Friday, 31 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australian Capital Territory: Dickson Community Centre To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of North Canberra respectfully showeth that of all regions in Canberra the area has the highest percentage of aged pensioners, invalid pensioners, widow B (women over 50) pensioners, sickness benefits pensioners and unemployed. In addition, it has above average youth unemployment levels, a greater proportion of non-nuclear families (including single households, couples without children, single parents and group households), and extensive expanses of households with an annual income of less than $6,000. There is only one two-room, converted C.S.I.R.O. workshop in the area to meet the needs of 45,000 people for general purpose community facilities. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Regional Community Centre be built at Dickson and that it be included in the forthcoming Budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 733 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and the Senators in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Queensland, do respectfully pray that the present concessional import duty as exists under By-Law BL8255510 be maintained and not lapse on June 30, 1985 as presently planned by the Australian Customs Service. This by-law has permitted goods under Item 19 to be imported at a 2 per cent rate of duty and has greatly benefitted the Veteran, Vintage and Old Car Movement in the restoration of vehicles of 30 years age or more. While many automobile parts are produced in Australia, it is impractical to suggest they could be used during restoration of most old cars. It is reprehensible that this action should occur without debate, consultation or fair warning. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the concessional rate of duty on old cars and parts be maintained And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and to end the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled support a change in existing legislation so that this tax be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate without any exemptions whatsoever. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Harradine (from 14 citizens), Hill (from 13 citizens) and Richardson (from 472 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Hawke Government's retirement incomes policies are piecemeal, inequitable, and discriminate against people who save towards achieving reasonable self-reliance in their retirement and 2. The Government's assets test legislation is particularly inequitable and its effects are especially discriminatory against farmers. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to: 1. Repeal the assets test legislation; 2. Institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems; and 3. Following the receipt of the report of such an inquiry implement a retirement incomes policy which is fair and equitable, encourages self-provision and will be non-discriminatory in its operation and impact. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 1,778 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public inquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ''X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 244 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium businesses in Australia, destroying incentives and discouraging investment in this important area of the Economy; The Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; Any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not 'windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 189 citizens) and Robertson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor 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 unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 36 citizens) and Messner (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned who have great concern for the protection of the unborn child, call upon the Government to reject the Vinson Enquiry recommendation that an Abortion Clinic be established in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recommendation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 289 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 596 citizens), Boswell (from 1,160 citizens), Brownhill (from 421 citizens), Button (from 368 citizens), Gietzelt (from 729 citizens), Harradine (from 349 citizens), Lajovic (from 630 citizens), Lewis (from 171 citizens), Reynolds (from 1,005 citizens), Richardson (from 498 citizens), Scott (from 339 citizens) and Townley (from 90 citizens). Petitions received. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Government for- (1) agreeing to close down the Tasmanian railways and throw 1,100 railway employees out of work; and (2) for its attempts to water down the Tasmanian freight compensation scheme. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke socialist Government for the manner of its negotiations with the Tasmanian Premier in determining the levels of grants to Tasmania at the Premiers Conference, particularly its approach in the Prime Minister's offer of cash in lieu of jobs in the proposal of scrapping the Tasmanian railway system and its withdrawal from freight equalisation. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations. I seek leave to make a brief statement about this matter. Leave granted. Senator COATES —These regulations allow the Government to extradite a fugitive to South Africa. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee was concerned to ensure that the regulations were protective of the rights of persons in Australia. The Committee asked the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to make provision for reciprocity in minimum and maximum penalties and to incorporate in the regulations a set of model protective provisions taken from current treaties. The Attorney-General has agreed to amend the regulations to explicitly state certain protections and safeguards which are normally found in extradition treaties. An undertaking has also been given to amend the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 to provide that an extradition crime will be one where the minimum penalty is at least 12 months imprisonment, not merely in the requesting country but also in Australia, had the offence been committed in Australia. In a further letter amplifying these undertakings the Attorney-General has also agreed to amend the regulations to include provisions which will provide that extradition will not be granted for offences which are tried by other than normal criminal courts or for offences which attract cruel, unusual or grossly unjustifiable punishments. The Committee considers that this latter exemption is sufficient to meet its concern in relation to the situation where the maximum penalty in South Africa is grossly and unjustifiably greater than the maximum penalty under Australian law. The other humanitarian restrictions, based on article 4 of the model treaty, and which will be incorporated in the amended regulations, relate to mental illness, age, offences solely against military law, the statute of limitations, trial by provisional courts and other matters. The Committee acknowledges that the Government needs effective extradition powers in the interests of international comity and domestic law enforcement. In relation to South Africa, however, the Committee was particularly concerned that the Attorney-General should actually put into the regulations a range of reasonable protections and safeguards for persons facing extradition proceedings instigated by the South African Government. In his undertakings to the Committee the Attorney-General has agreed to do this. The Committee understands that, while new regulations are being drafted, the Attorney-General, in exercising his existing discretion under the present Act and regulations, will take into account all of the safeguards and protections which will later be incorporated in the Act and the regulations and which are referred to in this statement. The Committee considers that this will ensure that that quality of just and considered treatment, which the Committee felt should have been expressly provided for in the original regulations, will in fact be accorded to any fugitive who is dealt with before the regulations can be amended. The Committee looks forward to examining the recast Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations when they are tabled in the Parliament. The Committee commends the Attorney-General for his ready co-operation in this matter and acknowledges the contributions made by his specialist extradition legal officers who discussed the Regulations with the Committee. The co-operation of the Department of Foreign Affairs is also acknowledged by the Committee. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's and the Minister's letters in order to record for the information of honourable senators the issues which were discussed between us. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA . THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES Lionel Bowen, M.P. 15 May 1985 Attorney-General Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 At its meeting on 9 May 1985 the Committee considered the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1985 No. 14). The Committee would appreciate your advice as to whether 'the offence' for the purposes of paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Regulations is one which is punishable in South Africa by a maximum penalty of not less than 12 months, regardless of any minimum penalty such an offence might attract in Australia. The Committee acknowledges that there are arguments tending to support the view that the penalty referred to in paragraph 4 (1) (a) is a reciprocal minimum because 'the offence' may mean the offence both as committed in South Africa and had it been committed in Australia (see for example the omission of the phrase ''against the law of, or of a part of, a foreign state'' which, in section 4 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 follows the word 'offence'; and the deletion from paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Extradition (Brazil) Regulations (S.R. 1974 No. 130) of the phrase ''for which extradition of the person is requested'' (S.R. 1983 No. 166). There are also arguments tending to support the view that the drafting does not encompass reciprocity of this minimum penalty (see the drafting in Treaties which expressly allow for reciprocity; and new paragraph 4 (1A) (a) of the Act, awaiting Proclamation, which appears not to be a reciprocal minimum penalty provision). Neither the Explanatory Memorandum, nor the Second Reading Speech in connection with the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Act 1985 clarify this issue. The Explanatory Statement attached to the Regulations themselves is very short and inadequate. The Committee would welcome any advice or assistance you can offer to assist the Committee on this matter. If, as a matter of statutory interpretation, there is no reciprocity in paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Regulations, the Committee would ask you to consider an amendment to achieve reciprocity so that extradition to South Africa could not arise where the penalty for the offence, if it had been committed in Australia, is less than 12 months imprisonment. In examining these regulations the Committee also queries whether reciprocal or substantially reciprocal maximum penalty provisions may not be as important as the double-criminality rule in protecting the personal rights and liberties of a person who is the subject of extradition proceedings. The Committee recognises that double-criminality is provided for in paragraph 4 (1A) (a) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (or paragraph 4 (1A) (b) of the Act as amended but not yet proclaimed). As such it is a fundamental protection of the rights of a fugitive. The Committee appreciates that reciprocal extradition powers are crucial to international comity and effective domestic law enforcement. However, the Committee is concerned that the absence of reciprocal maximum penalty provisions may upset the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of personal liberties. This may be all the more likely to arise in regard to a country like South Africa, where the legal system and the humaneness of legislative and judicial penal policy have been the subject of long standing controversy. The Committee asks whether, for such a country, it would not be highly desirable to require that extradition be permitted only where the maximum penalty which is a guilty fugitive could receive would be substantially equivalent to the maximum penalty which an Australian court could impose if the offence had been committed within an Australian jurisdiction. The Committee recognises that disparity in the penal provisions of relevant foreign states may make the inclusion of reciprocal maximum penalty provisions problematic. However, requirements about obtaining assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out, which appear to be standard in Treaties and Regulations, may provide a precedent for the kind of safeguard the Committee seeks with respect to penalties in South Africa. The Committee would welcome your advice on this matter. Perhaps you could comment on the suggestion that an additional paragraph could be added to the Regulations to provide that where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a period that is substantially longer than the maximum period imposed in Australia for such an offence, then a fugitive should not be surrendered to South Africa unless assurances, satisfactory to Australia, are given by South Africa that the person will not serve a longer imprisonment than the person would have served in Australia. The Committee recognises that there may be difficulties associated with parole and other devices which, in Australia, reduce the actual period of imprisonment. The Committee feels however, that some rule as to substantial equivalence of penalty should operate in the interests of personal rights and liberties of persons in Australia who are to be extradited to South Africa. The Committee would welcome your views on this suggestion. The Committee would also welcome your advice on whether or not it would be feasible to incorporate in the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations, a set of model provisions, based on the range of protective provisions in current treaties. These would be model provisions offering Treaty-type protections additional to those referred to above. The Committee appreciates that it is raising complex issues in a specialist area of the law. In order to assist the Committee in determining whether its principles should be applied to the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations the Committee asks if you would agree to one or more of your officers, experienced in these matters, attending the Committee's meeting at 8.30 am on Thursday 23 May 1985 in Senate Committee Room 6 to assist the Committee. JOHN COATES Chairman DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ATTORNEY-GENERAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA 2600 JA85/1998:JH 27 MAY 1985 Dear John, I refer to your letter of 15 May 1985 in which you raised certain matters of concern to the Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in relation to the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations. Officers of my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs attended on your Committee on 23 May and, as a result of that meeting and your letter I have approved a certain course of action. I am seeking approval for an amendment to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act, (the EFS Act) to be made in the Budget Session Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to provide that the definitions of extradition crime and extraditable crime in sections 4 and 20 of the EFS Act will now require that there be reciprocal minimum penalties of imprisonment for not less than 12 months. Following conclusion of the extradition agreement with South Africa the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations will be amended to similarly provide for reciprocal penalties. At the same time those Regulations will be recast to provide for certain protections and safeguards which are normally found in extradition treaties but which are not incorporated in the EFS Act. I would propose to forward a draft of these Regulations to your Committee for comment before they are made. Finally, I am advised by my officers that your Committee accepted the reasons given for not requiring South Africa to give undertakings that a greater penalty would not be imposed on a person extradited to South Africa than that which could be imposed in Australia. I thank your Committee for bringing these matters to my attention and trust that the action I have approved will meet the concerns expressed by the Committee. Yours sincerely, (Lionel Bowen) Senator John Coates,Chairman,Senator Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances,Parliament House,Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ATTORNEY-GENERAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA 2600 Dear John, In my letter to you of 27 May 1985 in respect of the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations I advised that those Regulations would be recast to explicitly state certain protections and safeguards which are normally found in extradition treaties but some of which are not incorporated in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act. I now write in amplification of that letter to indicate that the types of protections that are proposed to be included will be based on Article 4 of the model Treaty which I have approved to form the basis of negotiations with other countries. A copy of that Article is attached. I might add that the matters dealt with in paragraphs 4 (1) (a) to (1) (d) inclusive and paragraphs 4 (2) (d) and (2) (f) are safeguards already incorporated in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act and hence are already applicable. However, in this specific case, I can see justification for repeating them in the Regulations. In addition I propose that the Regulations will provide that extradition will not be granted for offences which are tried by other than normal criminal courts or for offences which attract cruel, unusual or grossly unjustifiable punishments. The latter exemption should, in my view, be adequate to meet your Committee's concern in relation to the situation where the maximum penalty in South Africa is grossly and unjustifiably greater than the maximum penalty under Australian law. In conclusion I should say that Rademeyer, if he is to be extradited, will be extradited in accordance with the Extradition (Foreign States) Act and the existing Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations. Under that legislation my discretion to decide whether extradition shall take place is unfettered. In exercising that discretion, however, I can assure the Committee that I will take into account all the protections to which I have referred and which are to be included in the recast Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations. Yours sincerely, (Lionel Bowen) Senator John Coates,Chairman,Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for this day of sitting for the disallowance of the Credit Ordinance 1985. I seek leave to make a statement in explanation of the withdrawal of the notice of motion. Leave granted. Senator COATES —Following the receipt late last night of further undertakings from the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) in relation to the Credit Ordinance, the Committee has decided to withdraw its notice of motion for disallowance. The Committee was concerned that a wide exemption power should be exercised only by regulations and should be made subject to tabling and disallowance; that exemptions should not be made until such an urgent amendment is put in place; that powers of entry using assistance or force should be authorised by a magistrate and be expressly qualified by an objective test of reasonableness; that a power to embark on 'fishing expeditions' in pursuance of a limited search warrant be restrained so that any additional material found on premises be placed in a sealed envelope and lodged with the registrar of a court pending a further warrant applying specifically to that material; and that all signatures should be witnessed and that a person signing vicariously should expressly state in writing that he or she does so by authority. The Committee had agreed to the Minister's undertakings urgently to amend the Ordinance to achieve these changes. The undertakings were received only late last night. The Committee decided that it would not recommend the application of principle (d) of the Committee's principles to the Ordinance. While the Committee is of the opinion that the Ordinance does contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment, its disallowance would not serve the pressing interests of consumers in the Australian Capital Territory who would be deprived of important rights if the Ordinance were disallowed. The Committee will table a full report on its scrutiny of the Credit Ordinance in the Budget sittings. The report will address the question whether, in the Australian Capital Territory, highly complex and detailed legislative proposals, which interlock with Commonwealth-State schemes, and make fundamental reform of significant areas of law, should take the form of a Bill in the Parliament rather than an ordinance. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard copies of some of the correspondence exchanged between the Minister, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Committee which will enable senators to be informed of the issues discussed and settled by the Committee. Leave granted. The correspondence read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA: THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES Gordon Scholes, M.P. 23 May 1985 Minister for Territories Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 As you know, the Committee met on 16 May 1985 to discuss with your officials issues arising from the application of the Committee's principles to the Credit Ordinance 1985. At its meeting the Committee noted your letter of 15 May 1985 seeking to limit the questions which could be asked of these officials. While regretting this limitation, the Committee thanks you for your agreement to send officials to assist the Committee at its meeting. The Committee met again on 21 May 1985 to complete its deliberations on the Ordinance. The Committee's Legal Adviser, Professor Douglas Whalan, attended this special meeting and advised the Committee. The application of principle (d) The application of principle (d) to Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory has presented the Committee with difficulty because of the need to balance the width of the powers delegated to a Minister under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 against the requirements of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. To be effective, such scrutiny of necessity calls for consideration of whether delegated legislation contains matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. Notwithstanding the comments made in paragraph 3 of your letter concerning your belief that legislation applicable to the A.C.T. should take a certain form, Ordinances in the Territory are not immune from such scrutiny or from the application by the Committee of principle (d). When considering the application of principle (d) to an Ordinance, the Committee, on behalf of the Senate, exercises a judgment in respect of the substance of the matters contained in the Ordinance and the propriety of such matters becoming law by virtue of ministerial decree rather than by parliamentary procedure. It may be impossible to lay down hard and fast rules to dictate, for all possible cases, what should or should not become law under delegated powers. However, it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to conclude that the Credit Ordinance 1985, being, in the words of the acting Minister for Territories, ''among the most fundamental and far reaching reforms of the law undertaken in this country'' contains matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. The Committee appreciates that a universally agreed position has not been reached on the application of principle (d) to ACT Ordinances but it is of the opinion that the change to the credit law was of such importance that it should have been by means of a Bill. The Committee therefore again invites you to consider the urgent preparation of a Bill for introduction into the Parliament as a more appropriate means of legislating for those matters currently contained in the Credit Ordinance. Such a Bill could be in terms identical to the Credit Ordinance, though the Committee would prefer to see those terms amended to take account of the Committee's specific concerns in relation to sections 19, 29, 235 and 250 as discussed in the attached pages. The Committee would welcome an undertaking that such a Bill will be introduced. It is the Committee's opinion that, from the point of view of your Department, the credit industry and consumers, this course would be preferable to a full scale disallowance debate in the Senate on 28 May 1985. Comments on individual sections The Committee maintains its concern about certain aspects of the legislation, namely sections 19, 29, 235 and 250. The Committee's explanation of its specific objections are set out in the attached pages. Other matters In connection with section 135 and the express references in sub-sections (1) and (2) to the balance of probability, the Committee would be grateful if it could sight a copy of the Attorney-General's legal advice which stated that the express inclusion of the words ''on the balance of probability'' would not upset the inference of the civil standard of proof in other sections, although its deletion, against the background of a uniform scheme of State legislation, would upset that inference in section 135 itself. JOHN COATES Chairman Regulations and Ordinances Committee Credit Ordinance 1985 Specific provisions of concern to the Committee Section 19 The Committee remains of the view that the powers of exemption conferred by section 19 of the Ordinance are extremely wide and unless exercised by regulations subject to tabling and disallowance, infringe the Committee's principles, in particular principle (b). The present power of exemption confers upon this Minister, or any future Minister, a power to abrogate or to suspend, in any way, for any period, subject to any conditions, any provisions of the Ordinance, including those provisions which, being designed to protect borrowers, are the very raison d'etre of the Ordinance. The fifteen exemptions made to date and notified in Gazette S 95 are drafted with the complexity and precision of regulations. They go so far as to exempt identified commercial organisations from specified sections of the Ordinance. It may be that these exemptions are essential to the effective implementation of the new credit legislation. It may be that, although they temporarily limit the full range of protections available to a borrower under the Ordinance, they do not in the circumstances, unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties within the meaning of principle (b) of the Committee's principles. It may be that at no time in the future will any Minister, of any party, grant exemptions which could be objectionable in terms of civil liberties. However, the Committee does not accept that such reasoning is persuasive. The Committee is charged by the Senate with a responsibility to address those questions of principle embodied in its terms of reference, and to this end the Committee applies its principles. This is not done in isolation from the real world but with an awareness of how the application of principle can avoid present and future infringements of personal rights and liberties. The Committee again recommends to the Minister that exemptions be made by regulations subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament in the usual way. Regulations and Ordinances Committee Credit Ordinance 1985 Specific provisions of concern to the Committee Section 29 The Committee recognises that the expression ''becomes aware'' in section 29 of the Ordinance is used in federal legislation and is not peculiar to the New South Wales or Victorian parliamentary counsel. The Committee also accepts advice from the Attorney-General's Department that ''becomes aware'' is a concept preferable to that which the Committee was suggesting. However, insofar as the section is intended to protect linked credit providers and creates a criminal offence to achieve this protection, the expression is not as precise as the word ''knows'', which is also used in sub-section 29 (1). If the expression ''becomes aware'' is really a description of the point in time at which a person obtains knowledge of the fact of a recision etc., this could be more clearly and more certainly conveyed by an expression such as ''As soon as a supplier knows that . . .'' The Committee again recommends that the Minister consider the wording of the section. Regulations and Ordinances Committee Credit Ordinance 1985 Specific provisions of concern to the Committee Section 235 With regard to sub-section 235 (1), the Committee considers that the degree and use of force, which the Director or an investigating officer ''thinks necessary'' to effect entry to premises in execution of a search warrant, should be qualified by reference to a standard of reasonableness as is the case in sub-section 385C (3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) as it applies in the A.C.T. (see the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1984, A.C.T. Ordinance No. 32 of 1984. The degree of ''assistance'' that the Director or an investigating officer ''thinks necessary'' should also be qualified by a test of reasonableness. The deeming provision in sub-section 235 (4) authorises the Director or an investigating officer to take ''things'' not specified in a Magistrate's warrant under sub-section (3), if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the ''things'' are ''connected with another offence against this Ordinance''. This power confers on administrative officials greater powers than are available to a police officer in the execution of a search warrant under sub-section 358C (4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) as it applies in the A.C.T. The Committee does not suggest that the provisions of that Ordinance should be used as a model precedent, any more than it suggests that the relevant terms of the Criminal Investigation Bill be incorporated automatically and uncritically into any legislation which happens to empower administrative officials to obtain and execute search warrants. Except perhaps in the case of police officers, each case should be examined on its own merits to determine precisely what powers of entry, search and seizure are essential to permit effective law enforcement by administrative officials without prejudice to the rights of individuals. As far as the Credit Ordinance is concerned, the Committee recommends that the Minister amend the legislation so that force and assistance be qualified by reasonableness and, with regard to ''things'' other than those specified in a warrant under paragraph 235 (3) (c), a sealed envelope procedure should be used, as referred to on page 3 of the Committee's letter of 22 March 1985. In the light of advice from the Attorney-General's Department the Committee withdraws its objection to the possibility of a Magistrate's search warrant specifying a period after business hours. Regulations and Ordinances Committee Credit Ordinance 1985 Specific provisions of concern to the Committee Section 250 Insofar as section 250 enables a person actually to sign another person's name as if the person signing were the very person whose signature is written, without the need to qualify that vicarious signature by reference to any relationship of principal and agent, the provision does not reflect the common law and is objectionable within the Committee's principles. At common law the onus of proof would rest on the agent to show that he or she had sufficient authority to sign any particular document that was signed. Under section 250 the onus of proof would rest on the person to show that his or her ''signature'' was not a real signature and that the signatory did not in fact have authority to sign the signature of the person. It appears to the Committee that, to the extent that this significant burden of proof is reversed, there is a fundamental distinction between the requirements of common law and the requirements of the section. The Committee considers that the section could operate to the serious prejudice of a borrower, in particular, older pensioners or persons in need of that special protection which the presence of a witness can lend to the conclusion of binding and potentially onerous legal contracts. The protection afforded by section 124, which may preclude a salesperson from executing a vicarious signature, is not, in the Committee's opinion, sufficient protection from the kinds of fraud and undue influence which the current drafting of section 250 almost invites. The Committee recommends that the Minister amend section 250 to require that a person, signing his or her own name on behalf and under the authority of another person, shall clearly state that such signing is under such authority. The Committee also recommends that a witness be present, as a signatory, where documents giving rise to binding legal contracts are being signed. Senator John Coates Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Senator Coates Thank you for your letter of 23 May 1985 in which you have raised various matters relating to the Credit Ordinance 1985. I am concerned that if I were to proceed as you have suggested and undertake to introduce a Bill in substantially the same terms as the Ordinance, there would be considerable potential for uncertainty and disruption in the ACT credit industry. This might flow from a perception that the Bill would not have a smooth passage through the Senate and might be considerably amended, particularly in the light of the objections that your Committee has already raised in relation to the Ordinance. In your letter you have quoted a statement by Mr Duffy that the Ordinance is ''among the most fundamental and far reaching reforms of the law undertaken in this country''. I think I should point out that Mr Duffy did not apply this description specifically to the Credit Ordinance. Instead, he used the words in relation to the ''introduction of uniform credit legislation throughout Australia''. The Credit Ordinance gives effect to the Australian Capital Territory's participation in this scheme. Although it has been modelled on State legislation, its operation is exclusive to the ACT and has no wider application and it is for that reason that the legislation has been prepared as an Ordinance. For a number of years it has been the routine practice to implement proposals specifically affecting the ACT by way of Ordinance-notwithstanding that from some viewpoint some are capable of being described as innovative, significant or complex. If this practice were to be changed, the workload of the national Parliament would become significantly disrupted by the addition of Bills having purely local ACT effect and I don't believe that this would be in any of our interests. Accordingly, I am unable to give a unilateral undertaking that a Bill will be introduced. The question is of such importance that I could not do so without consulting my Ministerial colleagues. Moreover, I do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect that further consideration of this matter should take place only in the context of a definitive statement from the Committee about the application of principle (d). This issue has such far reaching implications for the conduct of ACT portfolio responsibilities that it is inappropriate that it should be addressed on an ad hoc basis as it has been in this case. In relation to the particular sections of the Credit Ordinance that the Committee has identified as causing it continuing concern I would comment as follows: Section 19 I can understand why the Committee is concerned about section 19, and why it believes that exemptions created pursuant to the section should be subject to some form of scrutiny by the Parliament and I am prepared to have the legislation amended to overcome the Committee's objections in this regard. Section 29 I have considered the points raised in the Committee's letter and I have no objection to amending the legislation to include the alternative formulation suggested by the Committee. Section 235 In relation to sub-section 235 (1): The Committee seems to take the view that the words 'as he thinks' apply both to the need for assistance and to the use of force. This is not so in my view. It is not a matter for the executing officer alone to decide whether force is necessary to effect entry. In my view the question of whether the use of force is lawful is one to be determined totally objectively. The crucial question is whether, as a matter of face, force is necessary, not whether, in the view of the executing officer alone force is necessary. I would have no objection to the provision being amended to read 'with such assistance as he thinks reasonably necessary and by such force as is reasonably necessary'. In relation to sub-section 235 (4): The provision on which the Committee relies (s. 358C) is of very limited scope and applies only to search warrants to be executed in the ACT to obtain evidence of a specific offence committed in another jurisdiction. It is not the general provision which applies to search warrants in the ACT. The provision contained in sub-section 235 (4) is modelled on sub-clause 58 (5) of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981. Similar provisions exist in the following Ordinances- 1. Radiation Ordinance 1983 21 (4) 2. