at a later stage of what was contained in the $8m and $30m cuts? Senator Grimes —Yes. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Minister. I wish now to refer to page 14 of the further additional information which has been provided and which begins with the question: Concerning the ABC, at what percentage rate is the latest actuarial requirement for employer's contribution. This referred to superannuation. The answer was: . . . the Department of Finance . . . advised that three actuarial reports have yet to be completed by the Actuary and it is not expected that an announcement will be made until those reports have been considered. I am unclear as to why there are three actuarial reports. Can the Minister explain? I will then ask a further question. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.21) —I was not really paying attention but I think what Senator Rae was referring to was the review of contributions to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme for coverage of statutory authority employees by that scheme. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.21) —I was referring to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am glad that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, is here. Perhaps he will be able to answer my question. What is the percentage rate which is the latest actuarial requirement for the ABC contribution, as an employer, to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme? It is my understanding that contributions are actuarially calculated in respect of each of the statutory authorities; that they are not identical and that there is considerable variation between them. What I want to know now is this: Firstly, what is the current requirement for the ABC? Secondly, what is meant by the answer which mentioned awaiting three actuarial reports? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.23) —I do not know off the top of my head what the present ABC contribution is. Nobody here does. There are no Department of Finance officials here who might know the answer. Senator Peter Rae —Could it be provided in writing? Senator WALSH —Yes. I am not sure off the top of my head but I think that the answer must refer to three statutory authorities and the total under review. I do not know which three statutory authorities they are. Senator Peter Rae is correct in saying that the present contributions, and the likely future contributions, from statutory authorities will not be identical because they are to be actuarially assessed within the authority. From memory, there are variations in contribution rates of about 15 to 21 per cent at present. Senator Peter Rae —And even more than that. Senator WALSH —And possibly even more than that. As I understand it, Senator Rae is interested in knowing what the present rate of contribution is for the ABC and where the revision of that rate, if any, now stands. Senator Peter Rae —Yes. Senator WALSH —Senator Rae has indicated that that is what he wants. I will try to get that information for him as soon as possible. It may be possible to get it before the adjournment tonight. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.24) —I thank the Minister. I would like to ask just one further question. The other aspect of superannuation that I wanted to ask about is that relating to the Special Broadcasting Service. Because there were problems with the legislation relating to the SBS and the government of the day decided that it would avoid the Parliament, not bother about the legislation and create the body anyway, the SBS was not created as a statutory authority. Consequently, it does not make an employer's contribution to superannuation for its employees. However, if one were to try to make a comparison of costs with public broadcasting, one would need to calculate what would be the employer's contribution were the SBS a statutory authority. What I would like to ask is whether that information is available and, if it is not available, whether it could be made available; that is, on the supposition that the SBS was a statutory authority, which it would have been, and on the same basis as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On that basis, what would the employer's contribution to the Commonwealth be? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.25) —I could not give a precise answer and I understand it would be very difficult to get one. But a rule of thumb is that contribution rates for statutory authorities are usually of the order of 20 per cent of salaries. Assuming that all Special Broadcasting Service employees were members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and were all on salaries and not paid under contract, the notional figure for which Senator Peter Rae is looking would be about 20 per cent of salaries. I will see whether any further information is available but the indications are that it would be very difficult to get it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.26) —It appears that this is the appropriate time to refer to the decision of the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to extend entitlements, including relocation expenses and privileges appropriate to spouses and families of staff, to homosexual partners of ABC staff. In the hearings of Estimates Committee A on 4 September 1984, the Managing Director of the ABC indicated that the Board's decision was based on anti-discrimination legislation, that is to say, on an assumption of legal responsibility, and on the fact that the practice had been adopted by corporations. We assume that that meant outside corporations. The statements made by the Managing Director at that time both on that matter and on a number of other matters were referred to in the report of Estimates Committee A which considered that the responses were less than adequate. It stated: Additional information sought at the September hearing, while this time received promptly, was again considered by the Committee to be less than adequate. At the hearing itself the Committee considered as less than satisfactory a number of the answers given by Mr Whitehead . . . At the recent Estimates Committee's hearings on 15 April 1985 it transpired that the assumption of legal responsibility was in fact a myth; it was admitted to have been a myth and, therefore, the Committee was misled on 4 September 1984. The other basis for the Board's decision, as given to us previously, was that corporations had similar guidelines. It appears from the letters that have been subsequently received by Estimates Committee C that that also is a myth and has no basis whatsoever. A decision was taken by the Board of a public corporation on a matter of very major public importance. It was stated that the decision was based on an assumption of legal responsibility which was found to be non-existent. A statement was provided by the Board that this was a regular practice in other corporations which was found not to be the case. I feel that it is important that the chamber is apprised of this matter. In my view it then raises for question-obviously it cannot be dealt with in the Committee stage-the need for a review of that decision by the Board, given that the basis for that decision was and has now been found to be non-existent. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.30) —In the past 18 months have any real property valuations been carried out either in Sydney or elsewhere on the eastern seaboard of Australia of property owned or contemplated for purchase by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, by whom were those valuations carried out and of what properties? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.31) —I am informed that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is, at the moment, trying to get accurate valuations of all its assets. These valuations are done by the valuers in the Australian Taxation Office. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.31) — My understanding is that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said that real property valuations, as well as other valuations, are done by the Australian Taxation Office. I just want to check whether my understanding is correct. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.32) —Property valuations are carried out by the Australian Taxation Office. There are private valuers for other valuations. But all property valuations are carried out by the Taxation Office. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.32) — Am I correct in understanding that a 15 per cent salary loading applies to staff of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who have to start work before 6 a.m.? Do some staff commence work at 5.56 a.m., four minutes before 6 a.m., and receive the 15 per cent loading for the whole of the time that they are on duty? That allegation has been raised with me both specifically and generally. Is it accurate? If so, can something be done, in some practical way, to effect what might amount to a quite substantial saving? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.33) —No one here can vouch for the accuracy or otherwise of that statement. It is certainly a question worth raising. If it is true, it is something worth doing something about. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.33) —The next matter to which I refer is program policy development. Apparently there is some controversy as to whether there should be program policy development as part of the overall corporate planning program of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. What is happening in relation to that program policy? Is it being developed in writing? If so, will it be published? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.33) —I am informed that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's corporate planning program is just about complete. It is to be published. It will be made public in June or July. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.34) —Will a program policy development component be included in the corporate plan? If so, will it be published? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.34) —My answer to Senator Peter Rae is yes; it is an important part of the corporate plan. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.34) —The next matter to which I would like to refer is the major corporate advertising program which was undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of which everybody would be aware. The information I seek may not be readily available but may have to be obtained. I ask: Firstly, what was the cost of the corporate advertising program? Secondly, has any analysis been undertaken of the cost benefit of that program? I realise that an analysis of the cost benefit is difficult, nevertheless, it is undertaken in relation to advertising programs. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.35) —I will certainly have to take both those questions on notice. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.35) —Have any advertising agents been engaged within the past two years by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, were those advertising agents or consultants chosen as a result of tenders being called? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.36) —Yes, advertising agencies were employed. The advertising agency was Ogilvy and Mather (Australia) Pty Ltd. Tenders were not called. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.36) —If tenders were not called, when was Ogilvy and Mather (Australia) Pty Ltd engaged? By whom was the company engaged? Why were tenders not called? How was the price negotiated? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.36) —I will certainly take those questions on notice. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.37) —I conclude by thanking the Minister for his assistance in answering my many questions. I just said to my colleague Senator Peter Baume that the material I have in front of me is enough to have kept me going for another two or three days. I realise that we do not have the time for that. I make that indication to give some idea of the amount of interest shown and the inflow of information available to anyone who shows any interest in the affairs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Whoever is in government and whoever is managing the ABC should anticipate that when matters come before the Senate and Senate committees there will continue to be a lot of material upon which questions are asked. I have done an edit job and have shortened my questions as much as I could. I have raised a few cross-section examples, but there are a lot more that I have not raised. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.38) —I thank Senator Peter Rae for his warning. I will not be around next time. Last night Senator Rae referred to a discussion on 13 February 1985 between a number of Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board members. He pointed out that the Chairman of the Board was not present at the meeting, which is apparently in conflict with other advice that the Chairman was present at all meetings of the Board. As I said last night, members of the ABC Board did confer on 13 February 1985. This was not regarded as a meeting of the Board for the purposes of section 22 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 since it did not comply with many of the formal requirements of that section. The matters discussed were confirmed at the next formal meeting of the Board, at which the Chairman was present. Last night Senator Peter Rae also- Senator Puplick —Ha, ha! Senator GRIMES —I think even Senator Puplick would realise that that has been known to happen even in political parties as well as on the ABC Board. Senator Puplick —It usually results in pre-selections being overturned. Senator GRIMES —Yes, that is right. Senator Peter Baume —If it is announced, that is fair enough. If it is not, it does not help those who ask questions. Senator GRIMES —That it true; I accept that. Senator Rae last night also referred to a letter dated 7 February 1985 from the Auditor-General to the Chief General Manager of the Australian Postal Commission concerning an efficiency audit of the administration of counter services. Senator Rae asked for details of the comments made in the Chief General Manager's letter of 4 July 1984 as referred to in the penultimate paragraph of the Auditor-General's letter. In response to that question I table a copy of the letter of 4 July to the Auditor-General from the Chief General Manager of the Australian Postal Commission. It is several pages long. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.41) —I thank the Minister for the replies he has given. I raise with him only two matters. One is the possibility that I might wish to ask a question after I have had a chance to see the letter of 4 July. Secondly, the Minister said that a meeting which was not formal within the meaning of the Act took place on 13 February and that the decision taken was confirmed at a later meeting. The information provided to us was that there were meetings on 13 and 14 February and that a Board decision was taken. In order to clarify this once and for all, can the Minister tell me whether the decision that was confirmed was the decision taken on 13 February or the decision taken on 14 February, and when was the decision confirmed by the Board? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.42) —The answer I have is that the original meeting was held on 13 February. I have no reference to 14 February here. Senator Peter Rae —It is in the explanatory notes. Senator GRIMES —It was confirmed at the next formal meeting of the Board. When that meeting took place I do not know, but we will look up the diary to find out. Senator Peter Rae —Perhaps the actual minute confirming it could be provided. Senator GRIMES —I am surprised that you do not have it. Senator Peter Rae —It is about the only thing I have not got. Senator GRIMES —I am told that the next meeting was on 28 February. Senator Peter Rae —I thank the Minister and I would be obliged if we could have the detail of the minute confirming the decision that was taken provided in writing as soon as possible. Senator GRIMES —Yes, that will be provided. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.43) —May I see the letter to the Auditor-General so that I can come back to that communications matter if necessary? I believe the letter is being copied at the moment, so I would hope that this matter could be stood over for a couple of minutes until I have had a chance to read it. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to. That further consideration of the votes in Group C be postponed till after consideration of the votes in Group D. GROUP D Department of Education Proposed expenditure, $6,954,000. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $3,475,000. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $11,820,000. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $1,187,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $4,282,000. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Committee of the Whole, having considered the Report of Estimates Committee D, recommends that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The circumstances surrounding advice given, decisions taken and procedures involved with the various court actions relating to the film The Return of Captain Invincible. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.47) —I wish to refer to some evidence we received in relation to the Estimates for the Department of Education, specifically estimates relating to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The matter I wish to raise is one of proper practice by statutory bodies. I understand that it is not unknown for departments of state to take decisions over the years which favour one political party or another in terms of information, but I am not aware that this has been a decision taken by independent statutory bodies until now. In March this year I asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in this place whether, when grants were made to schools under programs administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, it was the Government's policy to provide information about any grant to each member of the House of Representatives within whose electorate the school receiving the grant was located. It was a perfectly simple question. I received an answer in the following terms: I do not know whether it is a question of Government policy, but it has certainly been my practice since I became Minister for Education to ask the Schools Commission to inform the honourable members of any grants going to schools in their electorates. I am not sure whether that it is done absolutely systematically, but it is certainly my intention that honourable members will have that information available to them. It is in everybody's interests, including those of the local member, to know exactly what the Commonwealth is spending on schools in each electorate. That was the advice of the Minister for Education to the Senate. Of course, the Minister would do nothing but tell the truth to this chamber and therefore it was with some concern that I made available to the Minister a minute which had been circulated inside the Commonwealth Schools Commission and which had come into my possession-- Senator Walsh —It was what Mr Fraser called a stolen document. Senator PETER BAUME —Nevertheless, it is the content of the document which should concern Senator Walsh, as a parliamentarian of some years. The document was headed 'Information on Grants to Members of Parliament'. It started: At the request of the Minister's office, in 1985 changes will be made to the procedures followed in informing Members of Parliament of grants made under Programs administered by the Commission. In 1985 information will be provided to Government Members and Senators only. It goes on to say how that will be achieved. The first matter that arises is whether the Minister will confirm that the answer she gave in the Senate in March was, in fact, true and that it is her intention, as a matter of her personal policy, that it is good practice that all members should be informed of grants as she told the Senate. I ask the Committee to turn its attention to the Hansard for Estimates Committee D of 18 April 1985 when we examined this matter. It emerged that the Commonwealth Schools Commission acknowledged immediately that this document was genuine and that the internal minute that I have read out was the document that was circulated within the Commission. I am grateful to Commission officers for that acknowledgement. We then established that there is no power of general ministerial direction under the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act. We then learnt from officers, who admitted when pressed, that a request had come from the Minister's office. I refer to the bottom of page 175 of the Hansard. I asked Mr McNamara: Is that what the request from the Minister's office was? Mr McNamara, a very excellent officer of the Commission, answered: That was the request from the Minister's office regarding the automatic provision of information. So we have established that the Minister's office did issue this minute and that the Minister herself had a different policy which she set out to the Senate. It then emerged, after further questioning of the Commonwealth Schools Commission representatives that the officers in the Commission had themselves taken a decision as members of an independent statutory body-that decision, which was reflected later in this minute-that information on grants would be provided only to Government senators and members. I quote the minute again: In 1985 information will be provided to Government Members and Senators only. When I asked Mr McNamara who took this decision he said: Following the request from the Minister's office, the matter was discussed by what is loosely called 'the executive group of the Commission', which consists of the full time Commissioners and the First Assistant Commissioners, and it was agreed that the procedures would be implemented as requested. His answer is recorded on page 176 of Hansard. I am grateful that the Minister is here. I ask her: Will she stand by the answer she gave in the Senate earlier this year that not only was it good practice but also that it was her intention that all members of parliament should be informed for the very reasons she set out in this place? Will the Minister also agree, as a first step, that the request from her office-it may not have been from the Minister herself-is not consistent with the advice she gave the Senate in answer to a question? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.51) —Senator Baume has asked for my response to two matters which he seems to think are mutually exclusive. I do not. It is the case that I wish all members and senators to be aware of funds going to schools in their electorates and that I wish the Commonwealth Schools Commission to make the appropriate arrangements for that. It is also the case that I believe it is proper that announcements regarding government decisions should be made by members or supporters of the Government. I do not see those two requirements as being contradictory. Both of them are known to the Schools Commission. It is up to the Schools Commission to decide how to carry out those requests. It is perfectly feasible that there be a method of conveying information to members and senators which ensures both that an initial announcement about a grant is made by a Government member or senator, as the case may be, and that no member or senator has any difficulty in getting information about grants going into his or her electorate. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.52) —Is the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) saying that she will undertake to see that every appropriate member of the Parliament, every local member, will receive information about all grants being made to his or her electorate? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.53) —Yes. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.53) —That is fine. I ask: What is the status of this minute of the Commonwealth Schools Commission which says nothing about the word 'automatic' but I will assume that the words actually mean what they say-which states: In 1985 information will be provided to Government Members and Senators only. This will mean that when grants are made in relation to a particular State or school, appropriate information should be provided to Government Members in the House of Representatives and all Labor Senators in the appropriate State. Do I take it from the answer that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has given to me now that that is not what will happen in the future? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.54) —The minute Senator Baume is referring to was the subject of lengthy discussion at the Estimates Committee D hearing when Senator Baume had the opportunity to question at length the officer who wrote the minute. As I recall, during that discussion the officer explained that the minute referred to the automatic information provided to members and senators for the purposes of making initial announcements. As I recall, the officer explained that the minute was understood to be in that context by the small group who received it. However, as Senator Baume and other honourable senators have raised the possibility that the minute could have been interpreted to mean some sort of denial of information to Opposition members and senators, I say to them that I am informed by the responsible officer from the Commonwealth Schools Commission that new procedures are under way which will ensure both that all members and senators have access to information about grants going to schools in their electorates and that the requests I have made that government members and senators are in a position to make initial announcements will also be observed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.55) —Am I to take it, then, that an independent statutory commission has taken a decision on its own that it will apply a test of political affiliation and, on the basis of that test, will determine the order in which parliamentarians receive information? If that is so-that is what the Minister has said-it is disgraceful. The Committee should be aware that it is one thing for a Minister and her Department-a department which may be responsible directly to her and for which she may be answerable-to take a decision, it is another thing for an independent statutory commission to take such a decision. The decision was taken by the Commonwealth Schools Commission not as a result of ministerial direction-we found that the Minister had no power of direction-but on its own, exercising its own judgment of what was best for education. I believe that it has been recreant in its duty and that this is quite disgraceful. Is the Minister able to tell us whether the Commission has received more than 80 requests from senators and members who would fail the political affiliation test of belonging to the Australian Labor Party that they be provided with the information about grants in their electorates or States? What decision has the Commission taken in dealing with those requests? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(5.57) —Mr Chairman, I believe that Senator Peter Baume's remarks cannot be allowed to pass in this way. The Commonwealth Schools Commission distributes funds which are provided by the government of the day. It distributes these funds in the form of grants by the government of the day, the same as any other department does, the same as the Department of Social Security does. It is absolute hypocrisy for Senator Baume to get up in this place and complain about a practice such as that when it was the practice of the Government of which he was a member, when it was the practice of the Minister for Social Security in the Government of which he was a member and when it is a practice which I followed exactly when I became Minister. How the matter was drawn to my attention was that the then member for Braddon, Mr Groom, wrote to me and said: 'Dear Minister, would you please inform me of all the moneys that are going to be given to groups in my electorate several days before it is announced so that I can make the announcement'. I thought that was a bit rich, so I asked my Department what was the usual practice. My Department produced for me the instructions from Senator Chaney, which were that where there is a Government member, he or she announces it; if there is no government member, the government senator or the Minister announces it; and only later than that-I think it was after a period of five days-were non-government members and senators asked. If that is the practice of the Government, who can blame a statutory authority, which is doling out money in the same way as a department is, for taking its cue from that Government and doing the same thing? Senator Baume should not get up in this place when he is in opposition, with due respect to you, Mr Chairman, and whinge about a practice which was the practice of his Government, which was good enough for him and which was certainly good enough for me when I became a Minister. It is the height of hypocrisy for a senator to get up here and say: 'This independent statutory authority is not carrying out its duty in doing such a thing'. It is absolute nonsense. If we are going to have to put up with hypocrisy, cant and rubbish such as this during consideration of the departmental estimates, perhaps we ought to dredge out a few of the old practices of the previous Government in other areas. The present practice is a sensible practice. It is certainly a practice which I continue to follow and which I have no intention of changing. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.00) —I do not resile one bit from what I have said. When Senator Grimes gets angry we can tell he has not got the facts on his side. It was interesting that during the Estimates Committee hearing, Senator Aulich sought to come in and help out. In so doing he elicited very clearly that when I was Minister for Education my practice had not been what apparently Senator Grimes considers to be his practice or what other people did in the Department of Social Security. I am talking about the Commonwealth Schools Commission as an independent authority. Senator Aulich, in trying to be helpful, asked the officer at page 178 of the Estimates Hansard- Senator Ryan —He may just have been curious. Senator PETER BAUME —He was just curious, yes. He said: In your experience, as a matter of practice in, say, the period of the previous Government did Labor members on a number of occasions-I use that as a minimum-make announcements about schools and so on in their electorates? Can you recall members of the Opposition, in other words, the Labor Party at the time, consistently making announcements? This is the test of how we behaved because the answer from Mr McNamara was: Yes, there were occasions. There were also occasions when members of both parties made announcements. Senator Aulich went on: On a consistent basis? Mr McNamara said: Yes, depending how you define 'consistent'. As I read 'consistent', the answer is yes. I was Minister at the time and I was scrupulous about making sure that information from my office went out to people on both sides of the political spectrum in the electorates. I gave no instructions to the Schools Commission and made no requests of it. It certainly took no decision at that time to show this political preference. I repeat: I believe it is one thing for a department, operating directly under a Minister, subject to ministerial direction, to take account of any direction a Minister may give and to answer for that in here, but it is another thing for a statutory commission to do so. I repeat what I said: It is a sorry day for the Schools Commission. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.02) —I must defend the Commonwealth Schools Commission against this trivial and hypocritical attack by Senator Baume. Senator Peter Baume —Neither trivial nor hypocritical. The PRESIDENT —Order! The words 'hypocrisy' and 'hypocritical' have been used a number of times in this chamber and they are out of order. Senator RYAN —I will not persist with them. The fact is that Senator Peter Baume is choosing to waste the time of this Committee by going over ground that was very thoroughly explored during the meeting of the Estimates Committee. Senator Grimes —And in Question Time. Senator RYAN —And in Question Time and, I think, probably in a debate, as I recollect. There is so much repetition of these matters it is a bit difficult to recall when they are being wheeled out again. I have made two things clear. One is that the Commission is instituting new procedures, after the discussion at the Estimates Committee, whereby all honourable members and honourable senators will be informed of all relevant grants going to their electorates. I also retain the right to make government announcements about these matters. Senator Baume is drawing an enormous distinction between a government department and a statutory body. There are some distinctions but there is one matter in which there is no distinction, and that is that the Commission has no independent source of funds. It is not a self-funding outfit. The Commission does not have funds of its own which it allocates to schools. The Commission, like any Commonwealth department, gets its funds from the Government and allocates those funds according to policies laid down by the Government. There has been a bit of confusion about this matter in recent times and the confusion has emerged in all kinds of discussions concerning the Commission and its most appropriate structure and the most appropriate procedures it should follow. I would like to place on the record that my view about the statutory independence of the Commission is that which is set out in the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act. The Commission is required to report in an objective fashion on a number of matters, such as needs in education, educational standards and so on and so forth. It is my intention to strengthen the capacity of the Commission to do just that and to invite, as I have invited ever since I have been Minister, the most independent views from it concerning needs in education, educational issues and appropriate programs for implementing policies. Let me make it quite clear that the Government has education policies, the Government decides that resources of a certain level shall be devoted to those policies. The Government agrees with the Commission about guidelines for the application of those funds. To suggest, as Senator Baume did by implication, that the Commission has its own funds and that it should announce decisions or enable announcements of them to be made quite independently of the source of those funds, is something I do not agree with. We could have this debate and it could go on for ever. Certainly Senator Baume seems to be very keen on repeating it, but let me try to draw it to a conclusion. The concern expressed by Opposition senators has been taken note of by the Commission. An officer from the Commission has advised me that new systems are being developed whereby all honourable senators and honourable members will have the appropriate information. I simply add that it is my intention, as Minister responsible for this Commission, that initial announcements be made by the Government. Perhaps they will be made by me because it is perfectly proper, under the Act, for me to be advised of all decisions before anyone else is. So I can either have the decisions made known to me and then announce them or I can ask colleagues to announce them. I repeat the principle so articulately spelt out by my colleague Senator Grimes, that if the Government wants to make announcements about grants concerning government funds it is perfectly proper for it to do so and does not intrude upon the statutory, proper independence of the Commission in any way. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.06) —I would like to mention a number of matters arising from this Estimates Committee report. I do not believe it is satisfactory for the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to attempt to say that this is a matter of concern expressed by Opposition senators only. I refer her to the actual report of Estimates Committee D which states, in part: The Committee is concerned that statutory bodies could be seen to be compromising their independence by taking party political judgments into account in decision making. The Committee noted that this matter had revealed that considerable difficulties can arise for statutory bodies if their independent exercise of judgment is compromised by such decision making, and it is particularly concerned that such actions could lead to further encroachments by statutory bodies into areas where such decisions should more appropriately rest with Ministers or the Parliament. If Senator Ryan wants to be accurate on this matter let her acknowledge that the concern about the behaviour of the Commonwealth Schools Commission was not simply expressed by Opposition senators but was expressed in the formal report given to the Senate by Estimates Committee D with a government majority-three government senators, and a Chairman's casting vote-agreeing that that is the sort of report that the Committee should put into the Senate. Three government senators, three of her own supporters, agreed to report to the Senate their concern about the behaviour of the Schools Commission. Senator Zakharov —What you read did not say the 'Schools Commission'. Senator PUPLICK —The section of the report is headed 'The Commonwealth Schools Commission'. Senator Zakharov is a member of this Committee. It stated: During the examination of the Additional Estimates for the Commonwealth Schools Commission, the Committee was informed that a considered decision had been taken by senior Commission officers . . . Do I have to go on, Senator? The point surely is made. That is about as helpful as Senator Aulich trying to buy into the debate and asking us whether it was standard practice in the previous Government for Opposition members to be informed in advance and being told that yes, it was. Senator Grimes —It was not. That was an inaccurate answer. I can guarantee that. Senator PUPLICK —An inaccurate answer from Mr McNamara? Senator Grimes —There is no question about that. Senator PUPLICK —I am interested that Senator Ryan and Senator Baume appear to be in agreement that Mr McNamara is an excellent officer who undoubtedly would not give inaccurate answers. Senator Grimes —He can be wrong, like you. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Grimes does not apparently agree with that. The point I make, therefore, is simply that although the matter was raised by Opposition senators initially, it was considered sufficiently serious for the Committee, as a committee, to report to the Senate its concern about the behaviour of the Schools Commission. I accept the Minister's assurance that that matter is now in hand and that the system will be different. I have no problem-in terms of the operation of Government-in understanding that if the Government, through the Minister, wishes to make an announcement first it is a perfectly fair thing for the Government to claim the credit for the funds which have been expended. I think it is entirely a different matter as far as the Commission itself is concerned. I hope the Commission's procedures are streamlined. I wrote to the Commission on 19 April asking for information to be made available to me. I did so on the invitation extended to me by Mr McNamara, which is recorded at page 177 of Estimates Committee D Hansard of 18 April. I wrote to the Schools Commission the next day, April 19, making the request. I appreciate that things move fairly slowly but more than a month has passed and no response to my letter has been received. Undoubtedly the Commission will have the matter in hand in due course. I now proceed to a couple of other matters which were raised in the Estimates Committee report to the Senate. Senator Reynolds has already moved a motion, which the Senate has passed, referring to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the way in which the appeal and legal judgments on the determination of the Australian status or otherwise of the film The Return of Captain Invincible were handled. This raises a considerable problem. We have been informed in written answers to requests by Estimates Committee D that a very expensive piece of litigation was entered into which resulted not only in the costs of the litigation but which may very well involve considerable cost being awarded against the Government for an appeal which was taken. The matter was initially before Mr Justice McGregor sitting as a single judge of the Federal Court. The Government lost the case. Mr Justice McGregor's judgment is lengthy, detailed and clear. The Government then decided to appeal against the judgment. It became clear in evidence given to the Committee that this appeal was undertaken despite the fact that it was thought unlikely that the appeal would succeed. The response to questions which I put, which appear on page 169 of the written material supplied to Estimates Committee D, includes the following statements: It is emphasised however that no-one gave legal advice that the appeal was likely to succeed . . . it was never expected that the decision or Mr Justice McGregor, insofar as it rested on non-observance of natural justice, would be overturned. In terms of the expenditure of public money there is a very considerable burden upon the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment to explain why it felt that the only way in which it could clarify certain matters was to take an appeal, in the full knowledge or belief that it would fail. That is what it did. It lost a case before a single judge. It had advice-this was in its written response to Estimates Committee D-that it expected the appeal to fail, nevertheless it incurred substantial costs, both its own costs and the costs it had to pay for other parties. It proceeded on the expectation that it would lose the appeal. I think that is a scandalous waste of public money. I do not intend to go into matters touching the National Aboriginal Conference and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs because as you know, Mr Chairman, they have been referred to a further meeting of Estimates Committee D, which motion was agreed upon when Senator Reynolds brought in the report of Estimates Committee D. I refer finally to one criticism it has made of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism on the question of inward duty free shopping at Australia's international airports. A considerable amount of toing and froing has taken place on this matter. The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, in its annual report for last year, indicated that it had prepared a report and sent it to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). I then sought from the Minister, under the Freedom of Information legislation, a copy of that report. The Minister wrote back to me and said that there had not been a report. He said that some information was provided but it was not really a report. I raised that matter in the Estimates Committee and I asked the officers of the Department whether a report had been submitted to the Government. An officer of the Department said: The report has been furnished to the Government. I asked: There is a report being furnished to the Government? The officer said: No, it has been. When we come to the material supplied to Estimates Committee D we find that it was not really a report. Estimates Committee D, in its report to the Senate, criticised the Department for indicating, in a form that was likely to mislead both the readers of its annual report and senators participating in the Estimates Committee, the status of the documentation dealing with this matter that was given to the Minister. The Minister for Education will recall that there was a great deal of uncertainty over whether inward duty free shopping would be introduced prior to 1 July. The Department indicated that legislation was pending. It was then indicated that there might have been some shelving of the legislation pending the Industries Assistance Commission report on passenger concessions. An announcement was made on, I think, 1 or 2 May that Cabinet had reversed its position and legislation would be coming into Parliament so that inward duty free shopping would be operational by 1 July this year, which was the date promised in the original announcement made by various Ministers. I saw a report last weekend or the weekend before in, I think, Business Review Weekly stating that although inward duty free shopping was going ahead it would not be introduced until the Budget session and that there had been problems in terms of the amount of material put before the Industries Assistance Commission and criticism from the Australian Small Business Association Ltd. In fact, we have a series of indications that legislation for inward duty free shopping will or will not be introduced in the course of this session or in Budget session. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate to me which of those two suppositions is correct. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.18) —I am advised by the officer that the Government has now confirmed that it will introduce inward duty free shopping by 1 July. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.18) —Is this to be done by legislation or by regulations made under existing legislation? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.19) —That question is under consideration at the moment. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.19) —Surely it must be known whether legislation is required to introduce inward duty free shopping in Australia. It cannot be that the Government does not know whether legislation is to be introduced. To the best of my knowledge, no legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by the responsible Minister to provide for inward duty free shopping. Assurances have been given in writing by Ministers and assurances were given to the Estimates Committee that legislation would be introduced to provide for inward duty free shopping. Assurances were given in writing by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the previous Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, that there would be legislation on this matter. The Department told us, when it appeared before the Estimates Committee, that there would be legislation on this matter. Surely it is not now to be said by the Minister that it is under consideration whether this will be introduced by legislation or by some other method, when assurances have been given previously in writing by Ministers and assurances were given to the Estimates Committee that it would be done by legislation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.20) —I can only repeat the best advice I have available at the moment. I remind Senator Puplick that the responsibility for introducing this arrangement, be it by legislation or some other means, is not with the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism: It is with the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce; so the officers here are not themselves responsible for it. It is the intention of the Government to have inward duty free shopping available by 1 July and the method by which this is to be achieved is under consideration. That is all the information I have for Senator Puplick. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.21) —I did not attend Estimates Committee D, which is a departure from my normal practice. On this occasion I was Chairman of Estimates Committee F and, therefore, was not able to attend. I should imagine that I will be back with Estimates Committee D after the Budget-that was the deal, anyway. If I am, I shall follow up at least one and perhaps two questions that were raised on my behalf during the Estimates Committee deliberations. I asked my colleague Senator Reynolds to put some questions for me. The first question was on a matter of corporal punishment, which some honourable senators will know is a deep concern of mine. It is a practice which I think should be abolished forthwith, but as long as it is abolished in the near future, I would accept that rather than forthwith. I gave the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority some warning that I would ask a question. The answer given probably answered the question I asked, but I thought it was shallow. The Chairman, Senator Reynolds, asked on my behalf: What does the Authority have to report on the use of corporal punishment in Australian Capital Territory schools since it last reported to the Committee on this subject? Dr Butterfield replied: In the year 1984 there were 39 incidents of corporal punishment in primary schools. These incidents were spread over 11 schools. In high schools there were 200 incidents spread over 12 schools. That was Dr Butterfield's entire answer, which I thought was a little shallow, because it provided only some statistics and did not provide anything about possible policy changes or investigations into the use of corporal punishment and where the Schools Authority was going in this particular area. Dr Butterfield, after having been warned that I was going to ask this question through the Chairman, probably did not have at her fingertips all the figures that she needed, because Senator Zakharov followed up by saying: Would you be able to tell me, since I do not have last year's figures with me, whether that is an increase or a decrease? Dr Butterfield said: I understand it is a decrease. I also do not have last year's figures with me but from memory it is a decrease. I would have thought that if the Authority had been told that there would be some questions on this particular topic it would have had the figures so that the officer did not have to say: 'From memory it is a decrease'. It is not relevant to my first remarks, but there was some discussion about possible corporal punishment at the School Without Walls. The Minister said: I do not think there is corporal punishment at the School Without Walls. Dr Butterfield said: No, I do not think there is either. Senator Ryan said: It would not really fit in with its tenor. It is my contention and the contention of some of my colleagues that corporal punishment really does not fit in with the tenor of education. I have taken some steps, other than through Estimates committees, to find out more about corporal punishment. If I receive the information I have asked for I will probably raise the matter further in Estimates Committee D when next we meet. I requested Senator Reynolds to ask a series of questions for me in relation to the theft of a personal computer from the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Again, I had notified officers at the CCAE that there would be some questions about this. I feel, and it is just a feeling, that something was being hidden from the Estimates Committee, or not being explained fully. The equipment was an IBM personal computer with two disk drives and various peripheral attachments. This piece of equipment cost about $4,800. The equipment to replace it cost about $5,000. It is a matter of some concern to the Government, which provides money for equipment like this, to find that an IBM personal computer, costing about $4,800, was stolen. When I said that some things were being kept from the Committee, this is perhaps one instance. The Chairman, on my behalf, asked: Were the police called to investigate the theft, and what was the result of that investigation? Mr Eadie said: I am sure the police were notified. The result of the investigation is that the item of equipment has not been found. That seems to me to be brushing over the question fairly superficially. I would have expected that the police would have notified the CCAE of more than the fact that the equipment had not been found. I regard the answer as being a little strange, in that he said 'I am sure the police were notified' and then went on to say that the result of the investigation was such and such. I would have thought the obvious answer would have been: 'Yes, the police have been notified'. All I want to say about that is that I do not think the full picture was given to the Estimates Committee. Provided that I am on Estimates Committee D on the next occasion, I may raise the matter in more depth. I just say at this stage that the CCAE officials, when they next appear before the Estimates Committee, should have the full details about this incident. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.28) —Senator Colston's intervention has given me time to look up in Hansard the reply I was given on the matter of inward duty free shopping. I asked a series of questions about this. I asked, in part: . . . am I correct in assuming it will be in place by 1 July? The Hansard record continues: Senator RYAN —It sounds as if that is the case. Senator PUPLICK —Will that require legislation? Mr Harvey-If it is introduced it will require some legislation. A simple point has arisen. Mr Harvey has told the Estimates Committee that if something is introduced, 'it will require some legislation'. Those are his exact words. Senator Ryan has now said that there is some discussion as to whether in fact it will require legislation' or be done some other way. Either it requires legislation, in which case we can be told it requires legislation-and after dinner I will indicate that the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, by virtue of its chairmanship of the interdepartmental committee on this matter, has the information in its possession and it cannot be brushed off to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-or the Estimates Committee was told by an officer of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism that legislation would be required, and that will turn out not to be the truth. If the latter is the case, that is a serious matter. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator PUPLICK —Now that the Opposition has been forced to call a quorum and now that in the Government's attempt to appropriate an extra $400m plus of public revenue a Minister of the Government has deigned to come into the Senate to answer questions dealing with Government departments, we can proceed to look at some of the relevant matters. I am sure that the contempt for both the Parliament and the taxpayer which this Government evidences is clearly illustrated by the fact that a quorum had to be called in order to have a single Minister present. I was dealing with an attempt by the Minister for Education to indicate to the Senate that certain changes in the operation of the inward duty free system in Australia might be brought about by processes other than the introduction of legislation. I shall refer the Senate to three undertakings given. Before the suspension of sitting for dinner, I indicated that at the Estimates Committee D hearing, Mr Harvey, First Assistant Secretary of the Tourism and Expositions Division of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, was questioned as to whether inward duty free shopping could be introduced in Australia without the passage of legislation. I asked the officers and the Minister present whether to introduce inward duty free shopping would require legislation. Senator Ryan responded. I quote the Hansard: It sounds as if that is the case. I then asked: Will that require legislation? Mr Harvey, from the Department, said: If it is introduced it will require some legislation. On 4 February 1985 inquiries were made of the Minister for Aviation, Mr Peter Morris. He was asked: Will the introduction of inward duty free shopping require legislation? Mr Peter Morris wrote a fairly lengthy letter to Mr Spies, the President of the Australian Duty Free Operators Association Ltd. The letter concluded with the following words: Implementation of inwards duty free shopping at airports, restricted to liquor, tobacco and perfume products will follow the passage through the Parliament of amendments to the customs and sales tax law. That statement seems fairly clear. On 5 September 1984 a Press release was issued headed: 'John Brown MP, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism'. Typed in underneath were the words: 'And Minister for Aviation'. The two Ministers, Mr Brown and Mr Beazley, put out a statement in which they said: Inwards duty free shopping facilities will become available progressively at all Commonwealth-owned international passenger terminals, following the passage of the necessary legislation through Parliament. Minister Brown, Minister Beazley and Minister Morris have given undertakings in writing that the introduction of inward duty free operations in Australia will require and be subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Mr Harvey appeared before the Senate Estimates Committee and told the Committee that legislation was required to introduce such operations. I appreciate that the Minister for Education is not the Minister responsible. This is not an area she has any direct responsibility for or involvement in, but on the advice of her officers she said to the Parliament this evening that inward duty free shopping would be in place by 1 July. She was unable to state whether her Government would honour the written commitments of three of its Ministers to implement this proposal through the passage of legislation through the Parliament. Senator Peter Baume —There is no time left in this session. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Baume rightly said, there does not appear to be any time left in this session. There does not appear to be any relevant legislation in the House of Representatives. I have looked at the amendments to the Customs Act and to the Sales Tax Acts now before the Parliament. They do not relate to those matters to which Mr Peter Morris was referring in his letter of 4 February. The Minister for Education indicated that inward duty free shopping would be introduced by 1 July, despite written assurances from Ministers of her Government that it would be brought about by legislation which could be scrutinised by the Parliament to see whether such legislation would confer rights on operators who already have monopoly concessions at Australian international airports-some of those operators are not Australian-to the prejudice of other operators of duty free stores and to the prejudice of Australians working in the industry. Despite the fact that this matter is before the Industries Assistance Commission at the moment-the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, requested the IAC to investigate the question of passenger concessions and their impact and significance for inward duty free shopping-Senator Ryan, on the advice of her advisers, rose in this chamber this evening and said that inward duty free shopping would be in place by 1 July. She said: 'But the assurances given by three Ministers of my Government that it will be done by legislation is to be regarded as being not necessarily an assurance to be honoured'. If this proposal were put forward in legislation, we could debate the legislation. We could look at it and we could decide whether it is fair, equitable and proper. If it becomes law by regulation, all I can say is that on 20 August 1985, if that is the date on which we reassemble for the Budget session, I will move a motion to disallow whatever regulations have been introduced in this regard. All I am saying to the Minister is-- Senator Ryan —At length. Senator PUPLICK —Yes, at length. If to keep her Government honest I am required to speak at length and ad nauseam, I shall speak at length and ad nauseam. If there is to be any degree of integrity left in her Government and if there is to be any degree of honesty left in the statement of her fellow Ministers, I shall speak at length and ad nauseam until such time as the Parliament is treated with a little respect, and until such time-contrary to what happened tonight when the Government was asking for $400m worth of public money-as one Minister of the Government has enough respect for the parliamentary institution to be present at such a time without a quorum having to be called by the Opposition. Senator Ryan may think that the matter is simply to be brushed aside once the various factions have agreed upon the policy to be put forward. That may suit fine in the House of Representatives, but it does not suit-- Senator Giles —At least we can agree among ourselves. Senator PUPLICK —Is that right? This evening Senator Zakharov did not even know what report she had signed. She tried to tell me earlier that the report to which she was a signatory did not refer to the Commonwealth Schools Commission, when in fact it did. Government senators tell me that they can agree; everybody knows that to get an agreed position the Australian Labor Party has to convene separate meetings of the Centre Left, the Left, the left right out, the right and God knows what other faction. Nevertheless, I require an answer from Senator Ryan as to whether the written assurances given by the Minister for Aviation, Mr Peter Morris, the former Minister for Aviation, now Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, that this matter would not be proceeded with other than by legislation are now to be regarded as inoperative. Does her Government now plan to disregard and lay to one side these assurances from three senior Ministers and to proceed by taking action which in fact contradicts the specific and unequivocal assurances that they gave? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.12) —(Quorum formed) I am afraid Senator Puplick is destined for disappointment, despite his most loquacious account of all of the difficulties he has encountered in trying to establish where we are with duty-free shopping. I really have very little to add to what I told him, on advice, before the dinner break, which was that the matter is still under consideration. I am informed that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) currently have this matter under consideration. I will seek their further advice and inform the honourable senator accordingly. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.15) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting at 6.30 the Minister informed me that inward duty-free shopping would be operational in Australia by 1 July. She now tells me that the matter is 'still under consideration'. All I am trying to establish from Senator Ryan is whether the matter has been concluded, with a decision having been made, because on 2 May reports appeared in a number of Australian newspapers-they may indeed have been inaccurate Press reports-that, following representations by Senator Walsh in regard to whether duty-free shopping should be totally eliminated as a cost saving measure, Cabinet had concluded its discussions and had decided to introduce inward duty-free shopping. Prior to our rising for the dinner break Senator Ryan said that it would be in place by 1 July. My question is quite a simple one: Will it be in place by 1 July; if so, will it be introduced by legislation, as the Ministers have promised, or will it be introduced by some other action which does not involve legislation? If it does not involve legislation, clearly the Government is reneging on the written assurances given by three of its Ministers. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.17) —I am afraid that I have nothing of substance to add to what I have already told Senator Puplick, but as he seems to be intent upon tedious repetition, either on his own part or on mine, I repeat what I told him: Before dinner I was advised that it was the Government's intention to proceed with the implementation of this policy on 1 July but that whether it should be achieved by legislation or by some other means had not been settled. I undertook before the dinner break to have the relevant officer seek further information. The officer sought that information and the information is as I presented it to the Senate the last time I answered Senator Puplick's question; that is, that the matter is still under consideration by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). So the policy intention is clear; the means by which it is to be achieved is not clear at this stage. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.18) —I thank the Minister. She has confirmed that the means by which the Government's stated policy-it has been stated on a number of occasions-is to be achieved is, in her words, 'not clear'. Yet the Minister for Aviation, Mr Peter Morris, has written a letter and Mr Beazley and Mr John Brown have put out a statement saying that the process will be undertaken by parliamentary action. I do not regard the matter as having to go any further. I accept entirely Senator Ryan's assurance that those members of the Government are in the process of considering whether they should honour or dishonour the public statements they have made. Considering that repeated dishonouring of the public statements and promises Labor Ministers make is so typical of the Government of which Senator Ryan is a member I am quite satisfied with the absolute consistency of her answer. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.19) —Within this group of departmental estimates, are the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and I wish to raise a matter in relation to that Department. The Committee finds itself in a rather unusual situation. Estimates Committee D has obtained from the Senate authority to sit again to examine one matter, and it will be sitting again in a couple of days. The matter is of sufficient importance for me to raise it now in this Committee and to place on record my great concern about some events which occurred during the examination of the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. For some years the estimates of the Department have included a vote for the National Aboriginal Conference. Over several years officers from the National Aboriginal Conference have been present at the sittings of the Estimates Committee. I concede immediately that the NAC is an organisation funded under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act and as such it is one of several hundred, perhaps a thousand, funded in that way. The others do not attend and one could ask why NAC representatives should be present? The answer, of course, is that the NAC over the years has enjoyed a special position. It has had a special and very substantial appropriation and has therefore appeared to defend and explain its estimates year after year. On this occasion, the NAC was not present. I am not really challenging that. There may be reasons for that. But it was unusual in terms of past practice. Obviously, anyone who has followed the events of the last few months would have known that a large part of the questioning in this Committee would relate to matters affecting the NAC, not least because the Auditor-General had brought down a report highly critical of the NAC. Of course, the Committee did raise questions in relation to the Auditor-General's report as it affected the NAC. We discovered then that no officers from the NAC were present. In technical terms, the Department may say: 'Why should they be present? It is just one of the organisations'. But in any kind of practical terms, it should have been clear that those officers should have been there, as they have been in the past on many occasions. At that Committee hearing a number of questions were put and were taken on notice. The Department promised to come back with the answers in relation to a number of questions concerning the NAC. That is perfectly proper procedure. The issue that now arises is that when the answers came back to the Committee, those questions in relation to the NAC were all answered in an identical form. It was to the effect that there was a lock-out of departmental officers from the NAC, that officers were not allowed to get in. One presumed that no information could be given to the Estimates Committee. To each of those answers a copy of a ministerial Press release was attached. Indeed, there was a confrontation between the Department and the NAC at that time, and it is true that there was some administrative difficulty between the Department and the NAC. I pay tribute to Senator Reynolds, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee. It was determined that the Committee would do the unthinkable, that it would pick up the telephone to call the NAC and say: 'There were these questions to which we wanted answers, because they related to you. You are under attack through the Auditor-General. We have had this answer from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which suggests that we could not get answers. Do you have any objection to giving answers to the Parliament?'. The NAC said: 'Of course we don't. Not only do we have no objection but we would like the chance to come to the Parliament and explain our position'. Honourable senators may know that Estimates Committee D, under Senator Reynolds, reassembled and had another public hearing. The NAC came before us and said: 'Look, we were never asked for answers to these questions'. It is a very serious matter. I am not canvassing the actual questions or the answers. What I am canvassing is the fact that a department of State, acting on behalf of the Government, which has taken a policy decision to abolish the NAC, follows up by excluding the NAC from the Estimates hearings, where it could speak for itself. Then, when questions are asked about the NAC relating to its activities, the Department gives us answers which imply that the NAC would not provide information. Senator Kilgariff —Strange. Senator PETER BAUME —It may be innocent, but the impression comes across that there was an exercise in really trying to make the NAC look as bad as possible. When we telephoned the NAC, officers said that they would be delighted to give us information. They came before us and they did give information. I believe-and this is what we will examine in a couple of days at the hearing-that there was some failure in the process, and it may be that someone playing Public Service games was too smart by half and that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, a department I know well and whose officers I know and admire, has not served the Estimates Committee well and has not served the Parliament well in this little exercise. It seems like a shabby exercise which was not fair in terms of the light in which it placed the National Aboriginal Conference. The Committee is entitled to have that placed on the record. If the Department has anything to say, I hope it will say it in a couple of days. But I wonder, Minister, whether there is some simple explanation for what looks like a rather unfortunate situation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.25) —There certainly is a simple explanation and a simple rebuttal of the rather insulting imputations in Senator Peter Baume's remarks about the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Senator Baume, who has sat on Estimates committees, I suppose, for longer than I, will be very well aware of the conventions and practices of Estimates Committees. Therefore, he will know that the suggestions he is making of some attempt at concealment by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of the affairs of the National Aboriginal Conference are absolutely outrageous. The Department has understood that the Committee's requirements for appearance before it have been two: That the organisation had requested Additional Estimates, or that the Committee had provided prior notice of its intention to raise issues relating to that organisation. I must say that those two criteria are certainly the two that have been in practice in the nine years that I have been a member of Estimates committees. On many occasions I have sat on committees considering Supplementary Estimates where all of the agencies of a portfolio did not appear. They appeared if they had requested Additional Estimates or if there had been prior notice that there was an intention by committee members to raise issues. Those two criteria were taken into account by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in preparation for this Supplementary Estimates session. The Department advises that in accordance with the usual practice, the NAC was not invited to attend the Senate Estimates Committee D hearing on 23 April, because Additional Estimates had not been sought on its behalf. The same situation applied with the Aboriginal Development Commission, but when the Department received prior warning that the Committee wanted to ask questions about ADC activities, the Department asked ADC representatives to attend. The Department did not receive prior advice that the Committee wished to address questions to NAC members and staff. Had it received such advice, it would have asked the NAC to attend, as it did with the ADC. Senator Baume has referred to the frequent appearances of the NAC at Estimates committees previously, so for the record I now give the Senate details of the NAC's appearances before Senate Estimates committees over recent years. They are as follows: In 1982-83, for consideration of Appropriation Bills 1 and 2, officers of the NAC did not attend; for Appropriation Bills 3 and 4 they did not attend. In 1983-84 for Appropriation Bills 1 and 2, three representatives attended; for Appropriation Bills 3 and 4, the NAC did not attend. In 1984-85 for Appropriation Bills 1 and 2, two representatives attended; for Appropriation Bills 3 and 4 the NAC did not attend. The matter was discussed with the Chairman of the NAC when he raised with the Deputy Secretary the matter of the NAC's non-attendance at the hearing. The Deputy Secretary explained the Department's understanding as I have already outlined it, and added that he was puzzled about the Committee's approach as the NAC was not a statutory authority but a funded Aboriginal body akin in many respects to the other 900 or so other Aboriginal bodies which the Government funds. On behalf of the Department I add that if the Department's understanding of this matter has been incorrect, it apologises and would be grateful for the Committee's advice as to the requirements to be followed in respect of future hearings. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.29) —That is an explanation of part of the matter, but only part. I would like to test even that part of the answer because it was quite clear to anyone that at these Appropriation Bills hearings the NAC would be of special interest. The NAC was to be abolished. The Government had made a decision and had announced that the NAC was to be abolished. It was the subject of an adverse report by the Auditor-General which suggested that taxpayers' money had been misused in quite serious ways. It displays at least a lack of perspicacity if the Department did not realise, in light of the Auditor-General's report and of the political situation surrounding the NAC, that the Committee would be interested in its activities. Putting that aside I wish to ask other questions which relate to answers to questions on notice which we have received from the Department and which give the impression that the Department could give no information about the NAC because it was unable to obtain such information. That clearly turned out not to be the case. I want to know what happened there. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(8.31) —Before the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) replies, I wish briefly to express my concern at this whole situation. Although I have no particular brief for the National Aboriginal Conference, its structure or make-up, I believe that it had very good intentions but that the organisation did not really represent the Aboriginal people whom I know, that is, the traditional owners in the outback of Australia. Like Senator Baume, I have very real concerns now about what is going on with the NAC. As I understand it, the NAC had problems and it asked the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Government for assistance with its accountancy and other matters. The NAC took the initial action and requested that the Auditor-General review its operations. Indeed, it went further and, because of its concerns that something was wrong within its administration, it requested the Australian Federal Police to look into its situation. This has not been refuted. But what appears to have happened is that despite that request from the NAC, the Auditor-General has made a very severe criticism of the administration of the NAC and as a result the NAC people are being labelled because of the discrepancies that have been discovered. It should be remembered that it was the NAC people, the Aboriginal people, who asked for someone in authority to help them. I want to know what will happen now. Most people here tonight, if they have some interest in Aboriginal affairs, will know the executive and the senior Aboriginal people within the NAC. If they know these people, they will have some respect for these people. Yet we have this peculiar situation, this sort of cover up. The old Aboriginal people have endeavoured to do the right thing for the Aboriginal people. They invited the Federal Police and the Auditor-General to investigate their activities. They said: 'Please tell us what is going on. If there is something wrong, please correct it'. But now, as I see it, the Government is taking these people to task. Why take to task these people who have endeavoured to correct the situation? As I said, it was the NAC people who asked the Government for expert assistance with accountancy. That seems to be where something went wrong. But if someone is at fault, we should not lay the blame on the Aboriginals and the executive of the NAC. We should look to the Federal Government, to DAA and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), and ask them to tell us why they did not take action to assist these people when they asked for it. If there is to be an inquiry, let it go beyond the inquiry into the NAC by the Federal Police and the Auditor-General; let us look into the administration of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and his Department. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.36) —Senator Kilgariff's last rhetorical question really raises the whole issue of the role of Estimates committees. He said: 'Let us look into the administration'. I assume that is exactly what the Estimates committee was doing. Senator Puplick —We are still doing it. Senator RYAN —Obviously; that is why we are here. That is the answer to Senator Kilgariff's question. The comment of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the effect that it did not have some information relating to the affairs of the National Aboriginal Conference has been criticised and it has been suggested by the Committee that the explanation given by officers of the DAA was not satisfactory. The Committee said: From the evidence before it the Committee finds it difficult to accept the Department's implication that the lock out of its officers by the NAC had prevented information being provided to the Committee. The lock out occurred six days after the Committee's hearings and the NAC has since asserted before the Committee that access to the relevant files would have been given to Departmental officers. On behalf of the Department, I would like to clarify this matter of the lock-out. The Secretary-General of the NAC, in his letter to the Department on 26 April 1985 advising it of the lock-out of departmental officers who had been working in the NAC, gave no indication at all that access would still be available to officers, nor was this made clear in subsequent discussions with the Minister or the Department. Consequently, he wrote to the Chairman of the NAC on 30 April 1985 in response to the Secretary-General's letter of 26 April and said: Now that the Department's officers have been locked out, they have been placed in a very difficult position in relation to their ability to discharge their side of that job responsibly. These are the circumstances that the NAC itself has created. The consequence is that those administering the Arrangement on behalf of the Department will not be in a position to countersign or authorise any NAC expenditure. This situation will have to continue until the previously applying arrangements are restored. The Minister also said: In all the circumstances, I must say that the effect of the NAC's actions can only be that the Department's officers whose duty it is, and will remain, to give effect to the Agency Arrangement, are prevented from doing so. I suggest, therefore, that the NAC would be well advised to review the consequences of its decision and to reconsider its position. From this it can be seen that I consider that departmental officers were unable to fulfil their duties under the agency arrangement, given the stance of the NAC. Mr Riley replied to the Minister on 6 May saying: The Department's officers have not been prevented at any stage from carrying out any Agency Arrangement. That was the first formal indication that this was the case although the Department had been asked to carry out selected duties after the lock-out was instituted. The Committee also contends that the lock-out occurred six days after the Committee hearings. However, the following points should be taken into account: The hearing was on Tuesday night, 23 April; Thursday, 25 April was a public holiday, and the lock-out was effected at 8 a.m. on Monday, 29 April. This effectively allowed only two working days for the Department to attempt to answer all of the questions taken on notice at the hearing of 23 April. Furthermore, the Department was not provided with copies of the Hansard record of the hearings until late on Friday morning, 27 April, further limiting the time available to ensure that it had correctly understood the questions that the Committee members had asked and that it had agreed to take on notice. In summary, the NAC had not made it clear to departmental officers that relevant files were available on request and it was only after my letter of 30 April had been dispatched that the NAC had progressively sought agency co-operation on a wider range of issues governed by the arrangement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.40) —The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who represents the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has given us a chronological account of what happened in relation to the agency arrangement; that is, the arrangement whereby officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs countersign cheques and help with the financial management of the National Aboriginal Conference. I think that is an approximate account of what the agency arrangement involved. This is not a question that goes to the agency arrangement; this is a question that goes to DAA officers obtaining information for the Parliament. As Minnie Bannister might have said, they could have tried using the modern electronic telephone. They could have tried calling the NAC and saying: 'We have questions to answer to the Parliament. Will you assist us?' When the Estimates Committee D did that we got co-operation immediately. I suspect the DAA, worried by the breakdown of its agency arrangement did not actually go to the NAC to get the answers for the Parliament, and the written answers which we received on notice were misleading and unhelpful. Had we not gone back directly to the NAC-I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee-we would still have no information at all. It was readily available. All one had to do was ask for it. Perhaps officials will put it down to an error of judgment, but DAA failed to obtain for the Parliament on notice answers which the Estimates Committee wanted, and those answers were available had they been asked for. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.42) —Having listened to the remarks that Senator Colston made earlier this evening about some internal arrangement about Estimates committees, on behalf of myself, Senator Peter Baume and Senator Watson, I simply want to place on record my appreciation of the way in which Senator Reynolds handled her task as Chairman of Estimates Committee D, which dealt, as Senator Baume had indicated, with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and a number of other matters, which were perhaps a little more difficult and a little more complex. It certainly took longer than any of the Estimates committees have taken in the past. There appears to be some internal arrangement concerning which Government senators will serve as committee members at the next sitting of an Estimates committee to deal with these departments. I do not know whether Senator Reynolds will continue as Chairman or not under this arrangement. As a member of Estimates Committee D, I want to place on record my appreciation of the extremely fair and capable job that she did as Chairman of our Estimates Committee. I am sure I speak on behalf of all three members of the Opposition who served on that Committee. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $232,000. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $11,974,000. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $1,756,000. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $2,282,000. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $12,201,000. Consideration resumed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.44) —I have now had the opportunity to read the letter dated 4 July 1984 written by Mr McQuitty of Australia Post to Mr Monaghan, the First Assistant Auditor-General, which relates to the efficiency audit of the provision of services to the public through post offices. Having read the letter, I am glad that I pursued the matter. I pursued the matter originally because part of the answer which Estimate Committee C received was in relation to a letter written by the Auditor-General in reply in this letter. In the documents which have been made publicly available in the written replies to questions received by Estimates Committee C is a letter written by the Auditor-General, Mr Brigden, to Mr McQuitty of Australia Post in response to Mr McQuitty's letter of 4 July 1984. This letter has been tabled, but is not otherwise public. It was tabled by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who was in charge at the time. I now seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. It is three and a half pages of typing, but it does make some sense of the sequence of correspondence. I will make some comments and ask certain questions in relation to the content of that letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Australian Postal Commission Australia Post Chief General Manager 71 Rathdowne Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053 Postal Address: PO Box 302, Carlton South, Vic. 3053 4 July 1984 Telephone 669 7452 Area Code 03Reference Mr C. T. MonaghanFirst Assistant Auditor-GeneralAustralian Audit OfficeBox 707 GPO,Canberra, ACT 2601 Dear Mr Monaghan EFFICIENCY AUDIT OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH POST OFFICES Thank you for the opportunity to examine the draft Audit Report which you enclosed with your letter to me of 16 May 1984. I had hoped to get back to you sooner with comments but, with the mass of material that has been provided to your office over the past four and a half years since the Audit Feasibility Study commenced, obviously a good deal of work has been necessary to address the many observations, conclusions and recommendations made in the Draft Report. You would be aware, of course, of responses by Australia Post to earlier briefing material from your Office in relation to the Audit, specifically our reply of 29 April 1982 which dealt with Audit proposals concerning Australia Post Agency Work and Post Office Automation and Work Simplification, and our reply of 21 September 1982, in relation to Audit's proposals for the Money Transfer Service. I understand that changes to that earlier material, as reflected in the latest Draft Report, have been relatively minor. I also wish to correct any misunderstanding that may exist regarding the nature of briefing material provided to Australia Post for examination and comment. The position with the four Appendices referred to on page 2 of your letter, is as follows: An incomplete briefing paper dealing with 'Development of the Counter Network' was received informally from your Office some twelve months ago. (At the request of your Mr Berthelsen this material was not commented on, and since then no further material has been received on this topic.) The most recent material made available to Australia Post on ''Automation and Work Simplification in Official Post Offices'' was that enclosed with a letter from your Office dated 1 March 1982, to which we responded on 29 April 1982. The Appendix dealing with the ''Public Telegram Service'' was attached to your letter of 16 May 1984 and is currently being examined. We have not yet received or commented on any briefing material dealing with ''Work Measurement''. There is obviously some confusion in your office on this matter. Before commenting on the Draft Report, I feel it important that I trace a little of the history of the Efficiency Audit. First, as you may be aware, Australia Post went into the Audit in 1980, against the background of continuing basic change following the establishment of the Commission on 1 July 1975, including: the management of changes resulting from the progressive withdrawal of work performed on behalf of Telecom Australia and the seeking of additional agency work; fundamental changes in attitude and style, flowing from operating in a market environment and against a bottom line measurement; progressive review of the mass of policies and practices inherited from the PMG Department; and technological developments with potential application to significant areas of postal operations. In other words, the enterprise was then, and still is, in a state of managed fundamental and rapid change. As a matter of management philosophy we endeavour to take a helpful and open stance towards those who ask questions about us-the media, the unions and our customers are good examples. Certainly we do not pretend to have all the answers but our track record since Vesting of the Commission is evidence of our willingness to move positively and accept the need for change where it is in the best interests of the community at large and the enterprise. Our attitude towards the Efficiency Audit has been that of total co-operation, although after four and a half years of constant questioning and probing (in excess of 12 work years of effort to date) you will excuse me if I say that our enthusiasm is starting to fade. It is against this background that the following comments on the draft report are offered: In principle, as we have pointed out on previous occasions, many of the directions proposed in the Draft Report are supported. However, while the recommendations would appear to be technically feasible, the practicality of their realisation has, in many instances, either been overlooked or, at best, superficially treated. There was general agreement, I recall, that the means of realisation, in the face of staff organisation resistance to change, was to be a prime consideration of the Audit process. As the Audit Team would be well aware, Australia Post has a high public, industrial and political profile. Therefore, when change is proposed the implementation strategy and, more importantly, the effect on staff and the public must be addressed at the same time. Secondly, there are numerous examples of what I have taken to be naivety on the part of the Audit Team. The nature of many of the recommendations suggests strongly that the Team started with the aim to introduce a 'paper-less office' concept, then rationalised all consequential implications around automation. A Report which does not identify and address the major issues related to change could be expected to be more of a millstone than a help to Australia Post in bringing about that change. For example, it is naive to suggest that Australia Post's services to major customers could just as easily be dispensed by non-official postmasters with additional training, that Australia Post's network of official post office buildings could be disposed of easily, that prior to 1983 Australia Post had not concerned itself with emerging trends in new technology, that staff organisations would readily accept the proposed changes to the Postal Levels Structure, that the introduction of new technology, if acceptable at all, would not be met by compensating claims for shared productivity increases. In other words the whole tenor of the report is far too simplistic in relation to the practical realities of carrying out a number of the initiatives that are specified in the report. Finally, with the 4 years elapsed since the Efficiency Audit exercise commenced, most of the major directions in the Draft Report have either been addressed or work is proceeding currently, in particular-Corporate Identity, Postal Levels Structure, Electronic Funds Transfer, Electronic Mail, Financial Accountability Reporting, Divisional Organisation Restructure, Self-Service Postal Facilities, Automation of Counter and Related Clerical Activities, and the gaining of major new agency business for Australia Post. These major directions would have been pursued in any event. These matters are obviously quite fundamental in terms of presentation of the formal Efficiency Audit Report and the stance that Australia Post would necessarily take in responding to that Report. The Draft Report also contains a number of misunderstandings, or otherwise incorrect statements, which would need to be attended to. Having made these comments, I have some concern for the further resources that may be necessary from Australia Post in order to bring this matter to a speedy conclusion. No doubt you would echo my concern. I propose, therefore, that the ongoing liaison that has been such a time-consuming feature of this Audit since it commenced, be discontinued. In future, I believe that matters for resolution arising out of material provided to Australia Post should be handled on a formal basis. If this causes you any concern please let me know. In the meantime, Mr Williams has been made aware of this change. I think there could be mutual advantage in discussion about the steps that need to be taken to bring the Audit to a conclusion, and should you be in Melbourne, and at a mutually suitable time, we would welcome this opportunity. Yours sincerely D. G. McQuitty Senator PETER RAE —The letter states: Thank you for the opportunity to examine the draft Audit Report which was enclosed with your letter to me of 16 May 1984. I had hoped to get back to you sooner with comments but, with the mass of material that has been provided to your office over the past four and a half years since the Audit Feasibility Study commenced, obviously a good deal of work has been necessary to address the many observations, conclusions and recommendations made in the Draft Report. What I asked by way of question has been confirmed; that is, whether it was correct that the audit examination had gone on for some four and a half years. That is what Mr McQuitty says in his letter. On page 2, he states: Our attitude towards the Efficiency Audit has been that of total co-operation, although after four and a half years of constant questioning and probing (in excess of 12 work years of effort to date) you will excuse me if I say that our enthusiasm is starting to fade. I ask: What does 12 work years of effort represent by way of cost? Page 4 of the letter states: Having made these comments, I have some concern for the further resources that may be necessary from Australia Post in order to bring this matter to a speedy conclusion. No doubt you would echo my concern. I propose, therefore, that the ongoing liaison that has been such a time-consuming feature of this Audit since it commenced, be discontinued. In future, I believe that matters for resolution arising out of material provided to Australia Post should be handled on a formal basis. If this causes you any concern please let me know. In the meantime, Mr Williams has been made aware of this change. I further ask: What does 12 years of effort represent in broad based money terms for Australia Post? Previously I had asked whether it was correct that the Auditor-General's effort represented some $500,000 worth of work. Senator Grimes answered that he was not in a position to answer for the Auditor-General, which I accept. In relation to Australia Post, I now ask what Mr McQuitty means when he talks about 12 work years of effort to date being involved. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.50) —Of course I cannot quantify exactly the financial costs of 12 years of work effort but I suppose if one put an amount of $30,000 a year on it, even I can multiply that by 12 and work out how much the total is likely to be. That seems to be a lot of time, effort and money expended by Australia Post in trying to follow the claims of the Auditor-General. I can get the exact figure-or I hope I can-but I certainly do not have it here tonight and neither has my adviser. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.52) —I ask honourable senators and the Minister in particular to bear with me. It is my understanding that something of the order of $500,000 is the estimate made in relation to the Auditor-General's Office expenditure on this matter. If the broad figure given by the Minister's calculation-something of the order of $350,000, or perhaps getting towards $400,000-is involved for Australia Post, we are looking at a total figure that is close to $1m for an efficiency audit which was canned. Senator Grimes —Where do you get your $500,000 from? Senator PETER RAE —I ask the Minister to bear with me. I have asked him about the amount and he is not in a position to give me a figure one way or another. Senator Grimes —Hold on a minute. I am trying to answer on behalf of Australia Post. You are asserting that the Auditor-General had a team that was even bigger than that of Australia Post and therefore it cost $500,000. I do not think anyone here imagines that the Auditor-General's team in an internal audit like this is likely to be bigger than that of Australia Post. Still, if it helps your argument, go ahead. Senator PETER RAE —It is my under- standing-and a study of Mr McQuitty's letter gives this impression-that the Auditor-General's efficiency audit team was larger; it was a considerable team. It was working full time for some four and a half years in relation to this particular efficiency audit. However, even if the amount of $500,000 is not accurate-and that is the estimate given to me-and even if it is the same amount as that expended by Australia Post, we are still looking at a very large amount of money for something that was canned. How does it come about that this sort of thing gets into such a bind? Can we go back a little further in order to get a better understanding of this matter? Can we possibly have access to the letter to which the letter of 4 July was a reply; that is, the letter of 16 May? It is quite obvious that by the time Mr McQuitty came to write the letter of 4 July 1984 he was getting more than a little terse, possibly with some justification. One does not know. I have incorporated the letter of 4 July in Hansard so people can judge for themselves the terms of it, but it seems to me that it is reasonable to pursue this matter to find out how we get to the stage where, after four and a half years and a very substantial amount of expenditure, we end up with an efficiency audit which does not have the inherent efficiency to get published. Apparently it does not have the capacity to be either relevant, timely or appropriate. I will pursue this matter in the other appropriate areas as well but I ask for some clarification of the Australia Post side of it while I have this opportunity. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.55) —First of all I must point out that when I, as a Minister, get up in this place and answer questions about costs and amounts of money expended, I have to produce exact figures. If I cannot, I have to ask for the question to be put on notice and go back to get those exact figures. Senator Rae, of course, is in the beautiful position of saying 'I am informed' but not having to tell us by whom or by what authority such and such cost $500,000 or $350,000. I am not arguing about that. I have been in the same position on the Opposition benches and have done the same thing myself, but it is very easy to do that. It is my understanding that an efficiency audit was going on from as far back as 1980 or even 1979 and, as Auditor-General's efficiency audits are often supposed to do, it was not only to check the efficiency of the department or statutory authority at which it was looking, but it was also to assist it to change or mend its ways. My information is that what happened in this case-and it is not the first time that I, as an ex-member of the Public Accounts Committee, have known this to happen-was that both Australia Post and eventually, rather reluctantly, the Auditor-General discovered that they were not being necessarily helpful. The Auditor-General found that he was frequently paralleling things that were being done by Australia Post and in the end everyone threw up their arms and gave up. I am not saying that that is satisfactory, but it is a situation that occurs and it occurs not only in the Public Service but in private industry as well. I will have to get more careful and exact details for Senator Rae-as much as I possibly can. Unless Senator Rae is willing to tell me the source of his figures-of $500,000 and $340,000-I am afraid I cannot check them, but he is a good politician and like a good journalist I do not expect him to divulge his sources. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.57) —I am quite happy to divulge one source-it is Mr McQuitty in his letter dated 4 July 1984. My other figure is the Minister's own estimate of the calculation of 12 work years-- Senator Grimes —No, that was off the top of my head. You claimed to have sources; I did not. Senator PETER RAE —What I said was that if we took the Minister's calculation of 12 years at $30,000 a year as being one figure and add a figure that I understand to be in the ball park region of the estimate made by the Auditor-General of the amount of work in the Auditor-General's office, we find we are talking about a large figure. Senator Grimes —That is your figure. Is it the Auditor-General's figure? I want to know whose figure it is. You have to tell me how reliable it is. You are just getting up here and asserting it. I should have been a lawyer. Senator PETER RAE —I have listened to the Minister's dissertation with interest. I ask him whether he would endeavour to obtain for us the letter which is referred to by Mr McQuitty in the first paragraph of his letter; that is, the letter of 16 May 1984 from Mr Monaghan to Mr McQuitty. Perhaps if we had this letter we could better understand how all this came about. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.58) —I can certainly seek to get such a letter. I suppose I could go back to the start of Federation getting letters, one after another. I will seek whatever information I can get and I suppose that anything I cannot get Senator Rae will try to get through the Freedom of Information Act. I am not particularly interested in indulging in Senator Rae's capacity to conduct interesting fishing expeditions of this type. Quite clearly, what happened was that an efficiency audit was conducted in combination with the Auditor-General and Australia Post. It was decided by mutual agreement that they were getting nowhere so they gave it away. I am not very happy with that any more than Senator Rae is happy with it, but I am also not very happy to go back to try to pin blame on individuals or organisations when we might stretch things a bit in trying to do that. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.59) —I thank the Minister and simply say that I would regret the day when the Parliament, in looking at the Estimates, was not interested in pursuing the question of how expenditure of a significant magnitude can take place and produce nothing of any benefit. Alternatively, if it produced some benefits perhaps we may be able to find out what they were. I have pursued the matter in that spirit and I thank the Minister for his co-operation. I am content to leave the matter of Australia Post with those undertakings from the Minister and with the spirit of co-operation that the Minister has shown. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP E Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $1,171,000. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $7,432,000. Department of Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $11,507,000. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $22,921,000. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $248,811,000. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.00) —I refer to the Estimates Committee E hearing relating to the estimates for the Department of Defence. One of the first questions asked of the Department related to the strength of the Army Reserve. We were given a figure of 24,170, which was the number on strength in the Army Reserve at the end of February. That figure is lower than the numbers on strength for the Reserve before the expansion took place under Mr Killen four Ministers ago. We were told that there were some details of an advertising program to increase recruitment. Will the Minister advise whether any details are available on what that advertising program will be? Will it be in the form of the old program, which was so successful, or will it be a new program? In particular, is there any substance to the rumours that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself will appear in the advertising program? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.01) —I understand that the advertising program is under way and that it is likely that the Prime Minister will appear in the program, as I remember he did years ago in the old program, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. However, I am not sure. I will find out for Senator MacGibbon whether that has been finalised. I suppose that if the old program with the Prime Minister in it was successful, the new one might be successful, too. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.02) —Another matter that was the subject of considerable debate at the Estimates Committee E hearing related to pilot training in the Royal Australian Air Force. The Department's representatives maintained that there was no shortfall in the numbers of pilots in various categories. Yet the story is to the contrary, namely, that we do have an acute shortage of fighter pilots, for example. Does the Department, on reflection, wish to change the advice it gave the Committee five weeks ago? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.03) —It has been asserted to me by my advisers that at the moment there is no acute shortage of fighter pilots. I am not sure, when the honourable senator talked about the training of fighter pilots, whether he meant that there was an acute shortage of trainees. Is that what the honourable senator was saying? Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.03) —I will phrase it differently. The number of fighter pilots currently under training is not the desired number to meet the needs of the Royal Australian Air Force, the way it is organised at present. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.03) —I have no exact information on whether that is so. I will certainly take it on notice. I understand that no one here has any reason to believe that the answer given in the Estimates Committee hearing is not correct. I am certainly very careful not to make the sort of reply which I well remember former Senator Drake-Brockman making when I was first a senator, which was that the Royal Australian Air Force was indulging in a crash training program for pilots of F111s. I would not like to put myself in that situation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.04) —I hope that, as the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) says, the Royal Australian Air Force is not indulging in a crash training program for pilots. However, this matter must be taken a little further. During the Estimates Committee E hearing, when we were discussing the training of fighter pilots for the RAAF, the RAAF representative gave some rather gobbledegook answers. Senator Grimes —You should have understood them then. Senator KILGARIFF —I do not know whether the Minister was there. I would have liked him to have been there, to see whether he understood what the RAAF representative was saying. I thought the representative was not facing up to the questions asked of him but rather, perhaps because of his expertise, was endeavouring to outsmart-if I could put it that way-the members of the Committee. Senator Gareth Evans —He didn't have much competition, did he? Senator KILGARIFF —That is the Minister's opinion. However, some people have a very strong desire to see that the defence facilities of Australia are in good condition. I suggest that they would question the evidence that was given by the RAAF representative at the Estimates Committee hearing. I shall repeat what was said then. Perhaps the representative is not here tonight. I think that perhaps he was a little smart. I do not know what he does for a living or what he did as a representative of the Defence Force. I suggest that if he had had the interests of the RAAF at heart he would have taken more care in the answers he gave. There was very good reason for putting the questions that were put. The questions were simply: Does Australia have sufficient fighter pilots to service the Mirages that are our front line fighters until the FA18 is in use? Are there sufficient pilots for long range surveillance? I refer to the Orions. Is it correct that the average age of fighter pilots these days is getting greater and greater; in other words, are they getting older and older? Compared with fighter pilots in other countries, are they getting older? Senator Aulich —We are all getting older. Senator KILGARIFF —Yes, we are. Senator Macklin —It comes to us all. Senator KILGARIFF —It does. It is a joke to honourable senators opposite. This is the way the evidence was given to the Estimates Committee-as a joke. I suggest that the defence of Australia is not a joke. It is not a joke that the training hours of our RAAF pilots are getting less and less. My understanding is that the RAAF pilots are coming out of training and going into operational aircraft and, because of the lack of training, they have insufficient knowledge of the operational capacity of these aircraft. That is a serious situation. It was also suggested that the number of training hours received by pilots before going into operational aircraft in the Australian Air Force is far below the requirement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We received a rather smart-alecky answer endeavouring, I suggest, to cover up the situation, which is that deficiencies exist in the training and numbers of fighter pilots of the Royal Australian Air Force. I go further because I am very concerned about the surveillance of the north. I see the problem so often. I know there are deficiencies. I suggest that while the Government is to blame a lot of blame is to be attributed to the bureaucrats who live in Canberra and who do not realise what is required for surveillance of the north. I hope no one opposite is smiling. The people of the north have seen a lot. Going back a long way, there was the bombing of Darwin. More recently there were drug running, smuggling and similar offences. The bureaucrats are not very closely attuned to northern surveillance and do not understand what it means. We have Orion aircraft which supposedly have the capacity to carry out long range reconnaissance missions into the Indian Ocean. I ask again: Why does no one take note of what has happened at Cam Ranh Bay? I was in Vietnam a few months ago. Presumably the Government and the bureaucrats read about what is happening at Cam Ranh Bay. It is now the biggest Soviet base outside Russia. It has an immense naval and aircraft presence. The Soviet aircraft have the capacity to range over the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Yet here we sit back in our funny little situation. The bureaucrats came before this Estimates Committee and twiddled their thumbs and fingers while thinking up quick, smart answers to what we, the representatives of the Australian people, asked them. We want to know the answers to questions about the defence of Australia. I tell you, Mr Chairman, that we are not getting those answers. I go back to the subject of the Orions and the surveillance of the north. I ask once again: What aircrews do we have to fly these aircraft that supposedly have the ability to range into the Indian Ocean? How many aircraft are not operational because of the lack of aircrews? I suggest that in the Royal Australian Air Force these days there has been a cutback in training of aircrews so that it is not possible for all the Orions to be operational. I suggest too that the average age of the pilots of our Mirages, the number of pilots being trained for the Mirages and the ability of the pilots to man these Mirages in an operational capacity are below the levels that are demanded of the NATO services. I say no more about that. I just make the point that I bitterly resent the fact that the officer who sat here during the hearing of the Estimates Committee, supposedly as the representative of the Royal Australian Air Force, should give the tripe that he put forward that night. I suggest it is about time that the Government and the bureaucrats, who are responsible for the defence of Australia, became interested in northern defence and the defence of Australia and got off their hands and did something about it. Once again I say that I, as a senator for the Northern Territory, having asked that day in the Estimates Committee those questions about northern surveillance and northern defence, bitterly resent the answers that I was given. I think the people of Australia are being badly let down by those who have the responsibilities for the defence and surveillance of Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.15) —I think we can gather from all that that Senator Kilgariff did not like very much the person who was answering on behalf of the Royal Australian Air Force. Senator Kilgariff —I think he should be given the arse. Senator GRIMES —That is not very nice. He did not like very much the person who was giving the answers on behalf of the RAAF at the Estimates Committee. I do not think we can get much more from it because in all that we have just heard from Senator Kilgariff in the last 12 minutes we got no facts, no figures and no assertions backed by facts, although they were probably fuelled by something like avgas. What happened was that Senator Kilgariff apparently asked some questions and did not like the demeanour of the fellow, the way he combed his hair, or something like that. For the last 12 minutes he made assertions about the RAAF and about the person who gave the answers. He has produced no facts, no figures, nothing. He has talked about Cam Ranh Bay and what he saw when he was there. He talked about what he thinks are the problems in the north. We even went back to the Japanese raids on Darwin, but we had no facts and no figures. This is supposed to be an examination of the Estimates. All right, I will give the honourable senator some facts. A quorum having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Grimes —Senator Jessop, why don't you go back and represent your friends in Pretoria? Senator MacGibbon —Withdraw that. Senator Grimes —I will talk about whom you represent. You would never pass a security check in this country. (Quorum formed) Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Jessop for calling the quorum. Senator Townley —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. When the bells were ringing the Minister made statements about a couple of my colleagues that I think should be withdrawn. The fact that they were made during a quorum call has nothing to do with the matter. I think both comments were below the dignity of this place and should be withdrawn. One was about Senator Jessop and one was about Senator MacGibbon. The CHAIRMAN —I think the Minister should expedite things and withdraw both remarks. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. I thank Senator Jessop for calling the quorum because I have now managed to look at the section of Hansard that Senator Kilgariff complains about. It is not hard to read as it is only about half a page. It is on page 221 of the Senate Estimates Committee E Hansard of 18 April 1985. I suggest that everyone read that. In fact I might suggest that it be incorporated because I cannot remember reading less benign or more respectful answers in any Senate Estimates Committee. I think Senator Kilgariff is having difficulty with his memory. I point out to him that all those answers are very sober and grave answers and display nothing like the sort of performance we have had here tonight. Let us deal with some facts. The average age of fighter pilots in the RAAF is 26 1/2 years. I assure Senator Kilgariff that he is right on one thing: Every day those pilots are getting older. Every hour of the day they are getting older, but the average age is 26 1/2 years. If that is a geriatric fighter pilot force I am surprised. Senator Kilgariff —No, Minister, you are wrong. Senator GRIMES —Do not tell me I am wrong. That is a fact. If you have any evidence to show that those statements are wrong you should say so. Tonight you have not produced one drop of evidence. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Grimes should speak through the Chair. Senator GRIMES —Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I should speak through the Chair. If Senator Kilgariff has any evidence for the assertions he has made he should produce it. Like people do so often in this place, he has made assertions without producing one skerrick of evidence. I have some other facts. For a number of reasons there was a slight reduction in the number of pilots in fighter squadrons at the time of which Senator Kilgariff was talking. One reason was the training requirements associated with the introduction of the FA18s. Since July 1984 seven pilots have been in the United States of America undergoing flying training in the FA18s. I understand from what Senator MacGibbon said yesterday-he is always an expert on this matter-they did pretty well. This effectively reduced the manning level of the Mirage squadrons. At the time steps were taken to correct this deficiency by increasing the training rates of fighter pilots. Flying hours in the financial year 1984-85 were increased above the level of flying hours approved in 1983-84. This allocation was sufficient for Mirage pilots to maintain operational currency. Compared to 1983-84, total flying hours in 1984-85 have increased by an average of about 8 per cent. While there has been some variation in the rate of those increased hours for individual categories of aircraft, hours for all categories of aircraft have been increased. I urge honourable senators to read the Hansard that Senator Kilgariff complains about. I urge them to look at the dead straight answers he was given. I urge them to look at the Hansard of his speech tonight, particularly when he said that the replies were all gobbledegook. I ask honourable senators to compare those answers with the speech Senator Kilgariff made tonight. I ask them to search through Senator Kilgariff's 12-minute speech tonight, when he made assertions about the RAAF and its our pilots, to find out whether in that speech there was one skerrick of evidence to back up his assertions. I said earlier tonight in response to Senator Rae that Minister, whether they are Labor Ministers or whether, in those terrible days in the past, they were Liberal-National Party Ministers, have to back the assertions they make. They have to produce evidence in writing from the Department. People like Senator Kilgariff, and Senator MacGibbon for that matter, can talk about pilot's ages increasing incredibly, planes being non-operational or a lack of defence in the north; they can make assertions about whether our Orions are flying and whether our pilots are getting enough flying hours; but they never produce any evidence. I suggest that most of Senator Kilgariff's evidence comes from what happens after 9 o'clock in the local Returned Services League Club in Alice Springs. That is where he gets all his evidence. That is the sort of evidence he gets. It is fuelled, as I said, by something akin to avgas. Do we have to put up with this sort of nonsense? Senator Jessop —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I think the Minister is getting carried away with the debate. He cast aspersions, not only on Senator Kilgariff, my colleague, but also on the ex-servicemen who inhabit the Northern Territory. Senator GRIMES —No, no, no. Senator Jessop —The Minister should explain himself and I may be tolerant with him. Senator GRIMES —I said that I suspect that most of Senator Kilgariff's evidence comes from the RSL Club in Alice Springs, not from active servicemen. I was referring to the old diggers in the RSL Club about whom we all know. They go into the Alice Springs equivalent of the non-members bar. They have great stories. Senator Jessop —Mr Chairman, I find those remarks offensive. When the Minister refers to the RSL in the way he has I think he casts aspersions on soldiers who have served Australia well in the past. It was an undignified statement by the Minister and I ask him to withdraw it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The remark may have been undignified but it was not against the Standing Orders. Senator GRIMES —I have answer Senator Kilgariff's assertions as much as I could understand them. I notice that he has disappeared from this chamber. He is obviously not interested in answers; he was just interested in making assertions. I have done my darg with the Department of Defence tonight, and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), has arrived from his pressing appointment. I have done the best by Senator Kilgariff. I hope he does the best by the Senate. If he wishes to seek further information I think his questions should be put on notice. I hand over to my colleage, Senator Evans. Senator MACGIBBON(Queensland)(9.27) —I am genuinely distressed that after that answer the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is now leaving the chamber. I asked a very serious question in this chamber which started this business off. The answers we got from the Department of Defence were not satisfactory. This is a very serious matter. The first line of defence for Australia is the Royal Australian Air Force. The combat squadrons of the Air Force will have to fly to the limits of their ability when a crisis comes. None of us knows when it will come. Therefore, the number of trained pilots we have and the standard of their training are vitally important to the country. Estimates Committee E did not get a satisfactory answer to the question on pilot numbers or to the question on the level of operational competence of those pilots. Despite the smarmy answer from the previous incumbent in the ministerial post, that has nothing to do with whether Senator Kilgariff had a conflict of personality with the officers who were answering questions. As far as can be determined, we are short of fighter pilots. I suggest that it would have been more honest of the officers of the Department to have said: 'Look, we have a difficult situation. We have budgetary limitations. We have a new aircraft coming on line in the F18. We will have to train people and put them through operational training units. This is expensive and we will take a calculated risk and run our numbers down.' I am quite sure that the Senate and the people of Australia would have accepted that answer. But that is not the line that was taken. I am of the belief that we are short of fighter pilots. I think we are also short of pilots trained for the long range maritime reconnaissance role of the Orions. My understanding is that we have only seven crews in 10 Squadron and seven crews in 11 Squadron. For an established strength of 10 aircraft per squadron a reasonable crewing strength in peacetime would probably be 12 crews for those squadrons. The second concern is the level of competence of the pilots. I am talking about pilots flying in strike aircraft-F111s and Mirages. The operational standard required is quite different from that required for flying transport aircraft, civil aircraft or any other form of aircraft. Pilots fly those aircraft to the limits of their flight envelope. I have been flying for 20 years and I do not profess to have any of those skills, but I have some knowledge of what is involved. It is not a matter of doing simulation training and a bare number of hours to become competent; it is the familiarity of flying every day or every second day and living with it. It is the awareness that keeps one alive and successful. Therefore, the number of hours the pilots in the Mirage squadrons and F111 squadrons are flying is very important, and we could get no answer on this at the Estimates Committee. The estimates for the fuel costs for avtur for the Air Force showed that there was a decreased purchase of fuel through the period. That means that fewer hours were being flown. We were told more hours were being flown, but that was never satisfactorily resolved for the Committee. I asked: What are the number of hours? We were told at the previous Estimates committee considering the Department of Defence that there would be an 8 per cent increase. I asked for the actual projected figure, and the reply later was that flying in all types of aircraft had increased by an average of 8 per cent. There is no statement of the number of hours, for example, that Mirage pilots are flying per month or per year. Off the record, one of the officers of the Department told me that this was confidential information. I said that that could not be true, because I can bring into this chamber copies of Aviation Week and Space Technology, a United States publications which lists the United States Air Force and United States Navy training hours on the various types of aircraft that they are using in a combat role. There is nothing secret about the number of hours being flown. It is misleading the Parliament and withholding information for the officers to be taking this line. The position we are in is that there is an uncertainty about the number of pilots we have but, more importantly, there is uncertainty as to the amount of training they are actually receiving in the operational role. My personal judgment of their operational competence is that they are probably just getting enough. I do not think that they are getting as much as they should get. Senator Grimes, said that Senator Kilgariff had no facts, which illustrates the point that we are denied the opportunity to get those facts in relation to the Australian armed forces. There is nothing secret about them, and we should have them. Going back to my own personal view on this, I think we are probably just getting enough operational hours for these guys to get by. They probably should have more time but we cannot make a judgment on that until we see what they are actually doing and compare that with similar air forces in other countries in the Western world. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.34) —Senator MacGibbon is entitled to make whatever points he wants to in this debate about defence personnel and their flying hours, training and so on, but he is not entitled to complain about the quality or quantity of information he was given. The reality of the matter is that every question asked by Senator MacGibbon on this subject was answered frankly and straightforwardly, before Estimates Committee E or it was taken on notice and answered in writing subsequently in the documentation which appears as a supplementary volume of the report of the Committee. There was no complaint in the report of the Committee about the character, quality or insufficiency of the answers that were given. Senator MacGibbon is, like Senator Kilgariff, pursuing some extravagant private vendetta of his own and I believe it is inappropriate for him to further occupy the time of the Senate in pursuing it. As to the question of some of the information about flying hours for particular types of aircraft possibly being withheld from him, the reality of the matter is, as I am advised, that this is classified information in the degree of detail which Senator MacGibbon sought. It may well be that Senator MacGibbon can and should argue that information of this kind should not be classified. It may be that he can build a reasonable argument based on precedent and practice elsewhere, as he has sought to do tonight, but it is a big step from there to suggest that he was being actively misled by the defence personnel involved, either personally or in writing, when a suggestion of this kind was made to him. It is quite wrong of him to suggest, in effect, that he was being lied to on this matter, and I believe it is appropriate that he apologise to the chamber for the imputations he has just made about the character of the defence personnel involved. I can add nothing more as to the particular details sought by Senator MacGibbon. I have endeavoured to be co-operative in my representative role, so far as the Minister for Defence is concerned. I will continue to be co-operative when honourable senators seek information that is reasonable and in the public interest, and certainly the Estimates committee proceedings are an appropriate avenue to seek such information to the extent that it can be granted. I do not believe that the kind of performance we have had here tonight is in any way justified by the facts of the proceedings before this particular Committee. Senator MacGibbon —Did I understand the Minister to say that I implied that the Department had lied? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. In saying that you were told by a departmental officer that it is classified information, and in putting to the chamber that that could not be the case, you were making clearly such an imputation and I believe it ought to be withdrawn and an apology ought to be tendered. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.36) —In the years that Senator Gareth Evans has been here we have become used to the intemperate, unbalanced and irrational elements of his character coming out on many occasions, and this is yet another one. I did not make the allegation, inference or implication that any member of the Department lied to the Senate. They were less than forthcoming in the information they were prepared to advance, and it is a proper and correct role for an Estimates Committee to seek that information from it. That is all I want to say on that matter. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP F Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $24,664,000. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $ 2,427,000. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $845,000. Department of Territories Proposed expenditure, $5,688,000. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services Proposed expenditure $17,185,000. Rent (Defence) Proposed expenditure $859,000. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.38) —Perhaps I could give some background before asking my question. There has been a quite long saga in the Department of Transport relating to the unmanning of lighthouses, the payment for lighthouses, the functions of lighthouse keepers, and the continued utilisation of lighthouses around the Australian coast as an aid to marine navigation and for a wide cross-section of other purposes. I now go on to the specific and quite detailed matter about which I wish to ask-the unmanning of the Swan Island lighthouse in Bass Strait. It is actually located on the southern side of Banks Strait, which is one of the most notorious areas of the world for difficult marine conditions. Senator Gareth Evans —Have you been lost in your boat around there again? Senator PETER RAE —No, I have not, but Robin Knox-Johnston, when he was planning his trip around the world single-handed, regarded the planning for going through Banks Strait as being more important than the planning for going around Cape Horn. I note that when the problem of the recovery of costs from the major shipping companies reached such a stage that the Department of Transport was considering unmanning, considerable public concern was raised. It was felt that manned lighthouses served a whole variety of purposes, including safety purposes, such as search and rescue, environmental purposes and a wide cross-section of other purposes. Swan Island lighthouse is of undoubted importance as a manned station in the provision of coastal surveillance and a search and rescue function. I would have thought, as does the Tasmanian Government, which asserts a similar view to mine, that the lighthouse would have rated much higher than it did when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure reviewed the question of the manning of lighthouses around Australia. It was one of the lighthouses which was recommended for unmanning and as being of low priority. Apparently this recommendation was made on the basis that the cost of restoring Swan Island lighthouse was relatively high. On the scale of points awarded its score was such that it was recommended to be placed in the unmanned category. The whole island was listed as part of the national heritage-the lighthouse was listed some time ago-in March and the listing is going through the six-month waiting process now. The position has been complicated by the fact that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) gave an undertaking after the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee report was presented that in relation to the question of unmanning there would be full consultation with State governments and also with public interest groups before any unmanning of any lighthouse would take place. However, with regard to Swan Island lighthouse, there have been a series of changes which have caused considerable concern to fishermen, yachtsmen, the Australian Lighthouse Association and a variety of other interest groups that are concerned and believe, as I do, that the Swan Island lighthouse must remain as a manned lighthouse. Equipment has been purchased for the lighthouse and is in store in Hobart. I raised that matter with the Minister for Transport and received a reply dated 16 May 1985. I had asked the Minister whether he would confirm that the lightkeeper on Swan Island had been transferred and that a temporary replacement had been appointed only until the lighthouse was to be automated sometime before the end of 1985 and, if that was so, what was happening with regard to consultation with the State and the public. The reply I received from the Minister stated: I can assure you that full consultation will take place with the Tasmanian Government and other interested parties in developing the lighthouse conversion program. The procedures that I outlined in my statement to the Parliament in October 1984 will be followed. At the time of the inquiry the Department of Transport made it clear in its submission that the equipment at Swan Island was approaching the end of its economic life. I come to the particularly curious part of the letter from the Minister for Transport. It states: In the interest of safety new equipment to up date this important light has been purchased and is now stored at Hobart. No decision has been made regarding its installation. I find it more than passing curious that the equipment should be purchased in the interests of safety and then stored without any plans being made for its installation. Senator McIntosh —They did not want to damage it. Senator PETER RAE —I presume that storing it would certainly make sure that it would not get damaged but it would also make sure that it would not get used. If it was purchased because it was believed that it was necessary in the interests of safety, there does not seem to be much point in just storing it, particularly when there are allegations floating around that no spare parts have been purchased for the Lister engines which run the present equipment, that they are likely to be unserviceable in the relatively near future, that the new equipment which has been purchased is for automating the light and that the lightkeeper who has been sent there has been sent there only until the end of the year and has been informed that the light will be automated after that and there will not be any need for his services. All of this is apparently a prelude to consultations taking place between the Federal Government and the State Government and public interest groups. The Minister stated in his letter: Following the resignation of the Head lightkeeper at Gabo Island the Head lightkeeper from Swan Island was transferred to replace him on the basis of his merits. He in turn has been relieved by the lightkeeper from Bruny Island and a replacement taken on to fill that position. I do not think the Minister is quite correct in that regard. A certain gentleman from Queensland, who was formerly in Tasmania, is temporarily at Swan Island on a posting until the end of the year. The Minister continued: These are normal movements that occur in the Lighthouse service and are in no way intended to pre-empt the consultative processes I outlined to the Parliament. I will shortly be in contact with the Tasmanian Government and other interested parties, such as the Australian Lighthouse Association, to commence the consultative processes recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. I ask: Firstly, is it correct that there is a problem in providing spare parts for the existing equipment? Secondly, what equipment has been purchased and is in store in Hobart? Thirdly, where is it stored in Hobart and why is it stored in Hobart and why has it not been installed at the Swan Island lighthouse? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.47) —The officers present advise me that there is not a great deal to add to the letter that Senator Peter Rae received from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). Senator Peter Rae —An explanation would help. Senator RYAN —Some of his questions can be answered. In answer to the question on spare parts, yes, apparently there is a problem. As to where the equipment is being stored, this question will have to be taken on notice, and we will get advice for the honourable senator. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.47) — Why the equipment has not been installed is the matter about which I am most curious. If it was purchased in the interests of safety, one would think that safety required it to be installed so that it could be used rather than stored so that it could not be used. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.48) —I am advised that it has been stored because the maintenance equipment is still functional. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.48) —If the maintenance equipment is still functional, why is there a problem about spare parts for that equipment? That problem has been acknowledged by the Minister. I realise that she does not personally know anything about this matter and has to take instructions. I shall ask the questions one at a time. Senator Robertson —Why don't you put them in a letter? It would be much quicker. Senator PETER RAE —What about this file that I have already? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.48) —I am endeavouring to assist Senator Rae but as he acknowledges, I am not in a very strong position to do so. Apparently, current equipment is functional but there is a spare parts problem with the new equipment that is being stored. We will advise Senator Rae later on that storage matter. I do apologise, Mr Chairman, that I cannot be of more assistance to Senator Rae. As he has made his interest in this matter very clear and has asked a number of very specific questions, I have no doubt that the officers will be able shortly to get the information that he requires. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.49) —I have taken the opportunity of asking questions during these proceedings because correspondence takes a long time. I have spent some years of effort in trying to find out what on earth is happening in relation to Swan Island lighthouse. I have been quite patient. I am concerned because, whether or not the stories are correct, they are of concern to many people. This matter is gaining increasing publicity and it should be sorted out one way of another. I ask: What equipment has been purchased and is in store? Is it for automating the light? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.49) —I understand that the equipment that has been purchased and has been stored is for the purposes of automating the light. I have consulted the officers present. I appreciate Senator Rae's frustration as he has been pursuing this matter through correspondence for some years. I am pleased to advise him, through you, Mr Chairman, that the information sought now by Senator Rae should be supplied in the next couple of days. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.50) —May I have the specific details of the appointment of the officer transferred to service the Swan Island lighthouse? Is it correct that he has been transferred-let us not be too specific-until the end of the year, or alternatively for about eight months? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.50) —I will secure that information for Senator Rae. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.51) —In summary, so I can be quite clear, is this the situation: Firstly, equipment to automate the light has been obtained; secondly, there are some parts problems in relation to that equipment and that is why it is in store and not being installed; and, thirdly, there are no problems with spare parts for the equipment already there and it can continue in use in the meantime? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.52) — There are two problems. One is the problem of spare parts for the equipment that is there and operating at the moment. It is functional, but there is a spare parts problem. There is also a problem with the new equipment and further information about that will be available for Senator Rae shortly. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.52) —Perhaps I might have also the full specifications of the equipment which has been acquired, of the parts needed and of the present program for the installation of that equipment. I thank the Minister and her officers for their co-operation. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without requests but with a resolution; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.54) —As I have already indicated, the Opposition, whilst not approving of Appropriation Bill (No. 4), does not oppose it. The arrangement was that we would make any comments relevant to this Bill during the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and I suggest that this Bill be taken through all its stages without taking any further time of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 16 May. Clause 16 (Unauthorized use of cameras and sound recorders). The CHAIRMAN —When the Committee reported progress last Thursday it was dealing with an amendment to clause 16, moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), to leave out sub-section (1) of proposed new section 234AB in order to insert new sub-sections. The amendment is in two parts. The first question is that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chaney's amendment be left out. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(9.57) —We are engaged in a little exercise of semantics. Senator Chaney moved an amendment to clause 16 of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill which I, on behalf of the Government, accepted. Senator Chaney will recall that I made a suggestion about including certain other words to comply with the normal practice of the Parliamentary Draftsman. He agreed to that. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.57) —I seek leave to amend my amendment accordingly. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(9.57) —We are now at the point where Senator Chaney's amendment, as amended by the suggestion I made, can be put. The amendment now reads: (1) Page 8, clause 16, proposed new section 234AB, leave out sub-section (1), insert the following sub-sections: ''(1) An officer may direct a person, including a passenger disembarking from, or embarking on, a ship or aircraft- (a) not to operate a camera, or use an appliance to record or transmit sound, at a place in relation to which a sign is displayed under sub-section 234AA (2); or (b) not to operate a camera, or use an appliance to record or transmit sound, at a place (being a place that is part of a ship, of an aircraft or of a wharf) at a time when the personal baggage of passengers disembarking from, or embarking on, a ship or aircraft, is being examined, for the purposes of this Act, at or in the vicinity of that place. ''(1A) Where an officer gives to a person a direction under sub-section (1), the officer shall inform that person that failure to comply with that direction is an offence under this Act. ''(1B) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction given to that person by an officer in accordance with sub-section (1). Penalty: $1,000.''. The CHAIRMAN —The immediate question is that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chaney's amendment No. 1 to clause 16 be left out. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Chaney's amendment No. 1 to clause 16 be inserted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.59) —Mr Chairman, I have also circulated the Opposition's amendment No. 2 to clause 16, which relates to sub-section (2) of proposed new section 234AB. I now move. (2) Page 8, clause 16, proposed new sub-section 234AB (2), leave out ''sub-section (1)'', insert ''sub-section (1B)''. This amendment is consequential on the first amendment I moved and I assume it will have the support of the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 23 (Revocation of concession orders). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.00) —I move: Page 11, paragraph (a), after proposed new sub-section 269P (2B), insert the following new sub-section: ' ''(2C) A revocation under sub-section (2B) of a concession order comes into effect on the date specified in the order of revocation, not being a date earlier than the date of the making of the order.'. This amendment have been circulated by the Opposition and therefore honourable senators will have it. The amendment deals with the possibility that the clause in its amended form might still have retrospective operation. The clause which was in the Bill originally brought into the House of Representatives clearly permitted the revocation of a concession order back to the date of the making of the order. It was a matter of concern to the Opposition that that could mean that an innocent importer who imported goods knowing that the concession order had been made, and not aware that there might be some reason why the Minister might wish to revoke it, or why it might have been accidentally made, or whatever, might import the goods understanding them, according to the concession order, to be free of duty, to be subsequently faced by a bill for duty which became payable because of the revocation of the concession order back to the date of its being made. In fact, the Government moved an amendment in the House of Representatives after, I think, we had indicated that we were concerned about it, but I think the Government had also had representations from other people who were concerned with the form of the legislation. The Minister might like to clarify the point but I understand that the Government moved an amendment to seek to remove the possible retrospective effect. In particular, the Government removed a proposal to have a sub-section (3A)-I quote now from the Bill as it was first introduced into the House of Representatives-which provided that a revocation under the relevant sub-section of a concession order: . . . comes into effect on the date specified in the order of revocation, being the earliest date on which the description of the goods in the concession order was not a description of the goods in respect of which it was intended to make the concession order. It is a fairly mind boggling provision but, quite simply, it was to give the Government the opportunity to select a date, going right back to the original date of the concession order, as being the date at which the revocation order ceased to have effect. The Government's removal of that is welcomed by the Opposition. If we read the remaining provisions in the Bill, in particular the provisions of proposed sub-section (2B), we find that it is at least arguable that the provision as it stands would also permit the retrospective revocation of a concession order and, as a result, an importer being made liable for duty. I acknowledge that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), in his usual way, made officers of the Department available to discuss this legislation and to brief the Opposition on it. I discussed this proposal with the officers when the sections were in their original form as they were introduced in the House of Representatives. The point was made by the officers that it was possible that some person, knowing that in fact the concession order should not have been made, could take advantage of the concession order and gain a benefit which that person should not have. The example that the officials gave me, as I recall it, is quite practical and sensible. It was that somebody who knew that goods subject to the concession order were in fact available and manufactured in Australia could discover that a concession order had been issued, take advantage of it and obtain a commercial advantage in a way which was quite improper. That is a possibility, but it is also a possibility as things stand that a person who was acting in all innocence could be subject to the retrospective liability for duty. A person who has no such knowledge could be caught in a way which would be quite unreasonable and quite unfair. Proposed sub-section (2B) provides that: Where the Minister becomes satisfied that, because of an amendment of a Customs Tariff or otherwise- and the words 'or otherwise' are, of course, virtually without limitation- a concession order was not, on and after a particular date (which may be the date on which the concession order came into effect) a concession order in respect of the particular goods in respect of which it was intended to make the concession order, the Minister may, by order in writing, revoke the concession order. The reference to the particular date as being the date on which the concession order came into effect at least gives rise to an arguable proposition that this means that the revocation order could go back to that date and give rise to the argument that the apparent duty free entry was not valid and that there ought to be a liability for duty. In those circumstances, and in order to remove any doubt, the Opposition proposes to insert new sub-section (2C), which provides very simply that: A revocation under sub-section (2B) of a concession order comes into effect on the date specified in the order of revocation, not being a date earlier than the date of the making of the order. At worst, I would have thought that this was a belt and braces amendment which makes quite evident the position that, I understand, the Government accepts-although I have not heard that directly from the Minister. I commend to the Committee the proposition that if there is an error of this sort, it is an error which ought to be retrieved prospectively and that since there is a possibility that a penalty could be imposed on people who innocently take advantage of a concession order, the amendments ought to be supported. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.07) —Senator Chaney suggests that the proposition that he has advanced is arguable. All I can say is that I would not want to argue it. I think Senator Chaney sometimes forgets that he is not on a daily fee here. The fact is that I am not fussed about this amendment and the Government will accept it, because it is arguable. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 36-by leave-taken together and agreed to. Clause 17 (Conduct by directors, servants or agents)-by leave-recommitted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.10) -I thank the Committee. There was some discussion about clause 17 when the Committee was last discussing this Bill. I indicated that there had been representations from the Law Council of Australia. The Council complained about the breadth of the provision of proposed section 257, which, in the broad, imputes to a corporation the state of mind which has been established on the part of a director, servant or agent of that corporation. The Law Council of Australia has suggested that that should be amended to restrict the proposal to those circumstances where the director, servant or agent was acting within the scope of actual authority and within the scope of apparent authority and, additionally, within the control of persons having the management and control of the aspect of the body corporate's affairs in which the conduct is concerned. I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to advise the Committee of the Government's response to that viewpoint. In addition, the Law Council has raised objections to sub-section (4) of proposed section 257. Proposed new sub-section 257 (4) states: Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a person other than a body corporate- (a) by a servant or agent of the person within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the servant or agent; or (b) by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement . . . of a servant or agent of the first-mentioned person . . . shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have been engaged in also by the first-mentioned person. There was concern about that aspect of it and also about proposed new sub-section (3), where the state of mind of a servant or agent is imputed to a person other than a body corporate where the conduct engaged in is within the scope of actual or apparent authority. In light of the significant claims by the Law Council of Australia that this is out of line with precedent and so on, I would simply appreciate some comment from the Minister as to whether the Government still defends the provisions of proposed new section 257 in the terms in which it appears. I did mention, when we were last debating this matter, in the second reading debate, that on my reading of a number of text books on criminal law, including the text by Professor Colin Howard, it seemed to me that the common law itself was very ready to impute the intention of a servant or agent to a corporation in these circumstances. But I ask the Minister whether he has received the same representations and what response, if any, he has to make to them. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.12) —I am not sure what Senator Chaney is asking for. Is he pursuing his proposed amendment? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.12) —I am really asking the Government to indicate a response to the concerns which I raised in debate and which I indicated have been pressed at some length by the Law Council of Australia. I do have an amendment, which I have not circulated or moved as I would like to hear the response of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on this clause before I decide whether to move the amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.13) — The Government has examined the views of the Law Council of Australia. The provisions in this legislation are not new. As I understand it, the Law Council of Australia may well have been aware of that fact. I understand there are very similar provisions in the trade practices legislation. Nonetheless, let me say something about the provisions of clause 17 which are intended to make a corporate or non-corporate principal liable for the actions of an agent, including a director in the case of corporations, or a servant, who deals with the Australian Customs Service on behalf of such principals when that person is acting within the scope of that principal's actual or apparent authority. Within the experience of the Australian Customs Service, I understand there have been a number of attempts-I think some examples of the sorts of things that have happened will have been identified to Senator Chaney-to shelter behind the law in relation to this matter and companies have tried to shelter behind the alleged irresponsibility or incapacity to act of a servant or agent. However, that is a practical matter. The point of the proposed new section is to extend responsibility to other persons exercising an agency role at the direction of such director or servant or agent given within the scope of apparent authority. In the area of entry and clearance of goods, which is very important in the administration of the Customs Service, the particular constraints operating make it quite impossible, especially in the case of large corporations with far flung offices, for questions raised and explanations sought by Customs to have the consideration of and response by the managing director or the board of directors of a company. Customs has the right to act on the understanding that a director, agent or servant who presents himself as acting on behalf of his corporate principal, and who gives to Customs answers or explanations in respect of particular importations of goods, is speaking with the voice of the corporation. Similar reasoning applies to non-corporate principals. Under the existing law bodies corporate are, in the Customs area and other areas such as trade practices, consumer affairs, et cetera, able to avoid the consequences of serious breaches of the law, by which a corporation has profited and Commonwealth revenue has suffered, by claiming that the director, servant or agent, whose action ostensibly on behalf of the corporation constituted the offence, did not have the express authority of the heart and core of the corporation to make the particular action or the particular statement. The Government takes the view that the present state of the law is clearly inadequate and is being used to the disadvantage of the Commonwealth and the public interest by tax evaders and others. Furthermore, the use of this device could be expected to become more rampant, should the present weaknesses of the law remain uncorrected, and become more widely recognised. In the Government's view, the Opposition's proposed amendment would do nothing to correct the weakness that has been identified in a number of important cases because, under the Opposition's proposal, liability would fall on the body corporate where the action constituting the offence was committed by a director, servant or agent or somebody acting within their scope of authority and with the control of those persons having the management and control of the aspect of the body corporate's affairs with which the conduct is concerned. The Government argues that it would be impossible to define with certainty when an agent was acting with the control of what it considers to be those vague personages appearing in the Opposition's proposed amendment. I do not wish to be offensive about the language of the Opposition's proposed amendment. Senator Chaney —We have not circulated an amendment so I am not quite sure what you are talking about. Senator BUTTON —It was circulated in the House of Representatives, I believe. For those reasons the proposed amendment is regarded as inadequate. The fact that there is a serious weakness in the current law has been identified by the courts in a number of important cases and, arising from these, it is the Government's view that the situation ought to be corrected. The Opposition's proposed amendment, which we have had the advantage of seeing, would result in responsibility being avoided in the same means as it has been in the past, that is, by utilising the corporate veil. The last time the Senate debated this legislation Senator Chaney quoted from Professor Colin Howard's book. As I recall the passages quoted by Senator Chaney, they in fact were very supportive of the view about deficiencies in the present law which the Government is concerned about in this proposed new section. We do not accept the view of the Law Council of Australia on this matter. We as a government should certainly respond to the Law Council in a formal sense but we do not accept the view which is implicit in what has been said. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.18) —I thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for that explanation. I simply ask that he also perhaps provide the Opposition with a copy of that response. I do not propose to move the amendment which the Law Council of Australia put forward, for reasons which I in part indicated in the second reading debate and for reasons which are reflected in the response of the Minister. I thank the Committee for moving back to clause 17. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.19) —A copy of that response to the Law Council of Australia will be made available. I will be happy to do that. Clause agreed to. Clause 37 (Indexation of rate of rebate). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.19) —I move: (3) Page 14, clause 37, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: '37 (1) Section 78A of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5) and substituting the following sub-section: ''(5) Where a rebate is payable under sub-section (1) to a person in respect of any diesel fuel, the amount of the rebate payable to that person is equal to the amount of duty paid by that person upon that diesel fuel.''. (2) Sub-section 78A (5) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act applies in respect of diesel fuel purchased after the commencement of this Act.' The effect of this amendment is to provide for a new sub-section which states: Where a rebate is payable under sub-section (1) to a person in respect of any diesel fuel, the amount of the rebate payable to that person is equal to the amount of duty paid by that person upon that diesel fuel. I touched on the reason behind this in the second reading debate. However, for the purpose of the Committee I should very quickly outline again what is being pursued by the Opposition. Until 1982 the people who were exempt from excise because they came within the list of users who were exempt were entitled to purchase fuel free of the excise duty. There were problems with respect to enforcement and it was thought that there was widespread abuse of those exemptions, in the 1982 Budget the previous Government altered the system to require all diesel fuel to bear the full rate of excise duty irrespective of its end use and, at the same time, introduced a system to allow users to claim rebates of the excise in respect of certain categories of off-road use. Broadly they were domestic use, hospitals, nursing and convalescent homes and in the agricultural, mining, fishing and forestry industries. It is important to note that what happened was essentially an anti-avoidance change. To that point the relevant categories of users had been able to purchase fuel without the payment of the excise, and purely to prevent abuse of that exemption the system was turned around and the relevant users had to purchase diesel fuel bearing the full rate of excise duty but were entitled to claim a rebate. Under this Government what in effect has happened is that the value of that rebate has been reduced because, as I indicated in the previous debate, in the 1983 Budget the Government did two things: Firstly, it added 1.5c to the rate of excise and, secondly, it indexed the then rate of excise to bring about a further increase. At the same time it left the rebate where it stood so that the excise, which had been 7.155c per litre, was increased by 1.5c per litre plus an amount which allowed for indexation. Then there were successive indexation changes six months later and again 12 months later. That, of course, caused some dismay on the part of the exempt users because this meant that their exemption or rebate ceased to be for the full amount. The Government partially moved to remedy that in the last Budget when it announced that the 7.155c per litre rebate would thereafter be indexed. Effectively the users missed out on a rebate of the 1.5c per litre rise and three half yearly indexation changes. The effect of the amending legislation that the Government has put before the chamber is to leave a gap and to ensure that that gap will gradually widen at six-monthly intervals because the indexation factor will apply to the full amount of the present excise as well as to the 7.155c per litre, but it will not cure the gap and that gap will, by the application of arithmetic, widen at six-monthly intervals for as long as there are any increases in the consumer price index. The wish of the Opposition is to pass this amendment, which would henceforth require the Government to rebate the full amount of excise payable. The issue before the Committee is not one of whether or not what we are proposing is desirable, but rather whether or not what we are proposing is affordable. As to whether or not it is desirable, I think it is quite clear that if it is the view of Parliament that this rebate should apply to the sorts of users I have talked about, it is a little illogical to have it in the form of a partial rebate. The Government has indicated, through its officials, that there will be a fairly extensive cost on the Budget if this amendment is carried, and obviously the Opposition has had to look at this amendment in light of the cost which it would incur. However, the Opposition wishes to put the amendment for the simple reason that the bulk of those who benefit by the rebate are in fact in a situation of very considerable difficulty. I do not think there could be any doubt that Australia's primary producers are under a very great deal of pressure at the moment. They are, of course, forced to sell on the international market, they are forced to sell at world prices and they are forced to operate on Australian costs. The reality is that the industries which gain the benefit of this exemption have been subjected to a very severe cost pressure at the same time as many commodities are not being sold on the world market at increased price which would compensate for those cost pressures. In the broad, the Opposition supports the call which was made by the National Farmers Federation for the removal of excise paid on diesel fuel used for off-road purposes. What we are seeking in this amendment is to restore the real position which existed up until the time of this Government's 1983 Budget and give the defined users the benefit of excise free fuel. Western Australian wheat growers are facing an extraordinarily difficult situation. I attended a meeting a few months ago in the electorate of O'Connor at a town called Cadoux, where I was told that not a single farmer in two of the local towns was submitting a budget which was positive. The costs that are being incurred are very severe. The industries are in very real difficulties and of course this Government has exacerbated those difficulties by the recent decisions it made in the mini-Budget which remove the fuel subsidy except insofar as the cost of transport exceeds some 4c or 5c. The Government has made a series of changes which have very considerably added to the costs of primary producers in particular. We believe it is vitally necessary that the industries which have the benefit of this rebate get the full rebate and not some partial and diminishing proportion of the excise rebate, as is provided for in the Government's legislation. We welcome the fact that the Government was making some move to improve the position, but we believe that the matters should be dealt with in a way that the Opposition amendment would require. The fact is that industries, such as the wheat and sugar industries in particular, are finding it very difficult to absorb the heavy fuel price increases. They are losing their competitive edge and we believe that this relief is, in fact, necessary. In terms of the Government's overall Budget, it is a relatively minor matter and we would say that in the vast reorganisation of the taxation system which the Government is currently undertaking it ought to bear in mind the fact that this rebate has been distorted by the Government's decisions and it should in its redesign of the system be prepared to restore the true value of this rebate for those categories of users who have been identified as particularly requiring it. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I hope that it will receive the support of the Australian Democrats as well as the support of the Government. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.28) —The effect of this amendment would be to deny the Government some $67m worth of revenue at a time when the National Farmers Federation, amongst other organisations, is calling for restraint. The problems of the wheat growers of Western Australia or the sugar growers of Queensland are not susceptible to the easy solutions suggested in Senator Chaney's speech that if we fix up the diesel fuel rebate, we have gone some way towards solving their problems. Senator Chaney —They could think it was very helpful. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. I say with the greatest respect that in a Party which has a small section with claims to economic rationality, the arguments that have been put tonight were not very indicative of that view in the Liberal Party being any more than skin deep. There are all sorts of distortions in respect of the use of various fuels by various industries. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under the sessional order, I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Senator BUTTON —As I was saying, there are all sorts of distortions in respect of the use of various fuels by various industries. Many of these were built into the system by the Government in which Senator Chaney was a Minister. For example the distortion relating to the use of eligibility for the rebate on diesel fuel was built into the system in 1982 by the Fraser Government. To suggest this adjustment of the rebate on the basis of the sort of arguments that we have heard tonight is, with the greatest respect, not very plausible. The whole thing is riddled with distortions and for that reason the Government intends to refer the question of excise on all petroleum products to the Industries Assistance Commission within the next month or two so that the IAC can report on this and give some indication of the distortions that apply to petroleum fuel subsidies and rebates. I do not want to go on about this issue but I really think the amendment is ill considered. I recommend its rejection by the Committee because it smacks of the sort of irresponsibility that I would not have expected from the Leader of the Opposition in this place, although I understand that he was perhaps psyched up to this amendment by somebody else. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia)(10.32) —I do not want to prolong the debate. The Opposition supported negativing the amendment because the Bill has been before us on a number of occasions and I think that we should dispose of it. I respond very briefly to a comment by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). He has suggested that the attitude he has adopted is in the defence of some sort of economic rationality. I think that the form of the rebate with which the Government has lumbered people is something that could certainly not be described as rational. For a start, the rebate is less than the full rebate which one would expect if one was to exempt people from excise, and the degree of variation from the amount of the rebate will change every six months because the Government has indexed the two things, the excise itself and the rebate, from different bases. Therefore there will be a sort of perpetual change and an ever-widening gap between the amount of the excise and the amount of the rebate. The Government might be able to say that it simply cannot afford the amendment, that it has to tax Australia's primary producers this extra 2c plus a litre on fuel because it needs the money to match its Budget. That is the only rational argument which is open to the Government. It cannot defend the excise rebate in its present form as being designed with anything in mind other than to maintain additional revenue from these hard-pressed areas. We believe that it is up to the Government to sort out its total revenue requirements and to extract those from the Australian taxpayers. There is no other source. But we think it is utterly irrational to have a fuel excise which is dealt with in the way in which this one is dealt with-with a rebate that is only partial and a gap between the amount of the rebate and the amount of the excise which is infinitely variable and which will change every time there is an indexation increase. We think that that is a most peculiar arrangement. It is irrational and it bears heavily on beleaguered industries. We do not believe that it is justified. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.34) —The Australian Democrats will not support the amendment. We believe that it is inappropriate to pick up an amendment like this which disburses $67.5m of funds. We would like to debate that disbursement in a considered manner. There are many other areas in which that $67.5m could be at least equally well spent and to interfere with the allocation of Government funds in this way on an amendment such as this is inappropriate. Perhaps after the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry has been completed, not only will the Government be in a better position to determine the fate of the proposal by the Opposition tonight, but so also will the Opposition and the Australian Democrats be in a better position to do so. An amendment such as this, taken on the run is inappropriate. Perhaps I could invite the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) to consider the position in the budget session when we look at allocations of scores of millions of dollars. At that time he might draw a more sympathetic response in a number of areas, including this one. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen,, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Evans, Jack Vigor, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Coleman, R. N. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Georges, G. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.43) —I wish to speak on a matter which I believe will gain considerable momentum over the next few months and years-the political development of the Northern Territory. Whether the Government likes it or not, it will hear more and more on this subject, Over the past few years we have seen the Government, and one Minister of the Federal Government in particular, indulge in a systematic attack upon the people and the Government of the Northern Territory. I believe that the Government has decided to punish the people of the Territory because they did not return an Australian Labor Party member to the House of Representatives. It has proceeded to abandon or scale down projects in the Territory which relies on Commonwealth financial assistance, as do the States of Australia. I venture to suggest that the Government is indulging itself in this way with the Territory because it is small-South Australia, too, used to be in this situation-in terms of its population and representation in this parliament. I find it rather odd to hear Senator Elstob from South Australia and Senator Colston from Queensland, which are minority States, having words to say against the Territory. As I was saying, we are not a State, nor do we have 12 senators and a number of members in the House of Representatives to stand up for the Territory. We have only two senators and one member of the House of Representatives because we are only a Territory. The matter I speak on, which I say will gain in momentum and interest over the coming months and years, is the development of the Northern Territory beyond its current status of a Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia to the status of a fully fledged State. The people of the Territory look forward to the time when they can throw off the traces of the Federal system. The matter has been raised in the Territory from time to time but has not developed into an issue about which most Territorians express particularly strong feelings. However, I believe that what it will take to stir Territorians into action on statehood may be the sorts of decisions which today we are seeing the Federal Government implementing in relation to the Northern Territory. The momentum for the self-government movement was born very much out of the frustrations which Territorians felt at being under-represented and under-valued by a distant southern administration. That feeling still exists today. Those same feelings may be rekindled in the people of the Territory by this Federal Government in its present frame of mind, under which we have seen the Territory come in for some very rough and unfair financial treatment. It is only natural, when people feel that their standard of living is being downgraded and that they are receiving second class treatment, that they will ask themselves how their situation can be changed. I believe that people in the Northern Territory are being given every reason to start questioning their status and asking themselves whether they would be better off if the Territory became a State. In anticipation of what I am sure will be an issue of great significance for Territorians in the near future I, with others, have prepared a paper which discusses some of the issues which will have to be debated within the community before there can be any question of approaching a Federal government to broach the matter of statehood. Mr President, I seek leave to table the paper which addresses itself to some of the constitutional, political and financial questions which the Territory will have to look at in its consideration of the matter. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —The thorny question of the level of Federal representation to which the Territory would be entitled as a State will need to be resolved. More than ever before, Territorians are well aware of the need to come to a satisfactory arrangement on the financial relationship it will have with the Commonwealth as a State. A number of other matters in the paper will also be important to any proper discussion of the question of statehood for the Territory. However, to go through them all would take a good deal of time tonight and it is not my intention to do so. Finally, I stress again the belief I have that this issue will develop in a big way in the Northern Territory and in Australia and that it is not an issue with which only Territorians should concern themselves. It is one which should concern all of us for it is within the power of the Parliament to admit a Territory as a State and it will be a political decision which will determine the future of the Territory. Senator Grimes —Put it to the vote tonight. Senator KILGARIFF —The Minister says: 'Put it to the vote tonight'. Eventually, of course, the vote will come not from the Government's side but from the people of Australia-the States and the Northern Territory-and I would expect that even if the present Government does not realise what the future of the Northern Territory should be, certainly the people of Australia do. I have no doubt that in the future the Territory will become a State, despite Senator Walsh. It was a political decision which determined the development of the Territory into a self-governing entity. Inherent in that decision was a belief that this was to be a first step. The final step in the process, which was begun with the granting, of self-government in 1978, was to be the eventual, granting of Statehood. The Territory has come a long way since 1978 and is now entitled to start looking to its future as a State. Senator Elstob —You should have stayed in South Australia. Senator KILGARIFF —I am afraid that the State of South Australia will have to pull up its socks if it wants to be associated with the Northern Territory. This document, 'The State of the Northern Territory', has been prepared by me and my staff. Members of the Government may be laughing about it, but before they laugh too much may I suggest that they read it. Senator Grimes —I will rush home and do that. Senator KILGARIFF —I doubt that the honourable senator will do that. I doubt that his interests are in the north. I think his interests are in the more heavily populated areas of Australia where the votes are, but there we are. The foreward states: This paper attempts to begin to consider some of the issues, which will be raised, on the question of Statehood for the Northern Territory. It was prepared within the constraints as to time and resources, and does not pretend to fully canvass all of the matters which will have a bearing on the Statehood debate. However, it is hoped that its contribution may be to at least provide views which, whether accepted or not, will generate further discussion of the issues and, ultimately, result in some positive action. The contribution of my staff and the valuable guidance of Mr Alan Ashley, the Northern Territory Government's former Under-Treasurer, are most gratefully acknowledged. I realise that time is late but I think that as a result of my tabling this paper many honourable senators will read it with considerable interest. It goes into the ideas of Professor Lumb and various other constitutional lawyers. It studies the financial ramifications of the Territory. While I understand that I will have the sympathy of the Opposition, the people of Australia and the States in tabling this paper, I do not expect to have the sympathy of honourable senators opposite. As a result of what they have done in the last few weeks-in the way they have endeavoured to deteriorate the situation in the Northern Territory, in the way Senator Walsh has attacked the Northern Territory-it is obvious I will not get that support. It positively amazes me that Senator Walsh, a Minister of the Crown, bends to such a degree that he calls his integrity into question. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(10.55) —I speak as a Western Australian senator on the adjournment debate tonight. This morning the Canberra Times contained an article about a Press release issued by my colleague from South Australia, Senator Graham Maguire, which reported that he had undertaken extensive research setting out key indicators on the performance of the economies of Queensland, Western Australia and Australia as a whole. I think that document and the findings of that research ought to be drawn to the attention of the Senate. Over recent weeks a number of matters of public importance have been launched either from this side of the Parliament or from the coalition benches concerning Queensland's industrial legislation. We have constantly made the point, on behalf of the Government, that many of the events in Queensland and the draconian industrial laws that the Bjelke-Petersen regime has introduced in that State are aimed at masking what is a flagging State economy, an economy which is dragging down the performance of Australia in terms of all the key economic indicators. Since the Queensland Government, and those who apologise for it, have been keen to point out that the flagging performance in Queensland is in fact due to international factors, it has been pertinent for us to point out that there is another State in Australia whose economy is similar, in fact almost identical, to that of Queensland, and that other State is Western Australia. The obvious similarities are that both are resource development States, both rely for the intrinsic health of their domestic economies on exporting large amounts of minerals overseas and thus depend on the commodities market. Both are agricultural exporters and agricultural produce States, and both have small manufacturing sectors and an underdeveloped services sector. So the similarities between Queensland and Western Australia, which are matters of common remarks among economic observers in Australia, are made clear when one looks at the fundamental structure of the mineral resources economy and the agricultural economy. The importance of the statistics that Senator Maguire has produced is that they compare the performance of two like economies-Queensland and Western Australia-and therefore, it is a fair and proper comparison to make. The findings of that research are that on every economic indicator-all of those that are referred to are key economic indicators that would be impartially agreed between independent commentators as being the key indicators-Western Australia's economic performance eclipses that of its similar colleague State, Queensland; except one in which it is almost a dead heat. Where Western Australia eclipses Queensland it does so on every occasion by a huge margin. If we compare Queensland to Australia, on all the indicators except one, the economic performance of Australia as a nation, albeit dragged down by the sluggish effect of Queensland, also eclipses that of Queensland. I seek leave, having conferred earlier with the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, to incorporate in Hansard a table of the 11 indicators to which I have referred. Leave not granted. Senator COOK —I find that refusal remarkable because earlier this evening I took the trouble of alerting the Leader of the coalition, Senator Chaney, to the fact that I would be making a speech on the adjournment. I sorted him out, handed him a copy which he took away with him and asked him whether he would have any objection. He indicated no. Senator Townley —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Leave has not been granted. I do not think it is up to the honourable senator to discuss the ruling of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Cook is quite within his rights in stating his version of events. Leave is not granted. Senator Cook, you can take it from there. Senator COOK —Of course I accept the ruling, but I wish to point out that the due courtesies were extended to the Opposition and I imagined that out of respect leave would have been granted. However, I accept the ruling and will now proceed, given that leave is not granted, to put in Hansard the contents of the document that I sought to incorporate. Before I do so, let me say that the statistics I am about to refer to are the current Australian Bureau of Statistics series in the relevant areas that I will refer to, except one, and that is bankruptcies. The source there is the Attorney-General's Department. The statistics themselves give the most eloquent testimony to the performances. Let me now go to them. The heading on my table is 'Queensland and Western Australia-Principal Economic Indicators'. For the record, I will be citing Queensland indicators first, Western Australian indicators second and the Commonwealth or Australian indicators last. The first I go to is employment. In the three months to April 1985 compared with the three months to April 1984 in Queensland employment grew in the negative by minus 0.3 per cent, whereas in Western Australia it grew in the positive by plus 3 per cent and nationally by plus 2.2 per cent. The next critical indicator is unemployment. Total unemployment in the three months to April 1985 compared with the three months to April 1984 in Queensland grew by 7.8 per cent. In Western Australia it fell by 13.4 per cent and in Australia it fell by 7.4 per cent. The next indicator is the registration of new motor vehicles. In the three months to March 1985 compared with the three months to March 1984 for Queensland there was a 4.3 per cent increase in the number of registrations of motor vehicles. For Western Australia there was a 20.2 per cent increase in registrations of new motor vehicles and the Australian increase was 15.4 per cent. In the number of new dwellings approved in the three months to February 1985 compared with the three months to February 1984 Queensland again lagged. There was a reduction of 10.3 per cent in the number of new dwellings approved in Queensland in the three months under review. For Western Australia there was a 7.2 per cent increase and for Australia there was a 3.1 per cent increase. Queensland again lagged behind both the national and the Western Australian figures. I now refer to the number of new dwellings commenced-that is the number of actual commencements once approvals have been given-for the December quarter 1984 compared with the December quarter 1983. Again, the figure is bleak and bad for Queensland. The number of dwellings commenced increased in that period by 6.4 per cent whereas in Western Australia the number of dwellings commenced increased by 20 per cent. The national average, which showed that Queensland was again dilatory, was a 15.2 per cent increase. In the value of other building approvals, not dwellings, in dollar terms for the three months to February 1985 compared with the three months to February 1984 the increase in Queensland was 45.7 per cent. In Western Australia the increase was 307.1 per cent and the national average went up by 54.1 per cent. The value of retail sales is the only indicator in which Queensland eclipses Western Australia and the national average. The increase in the value of retail sales in dollar terms in the three months to February 1985 compared with the three months to February 1984 in Queensland was 9.3 per cent. In Western Australia it was 9.2 per cent. The difference separating the two States is 0.1 per cent. The increase for Australia was 6.4 per cent. The next indicator is actual new fixed capital expenditure in dollar terms by private enterprise in the September quarter 1984 compared with the September quarter 1983. Queensland showed a negative increase of 20.6 per cent. Western Australia showed plus 14.4 per cent and Australia showed plus 2.3 per cent. Actual new fixed capital expenditure in dollar terms by private enterprise in the mining industry for the September 1984 quarter compared with the September 1983 quarter-this is the industry that both States hold as being their key growth area-showed a negative growth in Queensland of 47.7 per cent whereas in Western Australia there was a positive growth of 28.9 per cent. The national average, dragged down by the adverse Queensland statistics, was a negative of 17.5 per cent. I now move to working days lost due to industrial disputes in the 12 months to February 1985 compared with the 12 months to February 1984. I indicate that these statistics are for the period before the current industrial disputation known as the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute. In Queensland there was a growth in that period of 184.1 per cent. In Western Australia there was a reduction in disputes of 55.3 per cent. The national average fell in that time by 8.8 per cent. My final statistic is for bankruptcies. In the year to December 1984 compared with the year to December 1983, in Queensland the number of bankruptcies increased by 26.4 per cent where as in Western Australia it fell by 24.9 per cent. The Australian average, again distorted by Queensland's bad performance, was a fall of 8.2 per cent. That is the summary of the statistics I wished to have incorporated in Hansard but which have now been read into the record. One can see that there is a significant distortion when one compares like with like, Queensland with Western Australia, and holds the performances of both those States up to the national average. On every indicator except one Queensland shows a much more severely adverse performance than Western Australia. On one indicator the States are neck and neck, separated by a 0.1 per cent margin. In terms of the Australian comparison, Western Australia is ten out of ten better than the national average, Queensland is ten out of eleven worse than the national average. I repeat that the source of those statistics is the Australian Bureau of Statistics series, except for the last one on bankruptcies. The comparisons are made on the most recent information available. That is a valid technique, I assert, in reporting economic indicators and in getting the facts on the record. Now that they are there, some comments on them should be made. I make two points. The first is that given that Western Australia and Queensland have similar economies and given that those States have many other features that are the same it is important to isolate what is the variable. The variable between the two States is that in Western Australia there is a Labor government and in Queensland there is a National Party government. The difference is that of political philosophy, style, leadership and approach. That is the one variable that can be isolated in all these statistics. Queenslanders may well complain that they are subject to the vagaries of the international commodities market but if they can make that complaint so can Western Australians with equal force. The one isolated difference is that of the State governments-Labor versus National. If one wants to adduce the empirical evidence to show what is the difference in similar circumstances between both governments one merely needs to consult the statistics. There is eloquent testimony that the difference favours the non-confrontationist, the working with social partners, the finding of consensus approach of a Labor government over the divisive, confrontationist and community interventionist approach of a conservative government. From the conceptual point of view of what is the best in similar circumstances the point is well made. However, I make a further point. The leader of the Western Australian Opposition, Mr Bill Hassell, in terms of personality is closest of all to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland. They are as twins in the philosophical views they espouse and the philosophies on which they seek votes to support their candidature for high office. It is also important to note that if there is a party in Australia at the State level that bears any similarity to that of the Western Australian Liberal Party it is the Queensland National Party. Not only does its leader seek to model himself on Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen but also the parties are comparable. The economies are the same. In case Hassell should ever achieve his goal and become the leader of Western Australia, Western Australians now have a measure by which they can judge the comparative performance of the Burke Labor Government and the potential of a Hassell Liberal government. On the statistics I have read into the record it is clear that despite whatever obfuscation the Hassell Opposition might wish to make on land rights or casinos or any other issues on which Mr Hassell would like to obscure the real performance, the underlying economic strength of a Labor government's leadership, the truth, given the statistics, comes through overwhelmingly. There might be social issues he could parade to try to pretend that a Liberal Opposition in Western Australia would make a better fist of it. The analysis which my colleague Senator Maguire has so ably concluded, based on current figures, shows overwhelmingly that if the impartial economic performances are allowed to speak they speak loudly in favour of Labor as the best State government and I am sure that when the Western Australians go to the polls early next year they will take due note of that point. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.10) —A paper entitled 'Science and Technology Statement 1984-85' was tabled today, but the Senate did not have the opportunity to discuss it because we were delayed by the discussion of the very important report of the Hancock Committee of Review on Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which discussion allowed us to elucidate from Senator Cook the memorable comment about the way in which the boot is on the other foot, as far as who wants to change the industrial relations system is concerned, because of the high level of unemployment which is now prevalent in Australia, which has caused the trade union movement to change its mind about decentralisation of the wage fixation system. Senator Cook's perceptive understanding of the way in which the record of the Hawke Government in terms of unemployment has caused the trade union movement to change its views on the question of wage fixation-a matter which caused poor Senator Button to turn purple with embarrassment at the time-will undoubtedly be a matter for discussion at some future date. One of the papers not reached today was the 'Science and Technology Statement 1984-85'. If ever a government statement opened with a pathetic admission of failure by the Minister responsible for it, it is this statement with the following preface by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones): The Ministry is now Science, but this Statement remains the Science and Technology Statement. This is apt. This is the most pathetic admission by a Minister who, having failed in his responsibilities as Minister for Science and Technology, found the significant part of his Department removed from his control into the control of a Minister who is believed to be far more competent to handle these matters, and the best he can do in presenting to the Parliament the sixth annual report of science and technology matters is to say, meekly: This Ministry is now Science . . . We are told in the continuing preface: The Ministry of Science will concentrate on ensuring that we have the scientific and research capability to face the challenges of the 21st century. Having failed dismally with the twentieth century, and undoubtedly with his belief firmly rooted in the capacity of the Commission for the Future to manage the twenty-first century, we have an opportunity to look at the Government's record in science matters in the last two years or so. The preface continues: The Government's recent administrative changes are a reflection not only of the very great concern the Government has with improving our technological competence and the efficiency of our industry but also its desire to improve the effectiveness of our national science and research infrastructure in meeting the wide social and economic goals of the community. That is Mr Jones's excuse about why technology was taken away from him? Senator Jessop —Is that why it didn't use all the research grants last year. Senator PUPLICK —Yes, indeed-why it did not use the research grants last year, why it has cut the value of the research grants and a number of other matters to which I will come. That is Mr Jones's lame excuse about why technology was taken away from him. Perhaps it is more instructive to look at what Senator Button said in a recent publication about why technology was taken away from Mr Jones. Senator Button was interviewed by an editor of a journal called Ascent, which is the propaganda journal put out by the Department of Science. He said: It seems to me that in the past, separate departments have led us in separate directions. In a sense the technology development division of the Department of Science and Technology was pursuing a path which industry itself was not well informed about. So much for the competence of the division of technology under Mr Jones's administration. Senator Button went a little bit further in boring it up his colleague. He said: Take the National Technology Strategy for example. I think it is a bit naive to assemble a group of people and ask them to develop a strategy which is quite divorced from the realities of the industry world and sort of launch it into space like an MX missile. This was Mr Jones's great centrepiece last year. This was the great achievement of Mr Jones as the Minister for Science and Technology-that we were to have a national technology strategy. People were to be brought together and a strategy produced. Senator Button, who actually understands what these things are about, said that this was a naive idea and it was like launching into space like an MX missile. Senator Jessop —That MX missile is a bit of a fizzer as far as the Government was concerned. Senator PUPLICK —Indeed. As far as Mr Jones is concerned, his whole Department has come splashing down in the Pacific somewhat like the MX missiles which at one stage were to be tested off the coast of Tasmania, according to the various hysterical left wing sources. It is not to be believed that Senator Button is necessarily the great saviour of industry and research in Australia. On a number of occasions he has promised to go on with the 150 per cent tax deduction for research. Honourable senators will recall that was to be introduced in June or July this year, but there is no sign of that. There are no Bills to provide for that. The matter is back in the melting pot. It was promised to the meeting of concern held by the representatives of national science bodies in Canberra a little while ago and to meetings of the Academy of Science. In Senator Button's interview with the editor of the journal of the Department of Science he was asked to make a comment about the 150 per cent tax incentive. He said: It has priority. My Department is working on it now and although we've yet to establish a commencement date it should be within the next few months. Senator Jessop —When did he say that? Senator PUPLICK —That was an interview that came out in the April edition of this journal, once again promising something that has now been promised as a centrepiece of the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a centrepiece of statements on science and technology immediately after the election and a significant part of Mr Jones's early statements when he still had responsibility for Science and Technology before it was carved up by the new administrative orders. That was the promise Senator Button made to the Academy of Science and to the meeting of national concern about science. An analysis has been undertaken of the response to science policy under the Labor Administration. In the latest issue of the Australian Quarterly there is an article entitled 'Technology and the ALP: theory and practice' by David Wells. This is a well argued article which analyses the policy of the ALP on technology. David Wells said: Furthermore, many of the particular initiatives which had been proposed during the election campaign were not actually put into practice. He was talking about the whole range of Labor Party technology policies since the Hawke Government was first elected. He went on: Rather than being radical policies designed to deal with the problems of technology, they merely involve a continuation of the kind of support for the scientific and business communities which has always characterised Australian policy in the area of science and technology. So that all of these bold new initiatives promised by Mr Jones have turned out to be absolutely nothing new. Senator Jessop —He was not invited to the summit, either. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Jessop rightly points out, the attempt by Mr Jones to participate in the National Economic Summit Conference was quashed by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet or whoever it was who realised just how well his ideas would be received, lecturing the rest of the world when, of course, he was unable to get his Department and departmental priorities straightened out. The article in the Australian Quarterly continues: The more 'social' orientation which might have been expected from Jones has never emerged at a policy level (although it remains in his public pronouncements) . . . The article, referring to the management investment companies program concludes: Even if a healthy 'venture capital' market does develop in Australia it could only be expected to have a marginal effect on unemployment and will do little to ease the transition to a 'post-service' society or reduce the kind of social divisions which Jones initially identified as the most important long-term problems for Australian democracy. In terms of what the Government has done and whether anything can be sheeted home to it, and in terms of its grappling with science and technology matters, I shall have a look, very briefly, at a number of examples. We know that the exercise review has been laid to one side. It made a number of proposals which this Government has already jettisoned. We know that the Commission for the Future has been established. We have found out as a result of answers to questions I put on the Notice Paper that that body has now had three meetings, that it is not obliged to inform the Minister of what it is going to discuss at its meetings, what it has discussed or what it has recommended at its meetings. It is not obliged to tell the Minister what it intends to talk about, what it talks about when it gets together or what its recommendations are when it has finished talking. When we get past Mr Jones's preface and get into the honest part of the document, it states: Projected Commonwealth Budget sector expenditure of $941m on R &D for 1984-85 shows an increase of 8% relative to the estimated 1983-84 total of $871m. The statement then goes on to say that certain things must be discounted. We must discount various changes and make adjustments because of inflation and currency movements. The statement further says: . . . the average real growth rate in R &D activity supported through the Budget is estimated to be 2%. So having worked our way down from the 8 per cent analysis that Mr Jones trumpets around the place, we find that support for research and development has increased by only 2 per cent. It is interesting to look at what has occurred within that field. For instance, the Australian research grants scheme is dealt with on page 38 of the Minister's statement, where it states: Basic research grants under the Australian Research Grants Scheme . . . decreased in number from 1313 in 1984 to 1226 in 1985, but with the allocation increasing from $22.42 million to $23.88 million, indicating a trend towards larger or more complex projects. One should contrast that statement with what Professor Sheehan, Chairman of the ARG scheme, has said in the journal Ascent. Commenting on research funding, Professor Sheehan says: The Scheme began well with an average grant equivalent in 1966 of $46 871 (in 1984 prices); however, the average grant in 1984, 18 years later, stands at $17 075, 64 per cent less than when the Scheme began. So under the funding policies of this Government, for all its trumpeting about increases in actual numbers-it pulls numbers out of the air and says: 'Funding has gone from 1,226 to 1,313'-the Professor who has the responsibility for monitoring and administering the whole scheme has indicated that the real value of those grants has declined by 64 per cent during a period which included the time in which both the Whitlam and Hawke governments were in office. When one looks at the latest publication of the Australian Academy of Science entitled 'Science and Industry forum, An Industrial Research and Development Marketing Package for Australia', one finds an interesting article by Dr Trainor. He is a distinguished scientist who is responsible for cochlea implant development at the University of Melbourne. He suggested one of the things that needs to be done in the area of Australian science and technology policy. He said: Perhaps we're not using enough automation systems such as CAD and CAM. Those terms mean computer aided design and computer aided manufacture. What has been the Government response to that statement? In the first instance it has been to bucket the Cashman report and to say that it would not do anything about it. It has bucketed the two reports of the Australian Science and Technology Council that were released on the whole process. The announcement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) basically states that the recommendations regarding the national significance of CAD-CAM are not to be proceeded with. Senator Jessop —It is certainly not a futuristic approach. Senator PUPLICK —No, it is not. It is an approach which harks back to the worst days of a Luddite approach to science and technology, despite all the pontification from Mr Jones. I make only two other points. In terms of the great value of science and technology research in Australia, if one looks at table 3 on pages 11 and 12 of the annual report one will see that, with the exception of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the department where most scientific research and science and technology research is taking place in Australia is the Department of Defence. I do not object to that in the least. I say that it is a fraud on the part of the Minister for Science to be claiming all of the great advances in science and technology development by including in them what is essentially defence science and technology research and development and trying to boost the figures in the civilian area by including those. After the CSIRO and the Department of Defence, the next highest user of science and technology moneys on research projects is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is trying to keep track of all of the statistics necessary for the efficient monitoring and operation of government services. The last point that I make is that on top of all this one must now take into account the effect of the decisions announced last Tuesday in the mini-Budget. Of all of those decisions, that which has commended itself most to my attention is the decision to lop $24.9m off the Forward Estimates for the CSIRO. Nobody says that that organisation is above criticism, but in terms of what this Government and the Minister for Science have consistently said about the importance of science, research, technology and development, that decision will undoubtedly have grave implications. It goes once again to establish the point that I have made and will continue to make in this chamber on the question of science and technology and research and development, that the record of Mr Jones initially as the Minister for Science and Technology-technology has been removed from his portfolio-is one of which this Government can hardly be proud. Expectations were raised by Mr Jones in all of his writings, in all of his publications, in all of his years as an Opposition spokesman, about what he would do for science and technology in this country. The results come as a shattering disappointment to all those people concerned with science and technology matters in Australia who actually had the temerity or indeed were foolish enough to believe that he was actually serious in any of his pronouncements. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.30) —Mr President-- A quorum having been called and the bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —Order! The bells having rung for three minutes and there not being a quorum present, the Senate stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. The names of those present will be recorded by the Clerk. Senate adjourned at 11.33 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 69. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 67. Defence Act-Determinations 1985- No. 34-Recreation Leave and Long Service Leave. Judiciary Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 66. Postal Service Act-By-laws 1985-Postal (Amendment) No. 2. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Defence-I. R. Simper. Determinations 1985-No. 29. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 65. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1985- No. 3-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chief Executive Officer, Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.) and others, dated 29 April 1985. No. 4-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chairman, Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and others, dated 1 May 1985.