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 53 (4) 3. Business Franchises (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance 1984 53 (4) 4. Air Pollution Ordinance 1984 39 (4) 5. Water Pollution Ordinance 1984 34 (4). The Provision also appears in numerous recent Commonwealth Acts. The provision does little more than restate the position at Common Law following Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd v Jones (1968) 2 QB 299. The approach suggested by your Committee is one which has been adopted in relation to seized items in respect of which legal professional privilege has been claimed. No question of privilege can arise in relation to items seized as affording evidence of the commission of an offence under this provision. Section 250 I do not agree that section 250 enables a person to sign for another without the need to qualify the vicarious signature by reference to a relationship of a principal or agent. The section expressly contemplates that the vicarious signature is to be effected ''by or under . . . authority''. It seems to me that the provision does reflect the common law and I do not think it offends any of the Committee's stated principles. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consult on the matter with the other uniform credit jurisdictions and with the Attorney-General. It may be that some formulation which would be acceptable both to the other jurisdictions and to the Committee could be devised. Section 135 The Committee has asked if it could sight a copy of the Attorney-General's legal advice in relation to the expression ''on the balance of probability'' in section 135. The advice had been provided orally by an officer of the Attorney-General's Department and accordingly I am not in a position to let you see a copy of it. I am assured that the substance of it has been accurately stated in my letter to you. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ATTORNEY-GENERAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA 2000 SP84/5360:LJC:GIB Dear John, In view of the Committee's consideration of the Credit Ordinance 1985 in the context of principle (d) of the Committee's principles for the scrutiny of delegated legislation I think it would be appropriate to inform you of my views on this issue. My concern is with the application of principle (d) as such, rather than the Credit Ordinance which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Territories. It has long been recognised by the Senate, your Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and responsible Ministers (from both sides of the Parliament) that the application of principle (d) to A.C.T. Ordinances raises very difficult questions. Both my immediate predecessors, Senator Durack and Senator Gareth Evans, have in response to requests from the Committee, provided detailed analyses of the issues involved and given their views (which are to similar effect) to the Committee. I agree with the opinions expressed by Senator Durack and Senator Evans. Senator Evans' letter of 19 April 1984 contains a cogent explanation of the important legal and other difficulties encountered in the application of principle (d). I would particularly draw to the Committee's attention the points made in that letter about the differences between A.C.T. Ordinances and regulations made under specific statutes, and the implications of disallowance on the ground of principle (d). I emphasise the view that application of principle (d) in its current form is inconsistent with the intention of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. To adopt a view that Territory laws should be enacted by Parliament by reason of the intrinsic significance of the subject matter of those laws, which is what the application of principle (d) seems to require, would have significant implications for many of the laws which I administer. In particular, I would be concerned that this could lead to the conclusion that substantial changes in the criminal law of the A.C.T. should be made by the Parliament and not by Ordinance. No objection has previously been taken by the Committee to the enactment of even quite substantial changes in the criminal law by Ordinance. This illustrates, I think, the point which has been made to the Committee by both Senator Evans and Senator Durack that principle (d), in its present form, cannot satisfactorily be applied to the consideration of Territory Ordinances. Moreover, I should draw the Committee's attention again to the practical difficulties which would follow from enactment of Territory law on a given subject matter by an Act of the Parliament. Unless the Act itself empowered the making of Ordinances inconsistent with the Act-which would be in breach of other principles adopted by the Committee-even minor changes in the law relating to the subject-matter might have to be dealt with by the Parliament itself. In relation to such subject matter, the application of principle (d) would have the effect that legislative responsibility for subject matter thus dealt with by an Act of Parliament would revert to the Parliament itself instead of being exercised by the Governor-General and that the Parliament would have a substantive role, rather than the supervisory role contemplated by the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. Considerable uncertainty may result from the Parliament exercising a co-ordinate law making role with the Governor-General. I mention, by way of example, that the fact that the evidence law of the A.C.T. became embodied in the Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 meant not only that it was not possible directly to amend the Evidence Ordinance which was taken up by that Act, but also that there was considerable doubt about the power to include evidentiary provisions in other Ordinances. The matter eventually had to be dealt with by the Parliament amending the Act to permit Ordinances to amend or repeal the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance continued in force by that Act. Yours sincerely LIONEL BOWEN Senator J. Coates, Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA: THE SENATESTANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES Gordon Scholes, M.P. 30 May 1985 Minister for Territories Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Thank you for your letter of 27 May 1985 about the Credit Ordinance 1985. The Committee met this morning, 30 May 1985, and considered your letter, a letter from the Attorney-General of 29 May 1985 and the information provided to the Committee on 16 May 1985 and 28 May 1985 by officers from your Department and the Attorney-General's Department. The Committee decided that it would not proceed with disallowance of the Credit Ordinance in its entirety under principle (d) of the Committee's terms of reference. I will provide a full explanation for this later today in the Senate when the matter comes up. The Committee will report to the Senate in the Budget sittings on the whole question of the application of principle (d) to ACT Ordinances. The Senate, this morning, agreed to postpone until a later hour of this day its notice of disallowance in connection with the Credit Ordinance. The Committee proposes to seek leave to amend its notice to specify that certain provisions of the Ordinance be disallowed. The Committee would, of course, prefer that the Government agree to urgent amendment of the Ordinance to take into account the Committee's concerns and thus avoid the real need for disallowance of provisions which infringe the Committee's principles. The Committee will recommend to the Senate that it should disallow sections of the Ordinance unless a firm and clear commitment is given by the Government to the Committee urgently to amend the Ordinance. Section 19 In your letter of the 27 May 1985 you wrote that you could understand why the Committee is concerned about section 19, and why it believes that exemptions created pursuant to the section should be subject to some form of scrutiny by the Parliament. Therefore you were prepared to have the legislation amended to overcome the Committee's objections in this regard. The Committee seeks to have it made clear that this is a commitment by the Government, urgently to amend section 19 to require that exemptions be made by regulations, subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament in the usual way, and that no further exemptions be made prior to an urgent amendment to the Ordinance. Section 29 In your letter of 27 May 1985 you wrote that you had considered the points raised by the Committee and that you had no objection to amending the legislation to include an alternative formulation suggested by the Committee. The Committee seeks to have it made clear that this is a commitment by the Government urgently to amend the sub-section 29 (1) to substitute for the phrase ''A supplier who becomes aware, that'', the expression-''As soon as a supplier knows that . . .'' in sub-section 29 (1). The words ''the supplier'' should be inserted before the words ''shall forthwith'' in sub-section 29 (1). Section 235 In your letter of 27 May 1985 you wrote that you would have no objections to sub-section 235 (1) being amended to read ''with such assistance as (he) thinks reasonably necessary and by such force as is reasonably necessary''. The Committee is of the view that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Investigation Bill should not be incorporated automatically and uncritically into any legislation which happens to empower public servants to obtain and execute search warrants. Each case should be examined objectively on its merits to determine precisely what powers of entry, search and seizure are an essential minimum to permit effective law enforcement without undue trespass on the personal rights and liberties of individuals. In the case of the Credit Ordinance the Committee considers that where a power of assisted or violent entry into premises is to be conferred on public servants, the use of that power should be determined objectively and not merely in the mind of the public servant. The Committee seeks a commitment that the Government will urgently amend sub-section 235 (1) so that the power of assisted or violent entry into premises is expressly conferred by the Magistrate's warrant and the necessity for such entry is determined objectively in terms of both assistance and of the use of force. The Committee remains of the view that section 235 generally and sub-section 235 (4) in particular confers inappropriate police powers on public servants. The Committee seeks a commitment that the Government will urgently amend sub-section 235 (4) to provide for a sealed envelope procedure when an investigating officer intends to remove things not specified in a warrant. These things should be placed in the custody of a court registrar and returned to the premises unless within 24 hours, a magistrate has been persuaded to issue a further warrant in respect of those things. Section 250 In your letter of 27 May 1985 you rejected the Committee's request for an amendment to provide that a signature be witnessed and that a person making a vicarious signature expressly state in writing that it is done by authority. The Committee remains of the view that section 250 could operate to the serious prejudice of a borrower, in particular older pensioners or persons in need of that special protection which the presence of a witness can lend to the conclusion of binding and potentially onerous legal contracts. The protection afforded by section 124, which may preclude a salesperson from executing a vicarious signature, is not, in the Committee's opinion, sufficient protection from the kinds of fraud and undue influence which the current drafting of section 250 almost invites. The Committee seeks a commitment from the Government that it will urgently amend this section to provide that a person's signature shall be witnessed, that the witness shall sign as a witness and that a person signing vicariously shall expressly state in writing that he or she does so by authority. I am also writing to the Attorney-General along similar lines to the above because of his concern about the application of principle (d) and because, in your absence, you may not be as fully involved as you would otherwise desire to be in resolving this matter. JOHN COATES Chairman MINISTER FOR TERRITORIES HON. GORDON SCHOLES, M.P. MEMBER FOR CORIO Sen J. Coates, Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 2600 Dear Senator Coates, Thank you for your letter of 30 May 1985 about the Credit Ordinance 1985. I note your advice that the Committee has decided not to proceed with disallowance of the Credit Ordinance under principle (d) of the Committee's Terms of Reference. The Committee has sought commitments by the Government to amend the Ordinance in certain respects. I give the Committee these commitments on behalf of the Government in respect of all the provisions of the ordinance that the Committee has identified as causing it concern, with the exception of Section 235 (4). In relation to this Section, I am unable to give a commitment as proposed by the Committee. Instead, I undertake to have Section 235 (4) repealed. I am agreeing to the Committee's proposal in relation to Section 19 under duress. To allow the clause to be disallowed would destroy the uniform nature of the legislation and would have serious consequences for the community and commercial activities in the ACT. I advise the Committee that I will be examining the means by which Government policy in respect of this matter can be applied in order to protect the interests of the residents of the ACT. Yours sincerely, GORDON SCHOLES Senator COATES —I thank the Senate. The Committee thanks the Minister for his agreement to our proposals. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-The statement which the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has just made is one of the most significant statements made in this Parliament for some considerable time. The Committee, believe it or not, has been considering a piece of delegated legislation which honourable senators probably have not even had an opportunity of looking at-legislation which contains over 260 clauses which have been described by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) representing the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) as among the most far-reaching reforms of the law ever undertaken in this country. It repeals the money lenders ordinances and hire purchase ordinances and replaces them with provisions which are said to be the very vanguard of modern consumer credit law. This legislation was developed and almost finalised by the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers and the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. However, late last year, shortly before final agreement was achieved, the governments in New South Wales and Victoria jumped the gun and introduced their own credit legislation. Faced with this fait accompli, the Department of Territories printed this Credit Ordinance which, almost in every respect, including the numbering of sections, is identical with the New South Wales and Victorian legislation. The Ordinance was made on 22 February of this year. It seems that at no time did the Department of Territories consider, even as an option to be dismissed, whether or not this fundamentally reforming legislation should come before the Parliament in the form of a Bill. The view seems to have been taken both in the Department of Territories and in the Attorney-General's Office that legislation for the Australian Capital Territory will not be by Act of Parliament almost regardless of what is in the legislation. The Committee believes that there must be, by definition, some small number of exceptions to this attitude. That is why the Committee has its principle (d) which states: The delegated legislation does not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. In this Ordinance the innovative and complex provisions, which represent far-reaching reform of relationships between borrowers and credit providers, were developed at the level of Commonwealth and State Ministers. The detailed provisions were passed through the parliaments of New South Wales and Victoria and it is proposed that they go through the Western Australian and South Australian parliaments in the near future. The irony that emerges from this is that it seems that at no time was it ever really thought that the Commonwealth Parliament should examine such fundamental proposals. No real significance was attached to the fact that they relate to an interlocking Commonwealth-State scheme. They represent a quite fundamental reform of a financially highly significant area of the law, and they take the form of a major, lengthy and complex legal document. When the Committee began to conduct its scrutiny of this legislation we asked the Minister for Territories if his officials could attend a meeting and discuss with the Committee why this highly important matter had not been brought into the Parliament in a Bill. On the morning of the meeting the Committee received a letter from the Minister refusing his officials permission to speak about that issue. After a discussion with the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Coates, when the Minister tentatively agreed to his officials talking about principle (d) and the question of Bill versus ordinance, the officials came and told us that the question was never really considered by them. However while some members of the Committee believe-on the basis of what Senator Coates has said this morning there is no doubt that the entire Committee apparently believes-that the Credit Ordinance should have come in by way of a Bill, we do not recommend disallowance for the reasons expressed by Senator Coates. But, as Senator Coates has said, apart from principle (d) we raised other issues with the Minister. Section 19 of this Ordinance-believe it or not-gives the Minister power to exempt a credit company from the requirements of the legislation. Honourable senators should think about that for a moment. What I am saying is that the Minister may simply exempt a credit company from the entire requirements of the Ordinance. The power allows the Minister an absolute and unfettered discretion to suspend the application of all, or any, of the rights, safeguards and protections which are contained in the ordinance. He can abrogate, or suspend in any way, for any period, subject to any terms or conditions, all or any provisions of the Ordinance, including those provisions which, being protective of the rights of borrowers, pensioners and other people, are the very raison d'etre of this law reform. The Committee asked not that this unfettered power be removed but simply that it be exercised by way of regulation so that it becomes subject to tabling in this Parliament and disallowance in the normal way that such powers are exercised. One would have thought that that was not an unreasonable request by a parliamentary committee but we ran into a brick wall. Neither the Minister nor his officials could accept the prospect that exemptions, drafted by officials in Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide could come before this Parliament so that we could apply our minds reasonably to those exemptions. There seems to be a fear that the Senate might feel that particular exemptions may go too far and trespass on rights and liberties and be disallowed on the recommendation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The view seems to be that officials in other States who are making the running on this legislation-they are not even officials in the Australian Capital Territory-are to be trusted as the final arbiters of personal rights and liberties in this matter but this Senate-this Parliament-is not to be the final arbiter. As Senator Coates said, late last night finally and reluctantly the Minister agreed to accept what the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has been insisting upon. We have the letter before us this morning. The Committee met at 8 o'clock last night and finalised this matter at just 10 minutes to 10. I will not go into the other sections which Senator Coates has already explained to the Senate. The Committee has said to the Minister that it absolutely insists upon these changes being made and finally the Minister has agreed to them. We have been scrutinising this one Ordinance for over 10 weeks with as much care, tact and reasonableness as any Senate committee could muster. The Committee has exchanged seven letters with the Minister; it has held two hearings with officers and discussed the issues with 13 officials. Today, the final day for disallowance of this Ordinance, we have finally, and apparently reluctantly, been able to drag the Minister to a situation where he accepts what the Senate Committee has been insisting upon all this time. It seems that every time there is a new Minister for the Territories he has to learn all about what the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is on about even though it has been in existence since 1932. Surely departmental officials can properly brief the Minister as to what the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is about. In all the time that I have been a member of the Committee, I do not ever remember it being unreasonable in its discussions with the Minister or not giving fair and proper bipartisan consideration to matters. I conclude by referring to something that happened 14 years ago when the Senate was asked to disallow an ordinance on the recommendation of the Committee. On that occasion Senator Wood, who was then the Chairman of the Committee-some older honourable senators will recall that Senator Wood was Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for something like 20 years-in his concluding speech to the Senate, stated: During the 18 years I have served as member and Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I have not seen a member of any political party working on the Committee a political angle. I believe that members have worked on the basis that it is a committee representing this Parliament. They work in the highest parliamentary traditions. I feel confident that when members of the Committee introduce a report recommending to the Senate that something be done or that something be disallowed the fullest consideration has been given to that recommendation. That has been my assessment during my time with the Committee. He continued: I am not a legal man. I am a layman. Sometimes I think it would be better to have a legal man as chairman but as a layman I do my best to interpret what is suggested and what is recommended or decided. From that point I try to be absolutely impartial and fair, at all times keeping in mind what is best from a parliamentary point of view. Briefly I mention the words of the late Senator Pearson when he discussed the Regulations and Ordinances Committee with the late Sir Robert Garran. Sir Robert Garran said to him that in his opinion it was the most important Committee in Parliament. Its duty was to see that Parliament ran the country with legislation, not the Executive with regulations and ordinances. Those words came from the great mind of one of the men who helped to write the Constitution. I have always kept that in mind and I have always tried to apply that principle in the considerations of this Committee. I believe that still stands today. Senator Coates is a layman, not a lawyer, and he does the same sort of thing as Senator Wood was talking about there. This Committee is totally impartial and apolitical and applies its mind to protecting the civil liberties of the subject. I think it is about time that officers in the Attorney-General's Department as well as those in the Department of Territories understood what this Committee is on about and gave it the respect to which it is entitled. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Committee have leave to move from place to place until the next day of sitting. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances intends to hold a hearing with members of the National Crime Authority, at the Authority's request, to discuss NCA regulations. The convenience of the Committee and the Authority would be best served by not forcing them to meet in Canberra. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its concern at the Federal Government's apparent preparedness to negotiate away the jobs of its own employees in the Australian National Railways in Tasmania in the context of Premiers Conference negotiations without any consultation with the workers and the unions concerned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) noting the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's previous insistence in official statements and evidence to Senate Estimates Committee C that its decision to provide travel entitlements to homosexual partners of ABC staff members on the same basis as spouses was based on advice given to the Board by its Equal Employment Opportunities Unit that the ABC was required by law to make this decision and that other corporations had so acted; and (b) noting that the ABC has now admitted orally and in writing to Estimates Committee C that the information on which its decision was based is incorrect and has acknowledged its error; calls on the ABC to reverse immediately its unsound and anti-social decision. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 144 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1985: That the resolution of the House of 21 May 1985, concerning the delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament to the Australian Constitutional Convention, be amended, as follows: (1) paragraph (1) (a)-omit '4 shall be members of the Senate and 8', substitute '5 shall be members of the Senate and 7'; (2) paragraph (1) (b)-omit '8 Members of the House of Representatives comprise 4 members of the Australian Labor Party, 3', substitute '7 Members of the House of Representatives comprise 4 members of the Australian Labor Part, 2', and (3) paragraph (2) (b)-omit '2 other Members', substitute 'another Member'. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 30 May 1985 The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received advice from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats, notifying the following Senate delegates to the Australian Constitutional Convention: Government delegates, Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Tate; Opposition delegates, Senator Durack and Senator Peter Rae; and the Australian Democrats delegate, Senator Macklin. Motion (by Senator Archer) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade has completed its Reports on the Re-examination of the Closer Economic Relationship between Australia and New Zealand, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has completed its Second Report on the Examination of Annual Reports, the Committee may send the Report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Report is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion (by Senator Georges) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Select Committee on Animal Welfare has completed its Progress Reports, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President,as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of sitting for this day be varied and that between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. statements may be made by senators on any matter, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats requesting that certain senators be discharged from further attendance on committees and nominating senators to be members in their place. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Robertson be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and that Senator Tate, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36A, be appointed a member of the Committee. (2) That, from and including 1 July 1985, Senator Bolkus be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and that Senators Aulich, Boswell and Childs, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AA, be appointed members of the Committee. (3) That, from and including 1 July 1985, Senator Richardson, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on National Resources. (4) That, from and including 1 July 1985, Senators Brownhill, Cooney and Siddons, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution appointing the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, be appointed members of the Committee. (5) That Senator Elstob be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and that Senator Reynolds, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution appointing the Joint Select Committee, be appointed a member of the Committee. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —Mr President, I seek leave to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) a short question which I meant to raise at the placing of business. However, we moved from that more quickly than I thought we would. Leave granted. Senator CHIPP —This is a genuine question seeking information. It is not asked in the spirit of criticism or carping. We have in front of us today a red sheet on page 2 of which are listed five items of Government Business. A rumour is now circulating around this chamber, particularly from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), that he wants other matters added and disposed of before the end of business today, including Government Business Order of the Day No. 11-the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill. I also hear on the grapevine that, although it is not listed on the red sheet, Government Business Order of the Day No. 8- the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill-also is to be covered before we rise today. Given that the red sheet was prepared only an hour ago, I simply ask whether it is not possible, when honourable senators are facing a day such as this, particularly as the last day, and have to make arrangements, that we can be informed now or at least given a rough idea of what business the Government wants to dispose of before we rise at 4.15 p.m. or 5 p.m. today. Are we to continue this evening or are we to sit tomorrow? I say, without scoring points, that this is hardly the way to conduct the business of the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Government Business Orders of the Day are set out on page 2 of the red order of business. Items numbered 1 to 5 are listed. It then says that further Orders of the Day are listed on the Notice Paper. Senator Chipp —There are 26 of them. Are you going to do the 26? Senator BUTTON —No. I understand Senator Chipp's particular concern. If one follows the Notice Paper down in terms of legislation, after the Australian Sports Commission Bill 1985 there are two Bills to be dealt with cognately, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985. It is desired, subject to the concurrence of the Senate, that the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985 and allied Bills be dealt with cognately with those Bass Strait Bills. Other than that, the red sheet picks up the legislation which the Government wants to achieve. Those Bills that remain are the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985, the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985, the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1985, the Australian Sports Commission Bill 1985, the two Bass Strait Bills together with the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bills and the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985 and the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985, which we anticipate might be short. Senator Chipp —The Government is not seeking to get the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 through? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chipp, if we had a wonderful day and had time, we would certainly seek to get it through, but we do not anticipate that. I say by way of apology that Senator Grimes was handling these matters last night. He is in hospital and, as a result of that, there was some hiatus and I apologise that that matter was not discussed. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I am not sure as to the extent of the degree of concurrence, but I think it is suggested that the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985 and the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985 be dealt with cognately. The PRESIDENT —Has that the concurrence of the Senate? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.34) — We are dealing with the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985 and the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985 concurrently as they are both rural Bills, even though they are of different subjects. The Fertilizers Bill provides for a subsidy of $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen for nitrogenous fertilisers and $12 per tonne of single strength superphosphate or $138 per tonne on the available phosphorous content. This is a continuation of the existing Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act and the Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act for a further 12 months. The Industries Assistance Commission's interim report recommended that the subsidy to farmers be terminated and that a bounty to manufacturers be paid. The Government, in its wisdom, has rejected that and it is my understanding that the manufacturers are quite happy with the continuation of the existing arrangements. Senator Button —Do you share our wisdom on this? Senator COLLARD —I say to Senator Button that on this occasion I do. It is expected that a full IAC report will be released this year. The total cost of the subsidy will be $55m per year. It must be recognised that this subsidy makes up in a very small way for the penalty of protection to secondary industry. Various figures have been floated, but currently it is estimated that protection to secondary industry costs each farm, across the board, about $9,000 per year. This fertiliser subsidy is a benefit of only about $300 per year. I reiterate that it makes up for protection to secondary industry in a very small way. The real value of the subsidy to farmers has decreased. It was actually 23.2 per cent of the price in 1963. In 1983, it was down to about 10.7 per cent of the price. The fertiliser manufacturers are not happy with the existing arrangements for cartage of phosphate rock from Christmas Island. The contract was entered into by previous governments-our governments-when the rates of international shipping firms were about the same and relatively high. Since then, things have altered and the superphosphate rock carried to Australia in Australian National Line ships is carried at a very high freight rate. This is having a quite detrimental effect. It is estimated that of the subsidy of $12 per tonne, $7 goes in shipping costs. At a time when a series of pieces of legislation has gone through this Parliament, all extolling the virtues of opening up the rural industry to market forces, we ought to extol the virtues of opening up some of these freight contracts to market forces. This would have a beneficial effect both for manufacturers and, consequently, for the end users-that is, the farming community of Australia. When farmers are trying to keep costs down and increase production, the use of fertilisers is very necessary. Some of our soils are quite deficient in superphosphate. For instance, in the dairying industry one of the best ways to keep up production is through the continual use of nitrogenous fertilisers. Protection to secondary industry is currently running at about 26 per cent. Protection to primary industry is running at about 9 per cent, but the protection to the fertiliser manufacturing industry is a negative percentage, due particularly to the monopoly ANL has on the carrying of phosphate rock from Christmas Island. The second Bill we are dealing with cognately is the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985. Until now loans and grants to the end users were handled by the States. Now the States will have to raise money themselves or through commercial channels. The Commonwealth Government will be involved now only in an interest subsidy. That subsidy will cover two main categories. Category A will deal with debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement. The subsidy will cover 50 per cent of interest rates over a seven-year period. Category B will provide carry-on finance, with a 25 per cent subsidy over seven years. Category C is different altogether. It provides for grants on loans for household support, particularly for farms that are obviously no longer viable. Such funds will come from Consolidated Revenue, and one could say that basically it is a subsidy in lieu of unemployment benefit while farmers whose farms are no longer viable seek ways of getting out of the farming game and into some other occupation. There is a maximum loan of $8,000 per year per individual. The bad debts on this will be shared by the Commonwealth and the States on a 50:50 basis up to a certain limit and then the Federal Government will take over. The Federal Government will pay the administrative costs to the tune of one per cent of the loan value for categories A and B and 2 per cent of the loan value for category C. The rural community is still reeling from the onslaught of the Labor Government. I point out that 77 per cent of the real cuts in the recent mini-Budget adversely affected the rural community, and not the least of those effects is the rising fuel prices. If it were not for that sort of thing, maybe we would not have to go so far down this track, particularly in relation to category C, where people just have to get out because they are no longer viable. It is all very well to open up the rural community to market forces-I suppose we would all contribute to that philosophy-but when the rest of the community is opened up to market forces, particularly the labour market, we will all be on far more even ground. The Opposition is not opposing either Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.41) — The Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill and the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill, which we are discussing cognately, have a linked theme-the support provided to rural industry by the Federal Government. The nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy scheme has had a chequered history for quite some time. The scheme goes back to the 1960s and was due to expire at the end of next month. Last year the Government asked the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into the extent and duration of assistance for the consumption and production of fertilisers in Australia, and the interim report came down a couple of months ago. The report recommended against the continuation of current subsidies for consumption of fertilisers and in favour of short term assistance to local phosphate fertiliser manufacturers. We are now awaiting the final report from the IAC which, as I understand it, is due in either September or October. The Government has indicated that it is still considering the recommendations in the interim report and, therefore, this piece of legislation will continue the subsidy for 12 months, in the same way that it has been available in the past. The area of contention in relation to fertiliser subsidies, or any support to rural industries, is that there is a general belief in the community that the community is supporting, to a very large extent, rural industries in Australia. I believe it is important to keep in perspective the type of support the community provides to rural industries and the type of support the community provides to secondary industries. The figures from the IAC for 1981-82-there has been no comprehensive update since then, unfortunately-indicated that effective assistance to primary industry was about 9 per cent compared with 26 per cent for secondary industries. That is really an extraordinary difference. It proves that the often propounded view that the rural sector is grossly over- supported is a fallacy. The rural sector has indicated constantly that it is in favour of the winding down of protection. Obviously, in economic terms, the winding back of protection is much more useful to primary industry than to secondary industry in most cases, but not in all. Therefore, one could expect primary industries to be concerned about that. It is often thrown back at them that they constantly seek support from government, so it is important to keep in mind the relative support which is provided one to the other. A good example of this is the Government's own restructuring of the car industry. That is another industry in Australia which has been beset by problems over some considerable time. I think there has been genuine support in the community for the Government's reorganisation of the car industry. That reorganisation is a method by which we hope to see some winding back in support for that industry. It is useful to note that, even when the current restructuring plan concludes in 1990, a 57 per cent import duty will still apply. It has been admitted, certainly by Treasury officials, that that type of support which is provided to manufacturing industry across the board can be costed at approximately $1.5 billion to rural industry. In other words, if that support to manufacturing industry in Australia were removed, the average real income of all farmers in Australia would be raised by 17 per cent. That type of relationship between various sectors in our community has been well known. It is to this Government's credit that in fact it is moving away from some of those hidden subsidies that occurred in the past to try to get that support provided to industry on the books so that everybody in this country can see how much it is costing us to support various industries and what the community in general is paying to provide that support. I believe that is an approach which ought to be favoured. However, it is a hard approach for a government to be required to take. Pulling out that type of support which has been hidden and putting it on the balance sheet exposes it to public view. This enables people to start asking questions. At least when it is exposed to public view there can be some sensible debate in the community about the costs and the benefits of any of these types of support provided to industry. Hence, in general the Australian Democrats support the notion of subsidies up front rather than the hidden type of protection mechanism which has been so much a part of Australia's method of supporting its industries. The Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill of course is only an interim measure but the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill has been long overdue. Again it is to the credit of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that he has undertaken a number of hard tasks in this area. In general, I think those tasks have been performed well, although certainly not to everyone's satisfaction. Later today we will be rediscussing another problem in the rural sector which has not yet been solved, and which looks to be a long way from being solved. I hope that the discussions which take place and the comments made can be as close as possible to what actually goes on. For example, Mr Kerin was quoted recently as saying that all the farmers he speaks to want to be subsidised. I do not think that sort of comment helps the debate. Certainly, in the context of the support provided by the general community to our primary and secondary industries, the support that goes to primary industry is way below the level of that provided to secondary industry. The flowthrough from that fact might be that manufacturing industry should be less supported and exposed more to market forces. If we are talking about subsidies, let us make sure that at the same time we do not run one standard for one industry in this country and another standard for another set of industries so that those industries are significantly disadvantaged in attempting to operate in the Australian economy. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.50) —We are debating two Bills cognately this morning-the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1985 and the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985. I refer firstly to the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill. I am pleased to support this legislation. It will extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and the phosphate fertiliser subsidy schemes for a further 12 months to June 1986. The subsidy rates to be paid in 1985-86 are the same as those applying for 1984-85; that is, $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen, $12 per tonne of single strength phosphate or $138 per tonne on the available phosphorous content of other phosphatic fertilisers. The Industries Assistance Commission, as has already been pointed out, in its interim report brought down in March of this year recommended the discontinuation of these subsidies but on my reading of the recommendations they were not based on the premise that the rural sector was not in need of some sort of assistance to counterbalance the heavy burden imposed up on it by the cost of subsidies provided to secondary industries; rather, that it was not the most effective and efficient way of providing assistance to rural industries. The cost of these subsidies in 1985-86 is expected to be $55m compared with $55.3m in 1984-85. That, in itself, is a further decline from $58 in 1979-80. In other words, the real value of the subsidy has been declining slightly ahead of the rate of inflation. As I was moved to observe on another occasion in the Senate, in 1968-69 when the price of bulk superphosphate was $26.62 a tonne the phosphate bounty was being paid at $7.87 a tonne or about 30 per cent of the value of the product. Now, of course, the price is approximately $97.40 a tonne and the level of assistance is $12 a tonne. The level of that assistance is in the range of 12 per cent of the value of the product. Over the same period the value of the bounty on nitrogenous fertiliser has diminished even further from 30 per cent of the value of the product to approximately 6 per cent. The interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission points to some distortions in the distribution of the subsidy over the total areas under pasture and crops. However, I refer the Senate to the very significant benefit the subsidy provides to the industry in general, and in particular in Western Australia. Because of the soil types found in Western Australia it has been necessary to use a disproportionately higher amount of fertiliser to maintain crop yields than in the eastern States. Overall, about 35 per cent of the fertiliser used in Australia is used in Western Australia but Western Australia has only 9 per cent, in number, of Australia's farms. Yet those farms account for 16 per cent of the total value of agricultural production. Interestingly enough, 29 per cent of Western Australia's crop land consumes 31 per cent of the fertiliser used for crops to produce only 15 per cent of Australia's crop output on a value basis. Similarly, Western Australia has 27 per cent of Australia's pasture and uses 30 per cent of the fertiliser applied to pasture in Australia but, on a value basis, it produces only 13 per cent of livestock production. That, I think, is a reflection of the natural infertility-some might say hostility-of Western Australia's soils compared with those in other parts of Australia. It is indicative of the special soil husbandry which must be practised in my State of Western Australia. The IAC report suggests-I am interested to note this figure-that the subsidy is equivalent to approximately one per cent of total farm costs for most farms. I do not know what the definition 'for most farms' is intended to mean. In Western Australia the subsidy represents between 7 and 9 per cent of total farm costs for all farms and between 13 and 15 per cent for wheat belt farms in Western Australia. It also ought to be pointed out that, while the amount of subsidy is modest, it is, as I understand it from my reading of the figures, the largest single item of Commonwealth assistance to industries in the rural sector. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) concedes, the farm sector suffers cost imposts arising from protection of secondary industries, by tariffs, bounties, quotas and other mechanisms, of between $7,000 and $9,000 per farm per annum, depending, of course, on whose figures one uses-those of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the National Farmers Federation or the Minister. Regrettably, the lack of time denies me an opportunity to detail what is probably the most significant factor in the level of phosphate costs at the farm gate. However, in the short time available I will pursue my line of thought to the extent of considering the burden carried by the rural sector of the Australian National Line's monopoly on the cartage of rock phosphate from Christmas Island to Australia. The agreement between the Australian Phosphate Corporation Ltd and the Australian National Line is estimated to have increased freight rates for rock phosphate shipped under the agreement by over $20 a tonne in 1984-85. Based on 1983-84 production levels, this is expected to cost the Australian farmers $18m per year for the period of the agreement, provided the freight differential is passed on to the farmers as an addition to the subsidy presently provided under this legislation. It is worth noting that as far back as 1981-82 the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd, as it was then known, stated in its annual report that phosphate freight costs from Florida to Australia were substantially lower than those between Christmas Island and Australia. Given the comparative distances, it is extraordinary that one could import phosphate from Florida at a price significantly lower than that from Christmas Island. Senator Button —From Fremantle to the north of Western Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No; I was talking about freight from Christmas Island to Australia. Senator Button —No; if you take it from Fremantle to the north of Western Australia it costs more than to get it from Florida. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it costs more to get wheat from Fremantle to Victoria than from Florida to Australia, thanks to the Australian coastal navigation legislation, ANL's monopoly and the subsidy supplied by the taxpayers. Senator Button —I did not want to set you off, Senator. I was just trying-- Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is Senator Button trying to help my argument? The final IAC report has yet to be received, but the question of tariffs, bounties and quotas, as I am sure Senator Button will agree, is a very complex subject which cannot be properly approached in a piecemeal fashion; it requires a uniform approach. Causes and effects will, of course, interact until governments are bold, courageous and prepared enough to tackle this politically sensitive question. They will continue to distort our economy and the allocation of our resources, both financially and physically. The other matter before us is the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill. Without going through its purpose, which has been dealt with by Senator Collard, I believe that continuation of the rural adjustment scheme is imperative, given the present extreme difficulties faced by the rural sector. The fundamental problem faced by farmers is one of spiralling costs resulting in ever declining terms of trade. In only three years the ratio of prices received to prices paid has declined from an annual average of 85 in 1982-83 to the BAE's latest estimate for the 1984-85 December quarter of 80. Perhaps another way of looking at this matter is to consider the cost of generating $1 of farm income. In 1979-80, that cost a Western Australian wheat belt farmer 41c. In 1984-85 that figure rose to 61c. The problem of farm costs was clearly set out in the submission on that subject to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the National Farmers Federation. This identified one of the major costs on the farm sector as being the result of industries assistance elsewhere in the economy. This alone imposed a cost of up to $9,000 per farm. As Mr Ian McLachlan pointed out in his address to the 1985 annual conference of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia: If the farm sector's huge untapped potential is to be realised, we can no longer continue to carry the cost of inefficiency elsewhere and feather-bedding the Australian economy. That, no doubt, is a quotation which does not fall on deaf ears with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. The farm sector is extremely efficient. I think that assertion is upheld by the figures. In 10 years, the volume of rural exports has increased by 53 per cent, from an index of 66 in 1974-75, to 101 in 1984-85. The volume of rural production over the same period has increased by 20 per cent. But the benefits of increased productivity are being eroded by increased costs. Farm inflation in Australia is far higher than that of the United States of America, for example-a major competitor on rural product markets. Since 1981, for example, labour costs in Australia have increased by 42 per cent, compared with only 15 per cent in the United States. The price of fuel has increased by 40 per cent in Australia, as compared with no increase in the United States. Fertiliser costs in Australia have increased by 27 per cent, as compared with 2 per cent in the United States. How can we expect to compete? Overall, since 1980-81 United States farm cost inflation has been 14.5 per cent, as compared with 33 per cent here. Furthermore, Australia's farm inflation rate is expected to rise by a further 6 per cent this year, as compared with less than 3 per cent in the United States. By contrast, the prices of most rural commodities on international markets are expected to remain subdued during the coming year. The international market is oversupplied, after record production of some crops in recent years, with high stock levels also on hand. Demand for agricultural products is unlikely to increase significantly because of the high levels of international debt in developing countries. That, in itself, is a matter for another long and complicated debate. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that average prices received by Australian farmers will increase by 5 per cent in 1985-86. This fails to match the forecast increase in the price of farm inputs of 7 per cent; hence farmers' terms of trade are expected to decline by a further 2 per cent. For the individual farmer, this translates into yet another decline in profitability. Farm incomes are expected to decline by 14 per cent-a very sad figure-in 1984-85, with a further decline in real terms of 12 per cent in 1985-86, according to the BAE. In Western Australia, a run of up to 10 poor seasons in some areas, and eight in most areas, combined with the crippling effects of the cost-price squeeze, has resulted in an average level of wheat belt farm debt of $170,000 per farm, and in many cases over $1m. The rate of return, quite naturally, on those figures at least, including capital appreciation, on an average Western Australian broad acre farm in 1983-84 was only one per cent. Farm income per family farm for the same year was $11,592-and that is farm income per family farm, not per individual. Those sorts of figures well illustrate the need for rural adjustment assistance. I think the point made in the submission to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly Select Committee on Rural Hardship by the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia in February 1984 is worth noting. It said: It cannot be stressed too strongly that the adverse terms of trade facing agriculture . . . combined with successive droughts in many areas throughout the State is threatening the very survival of many producers. It is ironic that on the one hand the weather is destroying the wheat growers in Western Australia and, on the other hand, the Federal Government is destroying the dairy farmers in the eastern States. I do not think this Government has made a serious effort to tackle the problems facing farmers in the area in which it is able to do so-the area of farm costs. Senator Button —Subsidise them heavily in one place and not in the other? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am just saying that it is ironic that, whether it is by the gift of God-- Senator Button —You are a real dry. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I made it quite clear in the debate on the dairying Bills that I believe that the adjustment was accepted by the industry, the community and the Opposition. It is just the brutal distortion and dislocation that has been cast upon the industry by the Government that has been difficult to accept. Had common sense prevailed and had the Government been realistic enough I am sure that the adjustment could have taken place smoothly and properly without the sort of disruption that the Government is seeking to impose upon the industry. The National Farmers Federation in its submission on farm costs found that the institutional factors which contribute substantially to the problems relating to Australian farm costs are mainly a function of five government activities, the first being industry protection which, as I have already said, is costing each farm up to $9,000 per annum. Other factors include excessive spending and borrowing at Federal, State and local government levels, which pushes up the level of interest rates, and an inflexible labour market. The National Farmers Federation estimates that Australian farm labour costs are about 20 per cent higher than those in the United States of America and, of course, the high labour costs are reflected in a whole range of goods and services. I mention the over-regulation of services such as transport, to take just one example. The resultant increase in freight costs in the grain industry alone is estimated to be $112m. The final factor is the level of government taxes and charges at both Commonwealth and State levels. For the information of Senator Button, I do not exclude Liberal governments from that criticism. This issue was also examined by the Western Australian Legislative Assembly Select Committee on Rural Hardship. The Committee believed that there was a strong case for: . . . a full review of all forms of government charges to country dwellers, farms and businesses . . . (and) an examination as to what relief can be given to country areas in government charges, given the difficult economic circumstances and outlook faced by agriculture. Certainly, the Committee was in no doubt as to the seriousness of the situation, describing itself as: . . . mindful of the possibility of a collapse of agriculture in the marginal wheat belt and low productivity new land areas should the terms of trade and seasonal conditions not show improvement in the near future. The failure of this Government to take action to ease the cost pressures on farms has had very serious implications for the rural sector and therefore for the total Australian rural economy. The rural sector in 1983-84 contributed something like 37 per cent of Australia's total export earnings, to the value of $8,516m. In the same year, it contributed six per cent of gross domestic product, with the gross value of rural production being $15,091m. Export earnings are vital, particularly in view of Australia's level of external debt. In 1983-84, interest payments alone on our external debt were of the order of $3,400m, representing 12 per cent of export receipts, compared with $1,000m or 4.5 per cent of export receipts in 1979-80. Total debt service payments, that is, principal plus interest, accounted for 28 per cent of export receipts in 1983-84 compared with 8 per cent of export receipts in 1979-80. Perhaps the most significant figure is not the decline in export dollars earned by the rural sector but the increase in the level of debt repayments by this Government. The magnitude of the cost squeeze faced by agricultural producers is now such that increasing numbers will be forced to leave the industry. While the rural adjustment scheme has an important role to play, both in aiding farmers who will be viable in the long term and those who are being forced out of the industry, the most pressing requirement of the rural sector is that the Government act to contain farm costs and prevent a further decline of the agricultural industries. I believe that can be done by a sensitive, understanding, pragmatic approach by this Government to the rural sector, recognising the fundamental and vital role that it plays in the Australian economy and, therefore, accommodating it accordingly. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.11) —I thank honourable senators for their support of the legislation. I have only a couple of things to say by way of comment. It is true, as Senator Collard said, that there has been an interim report from the Industries Assistance Commission and there will be a final report later this year in relation to fertilisers. The Government, conscious of the pressures which the farm community is under, particularly wheat growers, has moved to extend the bounty, or subsidy, in its existing form. As honourable senators will know, the IAC, in suggesting the removal of the subsidy, suggested some other things which might be done to help the manufacturing sector of the fertiliser industry which is also plagued by severe problems. The Government will be looking at those things in the context of the final IAC report. I make it clear that, however many complaints there might be about costs and however desirable imported fertilisers might be to provide a competitive environment for fertilisers, it is in the long term interests of this country, I think, that we retain a satisfactory fertiliser industry. Those matters, particularly the proposal of the IAC for a bounty on phosphoric acid, will be looked at in the context of the final IAC report. Senator Crichton-Browne gave us a long discourse on the problems and tackled this Government for its failure to relieve farm costs. Any government can be tackled for that from time to time. One very important item vital to farm costs is the inflation rate, which has halved since we came into government. Senator Crichton-Browne —Not farm inflation rates. Senator BUTTON —Senator Crichton-Browne went on with all those gobbledegook figures. Senator Crichton-Browne —They might be gobbledegook to you because you don't understand them. The average farmer understands them. Senator BUTTON —No. Anybody can cite any figures to prove anything about any particular sector of the economy. The figures on farm incomes are always horrendous, even at the best of times, because they always include marginal farms which perhaps would not be there if the rural reconstruction process were as rational as it ought to be. Senator Crichton-Browne can go on with those figures and argue all those things. I am not saying that there are not very severe problems in certain sections of the rural sector, but I just say that all these things sometimes have to be treated with a critical analysis and a note of caution. Having said all those things, I am very conscious of some of the issues raised by Senator Collard and, to a lesser extent, by Senator Crichton-Browne relating to transport costs and so on. They are major problems for this country. They are major national problems, but they cannot be addressed, I am afraid, in the context of a fertiliser Bill, and I do not propose to try. I thank honourable senators for their support and commend the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill to 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 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.19) —The Opposition does not have a great deal of trouble with the greater part of the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. However, we object to certain clauses and will be moving amendments during the Committee stage. I would like to deal with those matters during this second reading debate rather than take up the time of the Senate at this late stage with a general debate about other social security matters. The area which is causing the Opposition concern and is a vital element of the Bill is the clauses relating to the amendment of the provisions for compensation in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977. The Opposition, as has the Government no doubt, has read about much discontent within both the private and public sectors concerning the escalating cost of workers compensation. Indeed, employers understand only too well the effects of compensation payments that are being felt in the cost structures of business right across the Australian community. It is one of the fastest rising expenses in any business's profit and loss account. This is being reflected in insurance premiums for workers compensation rising very rapidly, as they have done since about 1973. The rise at that time coincided with the very strong rise in wages being paid to people generally as a result of certain actions of the Whitlam Government. I would have thought that the Government would be more sensitive to these feelings at present than to introduce such rather radical changes to the compensation scheme which in fact liberalise it even further. The people of Australia are most concerned that further extensions of benefits are being made at such a difficult time in the development of the economy. Let me just cite some statistics from an article which appeared in the 6 to 12 July 1985 edition of the National Times. They read as follows: Compensation claims paid by private insurers mushroomed from $261m in 1977 to $647m in 1982-a rise of 148 per cent. Over the same period the CPI rose by only 57 per cent. That means that the cost of compensation has outstripped the rate of inflation by almost three times. The basic comparative figures for the last 10 years for public sector compensation read as follows: In 1974-75 there were 35,000 claims costing $15m; but in 1983-84 there were 54,776 claims costing $121m. That means that there has been an eight-fold increase in the amount of payments in compensation over a period of 10 years. Therefore, we feel justified in expressing our concern on this matter. We believe that there is a vast amount of Press concern. We hear many stories in the media about it. Certainly there is vast concern in the employment area. Employers are well aware of the costs of compensation. I will quote some views of the media in relation to this matter. The Australian Financial Review of 9 January 1985 stated: Serious weaknesses in the operation of the Federal employees compensation office are being reviewed by a team of consultants and officers from the Public Service Board and the Department of Social Security. Government sources expect the review, which has been running for some months, to go to the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, next month. This has led to soaring administrative costs, as well as overloading of an antiquated administrative structure for processing claims. That sums up very clearly the views of a very important financial journal in this country with regard to the Commonwealth compensation scheme. Indeed, I think it sums up the Opposition's position very clearly. That same article went on to state: The 1982-83 annual report shows a 33 per cent increase in expenditure on compensation claims from $75,610,000 in 1981-82 to $100,665,000 in 1982-83. That is a very significant rise. This legislation gives, for the first time in compensation history, a privileged position to a trade union official. Of course, it is typical of this Government that it is merely reflecting the views of the trade union movement. When the trade union movement calls jump, of course this Government jumps. We have seen that with respect to other legislation debated in the Senate this week, the Queensland arbitration system. We have seen the way in which this Government has overridden States' rights and the rights of every individual Queenslander. Of course, in due course, that will have an effect on the rights of every individual Australian. That does not concern this Government. It continues down the track of following the bidding of its trade union masters. Strangely enough, the Government has not been making clear what it intends to do about this matter but this is clearly a break in tradition. In this legislation the Government has introduced a definition of 'a trade union'. It is also prepared to give a Commonwealth employee who is also an official of a trade union cover for work done after hours when he is employing himself in the interests of the members of the union. Obviously one cannot really relate that to the direct work in which that person is engaged for the Commonwealth, but this Government sees fit to interpret the activities of such an employee as including his out of work time operations as a member of a trade union. We need to consider a few situations where this might become an issue. For instance, there is the question of travel. Such a person might be in the position of going to a meeting of a trade union in some out-of-the-way place. That might involve a great number of social activities as well. Would a trade union official in that situation be covered for compensation? Apparently under this legislation he would. What about the almost farcical situation which could arise where an employee who is a trade union official is active on a picket line against his own employer? One can imagine where that might happen. Suppose he is injured as a result of his activities against his own employer. Can he then claim compensation against that employer as a result of those activities? Is that covered by the legislation? I would like to hear from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on that point. The truth is that this Commonwealth employees scheme is very generous. It is clear that the Commonwealth is now the subject of a raid by the trade union movement which wants to get a piece of the action. The trade union leadership and members want to make sure that they are covered and perhaps they have in mind extending those coverages to other parts of the employment field as well, once this legislation is passed and the precedent has been established for the private sector. At present, if a trade union member wants to take coverage to compensate himself he can do so by insuring himself privately with private insurers. There is no reason why he should not do that. People who are members of professional organisations, who are self-employed, or who run small businesses have to do so. Why should a trade union official be selected for special treatment by the Commonwealth in these situations? It is true that the Government has been most secretive about this and has included Commonwealth compensation provisions in a rather large omnibus Bill affecting social security matters. I suppose that the Government thought the matter would be buried in this Bill and would not come to the attention of the public. The Opposition has very strong views about this and I will move amendments in the Committee stage in order to try to have those extra conditions struck out. There is no doubt that the Australian people are complaining very greatly about the cost of private sector compensation. In the last 10 years we have seen a tremendous rise in the cost to the Commonwealth of compensation payments to its own employees. These have increased eight-fold. The ironic thing is that, at the very time the Government preaches cuts in expenditure, reduces expenditure to the States, as it did yesterday, brings in an assets test in order to reduce payments to pensioners and tells us we must cut back on welfare in the community, it goes out of its way to compensate trade union officials who work as employees of the Commonwealth Government. I think that is outrageous. This Government does not practise what it preaches. Indeed, when it is under pressure from the trade union movement, as we know it always will be, the Government will always jump when the trade union movement calls the tune. It is most ironic that this Government preaches such hardship and frugality on the part of those in the community who are in greatest need and cuts expenditure right across the board, yet is prepared to reward trade union officials in such a way as it seeks to do by this legislation. The Liberal and National parties in the election campaign last year, in our policy statement, drew to the attention of the people the problems with the Commonwealth employees compensation scheme. We see it as unwieldy, administratively archaic, far too large and consequently almost out of control. We suggest, and this is written into our policy, that on our election to government we will try to examine the feasibility of laying off the compensation scheme to private insurers in the insurance market. We believe that would be a far more effective way of handling compensation problems of Commonwealth employees and it would develop a far more effective scheme for employees. At the same time we shall seek to reduce substantially the administrative costs of operating the scheme. That remains the policy of the Liberal and National parties and we will seek to implement that upon election to government. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.32) — I share some of Senator Messner's concerns about the changes that are being made via the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, particularly in Part VI related to the amendments to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The Opposition will move to delete certain words from clause 34 (c) which inserts a definition of 'trade union'. I am not particularly fussed about a definition being inserted. There has not been such a definition to date, and I gather that it is required only because clauses 35 and 37 are being inserted to amend the principal Act and refer to trade unions and trade union activities. Presumably, there needs to be a definition. Because the Opposition opposes the inclusion of clauses 35 and 37, which I will deal with together at the moment, a consequential amendment is also included. I suggest to Senator Messner that if clauses 35 and 37 are deleted, it will not matter whether clause 34 (c) stays there or not. Is that not the case? Senator Messner —We will go in that order. Senator HAINES —As I said, I share some of Senator Messner's concerns in this area. Workers compensation legislation is fairly heavily entrenched in the legal system in most Western countries. It was pioneered by Bismarck 100 years ago and spread to England and Australia. The aim of the legislation when it was first introduced was to compensate workers for loss of limbs or for other injuries which they sustained at work and which were essentially related to work. It was later extended to cover journey provisions. If a worker was injured going directly from home to work or directly from work to home, that worker would be covered if injury were sustained in the course of that travel. Although employers got a little upset about it, it seemed a reasonable extension since if the person concerned did not travel to get to work, he or she could not work in the first place. The employers argued that although they could have some control over what happened to people in their employ when they were at work, they felt a little miffed at having to pay workers compensation claims when they had no control over what happened in the employee's journey to and from work. Nevertheless, that has been part of the compensation system for a long time, and we are not arguing about that at the moment; we are arguing about the extent to which the compensation can be extended. Senator Messner raised the question whether an employee should be compensated if he or she is injured during picket line operations, presumably during lunch-time strike meetings and anything else that is involved not in the actual work for that person's employer, which in this case is the Commonwealth Government and, hence, the taxpayer, that work being part of trade union activity. I share that concern. I fail to see why if somebody whizzes off to a strike meeting at lunch-time and gets caught in a punch-up the employer should be considered liable. I am also concerned about the general extension to what takes place in an ordinary recess or an authorised recess. So far as I can gather, this is limited almost entirely to lunch breaks and tea breaks if somebody is on shift work. So far as I can work out-and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who knows far more about compensation than I, can correct me if I am wrong-if an employee takes a lunch break to which he is entitled and in crossing the road to the deli gets hit by a bus, he is compensated as part of the journey provisions that are already covered under sections 32 to 34 of the principal Act. There is apparently some sort of hiatus, I understand, if workers are injured actually at the place they have gone to. If they have crossed the road safely, have got to the deli and while buying their cheese sandwich a crazed gunman comes in and mows them down, I gather there is some question about whether they are covered. Since such an event is highly unlikely, I can see no purpose in supporting clauses 35 and 37 simply to cover that sort of contingency, or a case involving somebody strolling over to the National Library during a lunch break and having stacks drop on top of him. Activities of that sort are fairly unlikely. We have managed quite well without such provisions to date, and I see no point in extending them. So far as I am concerned, clauses 35 and 37 can fairly adequately be omitted because they unnecessarily extend the journey provisions already in the principal Act. They leave the Commonwealth Government as an employer open to all sorts of problems that can arise out of people's activities during ordinary or authorised recess if they are undertaking simply trade union activities. Clause 36 is a different kettle of fish altogether. I am not exactly sure why that has been picked up by the Opposition since essentially it extends to partially incapacitated employees who are unable to obtain suitable employment a greater benefit than at present. I presume it means that if somebody is partially incapacitated and cannot get work because of that partial incapacity, he will then be treated as if fully incapacitated. Presumably, not being able to obtain a job renders a person significantly financially embarrassed and disadvantaged regardless of whether the person is totally or partially incapacitated. I understand that there are provisions for appeal to the delegate or to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or, if a court case is involved, to the administrative decisions judicial review body if the Commonwealth Government believes that the lack of employment, despite the worker taking all reasonable steps to get a job, is due to high unemployment in the community and not to the partial incapacity. I would be interested at the Committee stage if Senator Messner could say something more about it because at the moment I see it as not a particularly draconian clause to include. I will certainly be prepared to support the Opposition's objections to the inclusion of clauses 35 and 37. If it wants to run a division on clause 34 (c) I suppose that is fair enough; it is only consequential in that it sticks in a definition of trade unions which seems harmless enough. But, while I can see that quite serious problems could arise out of the inclusion of clauses 35 and 37, I think that, given the problems of defining partial incapacity and the fine dividing line between what is partial incapacity, what is full incapacity, what is partial incapacity that is likely to render one unemployable in that or any other job or only partial incapacity that is likely to render one unemployable in that or any other job or only partial incapacity that is likely to render one unemployable in that particular area, to leave that clause will not do any great harm. I indicate now that we will support the exclusion of clauses 35 and 37. I am not quite sure how we will do it in the terms in which Senator Messner has put his amendment. Perhaps we will just oppose the clauses when we get to them at the Committee stage. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask Senator Messner whether he thinks it is really worth while worrying about clause 34 (c); the simple adding of a definition is no great hassle if clauses 35 and 37 are excluded. I do not want to spend time on what is in fact a very pressured last day talking about the rest of the amendments to what is a fairly substantial Act. I leave my remarks by saying that we share some of the concerns of the Opposition about clauses 35 and 37 and we will support the Opposition in that area. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.43) —I am pleased that there is support for the bulk of this legislation but extremely disappointed that the Opposition wishes to take out certain clauses of it which do have a strong justification. I am particularly disappointed that the Opposition will be supported in this endeavour by the Australian Democrats, who I think have forgotten yet again just who they are supposed to represent in this place. They do have, or they claim to have, some sort of constituency, I would have thought, with the working people of this country and they will not be very popular, I can assure them, with this measure. Senator Haines —It may surprise you to know, Minister, that we can probably live with that. Senator GARETH EVANS —It would not surprise me a great deal, knowing the way in which they juggle principle and popularity on an almost daily basis. I deal first with clause 36 in which the Australian Democrats do share our desire not to go along with the Opposition. This clause, which the Opposition seeks to remove, makes it possible for partially incapacitated employees, who nonetheless are unable to obtain suitable employment, to be treated for the purposes of social security benefits as though they were totally incapacitated. I draw to the attention of the Opposition that, on the advice available to me, the number of cases falling into this category-Senator Haines may even be interested in this-identified in section 36 is only around six per annum in the whole of the country. Senator Messner —You don't think that number will grow as a result? Senator GARETH EVANS —The number of identified cases of partially incapacitated people, where their prospects of obtaining a job are so impossible that it is a simple matter of justice that they be properly compensated, is very low indeed. No doubt more claims might be made but, in terms of the criteria that would be applied to those claims, I am advised that the numbers would still be very low indeed. I do not want to repeat all this at the Committee stage so perhaps Senator Messner might take this on board and contemplate withdrawing his amendment in that respect. I should think there is hardly anything wrong with it in principle and in practice it is not likely to bankrupt this or any future Treasury. As to clauses 35 and 37 for which the 34 (c) definition of 'trade union' is consequential, what we are talking about here is basically clarifying existing law, making it clear that it is properly a matter reasonably incidental to one's employment to go to buy a sandwich during a recess with the consequent travel backwards and forwards to the sandwich shop in so acting. That is a situation which, in the absence, regrettably, of a no fault liability system in this country at the moment, is compensable only for a person who is injured in such a situation if there is a liability to be compensated arising under the terms of the relevant compensation legislation. The main point I want to make here is that I am advised and believe that provisions of the kind contained-perhaps Senator Haines will listen to this too-in clauses 35 and 37 are not as unique as is being claimed. I am advised that provisions of this kind are the norm in workers compensation legislation right around the country so far as coverage during ordinary work break recesses is concerned. It is certainly the norm in New South Wales, I am advised, and I believe it is the situation elsewhere. So far as the specific provision being written in as it is in clause 35 (5C) for trade union officials acting on behalf of their employees to be covered during their absence from the work place, I am advised that there is a specific provision to that effect in New South Wales. Elsewhere in the country such a situation would have to be governed by the ordinary principles of compensation law which say that someone is entitled to compensation where the activity in question arises out of or in the course of the employment, which is construed by the courts as meaning activities reasonably incidental to employment. Thus, where someone, being a job delegate or a shop steward, goes to a trade union meeting on behalf of that union's members-this is the sort of situation this legislation aims to address-it is pretty clear that, as a matter of normally applicable compensation law around the country, the person would be entitled to compensation in those circumstances. Senator Messner —Do you include picketing and those kinds of activities? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not necessarily saying that but certainly where a person is acting on behalf of the union members. It would be a matter for interpretation under the existing law as it is a matter for interpretation in this clause as to how that would be construed, that is, whether the activity relates to the representation of the interests of the trade union. I am not sure whether a picketing activity would be construed as a representative activity for the purposes of the operation of this clause. I do not deny that there may be arguments about those borderline cases but what the legislation is basically designed to do is to give some fairness and justice and compensation to the very common situation of a work place union representative representing his members' interests in union activities which occur outside the location of that work place. I ask the Democrats in particular, but also Senator Messner, to contemplate the extent of the damage that would really be done by removing this clause. I do not see that it adds significantly-at best, it adds only marginally-to the kinds of compensation provisions which presently apply in Commonwealth law. Clauses 35 and 37, when read together, very much bring it into the mainstream of compensation law and practice as it operates around the rest of Australia. There is really nothing much more I can say and, given the time, I do not want to. I do not want to repeat myself at the Committee stage. I simply hope that, the arguments having been canvassed in those terms, it will be understood that this is not just a pro-trade union clause which is being put in as some sort of sop to the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the Government's trade union constituency. It is an attempt to clarify and define the rights of members in the work place and to ensure that no injustice is done and that no compensation is denied when someone is acting in a way that is associated with ordinary employment activity and which involves activity reasonably incidental to that employment relationship. Accordingly, I urge that the Bill be passed intact, without those provisions taken out. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 33-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 34 (Interpretation) Motion (by Senator Messner) agreed to: That consideration of clause 34 be postponed until after consideration of clause 37. Clause 35 (Employment to include attendance at certain places) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.51) —I will not take the time of the Senate by reiterating the arguments we mentioned in the second reading debate and to which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) referred in his reply. However, I am afraid that the Opposition is not convinced by the arguments of the Government and we will be pressing our amendment, which is to oppose clause 35. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.52) —I simply repeat the Government's opposition to this amendment. For the Australian Democrats in particular to support this amendment would be neither right nor popular. I hope that they will contemplate the merits of the argument once again and vote to retain the clause. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A.Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O.Gietzelt, A. T. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. Missen, A. J.Chaney, F. M. Parer, W. R.Chipp, D. L. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Evans, Jack Sheil, G. (Teller)Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D.Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G.Lewis, A. W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G.Jones, G. N. Carrick, Sir JohnTate, M. C. Short, J. R.Grimes, D. J. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretMcClelland, Douglas Crichton-Browne, N. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause disagreed to. Clause 36 (Partially incapacitated employees unable to obtain suitable employment) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.58) —I note that the Australian Democrats are not as convinced to support the Opposition's amendment to oppose this clause as they were on clause 35 as Senator Haines asked about the justification for the Liberal and National parties taking a strong stand on this matter. This clause covers a situation where a person who is partially incapacitated but available for work, who cannot find work but who has undertaken certain schemes to try to rehabilitate himself, is to be treated as a totally incapacitated person and would be compensated on that basis. That is at variance with the situation where an individual who is partially incapacitated can draw other rehabilitation benefits and so on and enter rehabilitation and other schemes which will assist him to find work but on a far lower level of social security benefit-either the unemployment benefit or some other benefit. Consequently, this represents a major step forward in increasing and lifting the level of benefits for Commonwealth employees as against those in other sectors. I think the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) referred to compensation being provided in this way in other legislation, and in this respect he spoke of New South Wales. We are not convinced that that is necessarily the precedent we ought to be following in this case. In fact, we stand in total opposition to that proposition when it is remembered that so much attention is being given to the cost of workers compensation in the employment market today. The Liberal and National parties will be opposing clause 36. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.00) —I want to comment on what Senator Messner has said. The principle contained in this clause is a very sound one. It simply means this: As the legislation presently stands, a person who has an incapacity which, on medical grounds, does not completely take away his ability to work-in other words, in theory at least, he is able to do some sort of work-would get partial compensation only. The unfairness of that is that it ignores the reality of the situation for a person who, for instance, theoretically has a capacity to work but cannot do it. A typical example could be the situation of a migrant worker who injures his back and that stops him from doing the only work that he has been able to do, that is, heavy work. In theory he is able to do other work, such as clerical work or some other light work. Although he may be physically able to do it, he is not equipped to do it due to lack of experience or lack of ability. Such a person would be denied what ought to be considered proper compensation, that is, compensation for not being able to do his normal type of work. Although the incapacity from which he suffers would leave him with some physical ability to do clerical or light work, he would be unable to do the type of work he had been doing in the community. Such a person should not be thrown on the scrap heap, as it were, because no suitable job is available to him. When his incapacity has been caused by his employer it is only fair that he should be given the equivalent of the wage he has lost. Clause agreed to. Clause 37 (Journey to or from employment). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.02) —This clause relates to an earlier discussion we had during the second reading debate with regard to compensation for trade union officials. I will not reiterate those arguments. I merely say that the Liberal and National parties will oppose this clause. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.03) —I understand that, in effect, this is the second half of clause 35 and that clauses 35 and 37 arise out of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal case last year involving an Australian Broadcasting Corporation employee who was hit by a bottle which was wielded by somebody in the park he was in. I do not know whether there was any provocation or what the circumstances were. I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to indicate whether the basis for this provision is that a Commonwealth Government employee was having his lunch break and during that time somehow got involved in a fracas, and was ruled ineligible for compensation. I gather that the rest of it is as a result of requests from the Australian Council of Trade Unions that trade union provisions and activities be included in the legislation so that trade unionists are covered when they are on official union business such as, I presume, stop work meetings, picketing and what have you. They are not presently covered while engaging in such activities. I repeat what I said earlier. I do not think that such a person should be compensated, but I would like the Minister's opinion on whether the two observations I have made are correct. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.04) —For reasons I indicated earlier, the Government wants to retain this provision. We regard it as fair and just that it be there. The case that gave rise to this measure was, I understand, one where an ABC employee was asleep in a park during his lunch break and was woken up after being hit by a bottle which had been thrown by some lunatic at the sleeping figure. Some might say that they wished ABC figures slept more often. But that apart, that person was not covered because he was not engaged in any journey to or from work; he was engaged during a recess at a particular place. If he had been travelling to or from it, arguably he may have been covered under the existing law. What clause 37 is all about is trying to clarify that situation and to give rights to people, rights which otherwise, it would appear, they may not have. I hope that the Australian Democrats will think about that. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.05) —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) saying that if someone takes his lunch break at the local hotel he is covered between the time he leaves work and gets to the hotel and that he is covered, no matter what his state, between the time he leaves the hotel and the time he returns to work? Is the Minister seriously suggesting that should that person get caught up in a drunken brawl at the hotel, the Commonwealth Government as the employer, and hence the taxpayer, should pay him compensation for any injuries sustained in that pub brawl? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.06) —It is well known to most people, except obviously Senator Haines, that there are all sorts of exceptions to the circumstances for which a person can be compensated. Serious and wilful misconduct is one of the classic exceptions contained in Commonwealth legislation and would undoubtedly cover a situation of a person's participation in a brawl. I do not think we will advance matters much further with this conversation. Senator Haines and the Australian Democrats have obviously embarked on yet another populist anti-union, anti-worker enterprise of the kind with which we have become familiar, and it does not seem that reason will prevail, let alone justice. Clause negatived. Postponed clause 34 (Interpretation). Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.08) —The Opposition is concerned about paragraph (c) of clause 34. I move: (1) Page 13, paragraph 34 (c), lines 30 to 38, leave out the paragraph. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.10) —The Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill proposes to extend the bounty assistance which is currently provided to the shipbuilding industry in Australia to vessels which are constructed or modified for export from Australia. The Bill picks up the fact that the existing assistance arrangements apply only to Australian vessels. So there is a differential position to this point between ships which are built for export and ships which are built for local use. The Opposition will be supporting this legislation. It believes that the legislation is in the overall interests of Australia and of the particular industry, although we will be seeking to amend it in a way which I will indicate shortly. For those who are concerned with industry policy, particularly the element of industry policy which this Bill deals with-namely, assistance by way of bounty-the tale of assistance to the shipbuilding industry is one which has some educational aspects. There has been a very long history of assistance by way of tariff initially before the war and, since the war, largely by way of bounty and by the imposition of restrictions on the importing of vessels. There have been a number of inquiries. I suppose the unfortunate fact is that at the end of many years of government intervention and assistance we have an industry which is not in a very satisfactory shape. The present scheme of assistance followed a report from the Industries Assistance Commission in 1979. The previous Government introduced a bounty scheme which operated from July 1980 for certain vessels, a bounty which started at 27.5 per cent and which phased down to 25 per cent from 1 July 1984, to 22.5 per cent from 1 July 1985, and to the long term rate of 20 per cent from July 1986. So we are in the latter part of a period of assistance which was laid down in 1980 and with which this Bill does not significantly interfere. Rather it simply extends assistance to vessels for export. The Government, in leaving it in place, is, I suppose, acting consistently with its attitude in other areas where it has sought to avoid making changes which upset the expectations which have been aroused by the putting into place of a program over a certain period. It seems to the Opposition that as a matter of principle it should support the extension of the bounty to ships for export on the basis that, if a bounty is warranted, it is inconsistent with the view of the Opposition and, I think, of the Government that all sectors of Australian industry should be encouraged to be outward looking in their activities and to look to the export market and not merely to the satisfaction of domestic demands. If that is a general objective of policy, clearly it is inconsistent to have special assistance which relates only to a segment of industry and which encourages the Australian industry to be more inward looking. On that very broad principle, I suggest that it is necessary to support this legislation. One of the unfortunate features of the assistance scheme which has operated since July 1980 has been that it has led, not to an increase in specialised shipyards and to the development of larger productive units, but rather to the encouragement of the entry into shipbuilding by quite a large number of new concerns. Whilst it may be quite desirable that there should be people prepared to enter into the industry, when that is done on the basis of there being some public subsidy available from the taxpayer and when there is no increase in the general competitiveness of the Australian industry, I suppose it could be argued that the industry is proceeding in the wrong direction. That would be the reasoning behind the Government's move within this new legislative package to limit the number of shipyards by a new system of registration. In principle I must express, on behalf of the Opposition, some concern about the use of some form of mechanism to keep people out and to make judgments about who should be entitled to a bounty and who should not, but, given the recent history of this legislation, I think it would be unwise for the Opposition to set its face against the Government's attempts to come to grips with that problem in the way that it has. As the second reading speech makes it clear that the Government will be monitoring the effect and impact of the changes it is bringing about, we do not intend to seek to change the legislation where it provides powers to limit the payment of bounty to specified shipyards. I note that the Government has put a safety net in there for shipyards which already have registration but which might not meet all the qualifications. Obviously the industry, as well as the Opposition, will be monitoring the application of that part of the new arrangements to see that it is administered with fairness and in a way which will produce positive results. I think any examination of the industry would show that the recent report of the task force on the shipbuilding industry has isolated some of the major causes for the industry's present difficulties. Paragraph 142 of the task force's report states: . . . the basic causes for the industry's present difficulties appear to be low domestic and world demand too many actual or potential participants in the industry competitive finance packages offered by overseas yards. To some extent the proposals brought forward by the Government do meet those difficulties. They do not increase the total domestic and world demand, but presumably they do offer Australian shipbuilders the opportunity to participate more fully in whatever world demand there is for ships. The limitations on the number of participants in the industry I have already commented on. The competitive finance packages offered by overseas yards are, to some extent, matched by the bounty which is now being offered and by the possibility of export finance. The Opposition notes that in the second reading speech the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said that there have been a series of discussions between the industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and both parties have agreed they will try to achieve an industrial agreement covering a range of issues. I think even the most cursory examination of some of the shipyards operating around Australia would indicate that labour disputes, the large number of trade unions being involved, demarcation disputes and so on have been a significant contributor to the difficulties in the industry. The Opposition certainly welcomes the fact that the Government is encouraging the industry and the trade union movement to seek agreements which will reduce those difficulties. I thought when I visited the New South Wales State Dockyard that it was an excellent example of what could be done, even at the level of a particular shipyard, to get over some of the practical difficulties which are faced in this area. The agreement which has been made for that dockyard represents a significant step in the right direction. The only depressing feature of that is that, in a sense, the shipyard had to be in extremis before the agreement could be reached. From the discussions which I have had at that dockyard it is quite clear that, in a sense, the real prospect that the shipyard might have to close concentrated everybody's mind on some of the practical problems and led to them being tackled. The Government certainly has my support and encouragement in any moves it may make which will encourage the rationalisation of management within shipyards without the threat of there having to be an essential pre-condition. It appears to me that the sorts of changes which have been pursued by that dockyard-I mention it because it is one which I have had a chance to visit-are symptomatic of the sorts of changes which have to be pursued with the industry generally if it is to make a greater contribution to the Australian economy and if employment is to be maintained within it. I have indicated in general terms our support for the Bill. We also welcome the Government's indication of intention, as expressed in the second reading speech, when the Minister said: If the reports from the SCG indicate that continual progress towards rationalisation is not being achieved, the Government will review the augmented assistance package. Whether the export bounty is paid beyond the 1985-86 financial year will depend on the degree of progress achieved. Subject to the combined industry union response the Government will consider whether the general bounty assistance should also be reviewed. Given the long history of industry assistance in this area and the very real difficulties which exist, it is very wise of the Government to indicate that this change, which is generally in a sensible direction, will be subject to monitoring and that there is no guarantee of continuous assistance unless satisfactory results are being achieved. The only concern the Opposition has with respect to that proposition is that it represents no more than a statement of intent. Whilst we accept that it represents the intention of the Government and of the present Minister, we would like to see some change to the legislation which would require that intent to be translated into action and the matter to be brought back to this Parliament. I note that the Minister has put a rather tight time limit on the assessment of whether progress is being achieved as far as the export bounty is concerned. In the passage from the second reading speech I quoted the Minister says: Whether the export bounty is paid beyond the 1985-86 financial year will depend on the degree of progress achieved. The Opposition does not wish to limit the Government to too tight a timetable because the results may take some time to show. The Opposition will, in the Committee stage of the Bill, seek to amend the legislation by inserting in it a sunset clause concluding at the end of the financial year 1986-87 which would do no more than simply require the Government to come back to the Parliament pursuant to the expression of intention which has been made in the second reading speech. The Opposition will put that proposition forward simply so that the industry can see that it is not just the Government but also the Parliament which is concerned to ensure that, where substantial taxpayers' funds are provided for industry assistance, it is not done on the basis of a permanent subsidy provided just because the industry is there, but rather that the subsidy is provided with a view to giving the industry an opportunity to improve its competitive position and ability to look outwards and to pursue the objectives which are viewed by most commentators on industry as being necessary if any industry in Australia is to have a long term future. The Opposition is not under illusion about the fact that the shipbuilding industry is a very competitive industry around the world and that, at a time of low world demand, the pressures on Australian participants are very great indeed. However, there are shipyards around Australia which are showing a very good approach to meeting world competition. It is possible, given the evidence of recent years, that the Australian industry can perform better than it has done in the past. On that basis we think there should be a very clear message to the industry that the all-party support which has been given to the extension of bounty to exports and for the continuing provision of bounties to the domestic industry is given not on a basis of unqualified support and assistance but on the basis that it provides an opportunity for the industry to improve its performance, to provide greater wealth for Australia and greater employment for Australians and generally to meet our national objectives. In view of the fact that we trust this is the last day of the session, I will not prolong the debate on the Bill. It is clear that we should monitor very carefully the interventions which the Government is proposing in terms of who may participate in the industry and who may not. However, the general direction which is being set by the Government in this legislation is the general direction which we think should be taken. It is an opportunity to see whether the approach which the Government is putting forward will have the benign results we all hope that it will have. We look forward to having government acceptance of our proposal which would do no more than formalise the requirement that the Government act in a way it has indicated it will act. It would, I believe, be a very clear message to the industry that there is a degree of unanimity within the Parliament about the way that the industry needs to respond to the assistance which it is to receive from the Australian taxpayer. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.25) —in reply-I thank the Senate for the general support which has been indicated for the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1985. There is probably a fair understanding about the situation of the shipbuilding industry in this country which has had a history of decline and disaster for many years. However, we have now arrived at a situation where we have some potentially viable shipbuilders in Australia who, certainly in respect of smaller-sized vessels, can be competitive on the international market. For example, one company operating in Australia in respect of the refitting of ships competes with Singapore to refit ships for particular areas equidistant from Singapore and the Australian shipyard. Some shipbuilders have been successful in exporting significant numbers of fishing trawlers and vessels of that size to South East Asian countries in the last year or two. That is encouraging. It is because we have always had a problem in Australia about what we mean by the size of the market for which we cater our industry activities that we have provided the export bounty. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, made an interesting point when he said that the Opposition and the Parliament ought to monitor the proposals, as it were, to limit the size of the industry and the capacity of the Government to say who would be in the industry and who would not. I do not want to get involved in a philosophical discussion about that issue. The fundamental question is whether one leaves that issue to the market to sort out or whether one has a degree of intervention insofar as who will be eligible for the bounty. My view is that if one is to get value for the taxpayers' dollars, if the taxpayers are to subsidise this industry, the Government has some obligation and some necessary concern to see how the industry develops in return for that money. It is quite clear that in terms of investment and installed capacity one cannot retain an industry in Australia which has 80 different companies eligible for the bounty. It flies in the face of reality to believe that can happen. If a bounty is confined to shipbuilders who have a record of performance and so on, their performance will improve because they will then have the capacity to get a regular work flow to improve their investment and so on. Senator Chaney foreshadowed an amendment which he wants to move at the Committee stage of the Bill. In essence, the amendment inserts a sunset clause in the legislation which provides that the bounty will expire as at 30 June 1987. Senator Chaney is saying that the Parliament ought to give an indication to the industry that it cannot hang on the Commonwealth dollar for ever. Nobody could be more enthusiastic in agreeing with him about the assumptions underlying that view than I. What the Government is concerned to do is to say to an industry which has been bedevilled by industrial problems, a lot of silly problems: 'You perform. If you do not, the bounty will not be continued'. We want to give the industry a little time to do that. If the sunset clause is placed in the legislation now to say that the bounty automatically expires as at 1987-it is true that the Government can reintroduce legislation and so on-it is my view that that will have an adverse effect on investment in the industry. The lead time for building ships is quite considerable. It often takes a year or so to build a ship. It will have a very bad effect on the industry if that provision is included. I do not disagree with the intent of Senator Chaney's proposed amendment. We have set up this shipbuilding monitoring group. I have already had the first report. I am quite happy to make those reports available to Senator Chaney if he would like to see them from time to time. What that group is trying to do is to push the industry in a number of sensible directions in respect of demarcation issues and such things. The message is that if the industry does not succeed with that it is not a question of whether it will get Commonwealth money by way of bounty or not-it will not survive. We have to be frank about that. I want to see this industry survive because I think it is absurd that the largest island continent in the world does not have a shipbuilding industry. It seems wrong to me that we should not have the capacity to build ships. I think it is absolutely necessary that we retain that capacity, but it can be done only on certain conditions and not by continual subsidies from government. I remind the Senate that the bounty is phasing down. We have retained the phasing mechanisms. The bounty goes down to 22 1/2 per cent this year and 20 per cent the following year. In itself, that is a bit of a discipline to those involved in the industry. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.31) —I move: Page 8, after clause 7, add the following clause: '7A. Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended by adding after sub-section (5) the following sub-section: ''(6) Bounty is not payable in respect of the construction or modification of a vessel where that construction or modification is completed after 30 June 1987.''.'. I think it is important that in moving this amendment I make quite clear the fairly high degree of accord which appears to exist between the views the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has put forward and the views of the Opposition which underpin this amendment. Whatever the fate of the amendment, it is quite important that that closeness of view be noted and understood by the shipbuilding industry. Senator Button has expressed to me, as I recall, that he thinks that certainty and predictability are of some importance in industry policy, and that is a view which I certainly hold. I believe that, as far as it is possible in matters of this sort, the closer we can get the Government and the Opposition position the better, provided that position is an economically sensible one. In other words, I do not think the Opposition should err just for the sake of agreement with the Government, but I do think it is quite important that as far as possible we offer Australian industry-not just the shipbuilding industry-some sense of direction and some sense of certainty about what the future holds. For that reason, I welcome the way the Minister has responded to the comments I made about this amendment at the second reading stage. Fundamentally, we are picking up the point made in the Minister's second reading speech when he indicated that there would be an assessment of whether or not export bounty is paid beyond the next financial year, the 1985-86 financial year. Whether or not it will be paid beyond that year will depend, in the Minister's words, 'upon the degree of progress achieved'. As I indicated in the second reading debate, I thought that was a rather tight period for assessment an that is why the Opposition has put forward an amendment which could possibly affect the bounty after 30 June 1987. It certainly would affect the bounty if no further legislation was brought forward by the Government. My concern is that the point we have reached with respect to manufacturing industry in Australia is not a particularly good point. We have got to hell on a road which is paved with good intentions. I think it is in the interests of industry and in the interests of everybody that, where we have these good intentions expressed, they be enshrined in the law so that as far as possible we keep governments to the courses which are set. What we are essentially seeking to do is to put a clear provision in the Bounty (Ships) Act which will require the Government to behave in precisely the way Senator Button has indicated it will behave. I note that Senator Button has already expressed concern-and I make this comment now because it may avoid my re-entering the Committee debate after Senator Button has spoken-that investment in the industry might well be reduced or the prospects of investment damaged if the proposed new clause is included in the principal Act on the basis that it would produce, presumably, a degree of uncertainty about future assistance and therefore might inhibit investment. Since the Minister has said that he meant what he said in his second reading speech-that this assistance is in fact going to be subject to review-all we are doing here is putting that into a statutory form or making quite essential that that happen. Quite frankly, I would have thought that the Minister's own approach, to the extent that uncertainty could be produced, will produce the same result. The amendment is not put forward on the basis that the Opposition would anticipate a total cessation of assistance at the time specified in the amendment, but it admits to the possibility that that may happen if there is a failure by the industry to utilise sensibly the assistance which the Government is offering from the taxpayer. In putting forward this amendment there is certainly no commitment to opposition to renewed assistance. From the point of view of making the Opposition's position clear to the industry as well as to the Minister, I wish to say that the Opposition, in moving this amendment, is not saying that it opposes the extension of bounty beyond 30 June 1987. Senator Button —It would depend on how dry the Parliament was at the time. I am not saying that as a criticism. Senator CHANEY —Obviously views would differ. In response to the Minister, just as he said when he came to office that the textile, clothing and footwear industries were entitled to rely on the arrangements that were in place, on behalf of the Opposition I accept an obligation to maintain some consistency in these matters so that the industry knows where it is going. That is why I make the statement I am making now. I think the industry is entitled to know what the Opposition's view will be in the future on these matters. The Opposition is saying that it accepts the wisdom of the Government's approach that this industry should be subject to monitoring to see what degree of progress has been achieved. The Opposition would then make its judgment on continued assistance on the basis of whether or not some progress had been achieved. I do not wish to prolong the Committee debate. The Opposition believes that this amendment will make the approach of the Government a little sharper and a little clearer. We think it will improve the legislation if the addition is made. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.38) —I rise simply to indicate that, whilst having a degree of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the Opposition, my greatest sympathy and that of the Australian Democrats lies with the Australian shipbuilding industry, which is in a very delicate state at the moment. I believe that the Government's move, which is supported by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats, to have this bounty expansion, if we may call it that, is going to be not just a financial contribution to the industry but also an indication to the industry that it does have the support of the Government and that it does have the support of an alternative government. Anything which lessens that perception of support would be deleterious to that industry. We have to get the industry set on its feet, and this is a worthwhile move to have it set on its feet. The imposition of a sunset clause in this particular case would run counter to that building of confidence. Therefore, the Australian Democrats cannot be a party to reducing that confidence in an industry which is so precarious. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.40) —I indicated earlier that the Government would not accept Senator Chaney's amendment although I fully understand the spirit of it. I have had endless meetings with representatives of the shipbuilding industry and I have told them my view of what they have to do to get their act together, and I have told the unions what they have to do to get their act together. I have told them that if they do not do so they will not get everlasting assistance from this Government. I am just worried that in the eyes of the industry the question of whether it is performing well enough will become a little subjective. If we have a sunset clause put in the terms of Senator Chaney's amendment and we then have to introduce new legislation, I think that would have a worse effect on their much improved performance. I disagree with the amendment on matters of style, not on the substance, but we do not accept it for that reason. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.41) —I certainly do not wish to prolong the debate. I will not call a division on the amendment I have moved, given the indication from the Australian Democrats. I will take two minutes-instead of the seven or eight minutes a division would take-to say a couple of things. I stress that our support for the Bill generally and not just the amendment, really rests on a series of points. I remind the Committee that, unless issues such as wages policy and, perhaps even more importantly in this industry, labour practices are addressed, it seems to me that there is very little likelihood of progress. Looking at the cost structure of the industry, unless the need for a generally more competitive, lower cost economy is addressed by the Government in a multiplicity of ways, there will again be difficulties. Any assessment of how well the industry is performing will have to be judged in part against the overall framework which the Government presents to the industry itself. I commend the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for his very active involvement in all of those areas of Government policy which touch on the costs of industry in Australia and on the need for Australia to be-- Senator Button —You're just trying to make it hard for me. Senator CHANEY —I am trying to make it hard for the Minister because it seems to me that the more one looks at his responsibilities, the more one realises that for him to succeed he needs a great deal of assistance from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and, probably, not least, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Senator Button —And 14 others. Senator CHANEY —And many other areas of government that impact on the costs and efficiency in the industry. All that I am saying is that, while there is an assessment of the progress that industry makes, it might likewise make a very hard assessment of the progress that the Government is making in improving its competitive position in the other areas that impact on shipbuilding and indeed in all sectors of manufacturing industry. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.45) — There is already a Sports Commission in existence. It operates within the Department of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). The legislation before us-the Australian Sports Commission Bill-has been introduced to create what will basically be another quango. I note that my colleague Senator Peter Rae is on the speakers list. Anybody who knows Senator Peter Rae will be under no illusion as to what he wants to talk about in regard to this Bill. Another quango-who needs it? It might be said also that this quango is being formed without any consultation with the Confederation of Australian Sport or interested sporting groups. One would have thought that the Government would have learnt its lesson. It has been in all sorts of problems in the last few weeks because of legislation which has been introduced without consultation-without consultation with ex-service groups, with rural industry groups and so on. Here is another example of the Government that says it governs by consensus not talking to people who will be affected by its policies. One Chairman of the Commission and no less than 10 and up to 20 commissioners will be appointed by the Minister. Undoubtedly they will be sportsmen, but they will not necessarily be sports representatives or representatives appointed by different sporting bodies around Australia. Senator Jack Evans —And sportswomen. Senator COLLARD —I stand corrected. There might even be some sportswomen, as my colleague Senator Jack Evans says. The Australian Sports Commission will also be empowered to set up a company called the Australian Sports Aid Foundation to collect donations. It has been hinted that those donations may be tax deductible. This would provide an unfair advantage to the Sports Aid Foundation and the Australian Sports Commission. Anybody who wants to donate money to other sporting bodies would probably not do so because of this unfair advantage given to the Sports Aid Foundation. The Government is setting up an organisation and all money is to be channelled to that body and then disbursed with largesse and, possibly, political patronage, at that organisation's will. That is a frightening concept. It is interesting that the Government has received a report from the interim committee appointed to advise on the Australian Sports Commission; yet we cannot find out what is in that report. Under the Freedom of Information Act the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr Charles Blunt, applied for a copy of that report, but could not get it. My colleague in the Senate, Senator Puplick, also applied for it under FOI, and he could not get it. I shall read to the Senate an excerpt of a letter from the Hon. John Brown to Senator Puplick in which he said: The report you have requested is a confidential report to Government. Accordingly I have decided to refuse your request on the grounds that the document is an exempt document under Section 36 (1) of the FOI Act because its disclosure would be contrary to public interest. Many of the matters dealt with in the report are still current and have potential policy significance and the release of the report would compromise the effectiveness of the decision making processes of government in this area. One can only wonder at what is in this report that the government of the day does not want us to see, particularly before that new qango, the Sports Commission, is brought into operation. Senator Peter Rae —It is a very secretive Government. There are a number of those sorts of replies to requests for information. Senator COLLARD —I say to Senator Rae that, as I recall it, the present Government was hell bent on bringing in the FOI Act when it was in opposition. It was part of its philosophy. Yet it is hiding behind confidentiality provisions of the Act. The Confederation of Australian Sport has obviously been by-passed. That organisation is already in existence and is made up of representatives from most of the sporting groups in Australia. This qango seeks to displace the Confederation of Australian Sport. As I have said, one of the most frightening aspects of this Bill is that the Australian Sports Commission is open to political patronage. We are setting up a qango under the direct control of the Minister. The Chairman and the commissioners will all be appointed by the Minister. One can only wonder and worry about that. In times past sport has been used by totalitarian regimes for political purposes. I hope we will not get to that stage in Australia. One can only wonder and be concerned that this Commission has to be appointed by the Government when in reality the Confederation of Australian Sport could act as a Federal representative body for the sports men and women of Australia. The coalition is completely opposed to this Bill and will be opposing it at the second reading stage. The coalition has a policy that says: A Coalition Government would establish a Federal body to be an autonomous independent adviser on sport and recreation. It would be representative of national sporting organisations and charged with providing the forum to stimulate national levels of participation and achievement in sport and recreation. This body would be autonomous and advise the Government of long term policies and programs to develop the diverse needs of the Australian community at all levels. It would not have an administrative or interventionary role. There is a very basic difference between the coalition policy and the policy of this Government. I find that the Government's policy does not sit too well. It seems to reek of double standards. We subject rural industry to 'market forces or market signals', yet we will not do that to secondary industry. Now sport is being almost socialised; it will be brought under a Commission which will be appointed and run by the Minister. As I indicated, we will be opposing the Bill at the second reading stage. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(11.51) —I rise to speak in strong support of the Australian Sports Commission Bill. As a preamble, I say that it is important to know the history of the Government's relationship with sport in this country. For a comprehensive understanding of that history, I refer honourable senators to the House of Representatives Hansard of 9 May 1985, page 1996, where that history is well spelt out by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in his second reading speech. I do not intend to go through it in detail at this stage. I was interested to note Senator Collard's remarks at the conclusion of his speech that he sees the idea of ministerial control over the Australian Sports Commission as a threat or a problem. I wonder whether he would see that if he were in government. There is, I think, a very peculiar line in what he argues; that if the Labor Party is in power we have political influence to the point of whatever 'socialism' means when Senator Collard uses it in that pejorative way but when the Liberal Party is in power all is freedom and light! I would be interested to know, if and when he is in government, whether the Liberal Government would abolish the Australian Sports Commission and revert to the practice of previous Liberal governments in dealing with sport, particularly during the 1970s when funding for sport was erratic and unreliable, almost to the point of non-existence. Mr John Brown, in his speech, clearly and extensively paid tribute to the Hon. Bob Ellicott for his formation of the Australian Institute of Sport and for what he did for sport under his portfolio in the previous Government. I wonder whether Senator Collard has taken the time to speak to Bob Ellicott about the Liberal policy on sport. It is interesting that this legislation spells out very clearly the functions, aims and objectives of the Commission and also defines clearly the powers and responsibilities of the Minister. It makes no apology for the fact that the Commission will operate within the framework of overall Government objectives and policies guided by a strategic plan to be approved by the Minister. That would pertain to any Liberal government, just as much as it does to the Labor Government. To suggest that Labor Ministers are dishonourable and that Liberal Ministers would not behave in the same way, or would be honourable or somehow quite different, is to misunderstand altogether the operation of ministerial responsibility in the Westminster system of government. I object to that slur on the Government. I support the Bill because it formally confirms this Government's commitment to the promotion of sport, not only at the elite level but also at the level of broad participation in the community. The Bill aims to provide clear guidelines and objectives for the promotion of sport in the community. It acknowledges the importance of sport as a morale booster for individuals and for the country, and promotes health and fitness for every member of the community. Sport also plays a very important part as an industry, in hard economic terms. There are now many jobs associated with sport and it is clear that that number of jobs is growing. It is clear also that media coverage of sport is an acknowledgment of the increased finance associated with sport. It is argued that in some ways sport is big business and no longer recreational. The Government's Australian Sports Commission Bill spells out quite clearly the understanding of the difference between those two readings of sport and the importance of promoting both, but not one at the expense of the other. The Commission builds on the Australian Institute of Sport, which, while it is excellent, promotes sporting achievements only at the level of excellence in this country. This is an insufficient understanding of sport as this Government sees it. Sport is also to be provided for everybody in Australia who wishes to participate in sport in a recreational way. In fact, the Sports Commission now has registered organisations under its umbrella which cover something like five million to six million Australians. I quote from the Minister's second reading speech in the House of Representatives: A study into recreational fishing-one of Australia's most popular sports-- on the numbers available to the Commission- identified a $2 billion contribution to the economy. 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. So sport cannot be treated as something on the side, or a minor distraction for people. Sport is big business, jobs, a considerable contributor to our economy and, very importantly, contributes to the good health and morale of the nation. As honourable senators would know, I have just passed to the Government a report of the Working Group on Women in Sport that I convened. That report was tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate last week. The principal recommendation in that report was that a Women's Sports Promotion Unit be established under the auspices of the Sports Commission and that that unit be answerable to the Minister. I find it quite interesting that the recommendation of the Working Group on Women in Sport is very much in sympathy with the guidelines of the Australian Sports Commission Bill before us today. I sincerely hope that the Government, in addressing that report, will find its way clear to adopt the central recommendations of the Working Group on Women in Sport; not only because I think it is very important that women's sport be given adequate coverage and funding, which to this point it has not been given, but also because the report of the Working Group on Women in Sport very much promotes the idea of sport at the level of excellence and sport at the level of community participation. The views of the Working Group on Women in Sport very much match the aims and objectives of this piece of legislation before us today. Our Working Group found a number of points that I think would be relevant to the Commission, and no doubt the Commission is under way in addressing those. One of the things the Working Group on Women in Sport noted was the insufficiency of hard data about the number of people participating in sport, the number of jobs and dollars involved in the sport economy, the levels of funding from all tiers of government and the criteria which the media use in covering women's sport. It is interesting to note that there are five women commissioners on the Sports Commission. We acknowledge the presence of five illustrious women on the Commission. We also alert the Minister to the fact that five women out of 20 commissioners is not as representative as some of us would like to see. We certainly acknowledge the representation and presence of women on that Commission. I hope that the Commission-of course, this means not only the women but also the men on that Commission-and the Women's Sports Promotion Unit, if and when it comes into existence, will look at the promotion of women's sport. At the moment women's sport does not have equitable access to funding or equitable access to training provisions, coaching and so on. Nor does women's sport have equitable access to medical coverage. Nor is there the acknowledgment of women's sport in our society that the majority of men's sports have been given. I would have thought that the aim of an increased and more equitable coverage of women's sport would not only be an aim of our working group but an aim very much at the heart of the Commission. It is my understanding that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and Minister Brown, in tabling the report, made it very clear that they had considerable sympathy with the recommendations in the report. I have always found Minister Brown very supportive of promoting not only women's sporting achievements but also all sporting achievements. I feel pleased not only to add those words about the recommendations of the Working Group on Women in Sport but also to stand today to support this legislation. I am very happy to urge honourable senators to support it. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.02) —I think it is a red letter day for sport on both sides of this chamber as the Australian Sports Commission Bill passes through its stages. I would like to pay tribute to former Minister Ellicott who had the courage, initiative and drive to get a new direction for sport in this country. That direction incorporated the creation of the Australian Institute of Sport which gave incentive and motivation to sports people around Australia to come together, to work together and to recognise that we were a long way behind in the international sporting sphere. The Institute allowed these people to work with each other, with the scientists, coaches, educators and all the people who were able and willing-who have always been willing-to assist sports people in this country to improve their performance. In particular, the creation of the Institute helped those at the top of their sport, an area in which we have tended to fade away after the 1956 Olympics in this country. The new directions have been carried through at both national and State levels. I think it is great to see bodies such as the Western Australian Institute of Sport created and developing. Hopefully it will be the model for other State institutes of sport in this country. However, we have to allow the structure, the organisation, the administration of sport and government's awareness of what is going on in sport to grow with those things. I believe this Bill will achieve that. It was disappointing to discover when listening to Senator Collard from the National Party of Australia how little understanding that Party has of how sport functions in Australia. We have to recognise that in sport, not only on the playing field but also in the administration of sport, those competitive instincts come out. We have very aggressive people concerned with the administration of sport. This is understandable. Aggression and drive are what makes them very successful sports people. Therefore, we will not have a lovely homogeneous group of people we can put together and say that that is the model representative of sport. What we need is the advice of a broad spectrum of people who can speak on behalf of sport. I think the group of people selected by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) as commissioners on the Australian Sports Commission are an admirable group representative of sport at all levels and most facets of sport in this country. What they are going to have to do is to give the Government consistent advice. They will have to find consensus amongst themselves while recognising that the input they will be getting will be conflicting. There will always be conflicting advice on sport. There will always be conflicts, for example, between Commonwealth representatives and State representatives-those people who want more powers for the States and those who want more powers for the Commonwealth. There will always be conflict between larger States-those who get too much of the cake-and the smaller States-those who are left in an underprivileged position so far as facilities for their sporting contestants are concerned, simply because their populations cannot support better facilities. Whether we have conflict among sporting groups themselves or between the two major groups I perceive in sport, that is, the professional entertainment sports groups on the one hand and, on the other hand the participative or amateur sports groups, they have vastly different needs. There must be an input and awareness of those contrasting needs provided to this Government through its Minister. As I see it, that is the point of having the Australian Sports Commission appointed. In this country we have to look to a growing, developing and, one would hope, improving, future for sport and sports people. We have to set this at the international level because we must endeavour at all times to set the example, for those who come into sport, of the peaks of performance possible for those sports people who have the joy of representing our nation overseas or representing the nation within Australia. We also have to look to the future in terms of the needs of recreational sport. Recreational sport is growing. It is a vital area that will require government input and government decisions. It is not a matter of socialising sport. It is a matter of providing some structure and support for the millions of people who will want to get into sport, in the next few years in particular. It is wonderful to see that area of sport growing. It produces a healthy nation and gives us a degree of pride in our nation. We have to get more participants in sports. Sad though it might be to a government trying to prune the Budget, one of the ways to get more participants is to provide better and more appropriate facilities. That is where the Commission will come in. It will consider appropriate facilities appropriately located. It will look after appropriate sporting groups. I stress that when we say we are seeking more participants we do not want just macho male participants, although we certainly want them, who are represented overseas as the image of Australian sports people. We have another very highly regarded group of sports people who cannot be seen as macho males. I am referring to our disabled sports people who have given us a reputation in a certain sector of sport which this country needs to recognise and give full praise to. We need to recognise not just those disabled sports people but also those who support them. I stress that it is not just disabled people who need to get into sport and get the benefits of sport. We want more juniors in sport. We want to provide the facilities and opportunities for juniors to get into sport, particularly non-competitive sport, in primary schools. I hope that is one of the things that the Commission takes on board very early so that there is at least one sport open to every child in this country. Certainly there is a great enough variety of sports to allow every child to get into a sport that he or she will enjoy participating in. We want also to find a solution to the problem of how to keep our teenagers in sport when other things pull them away just when they are developing and at a time when sport will benefit them and be benefited itself by their participation. As Senator Crowley indicated a few moments ago, we need to give women a fair go in sport. They have not had a fair go up until now. Let us hope that the 'Women, Sport and the Media' report will ensure that women get the recognition and support to enable them to participate and enjoy sport, not just as girls or teenagers, but as they have their children and grow older. Talking about growing older, one of the things I have witnessed recently-I hope it develops immensely across Australia-is the return to sport and the staying in sport of the so-called veterans. These are the older people who get great benefits not just from participating in the sport itself but also from its social aspects which older people, particularly lonely older people, can get from continued participation in sport or from taking up new sports which are available to them. I commend the Bill. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate that it has our wholehearted support. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(12.10) —I am very sorry that the Australian Democrats are supporting the Australian Sports Commission Bill. When I spoke last night I showed how, inevitably, government interference in the health care industry has led to the confrontation which exists today. That confrontation will continue until the Government retreats from the health area. I do not know when we will ever learn. In this case, the Government is moving into the sports business. This will inevitably lead to confrontation and problems in the sports industry. Honourable senators have talked about experience in the administration of sport. I have been involved, in the last 10 or more years, in a major sporting body. I have been Vice-President of the Queensland Lawn Tennis Association and the President of the Greater Brisbane Hardcourt Tennis Association. We are affiliated with the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia. It is an enormous organisation. We handle local competitions, interstate competitions, international competitions, visiting exhibitions and the development of junior players, eminently successfully. We have players travelling around the world. We are developing junior players whom the whole nation will be proud of very shortly. I am also a foundation member of the Queensland Cricket Association and the Queensland Rugby Union and I have watched them develop. There is an organisation of major sporting bodies in Australia today that co-ordinates all its own activities. I ask the Democrats whether they can name one sporting body that supports the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission. The Western Australian Institute of Sport, which is a State government instrumentality, does not support its establishment. Senator Jack Evans —That is not true. Senator SHEIL —That is what Senator Jack Evans says. That Institute wants money from the Federal Government and nothing else. It does not want the control that is embodied in this Bill. The largest sporting organisation, the Confederation of Australian Sport, has not been consulted. I must say, having been involved in the administration of a major sporting body, that I cannot recall any consultation on the Australian Sports Commission until the last couple of months when there was panic and pandemonium about how the Commission would move in and take over the administration of sporting bodies. Of course, many sporting bodies have not lobbied against the Australian Sports Commission out of fear. When I have contacted them I have found that they have been afraid to lobby against it for fear of reprisals by a vindictive Minister once the Commission is brought into being. They say: 'Oh well, if it is to come we do not want to be nominated as the people who fought against it because we are only little sporting bodies'. There is, as has been said in the Senate, a mosaic pattern of sport in Australia. For example, we do not do a lot of skiing in Queensland and people in Tasmania do not do much swimming. Rugby is confined to two or three States and Australian Rules is confined to the southern States. In the overall administration by the Australian Sports Commission I can very well see a bureaucrat saying: 'We have to have economies of scale'. Bureaucrats talk about economies of scale in all other areas, including health administration, in Australia. Economies of scale always backfire. I can hear the bureaucrats saying: 'We will concentrate on swimming in Queensland and on hockey in Perth'. Senator Peter Rae —Cycling in Tasmania. Senator SHEIL —Yes. In other words, they would have specialised centres for different sports throughout Australia which would rob young sportsmen of their opportunities in all other areas. Why would people play hockey in Queensland if Western Australia were the hockey centre for Australia and nobody was concentrating on it in Queensland? Senator Jack Evans —Would you rather have it all centralised in Canberra? Senator SHEIL —I am against that too. I can see that if the Australian Sports Commission centralised sports in different areas of Australia and took the creme de la creme for Canberra that would have a further disruptive effect. Senator Jack Evans —So you don't think we should have an Australian Institute of Sport? Senator SHEIL —No, we should not. We would do a lot better without it. Senator Jack Evans —It was created by the Fraser Government, of course. Senator SHEIL —It was-another mistake. He missed just about every hurdle. The fears that have been expressed so far are justified. The Minister will have overriding power over the whole of the Sports Commission. I do not think it has been mentioned so far but he will take charge of all moneys that are donated to sport. He will do that by means of tax deductibility of donations to sport. Who will give money to sport if it is tax deductible in some cases and not in others? He will create a vortex down which all money given to sport will go. In other words, he will syphon off into the Australian Sports Commission money which otherwise would have gone to one sport. By ministerial fiat he can decide where it will go. Honourable senators say that Ministers are responsible and they understand. I can very well see the direction of money to sports which have been sanitised of any anti-socialist bias they might have. There will be a marshalling of sportsmen for all sorts of propaganda purposes. The Commission is to be put in the charge of a Minister who will then be given control of the whole propaganda machine of the Government. He will have control of the National Media Liaison Service, the Ministerial Media Group, the Ministerial Committee on Government Advertising and the Information Co-ordination Branch, whatever that is. The Minister will have the machinery for marshalling, for whatever purpose he wants-I see a sinister purpose-the whole of the sports industry and the propaganda industry. We know how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) discovered the use that could be made of sport. We saw him showering in champagne at the Australia II win. Senator Crichton-Browne —That was after he and Senator Walsh called Bond a crook just 12 months before in the Parliament. Senator SHEIL —That is right. All of a sudden it was 'my mate Bondy'. The Prime Minister was present at the football final, the Davis Cup and when our cricket team won the Ashes. Senator Peter Rae —You know the definition of any successful sportsman, don't you? It's the fellow standing just behind Bob Hawke. Senator SHEIL —That is right. I think he realised the political advantages that could be gained from mobilising the sports industry to use for his purposes. The authority under this Bill, plus the media machine that can be generated behind it, will be put under the one Minister. That Minister will get an enormous amount of money through the tax deductibility of donations to sporting bodies. He will be able to syphon that money off. He will be the sole person who decides the distribution of those funds. If the Democrats cannot see the danger to sports administration, particularly with the mosaic pattern of sport in Australia, I think they will leave us a very sad legacy by voting for the Australian Sports Commission Bill. The Bill was rammed through the House of Representatives. That should have been sufficient warning for the Democrats of the urgency with which the Government viewed the Bill, despite cries of protest. The Government says that the legislation will bring co-ordination to sport and that it will draw sports together-reconciliation and consensus. It will not do any of that. Indeed, it will create great jealousies between the sports that get money and the sports that do not. I have had experience of the Government by-passing the authoritative sporting body in a State and giving money to special groups. I have seen the dislocation that that can cause in the organisation of a sport and the way it can undermine the discipline of the people who are trying to administer their sport properly. The Confederation of Australian Sport represents 122 sporting bodies, none of which is in favour of this legislation. They represent six million Australian sportspeople who are not in favour of it. We talk of sport for the disabled. People will donate, bequeath and do more for the disabled than any government will ever do. To see what government takeover of sport and the formation of elite organisations do we need only look at Iron Curtain countries. We remember the thrill we got when the young gymnasts from Romania performed. Nadia Comaneci was a delight. The only way she could escape from being a sportswoman was to overeat to get herself out of the business. It is criminal that she could not do it in any other way. This sort of thing inevitably will happen here eventually, although it may take 20 years. This has not been mentioned, but undoubtedly the Commission will create a ponderous bureaucracy at a great cost. Sporting bodies will have to apply for what they need. The Government will realise that there is a cost of administration. Much of the administration of sport at the moment is voluntary. This is one of the mistakes that the Government made with its health organisation when it brought in medical benefits. It forgot that doctors had treated free of charge all other doctors, their families, and religious people. There was enormous good will in the profession. That has been completely destroyed by government intrusion into medicine. The good will that exists in sport administration in Australia today will be destroyed by this legislation. Sport administrators everywhere will want to be paid expenses and will need national meetings to decide on the great events to be held. The Government suddenly will say: 'No, the cost is far too high. We will have to restrict things'. Instead of being a body that will expand sport, the Commission suddenly will become a body restricting sport in every area. All common sense and our learning from the history of the involvement of government in private enterprise has shown it to be a total failure. I plead with the Australian Democrats to reconsider their position and not to leave us a legacy of a body such as the Australian Sports Commission. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.24) —I speak but briefly to indicate, as have other speakers from this side of the chamber, that we strongly support the development of sport in Australia, and its importance to the country and its people. Our record is one of which we can be proud. When we were in government we increased Commonwealth funding for sport very rapidly from an almost non-existent figure when we took over after the Whitlam era, by 330 per cent in one year, 106 per cent in another year and 120 per cent and 107 per cent in other years, which is not a bad record of increase in expenditure for sport. It hardly indicates a lack of support. The creation of the Australian Institute of Sport is something for which Bob Ellicott, the former Minister responsible for sport, deserves considerable credit. It has played an important part in the development of sport in Australia. That has been one of the important steps which have been taken. However, I totally oppose the introduction of socialism into sport. I do not see any reason why it should be controlled by a quango and a huge bureaucracy, and why we should be wasting on administration a lot of money that otherwise could go to sport. That is what will happen. History shows that, as a quango is created, a bureaucracy is created and therefore an administration cost is created. When considering Appropriation Bill (No. 3) a short time ago, where did we see all the extra money going? It was going to administration. There were increases in some departments of 15 per cent and in others of 30 per cent to 40 per cent. The money was not going out to the people; it was going to administration. That is where the increases and extra costs have been going. What has happened with the Australian Sports Commission Bill? It is based on one of the most shonkey bases of constitutional power imaginable. It is based on even more shonkey claims about support from sporting bodies. We hear bitter complaints of lack of consultation on a proper basis with sport about the type and creation of yet another quango. I reiterate this Government's penchant for the creation of qangos. It has been creating them at the rate of about one a fortnight since it came to office. It is not a bad record, if one is hell-bent on creating qangos. But what was the policy the Government went to the people with? It was a policy called 'Labor and Quality of Government'. It was issued on 9 February 1983, just before the March election. It was issued by none other than Bob Hawke, the leader of the Australian Labor Party, and the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. What did it say about quangos? About the basic approach of the Labor Party, it said: As a matter of general principle, in the absence of specific and over-riding reasons to the contrary new functions of government to be carried out by ministerial departments rather than public authorities. What does this Government do in this case? It creates a public authority, a qango, to carry out the functions. In the second reading speech on this Bill, are the specific and overriding reasons to the contrary set out? No; I defy anyone to find them. The policy also said: Labor in government to concentrate its resources on making existing departments more responsive to government policy rather than seeking (in the absence of specific and over-riding reasons to the contrary) to bypass that machinery by creating public authorities. That is another aspect of the Labor Party saying that it is against the creation of qangos. Yet, since it came to power it has been creating them as if there were no tomorrow and they all had to be created today. The policy also states: As a general principle, advisory functions to be performed within the framework of ministerial departments rather than through the creation of separate public authorities, but with departments developing structures and procedures (for example advisory councils and public hearings) designed to ensure appropriate external input. But is the Government following that policy? No; it is going to create a qango. The policy goes on: In the application of these general principles, consideration to be given to the reduction of the number of statutory authorities by their absorption within ministerial departments, where this can be achieved with little disruption, of existing authorities which perform primarily administrative and advisory functions. So, is the Government implementing that part of its policy? No; it is creating yet another qango. It is another qango for which there is no logical and rational reason. The support of sport is not a matter about which there is a division of attitude; it is something upon which, I understand, all sides of the chamber are united. What we differ about is how that support should be provided, and how we should provide, in the best possible way, for the encouragement of sport in Australia. We believe that the creation of ministerial interference through the capacity to give ministerial directions, this socialisation of sport by a Labor socialist Government, is not something which will be in the best interests of sport. It is not something which will help develop sport in Australia. So the Opposition opposes this Bill, not because we are opposed to the development of sport but because we wish to see the development of sport take place in the most efficient and effective way possible, not in a way in which it will be overwhelmed by ministerial interference and bureaucratic control. That is what will happen as a result of the way in which this Sports Commission is being created. Senator Kilgariff —Big government. Senator PETER RAE —Big government. Labor parliamentarians cannot get away from wanting to have government bigger and more intrusive the whole time. The rate of growth of government has quadrupled under this Administration, and now it is creating more and more quangos all the time. I wish the Government would have some regard for its policy, in which it said that it would be curtailing the size of government, that it would be cutting out the qangos, that it would not be creating new ones all the time. I have quoted the Government's policy-but what has it done? This is another broken promise. We are dealing with another broken promise, one in the long chain of broken promises. I can imagine how Senator Peter Walsh, the Minister for Finance, feels about the idea of yet another qango being created, with all the administrative costs which will be added, which could have been avoided by using, as my colleagues have said, the voluntary services available in Australia. When they are given voluntarily, they are given usually more efficiently, more effectively, more willingly and more appropriately. I join with others in opposing the Bill for those reasons. I hope that sport in Australia will not turn out to be too adversely affected during the period that this Government remains in power, which will not be very long; then we can have another look at whether we should have a qango of this type. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.32) —At the outset, I congratulate Senators Crowley and Jack Evans on being so apolitical in drawing the Senate's attention to the contribution that the coalition parties have made to sport in Australia. I also join with my colleague Senator Peter Rae in pointing out that the question of supporting sport is not at stake. There is general consensus that sport in this country needs to be supported. The differences arise in just exactly how we should achieve that. I agreed with almost everything Senator Evans said. He spoke of the participation of disabled people and of old people in sport. I agree with that. I simply do not believe that the admirable sentiments he expressed will be achieved by the passage of the Australian Sports Commission Bill. I wish to draw attention to the Government's commitment to a reduction in the number of statutory authorities. As was pointed out in the Canberra Times on Thursday, 23 May, the Labor Government has made little headway in this regard. In that sense alone, this Bill is no contribution to the credibility of this Government. However, I have some other concerns about this Bill. From reading newspapers and the mail that I have received over the last couple of weeks, it appears that I am not alone in holding these concerns. I quote from an article in the Canberra Times by a Mr Bill Mandle, who seems to understand very well some of the problems with this Bill. Writing about the Sports Commission, he said: It is, we are told, to investigate (but with what powers, and by what right?) to elicit private funds (to distribute where, upon what criteria?) to supplement the work of the Institute (in what regard-as coach, researcher, helpmate?) to pay attention to the social implications of the growth of leisure (with not one of its members having displayed any interest or achievement in that aspect of sport?). Given the time limits on the Senate today, it would not be appropriate for me to quote extensively from the representations that have been made to me by sporting bodies, particularly in South Australia, but some from other States and nationally. I simply say that they appear to share the concerns of the Opposition with respect to this Bill. In particular, my main concern about the Bill is the aspect of ministerial control, as opposed to control by the voluntary sporting bodies. I draw the Senate's attention to some remarks made by Senator Crowley suggesting that this sort of argument was in some way critical of a Labor control of sport but seemed to accept a Liberal control of sport. I do not associate myself with those arguments at all. My complaint about this Bill is not that I oppose a Labor government controlling sport, but that I oppose any government controlling sport. I have as little faith in a Labor Minister controlling sport as I do in a Liberal Minister controlling sport. At this point, I thank the sporting bodies which took the time to telephone my office or to write to me to express their concerns. I also point out that the question of ministerial control was the concern that was most often expressed to me. I have another concern with the Bill, and that is the reference made, through the debates in the House of Representatives and through various Press releases, to the likelihood of tax deductibility being granted for donations to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. There are a number of matters that the Senate should take into account, given the likelihood of that tax deductibility eventuating. I believe that such deductibility for donations to the Sports Aid Foundation will do a number of things, not the least of which is that it will give the Minister control of private money. Secondly, however, I believe that sort of mechanism will take dollars away from local sport. By 'local sport' I mean the little local football club, the little league baseball club or athletics club. I believe that such a practice will draw money away from State sporting bodies. That mechanism, therefore, is nothing but an attempt to further centralise the funding of sport in Australia. I do not think it is appropriate to follow a path that leads to centralising the control of sport in Australia, because sport, of its very nature, is something in which one participates as an individual or as a member of a team. I therefore think the funding of sport and the control of sport should be kept as local as possible. I wish to draw the Senate's attention to a number of other points. One other point I raise is the question of the administrative expenses of the Commission and the Foundation. Are these expenses to come off the top of those private donations? I do not believe that question has been answered. I wish also to address some remarks in relation to some comments made by Dr Charlesworth when speaking in the House of Representatives on 16 May. He said: We realised that the quality of the lives of individuals in this country is enhanced and enriched by their involvement in sport. There is no disagreement on that. I cannot see how that, on its own, is any support for the Bill at all. I simply stress that the improvement in the quality of lives, and the way in which they are enhanced and enriched, is not a consequence of government funding, but a consequence of individuals' involvement in sport. Dr Charlesworth went on to cite the example of East Germany and the quite substantial increase in the number of gold medals that that country won after its Government put its attention nationally to the funding of sport. That may well be true. I would expect Dr Charlesworth to have an interest in that, given his interest in that level of sporting activity in this country. But I point out that that is not why an Australian child at the age of five, six or seven joins the local football team. That is not why kids at school enter athletics competitions. I agree with Senator Jack Evans that we should be doing everything we can to get every child in Australia playing some sort of sport. But controlling sport from Canberra and encouraging our national teams to win more gold medals is not the only way to do that, and it is not the appropriate way to do that. Another point I wish to raise is the point made by Dr Charlesworth when he said: . . . this Commission is an advisory body, but more so than any other body, it is at arm's length from the Government. I just cannot understand how Dr Charlesworth could possibly say that. The Government will be controlling the purse and the policy, and I say that that puts the Commission at a very short arm's length from the Minister. I query just how independent the advice that is offered to government can be when the Minister is in control. It is human nature for people giving advice to take into account the beliefs of the people to whom they are giving that advice. I therefore think it is totally inappropriate for the Minister to have the control that this Bill allows him to have. I wish to make one final point. The Minister made some comments, again on 16 May, pointing out that the great bulk of Australians now have some sort of recreational pursuit and are being funded in that. He listed groups like marching girls, bushwalkers, stamp collectors, chess players and bridge players being funded; and so they should be. I simply draw the Senate's attention to the point of view that the Federal Government has no place in this area. It should not be sticking its beak into the activities of marching girls, bushwalkers, stamp collectors, chess players and bridge players. That argument gives no support whatsoever to this Bill. While I endorse the Government's attempts to support the increased involvement of Australians in sport, I cannot support this Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.42) —The Australian Sports Commission Bill 1985 establishes the Australian Sports Commission as a Commonwealth statutory authority, thereby having the effect of giving the Commonwealth Government an unprecedented influence over sport. It provides what I would regard as an unwarranted level of ministerial direction over sporting matters. The establishment of the Commission was announced on 13 September 1984, one year after the Labor Government had appointed an interim committee to advise on the role, functions and responsibilities of the proposed Commission. This committee presented its report to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in March 1984. I find it extremely odd that the contents of this report have been kept such a closely guarded secret. I am not alone in that view. The Australian Confederation of Sport which, as an honourable senator pointed out earlier, has a membership of 122 national sporting organisations and can therefore perhaps lay claim to being representative of sporting concerns right throughout Australia, in commenting on that report, said: During the period of the interim committee, and in the data gathering process leading to the production of the Interim Committee's report . . . consultation with national sporting operations took place, but at no time were the contents of the subsequent report made available to sport. Both the Minister and the Interim Committee refused to accede to requests for copies of the report. Evidently the Commission will wield considerable power over sporting bodies and sporting matters. The danger lies in the amount of control the Government will be able to exert over the Commission. Far from being an autonomous body able to act quite independently in the best interests of Australian sport, the Commission is to work expressly within the framework of stated government policies. This legislation fails to give the Commission any real independence. For example, clause 10 (1) (a) provides that the Commission shall: . . . formulate a strategic plan setting out the manner in which the Commission proposes to perform its functions on a continuing basis . . . However, this plan requires approval by the Minister and indeed has no effect until the Minister's approval is given. Further, when a strategic plan is in effect the Commission must perform its functions in accordance with the plan. The Minister is at liberty to direct the policies and practices to be followed by the Commission at any time, and the Commission must comply with those directions. Mr President, as it is 12.45 p.m., I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., according to order, statements may now be made by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(12.45) —I thank the Senate and you, Mr President, for this opportunity to make what will be my last speech. I assure you that it will be short and sharp and as painless as I can make it. Just sitting here and looking around this chamber-I have been on the other side, this side, back to the other side and over to this side again-I have a lot of mental pictures of many people who have passed through this place in the 14 years that I have been here. I have been able to make friends, on both sides of the chamber, with people with whom I could never have rubbed shoulders in private life; and that has been good. I have to admit that some of the faith that I had in the parliamentary system and democracy took a rather sharp blow in relation to the events of 11 November 1975. That is something that will stay long in my memory. It is interesting that all the people I have spoken to since who were aware of what happened then have been able to relate to me where they were and what they were doing on that day. That hour of that day is indelibly impressed in the minds of millions of Australian people. On my retirement, I have to say that I have some doubts about whether the Parliament or the Government will properly be able to represent the feelings of the great masses of the people outside this place. When I come into contact with the young unemployed and with people who reside miles away from this place, I cannot help agreeing that perhaps Parliament is too centralised and that the giant institutions that have been built up in the various departments are too isolated from Mr and Mrs Average Australian. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, the Public Service does not quite understand what is happening out there in voter land. I also have to say that I am concerned even about the events of the last few days in what used to be termed the 'mother country', a supposedly Christian democratic country. When I see the sort of insensible violence that is going on at so-called sports meetings I wonder for the future of England and other societies following the same path. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not express my thanks-I suppose this is in the form of a cheerio-to all the members of the Australian Labor Party in my home State of Victoria who have consistently returned me here with the assistance of thousands of Labor voters at the various elections in that State. Finally, my thanks go also to you, Mr President, the Senate officers and each and every one of the staff of this Parliament, present and past, with whom I have been able to build a relationship. My thanks go also to my wife, my family and, I suppose, no one more than the very loyal staff who have protected, guided and assisted me over the years. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.50) —Mr President and honourable senators, I really ought to apologise for being part of the cause of keeping you away from your lunch on this Friday afternoon. I hope you will have an opportunity to catch up and return to a more normal lifestyle. It has been my great pleasure and honour to be a member of this chamber for 15 years. In that time I have had an opportunity to serve in almost every capacity-in opposition, in government, as leader of parliamentary delegations, for a short while as a Minister, as Deputy President of this chamber for nearly two years, and in a range of other areas. All I am conscious of is that I was never anything for very long. I must leave honourable senators to determine the reasons for that circumstance. I have had the opportunity to enjoy a wide range of experiences and I hope that in some measure I have been able to contribute. Let me reflect for just a moment on the Senate. My old friend Cyril was very accurate on his five minutes, so I must try to keep that up. This chamber and the people who inhabit it have a particularly important job to do in Australia today and in the future. I believe that this chamber is something of a steadying influence on Australian politics. It is something of a braking force on behalf of the Australian electorate. It can and does give people the opportunity to stop and think, to look where they are going, and even to change or modify their course. Its committee system provides an opportunity for half a dozen of us to come together on particular references-some of the hearings are very long indeed-and generally to come down with determinations that are supported equally by the entire membership of the committee. This is an indication of what ought to be going on. It is certainly an indication of the value of this chamber. In the interests of this great country, I hope that in the years to come we will see the gap between political entities in Australia narrowing, not widening. I have had the opportunity to serve on committees with some very distinguished and capable people. The current one is the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare which is chaired by my friend Senator George Georges. It has been a pleasure to be associated with him and to recognise his contribution. I have a sneaking feeling that I have interested him to quite a degree in Australia's history and capacity in animal husbandry. It would not really surprise me if he were to move a little further north from Brisbane and get himself a flock of sheep, a herd of cattle or whatever. Suffice it to say that I am sure he will observe all the necessities of good animal husbandry. When I became a member of the Senate 15 years ago I made a maiden speech, as all of us do. I was just thinking: 'What on earth did I say at that time?' Very briefly, honourable senators will be pleased to know, I mentioned the basic facets of what I saw as a free enterprise democracy. Those facets have not changed, in my view, as I leave the Senate. If I recall, those facets included the security and the dignity of the family unit. I think I referred to the absolute need for equality of opportunity. We have stepped a long way in that direction and we continue so to do. I referred to the profit motive, within a proper measure of law and control, as being perhaps the most recognisable way of satisfying human nature, and consequently we had to admit it. I mentioned the enormous value of freedom but at the same time suggested that freedom was a meaningless concept if it was not freedom within a measure of discipline. I hold to that view today. Finally, I think I said that we should not regard ivory tower concepts as being the total answer. Unless things work among people in the community it does not matter how magnificent the theory is on a piece of paper; you had better alter it. Finally, Mr President, I want to say thank you to you and to all my colleagues on both sides of this chamber. You spoke immediately after me when I made my maiden speech. I thank particularly the Clerks, the attendants, the staff of the committees, and my own staff-the people who have done a quite superb job over the years. I became Acting President of this place for a short time, and I recall two things. One was a message I received from John Button and, I think, Don Grimes after a week or so to say that they had determined to support me because they liked the way I read prayers. I thought that was absolutely marvellous. Secondly, it became abundantly clear to me that it is not always necessary to know the rules because the Clerks are here and their knowledge is deep, extensive, and clearly and often communicated. Mr President and honourable senators, thank you for the past 15 years. Senator LAJOVIC(New South Wales)(12.58) —When I became a member of the Senate nearly 10 years ago I was told by my friends, who at that time were sitting on this side of the chamber, that I was not supposed to read my speeches. I hope that today they will be more generous and allow me to do so. Mr President, it seems almost impossible that it is nearly 10 years ago that I stood in this chamber and made my maiden speech. I still recall the excitement and emotion of that moment-the feeling of honour and pride in being a senator. To come to a new country at the old age of 30 and to start a new life is an experience which has broken but also made many migrants. To find oneself in a totally different environment, without family ties or friends, and to be totally on one's own, gives one strength and determination to put one's best effort forward to prove oneself. Whoever would have thought, when my wife and I were working in the then famous Holbrooks factory and meeting in the canteen for lunch-me smelling of mustard sauce and she of vinegar-that one day I would be sitting in this august chamber and that I would spend here 10 of the most exciting years of my life? This could only happen in Australia. As far as I know, no other major Western country which received large numbers of migrants has counted among its parliamentarians a migrant who arrived at an adult age, as I did. It is to the credit of the Australian people. It is proof that this is a country of fair go for all. It is of particular credit to the Liberal Party of Australia, which gave me the opportunity to serve in the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. The hardest thing now is to know how to say 'thank you' to all those I would like to thank for the kindness and help shown to me. I sincerely thank the President of the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland, and the officers and staff of the Senate. I thank all my friends and supporters in the Liberal Party. It is impossible to name all of them, but there is one person I have to name-Senator Peter Baume. He guided me in my first days here and was constantly at my side, always willing to help. Thank you, Peter. One comes to parliamentary life with certain preconceived ideas about the Parliament-its conventions and work-and with his or her plans for action. I am convinced that all of us who are here today, all of those who preceded us and all of those who will follow us arrive with a certain mission in mind-we all want to change the world in 60 minutes; one way or the other, we want it changed. Very slowly we realise that there are another couple of hundred individuals whose main aim is to do it their own way, which very often is in a way not at all similar to our own ideas. When I joined the Senate I was no longer a babe in the woods. Life had taught me a lesson; namely, that I was not the wisest, the best, or likely to be one of the great leaders of the world. Despite my age now, I still have a lot to learn. If an individual so desires, he can learn throughout his life. One thing I have learned in this Parliament is that one should not judge people hastily or have a fixed opinion of them. One can be wrong, and I was, so many times. During my 10 years in this Parliament I have found that the Senate has one advantage over the other place-our Senate standing committee system. It is a pity that the media have never really emphasised the work and importance of the Senate committees and their achievements. The Senate committees, by their composition, are, in reality, a parliament in miniature without grandstanding and political point scoring which, in my opinion, do not contribute at all to the whole idea of parliamentary democracy and only diminish politicians in the minds of the general public. I wish that the public and all those who constantly criticise politicians could sit down with, let us say, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for a day's work, or the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade of which I was privileged to be a long-standing member. Then they would see a different side altogether of the work and attitudes of their elected representatives. I also wish that governments of both sides of politics would take more notice of Senate committees' reports. I am convinced that many problems would be solved if they would take note of the committees' deliberations and sometimes ignore the advice of their bureaucratic so-called experts. There are so many things which I will miss. I will miss the committee work, I will miss the friendly atmosphere and daily chats with my colleagues on both sides of the House; but, most of all, I will miss going to the Parliamentary Library. There are so many people I would like to thank for their friendship and courtesies. I thank all the staff of the Parliamentary Library, the dining room, the attendants, the drivers-in a word, everybody who has made this place unique and has made it so delightful to be a part of it. As I said at the beginning, it was an experience I would not have missed. My thanks again to everyone who has helped me. I will always be interested in what you are doing. I will be haunting this place, I hope, for a long time. Senator HEARN(Tasmania)(1.05) —It is not quite five years ago that I made my maiden speech in this chamber, which expressed my deep concern about issues which affected the people of my country and of the world. I expressed concern about systems which often put economic interests before the interests of the people and the future. The present parliamentary system is not responding truly to the needs, the hopes and the aspirations of ordinary people. I think there is an awareness of this in varying degrees by many of the people who are involved in this place. It is something that must be faced. Representative democracy must include participatory democracy in the community and in the work place. The growing violence in our society is an expression of people's alienation, frustration and loss of a sense of value as a human being. Peace cannot be achieved at an international level unless it is achieved in our society. Peace is the creative activity of people at all stages of their lives and in all places. Government must create the environment that makes that creative activity possible. The pressure of lobbies with vested interests, largely economic, on government's policies does threaten the equity of ordinary people. The pressure of the media, which usually expresses the voices of vested interests, gives very little expression to the voices of the powerless and the poor in our society. That can be a very real threat to democracy. There is, sadly, a strong feeling of cynicism and alienation amongst the people of this nation, particularly amongst our young people who have, in this chaotic world, an urgent need for hope, for ideals, for that which is good and honest. Over a period of years there has been growing concern in the community about the attack on civil liberties and human rights and the intrusion into people's privacy that is happening in the Western world. It is vital that governments protect these basic rights that are so important to a free people. Society faces many new challenges and to face them creatively requires new human and social understanding and interaction. We need to create new social patterns which enhance each and every person's full humanity and potential. New patterns in industry, in banking, in co-operative social and community goals which put people first are being achieved in small ways, in many countries with some quite remarkable results. At the time of the French Revolution there was an upsurge amongst the people for the expression of equality, of equity for all, of freedom-freedom of conscience and creativity for the individual-of fraternity, of mutual aid and co-operation between each other. These ideals have not been fully realised in our society and the longing remains. We need a parliamentary system which can respond to and fulfil that longing. I think we must question whether it is best to work as government and opposition in confrontation. Are we really fulfilling our intended purpose? Could we not work better together as 'we' instead of 'them and us'? In retirement I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work for those ideals which can create for people the realisation of peace and true humanity. I wish to thank all those people in this place and in the community who have contributed to my learning experience and knowledge. I thank my staff and friends and all those people who do care. I shall use my retirement well. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(1.11) —I entered this Parliament in March 1983, a short time ago compared with the terms of those who have spoken before me today. I entered this Parliament with very high hopes but with realistic aspirations and an awareness of a tremendous responsibility held by the Australian Democrats. I entered a great institution, this Parliament, and I entered the Senate, a very vital and evolving part of that great institution. While I have been in this place a very exciting evolution has taken place. I came to this chamber as an Australian Democrat, with the balance of power being held by the members of my Party. That gave us a different kind of responsibility. I have done my best to uphold that responsibility. I know that my Democrat successors will always recognise the responsibility to scrutinise every single Bill, every report, every regulation and every ordinance; to consider the arguments for and against, the representations from interested individuals and organisations; to consider ways of improving that legislation and ways of achieving compromise between government and opposition; and, above all, to seek a path which minimises the impact on the losers and maximises the long term benefits for all Australians. Mr President, I express my very sincere thanks to the Senate staff who make life possible for us in the Senate. I mean that sincerely. We could not exist as a Senate without their professional guidance. I thank the committees and the staff of those committees. I pay a special tribute to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which blooded me-not bloodied, but blooded-and to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. The latter has been an exciting Committee to work on under the chairmanship of Senator Georges. I express my gratitude to the staff of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, to the research staff and to the staff of the Records and Table Office, people who have made it possible for my staff and me to participate in the debates in this Parliament. I express my gratitude to others who make life just a little easier for us when it gets very difficult. When we have had a 14-hour day for four days in a row we find that there is a friendly driver to help us get home while we slumber in the back seat of the car: We find that there is a very warm dining room staff to look after our every interest. I pay a tribute to the Press representatives, those people who have a very difficult job in putting the views of very demanding politicians to our respective publics. Mr President, I express my very deep gratitude to you for the warmth of your welcome and very warm and friendly help throughout my stay in the Senate. I am sure you will not mind sharing those thanks with the Deputy President, who is one of the greatest committee chairpersons I have ever witnessed, and with the Acting Deputy Presidents and temporary Chairmen of Committees. I pay a special tribute to Senator Ruth Coleman, one of those chairpersons for whom I have a very high regard and great affection, but who is not with us at the moment. We hope to have her back shortly. I pay a tribute to the Ministers and shadow Ministers, not just from me but from all my colleagues, for the access they have given us to themselves at a moment's notice, to their staff and to the heads of departments. That access has made it possible for the Democrats to function in this place and to perform one of our vital roles. I thank my fellow senators: Senator Button and his team; Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition; Senator Scott and his colleagues; and Senator Harradine who sat beside me from day one and nudged me from time to time to let me know that I was getting out of line. Senator Harradine helped me to beat the system, as he does so frequently. I particularly thank my Australian Democrat colleagues who are very fine individuals. They make a great team under a great Leader, Don Chipp. I thank my own research and electorate office staff, who must rate as second to none, judging from their performance and their capacity to uphold me in this place. I include in that group the staff on Senator Chipp's team and the staff of the other Democrat senators, who all seem to chip in whenever a pressure point is recognised by them. I thank my Western Australian constituents, particularly those Australian Democrat members who worked so hard for so long to get one senator into this place for so short a time. I recognise their disappointment that it has been for such a short time. I thank them for their input. I thank particularly all of the constituents of Western Australia who provided input in order to let me know what was the feeling in the electorate. I guess I should thank them for allowing me to have a brief holiday following the last election before returning to the Senate after the next election. I conclude by publicly acknowledging a debt to a very special person throughout my life-my wife-who has shared the highs and lows and the pressures of being a parliamentarian and politician. Other senators would understand and appreciate the value of having a loving wife to share the pressures with. I acknowledge a debt to my family which has given that support as well, and to my many friends, both inside and outside the Parliament. Thank you, Mr President, and all honourable senators. The PRESIDENT —I am sure all honourable senators very much appreciate the remarks of our retiring colleagues. I understand that the leaders of the respective parties, and others, will be speaking about our retiring colleagues in the adjournment debate of the Senate at 4.15 this afternoon. Sitting suspended from 1.19 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Honourable senators will be aware that Senator Grimes is absent from the chamber today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes in relation to his portfolio or those which he represents in this chamber should be directed to me. If I feel that another Minister has more appropriate knowledge of the topic, I might refer the question to him or her. Senator MESSNER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the answer which Senator Grimes provided on Tuesday to a question on notice in which I sought statistics on the number of pensioners affected by the assets test. Is the Minister aware of the answer that Senator Grimes gave me? I refer in particular to the last paragraph, which reads: Statistics for particular postcode districts or social security regions are available upon request. Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding that answer, I am being refused access to those statistics? Does this reflect a new open government policy of the Hawke Government or does it mean that in future honourable senators should take such answers to mean the exact opposite of what is actually stated? Senator BUTTON —Clearly, I would not have an answer to that peculiarly Grimes-Messner problem, if I may put it in those terms. I will make some inquiries and I may be able to give an answer at the end of Question Time. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements by the President of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Captain Brooksbank, regarding the sacking of five pilots from the Queensland Government's Air Wing? What bearing do Captain Brooksbank's remarks have on recent statements made by the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, about the operation of the Federal Government's VIP flight? Senator GARETH EVANS —We now have two totally opposed accounts of what happened to those five pilots who used to work for the Queensland Government Air Wing. It would appear that either Captain Brooksbank or Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is lying. Let us look at the facts. On 29 May I told the Senate that there were reports that I believed were reliable that five pilots were sacked from the Government Air Wing in Queensland because those pilots insisted on logging the names of their passengers in accordance with what they believed to be their obligations under the air navigation regulations. Later that day a spokesman for the Queensland Premier described my statement as a complete fabrication. He went on to say, and I quote from the newspaper reports: . . . the Queensland Government had been reorganised, allowing pilots to reapply as contract labourers 'to provide the best possible value for taxpayers' money'. Three of the pilots successfully reapplied for the new contract and two others made their own decision to leave. Captain Brooksbank has a different explanation. Last night on the PM program he said: We believe the pilots were dismissed because they sought clarification of the interpretation of air navigation regulations from the Department of Aviation . . . we believe that he-- that is, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen- would prefer that the lists of passengers being carried by the Queensland Government Air Wing be not a public document. In this regard the VIP squadron and any other operations are conducted-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: We have the rather extraordinary position of a Minister of the Crown answering a question-I doubt whether it is a question without notice-and quoting as his authority a broadcast on the PM program. Quite frankly, this seems to be an extraordinary use of Question Time. The Minister is engaging in political propaganda. If he wishes to make a statement after Question Time, he may find that there is time to do that rather than continue with his Bills on Bass Strait. It seems quite obviously outside the scope of Question Time to have a question put which requires the Minister to answer by quoting some person whose name he gives but no other authority and in some way informing the Senate of his obligation as a Minister. It is an absurd situation and I suggest you call the Minister to order and ask him to sit down, Mr President. Senator Gareth Evans —On the point of order: I can well understand Senator Chaney's and the Opposition's acute embarrassment on this matter, but the situation remains that in answer to a question properly put to me in this place yesterday I gave an answer which was subsequently described as a complete fabrication. I am taking parliamentary opportunity, in response to a further question from Senator Reynolds, to clarify the situation, and I am doing so by putting on the record the two competing accounts of this matter and allowing the Senate to decide for itself. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question. I had some difficulty in the first instance about the legitimacy of the question, but because it related to the VIP fleet I allowed it. I noticed some content of the Federal Department of Aviation involved in the matter, and on that basis I allowed the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will continue. Further along in the program last night, Captain Brooksbank said: We have submitted evidence to that effect to the Department of Aviation and whilst they are investigating it, it is improper for me to comment. And we are waiting for the Department's response to that. What I would like to come to is that in fact the Premier's Department has stated they have not sacked the pilots. Now that statement from the Premier's Department is a falsehood, and it is made in the knowledge of its falsehood. So it does become a question, as I said, of who is telling the truth-Captain Brooksbank, or the man who has refused to make public for the last 12 years the operations or the passenger manifests of his air wing. On the basis of the following evidence cited by Captain Brooksbank, I leave it to the Senate to decide. He said this last night: On 22 January of this year on the Premier's Department letterhead, signed by the Co-ordinator-General, Mr Shubert, each of the five pilots were notified and I quote: 'I hereby give you three months notice of the termination of your employment with the Government Air Wing Premier's Department, Brisbane'. Then, a little later, on 1st March, again on Premier's Department letterhead, again signed by the Co-ordinator-General, Mr Shubert, and I quote in full'' 'Mr Brady, Deputy Director of Operations, Government Air Wing: Take notice that your employment is terminated absolutely as from the time of service of this notice upon you.' This notice, said Captain Brooksbank, was taken around by police and physically handed to the man in question in his own home. Senator Chaney —It is no wonder that you were sacked as Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand Senator Chaney to be saying that his judgment is that Captain Brooksbank is lying. I would like Senator Chaney to make that judgment outside this place if he believes in its veracity. Senator Chaney —On a point of order: The Minister is now finishing his quotation from a radio broadcast by suggesting that it is I who is suggesting that that man is a liar or whatever. I have not a clue who he is. I think that for the previous Attorney-General to come into this place and quote as his authority the PM broadcast by some person we have never heard of and who has no official position is an absolute absurdity. No wonder Senator Evans was sacked as Attorney- General. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I call Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have concluded, Mr President. I will let the record stand. Senator TOWNLEY —Can the Minister for Finance explain his strong criticism earlier this week of Milton Friedman in light of Mr Keating's initiatives, first of all, to float the Australian dollar; secondly, to allow foreign banks to enter the Australian market; and, thirdly, to reduce tariffs on the automative industry, when these actions are consistent with Milton Friedman's economic prescription? Is Senator Walsh showing a fundamental disagreement with his Treasurer in regard to the currency market, banking sector and tariffs? How can Senator Walsh say that Milton Friedman is discredited when many of his ideas on free competition have been the catalyst to the United States economic recovery? Senator WALSH —Of course there is no fundamental conflict between the Treasurer and me, or indeed any conflict at all that I am aware of. I know that Senator Townley, and probably Senator Chaney as well, will have great difficulty in understanding this, but my criticism of Milton Friedman was quite specific. It was a criticism of the Friedmanite notion that any change in the money supply would lead to a commensurate change in prices in the same direction. If the money supply expanded by 10 per cent, according to the Friedman dictum, prices would also increase by 10 per cent. That is derived from the old monetary equation usually written as MV=PT. 'M', the variable on one side of the equation, stands for the money supply and 'P' on the other side stands for the price of goods. Logically, that has always been flawed because there were two other variables. Either of those could vary to offset to some degree, or even completely, changes in either of the other variables. I said that I did not think that anybody still took seriously the simplistic notion popularised by Friedman that there was a direct and 1:1 linkage between changes in the money supply and the level of prices. That notion overlooked the technical difficulties of measuring the money supply, anyway. Perhaps Senator Townley still believes in that. If he does, I suppose that belief is consistent in its obsolescence with most of his other beliefs. Senator BLACK —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the question asked of him yesterday by Senator Macklin, who alleged that section 100 of the Repatriation Act had been amended by inserting the words 'direct combat with the enemy', supposedly in order to restrict veterans access to repatriation benefits. Is there any substance to this allegation? Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Macklin asked me a question dealing with section 100 of the Repatriation Act. I indicated then that his question revealed a lack of understanding of the legislation. I regretted the fact that, as spokesman for the Australian Democrats on these matters, he did not understand what was proposed in the May statement. The new Veterans' Entitlement Bills-as a consequence of our revising all of the 84 pieces of legislation-will be a necessary piece of legislation designed to eliminate confusing and often contradictory provisions and replace them with logical and comprehensible provisions. That was an objective of the previous Government and of this Government. It was established that there was a need to have an advisory committee look at the Repatriation Act. All I ask of Senator Macklin is that he give the new legislation a chance instead of seeking to sabotage it before it is in place by making allegations which are creating unnecessary confusion amongst some sections of the veteran community. I want to set the matter straight in regard to section 100 and the insertion of the phrase 'direct combat with the enemy'. Section 23 of the Act prescribes that service pensions may be payable to people who served in a theatre of war. That section remains unchanged. By inserting the phrase 'direct combat with the enemy' in section 100, it will extend the application of the criminal standard of proof rather than restricting it, as has been suggested, because otherwise in a small number of cases the new legislation would not provide the criminal standard for those who, in certain circumstances, while carrying out activities in Australia during World War II, came into contact with the enemy. None of the existing provisions of the Repatriation Act in respect of a disability or service pension are otherwise affected. Section 100 (d) defines who meet the requirement of 'active service' by virtue of service within Australia, then goes on to indicate in four different paragraphs those to whom the legislation applies. By introducing the words 'direct combat with the enemy' we have not changed that definition. The wording is designed not to restrict but rather to extend the criminal standard of proof provisions. This is a simple matter of establishing facts. By inserting this phrase we are in no way creating a restrictive regulation or piece of legislation. It is designed to cover in particular those who served in the Northern Territory during World War II. The critical point is that the expression 'direct combat with the enemy' is unrelated to any of those existing four provisions. The term 'operational service' will replace the concept of active service which is an outdated World War II concept and in no way will any of the existing beneficiaries be affected. Senator JACK EVANS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware of the loss of public confidence in the Western Australian Government's system of environmental impact assessments prior to the commencement of development of ecologically delicate areas? In view of the Western Australian Government's diminished concern for its own environment protection procedures, will the Federal Government, firstly, reconsider whether it should continue to place such a high degree of reliance upon advice from the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority when making decisions under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and accordingly review the memorandum of understanding between the Federal Government and the Western Australian State Government on environmental impact assessments? Secondly, will the Government ensure that Federal environmental impact assessments are sufficiently rigorous to fill the gap left by the Western Australian State Government? Thirdly, will the Government require that environmental impact assessments be prepared and made available to the public prior to the making of any decisions to proceed with development proposals which are potentially of environmental significance? Finally, is the Government's intention to allow the Western Australian environment to be mistreated in the same way as is happening in Queensland? Senator RYAN —As Senator Jack Evans's question was very detailed and sought very detailed information I will have to take it on notice, although I assure him that I will make sure he gets an answer. I will either post it to him or wait until he comes back to the Parliament. Senator Jack Evans proceeding to direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment- The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is not in order. I rule that supplementary question out of order. It is a completely different question. Senator HARRADINE —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, refers to the investigations by justice authorities in Queensland of the possible breach of the criminal law on a massive scale by doctors performing thousands of abortions in that State. I ask the Minister whether he recalls that in Question Time yesterday, after referring to article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, he said: The Human Rights Commission is considering this week the issues involved in the Queensland abortion raid and will, no doubt, report in due course. Is the Commission's consideration being undertaken as a result of a request by the Attorney-General, under section 9 (1) (d) of the Human Rights Commission Act, or is it conducting an inquiry of its own initiative? If so, under what provisions of the Act? Bearing in mind that the Commission, in its report No. 10 on the Au Yeung case, stated that, in its view, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child 'ranks equally' with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, can the Minister give an assurance that, in its consideration of or inquiry into the actions of the Queensland justice authorities, it will give due regard to the Human Rights Commission's responsibilities and obligations to that part of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child which calls for appropriate legal protection for the child 'before as well as after birth'? Senator GARETH EVANS —No doubt the Human Rights Commission will give appropriate attention to all human rights declarations and conventions that bear upon this issue. I was informed that the Human Rights Commission was considering the matter of its own volition with a view to determining whether it wanted to embark upon a formal inquiry and perhaps seek an Attorney-General's reference in that respect. When I said that it will be reporting in due course I meant only to convey that it would, no doubt, be reporting as to the outcome of its consideration of its deliberations. At this stage it is not my understanding that there is any reference from the Attorney-General on that matter. I repeat that the enormity of the invasion of the civil liberties of the women and medical practitioners in question-many of whom suffered the most outrageous and extravagant invasions of personal privacy-remains absolutely and obviously indefensible and is clearly perceived to be such by the overwhelming majority of the Queensland population, including, obviously, a very large number of people who feel as passionately about the merits of the abortion issue as do Senator Harradine and no doubt many others in this chamber. It is important to draw a distinction between the pros and cons and the principles relevant to determining the argument about abortion on the one hand and on the other hand the kind of outrageous misuse and abuse of police and governmental power that was obviously involved in this raid. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has fudged a response and has not directly responded to my question. The Minister stated that he was informed that the Human Rights Commission is undertaking a consideration of the matter. By whom was he informed? Is it a consideration or an inquiry? If it is an inquiry, I again ask him: Under what provision of the Human Rights Commission Act is the inquiry being conducted? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry if Senator Harradine thinks that I fudged the answer; I do not believe I did. The Human Rights Commission is perfectly capable of considering matters at large as they arise and making its own decision as to whether it wants to pursue them further, whether by way of such limited powers of general inquiry as are open to it or by way of formal reference from the Attorney-General. No doubt it will weigh up the relevant considerations involved in this matter and make a decision and recommendation accordingly to the Attorney-General. Senator Harradine —By whom were you informed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was informed by a staff member who is responsible for these matters who, in turn, checked, I believe, with the Attorney-General's office which, in turn, I believe, checked with the Human Rights Commission. Yea, I verily believe all those things. I will have to check whether that is an accurate account. Senator CHANEY —Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs agree with Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Evatt, that today's expected passage of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill has altered the situation for Vietnam veterans and may require legislative change to protect their position? Further, has he noted the view of Mr Peter Alexander of the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council who described the amended legislation as a breeding ground for litigation? In light of the criticism by the Royal Commissioner, do the Minister and the Government intend to maintain their support for the mini-Budget legislation? Can the Minister, on behalf of the Government, give an unequivocal assurance that Vietnam veterans will not be adversely affected by the changes to the repatriation legislation? Senator GIETZELT —I can give the assurance that in no way will Vietnam veterans' claims for entitlements be unfairly affected by either the May statement or the proposals that are contained in the Veterans' Entitlement Bill. It is true that some bush lawyers associated with some of the veterans' organisations have placed certain interpretations upon the proposals contained in the May statement. These interpretations have no substance at all according to the advice that has been given to me by lawyers in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department. My firm view is that any recommendation that may arise from the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam with respect to proposed changes to section 47 of the Repatriation Act will be considered by the Government, as indeed will the views of any veterans' organisations during the period in which the Veterans' Entitlements Bill lies on the table for the consideration of the veteran community. Should it be found that there are valid reasons to doubt the assurances I have given to date the Government will take those matters into consideration. I can certainly assure Senator Chaney that in no way has it been the intention of the Government to include in the legislation any provision which would unfairly change the status of those applicants who served in Vietnam. Contrary to the position of the Opposition parties, who sent young men off to war in Vietnam against their will, the sympathy of this Government lies with those who served in Vietnam and no legislative attempts will be made by this Government to minimise their obligations. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer him to an article in the Age in which Terry McCrann calculates next year's Budget deficit at $6.5 billion. Can the Minister provide any information on Mr McCrann's calculation which was presumably based on papers released by the Treasurer in the Loan Council context? Senator WALSH —I have glanced at Mr McCrann's article and I think it would be fair to say that this is another one of those articles which tell us more about Mr McCrann's prejudices and preconceptions than about the issue which he is ostensibly addressing. Mr McCrann, of course, was highly critical of the May statement on the grounds that it was meaningless, that there was not enough blood on the floor or that sort of reason. I assume he would have been happy if we had, say, withdrawn unemployment benefits or age pensions entirely, or at least cut them in half, or something like that. That was the sort of thing that he seemed to want in order to be satisfied. But the Government, of course, is concerned with responsible and humane economic management rather than blood lust. The Government decided its approach to the Premiers and it was firmer and more responsible than any commentator, including Mr McCrann, had called for. As for the figures, Mr McCrann has done a lot of assuming with varying degrees of error, and the most spectacular example of error in his calculations is probably the fact that he has assumed that Commonwealth authorities this year will borrow between $600m and $800m, and further that $700m will come from the borrowings of those authorities in 1985-86. I am advised by the Treasurer that in fact the figures for this year are $1,241m and, for next year, $1,136m. So the errors are of between 60 and 70 per cent. I am also advised by the Treasurer that he does assure Mr McCrann that the cut in the public sector borrowing requirement will be at least one percentage point this year. On the Government's figuring the reduction will be rather more than one percentage point. Senator HAMER —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, follows one asked earlier this week by Senator Missen on the removal of asbestos from the National Library of Australia. Does the Minister agree that there is overwhelming evidence that asbestos is a negligible hazard to occupants of buildings provided it is encapsulated and undisturbed, and in fact, in these circumstances, the process of removing it creates a much greater hazard to the occupants of the buildings than leaving it there would have done? Has the Minister seen the findings of the Canadian royal commission on the use of asbestos, which suggests that asbestos removal is a very cost ineffective contribution to public health? Do Australian investigations support the Canadian assessment that asbestos removal might save one life for every $80m spent, but expenditure in other preventative health areas, such as motor vehicles, results in one life saved for every $64,000 spent; medical programs, one life saved for every $112,000 spent and so on? Are these not much more cost effective ways of improving public health than asbestos removal? Is the nationwide campaign on asbestos removal truly a cost effective contribution to public health or is it a massive financial contribution to the Builders Labourers Federation? Senator BUTTON —From my own knowledge I cannot deal with all the issues raised in the very lucid argument put at Question Time today by Senator Hamer. I am sure that there is a lot of sense in what Senator Hamer says. There is not always a guiding hand of rationality in all human affairs, as Senator Hamer may well know. After all, he was in the Navy for about 10 years. There are a number of elements in the question about which I will have to obtain detailed instructions. I will see that that is done. Senator CHILDS —Will the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce indicate what changes he anticipates will occur in employment levels in the heavy engineering industry following the introduction of the interim assistance package for heavy engineering? Senator Haines —None. Senator BUTTON —Senator Haines has answered the question by way of interjection. She thinks there will be no changes in employment levels as a result of the Government's response to the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on heavy engineering. Many very glib conclusions tend to be drawn about some of these issues. I understand that a headline in one of the newspapers today was 'Jobs to go', or something like that, as a result of a response by the Government to the IAC interim report on heavy engineering. More importantly, the question that people have to address in considering some of these industry matters is whether jobs will stay if nothing is done. The fact is that there has been a steady decline in employment in the heavy engineering industry over the last few years. The decline in employment is directly associated with decline in demand, particularly from the resource industries and also with the decline in demand resulting from improved technological capacity in a number of industries which has reduced the demand for conventional products. The question is important. The heavy engineering industry, as is the case with most industries in Australia, has to decide what the market is for which it produces goods. Traditionally, the market has been a small, Australian, domestic market. If the heavy engineering industry is to expand its employment it has to consolidate its operations, which will mean loss of employment in certain plants. It cannot expand its employment until it consolidates its operations with better technology than now exists. So, if you like, it is a chicken and egg situation, which is very difficult. However, if one is to do anything about restructuring industry and building a long term industry which can service both the Australian market and export markets, that process will have to be gone through. I make the point to Senator Childs that we have 27 rolling stock plants in Australia. If nothing is done about that situation the majority of them will slowly die. Something has to be done to see that an appropriate number of heavy engineering plants devoted to rolling stock survive in Australia, that they have a better technological base and better encouragement for capital investment to ensure that their technology is up to standard. I believe that then those rolling stock plants which are left will grow and will have the capacity to export and to employ more people. As I said previously, I am just trying to illustrate a point which I think some people miss, demonstrated by the sort of glib headlines one sees in the newspapers about these matters. I am afraid that Australia cannot opt out from the rest of the world in these matters. We have to have industries in this country which are at state of the art technology. That process will involve some difficulty, but it has to be done. Senator SCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Given that the designs the Government has accepted from Ingenieurkontor Lubeck Howaldtswerke-Deutschewerft of West Germany and Kockums of Sweden are paper boats only, that neither design is ever likely to go into service with the home navies of the builders, that neither designer has any experience in building powered weapons discharge systems, and that the German company which the Minister hails as a world leader has never built a submarine with that most elementary of safety design features-a watertight bulkhead-does the Minister claim that these two designs conform with the criteria required of all tenderers by the Royal Australian Navy request for tender? Senator GARETH EVANS —Unfortunately, I cannot allow to be read into the record the remark that Senator Button just made to me, but the suggestion essentially was that it sounds more like propaganda from a disgruntled tenderer than anything that bears any resemblance to the facts of the present situation. The process that the Government has already been through to identify the two finalists, as it were, in the tendering stakes has been a thorough and exhaustive one. The criteria to be applied have been spelt out with elaborate precision and in very great depth and detail. A very high calibre team has been working on the issue for a long time within the Department of Defence. I personally saw the product of their presentation on this issue and I was impressed, as I think the rest of the Cabinet was, with the depth and degree of detail that has gone into the process so far. It has, indeed, been widely regarded as one of the most successful tendering exercises engaged in by the military to date. That is not to say that there might not be some bugs that remain to be resolved in the latter stages of the design and tendering process and the identification of the final successful tenderer. All I can say is that none of the evidence of which I am aware or of which I believe the Minister is aware suggests any empirical foundation for the concerns that Senator Scott expressed. Senator GILES —Can the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women advise the Senate of the progress of the Government's affirmative action program? Are any special measures planned to overcome the difficulties in the employment of women in occupations not traditionally held by women? Senator RYAN —Yesterday I published the progress report on the affirmative action program on behalf of the working party on affirmative action. That report has been very well received. It draws on the first nine months' experience of the 20 private sector companies-- Senator Peter Baume —Twenty-eight. Senator RYAN —Twenty-eight private sector companies-my thanks to Senator Baume, who is also a member of the working party-and three higher education institutions which volunteered last July to take part in the 12-month pilot program. Through the work of the pilot program, many strategies for opening up employment and training opportunities to women have been identified and are being developed. In answer to Senator Giles's question, I particularly refer to a paper put out by the Affirmative Action Resource Unit of the Office of the Status of Women called 'Strategies for Employers for Supporting Female Apprentices in Non-Traditional Trades'. I think the development of papers such as this will assist the program in its ultimate objective of giving wider and better job opportunities to women in the private sector. Senator WALTERS —My question is also addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I also refer to the affirmative action pilot program interim report. As the Minister said, she released that report yesterday. I have been unable to get a copy. Has the Minister released the report for public scrutiny? If not, when will she be doing so? Can the Minister confirm-and she has already confirmed-that one of the main findings as reported in the media is that the participating companies have encountered severe difficulties in attracting women into traditionally male fields? What conclusion does the Government draw from that finding? What is the Government's timetable for the legislative introduction of affirmative action and is this affected by the findings of the interim report? Senator RYAN —The report was made public yesterday. I do not know what the actual arrangements through the Office of the Status of Women were- Senator Coates —We all got one. Senator RYAN —Apparently all honourable members and honourable senators have been provided with a copy. I will make sure that Senator Walters has one also. Senator Walters asks whether one of the main findings was the difficulty in attracting women into non-traditional areas of employment. There are a number of findings in the report. It is a comprehensive report of the pilot program in its first eight months. I would not care to identify that particular finding as the main finding. Certainly, it is a significant finding. It exemplifies the usefulness of the pilot program because the pilot program has shown that, even when job opportunities or training opportunities in non-traditional areas are made available and advertisements placed to attract young women into these areas, there is resistance. That resistance varies from place to place, but several companies have reported difficulty in attracting apprentices. This has led to a discussion by the participating companies as to how to proceed to be more successful in attracting young women to these areas. I should say that there has been a change. Several of the companies now have female apprentices in training in non-traditional areas but there needs to be more effort placed on understanding why young women are not attracted, even in areas where there is high unemployment, to training or jobs that offer security. The Affirmative Action Resource Unit and the participating companies are holding discussions with young women who have made the choice to go into non-traditional areas. From that they are forming a better picture as to how to present these job and training opportunities so that young women will feel confident enough to apply for them and have the benefit of that training. Senator Walters asked about the time-table for legislation for affirmative action. The working party has not finished its work yet. This is a progress report. As well as the progress report, public hearings are being held throughout Australia to allow interested people to participate. One was held in Hobart this week, for example. More written submissions have been invited; so there is quite a deal more work to do. The next meeting of the affirmative action working party will be in a couple of months time and at that stage we will have a clearer idea of where we are going with regard to the development of legislative options. I expect that towards the end of the year the Government will have clear indications from the working party as to how it could proceed to the next step, which is some form of legislation to ensure that all large private employers have equal opportunity programs within their corporations. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question. I asked whether the interim report would affect the legislative progress. The Minister failed to answer that. Also, the Minister said that the companies would have to look further to see why women were not participating. We should realise that for a butcher's apprenticeship 58 men and only one woman applied. Senator RYAN —I think I really did answer Senator Walters's question as to whether the Government's attitude to developing legislation will be affected by the progress report. Of course it will be. The whole pilot program and the existence of the working party, including any reports that are made in the course of the working party's work, are designed to advise the Government on what appropriate forms of legislation could be developed. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the Government's reaction to the reported statement of Sir Anthony Synnot, former Chief of the Defence Force Staff, who claimed that it was easy to see a defence threat to Australia emerging from Indonesia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of an article in the Australian yesterday, 30 May, reporting the former Chief of the Defence Force Staff, Sir Anthony Synnot, as saying that it was easy to see a defence threat emerging from Indonesia and citing as reasons Australia's vast size and small population and the extent of natural resources, as well as current policies relating to East Timor. It has to be said that the type of thinking indicated in the article is as erroneous and muddled as it is outdated. The Australian Government keeps under close review the question of what might constitute a threat to Australia's security. Quite apart from the question of Indonesia's capacity to mount such a threat, it is difficult on present analysis to understand why Indonesia would want to provoke a war with Australia; a war, as with most conflicts, that could bring no possible advantage. The Australian Government is firmly committed to peace and has sought to maintain relationships, both internationally and regionally, conducive to that process. Whatever differences of opinion we might have with Indonesia on particular matters-I have referred to one such area in answers to other questions this week-we do regard Indonesia as a force for stability in the region, particularly as new areas of co-operation and trade develop. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. The Minister will be aware of complaints by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation that increasing amounts of Swedish beef are being dumped into Taiwan, Korea and Japan at the expense of the Australian product and, obviously, of Australian beef producers. He will also be aware that the Minister for Trade has expressed concern to Swedish authorities about the situation. I ask: When will the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Trade explain to the farmers of Australia why Cabinet just last week rewarded Sweden for its pirating of Australia's beef markets by including it in the funded short list for the Royal Australian Navy's $2.6 billion submarine project? Will the Minister seek the support of the Minister for Trade in approaching the Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister with a view to excluding Sweden from this contract unless and until unfair dumping ceases? Senator BUTTON —It was necessary to listen to Senator Archer's question for only a minute to realise how stupid it was. It was a very silly question that was just asked. The suggestion implicit in the question was that, because Swedish beef was being sold in South East Asia, we should not consider buying, for example, a Swedish submarine or in any way trading with Sweden. I ask Senator Archer to apply the example used in the case of Sweden to Japan. Is Senator Archer suggesting that because Japan has taken less Australian beef in the last year we stop taking Japanese products into Australia? Is Senator Archer suggesting that with the United States, too? That is exactly the silly principle which was implicit in the question asked. Senator Archer —It is a question of dumping. Senator BUTTON —It is not a question of dumping. Senator Archer did not raise the question of dumping for a moment in the question. What he said was that Swedish beef was being sold in South East Asia. He did not use the word 'dumping' in the question. Senator Archer —It is in the question. Senator BUTTON —Anyway, in answer to the question, I will not ask the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Primary Industry to consider retaliation against Sweden in the manner raised by Senator Archer. I will not ask them because I am not in the habit of asking my ministerial colleagues stupid questions. Senator HEARN —I address a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. As he knows, the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill will be considered in the House of Representatives this afternoon as a consequence of the amendments to the Bill dictated by the Opposition. One of the key provisions of that Bill is the requirement that for a claim to succeed a reasonable hypothesis must be advanced linking disability or death to service. Is there any substance to allegations that this requirement effectively imposes an onus of proof on the pension claimant? Senator GIETZELT —I thank Senator Hearn for her last question which raises again matters that have been the subject of some debate in both Houses of Parliament in recent times. I can give her and the Senate a categoric assurance that changes to the Repatriation Act arising from the Treasurer's statement on 14 May do not impose any onus of proof on pension claimants before repatriation authorities. Section 25 of the Repatriation Act, which is not being amended, guarantees that no such onus will fall on the claimant. It further requires that the Department of Veterans' Affairs shall thoroughly investigate every claim and place before the authorities any evidence which is relevant to that claim. The requirement that for a claim to succeed a reasonable hypothesis must be advanced linking the veteran's disability or death to service does not alter this guarantee or obligation. This requirement has been introduced for just one purpose. I reiterate what I said yesterday: As a result of the High Court of Australia decision in the O'Brien case it is virtually impossible for the determining authorities which have been appointed to carry out a function on behalf of the Parliament to reject a pension claim, even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever linking disability to active service. Senator Macklin —That is not true. Senator GIETZELT —This decision has horrendous implications for future Commonwealth spending and hence of course for the taxpayer. Of course, if Senator Macklin had voted for the tax Bills that this Government sought we would not need to reduce the deficit to the extent of $300m or $400m. Instead, he took an obstructive attitude in respect of those various pieces of legislation. The reasonable hypothesis requirement will return the determining system to the situation prevailing before the O'Brien decision. Seeing that this matter was raised yesterday and again today, I take this opportunity to inform the Senate of how the Collins English Dictionary defines the word 'hypothesis'. It states: a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true. I think that is a basis upon which any application before the determining authority ought to be considered. Senator VIGOR —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade aware of the report in yesterday's Australian Financial Review of the Government's concern about the threat posed to Australia's trade by the United States farm export bonus scheme which will enable the United States Commodity Credit Corporation to offer extra tonnages of farm goods as bonuses to countries which buy directly from the United States? In the light of that concern does the Minister now consider that cuts to the export market development grants scheme announced in May were ill-timed and ill-considered, given that our major trading competitors show every sign of engaging in an unrelenting trade war which will be at the expense of Australian export markets? Will the Government reconsider the cuts announced to the EMDG scheme and seriously consider introducing measures which help Australia's export industry to maintain and increase our export markets, such as rebates on import duties when those inputs are used to produce Australian exports? Senator BUTTON —This question bears a marked resemblance to an intelligent and thoughtful question asked by Senator Archer a few days ago. Yes, I have seen the reports in the newspaper of the proposed United States farm export bonus scheme. I have also seen some very thoughtful criticisms of that proposal from within the United States. Certainly, it seems to us to be a potentially very damaging and ill-considered proposal. The main burden of Senator Vigor's question relates to the cuts in the export market development grants scheme announced in the May mini-Budget. In my view those cuts were not ill-conceived or ill-considered. The implication of Senator Vigor's question is that naturally if one wants to promote exports in an increasingly hostile trading environment the best way to do it is to have an export market development grants scheme and pour more money into it. The Government has been increasingly concerned for some time about the effectiveness of the export market development grants scheme. An evaluation of the scheme by the Department of Trade disclosed that more than 50 per cent of the claimants under the scheme dropped out of it after three grant years, having generated little or no export sales at all. In summary, something like 50 per cent of the beneficiaries of the scheme generated no export sales at all. Indeed, it was possible under the scheme for a claimant to receive up to the maximum grant of $200,000 a year for three years without ever producing an export sale. These findings, together with, I think, very well substantiated allegations of misuse and abuse of the scheme by some people, led to the review which was conducted and to the Government's ultimate decision in the matter which was announced in the May mini-Budget. I also offer a personal view to Senator Vigor. It is no good spending a lot of money on an export grants development scheme if we do not have good things to sell. The real question is whether the scheme was properly targeted or whether money which has been spent for many years on that nice sounding scheme might not have been more beneficially directed into ways of ensuring that Australian industry had better products to sell. But that is just a philosophical difference which I have, perhaps, with some promoters of particular schemes who think that every problem can be cured by an immediate solution. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation advise the Senate whether steps are in train to close the Darling Harbour helipad and whether any alternative arrangements are being made for a helipad site in the Sydney central business district? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Sibraa asks me about the helipad in Sydney. At the outset I should explain that the provision of helipads in the Sydney central business district is solely the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. The national Government is involved, through the Department of Aviation, only in areas of operational safety and, of course, to that extent we have some vested interest in any changes contemplated by the New South Wales Government. The New South Wales authorities have advised the Department of Aviation of their intention to close the helipad at pier 39, Darling Harbour, as part of the reconstruction of that area by the Darling Harbour authority. I understand that the authorities in New South Wales have, however, not yet announced any other changes or when the closure will take place. I am further advised that a number of alternative sites for helipads are being examined by the New South Wales authorities and the Department of Aviation, in response to New South Wales requests, has made safety and technical evaluations of those sites and has provided the results to the New South Wales Government. I therefore conclude by saying again that the provision and location of the helipads in Sydney are entirely the responsibility of the State Government, subject of course to the requirement that any proposed helipad must be in accordance with the safety and operational standards determined by the Department of Aviation. Senator PARER —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is he aware of the alleged practice whereby officials of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association in the Muswellbrook district office require payments from those looking for employment to be placed on a register? Is the Minister also aware that the payments required are accepted only in cash and that the amount varies from $1,000 upwards depending on where the individual is placed on the list? Is the Minister also aware that R. W. Miller &Co. Pty Ltd recently bypassed this system and employed 21 people through normal advertisements and that there has been a strike of over 1,400 Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association members in 11 mines in the Hunter Valley? Will the Minister advise what he intends to do to eliminate this despicable practice at Muswellbrook which has, yet again, damaged our reputation as a reliable supplier on international markets? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association has had a long-standing practice of submitting names to employers in the mining industry, particularly in the Upper Hunter Valley, and that it was the practice, until a recent controversy arose at the Mount Thorley mine, for the mining companies to accept the names of accredited FEDFA members put forward to them and to take them on in the order in which the names were submitted, provided they satisfied other criteria of work ability and so on. I am also aware that the R. W. Miller company at Mount Thorley has decided to terminate that practice, and that has given rise to the present dispute. I certainly am not aware of any suggestion hitherto that any money changes hands in relation to the placing of people's names on those lists. I simply say to Senator Parer that I hope that he has some reasonable evidence to support that allegation, because obviously it is a very serious one and certainly very libellous of the union and the officials who have practised that system over the years. If he has any hard evidence justifying the claims that he has made in this place, I suggest that he put it immediately before the appropriate authorities. Senator PARER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the Minister agree to have this matter investigated through either the Joint Coal Board or the Coal Industry Tribunal? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will agree to have it investigated when some hard evidence as to the nature of the practices in question is put forward by Senator Parer to me or to the police authorities. Otherwise, I will simply treat it, as I imagine the Joint Coal Board will, as a matter of scuttlebutt of a kind that is entirely familiar from right wing politicians when it comes to union practices. If there is any evidence to sustain it, obviously it is a matter that requires the fullest possible investigation. I will, of course, draw Senator Parer's question to the attention of the Joint Coal Board, I guess, in the first instance, so that its members know the sort of things with which they must deal in trying to resolve industrial disputes in the Upper Hunter Valley. But I repeat: The onus is squarely on Senator Parer, if he is to come into this place and make these sorts of allegations, either to put up or to shut up. By 'shutting up' I mean apologising as well to those workers and their representatives whom he has traduced by making these allegations. If he can put up, obviously the allegation and the use of parliamentary privilege for this purpose are justified. If he cannot put up, he ought to apologise posthaste. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time today, Senator Messner asked me a question which was a follow-up question to one that he directed to Senator Grimes last week or earlier this week. I am advised that-and I quote-'Voluminous as it is', a copy of the computer print-out, 'Housing and statistics', which Senator Messner has requested, will be placed in the Table Office as soon as it can be run off. Apparently it is a very large document, and there has been some difficulty. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave- proposed: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 20 August 1985 at 2 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.03) —I move: At end of motion add: Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. This is the amendment which has been moved successfully for many sessions now. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a schedule in relation to the list of reports tabled by you, Mr President, in the Senate on 29 May 1985. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- SCHEDULE GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS 1. Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings Tabled 25.11.82 Interim responses 2.6.1983 and 15.12.1983 Final response provided in the Senate on 22.10.84. 2. Feasibility of a Contract or Makarrata between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal People Tabled 13.9.1983 The Government considers that the concept of Makarrata must be seen in the context of the efforts required to promote community acceptance for the concept of national land rights legislation. The wider issues involved in a Makarrata would make it difficult at this stage to enlist the support necessary to achieve constitutional amendment as recommended by the Committee. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE ARTS1. Tenure of Employment of Academics Tabled 9.9.1982 Interim response 15.12.1983 The Government is still engaged in consultation with the relevant unions and related organisations on matters associated with this report. There are still a number of issues to be settled. When these are finalised the Government will be in a position to complete its response to the Committee's report. 2. A National Language Policy Tabled 21.2.1985 Interim response 28.5.1985 Due to the wide-reaching impact of the Report's recommendation and their likely financial implications, it has not yet been possible to provide a complete response. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 1. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth: Fifth Report Tabled 16.9.1982 Interim response 15.12.1983 The Government is currently considering a paper on Statutory Authorities and Government Enterprises. The paper encompasses matters still outstanding from the report. A response is expected in the Budget Sittings. 2. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Report 1980-81 Tabled 1.12.1983 See Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 3. The Practical Operation of the Prescribed Payments System of Taxation Tabled 4.9.1984 The Government expects to make a response in the Budget Sittings. 4. Fourth Report on Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island Administrations Tabled 18.10.1984 Chairman of Committee indicated in the Senate on 18 October 1984 that the report raises no matters which require the Senate's further consideration. 5. Policy Questions Underlying Division 312 of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 The Government expects to make a response in the Budget Sittings. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE 1. Australia's Defence Co-operation with its Neighbours in the Asian-Pacific Region Tabled 23.10.84 Government consideration of the report is nearing completion. A final response is expected to be made in the Budget Sittings. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE 1. Development of the Australian Fishing Industry Tabled 21.4.1983 Interim Response 15.12.1983 The Government is considering the outcome of the National Fisheries conference held earlier this year. A response to the Committee's report is expected to be made in the Budget Sittings. 2. Australian-China Trade Tabled 23.8.84 The Government expects to make a response in the Budget Sittings. 3. Development of Closer Economic Relations Between Australia and New Zealand Tabled 11.10.1984 The Government expects to make a response in the Budget Sittings. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES 1. The Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries Tabled 25.11.1981 Interim Response 15.12.1983 Final response from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment tabled in the Senate on 16.10.1984. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 1. The Preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island Tabled 2.11.1983 Interim Response 7.3.1984 and 22.10.1984 The Government expects to make a response in the Budget Sittings. 2. Land Use Policy in Australia Tabled 21.2.1985 The Government expects to make a response in the Budget Sittings. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE 1. Another Side to the Drug Debate-A Medicated Society Tabled 14.5.1981 Interim Responses 15.12.83 and 22.10.84 The recommendations of the Committee are being taken into account in the formulation of policies relating to the supply of pharmaceutical preparations in Australia. 2. Income Support for the Retired and the Aged Tabled 21.8.1984 Progress Report-no response necessary. JOINT COMMITTEE ON AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 1. Retail Trading Hours in the A.C.T. Tabled 21.10.1982 Interim response 15.12.1983 The matters raised in the report have been the subject of considerable debate. The Government is considering amendments to the A.C.T. Ordinance. A response is expected in the Budget Sittings. 2. The Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan Tabled 1.3.1984 Copies of a revised Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan will be made available to the Committee when completed. 3. Murrumbidgee River in the A.C.T. Region Tabled 11.9.1984 Interim Response 22.10.1984 The Government expects to respond in the Budget Sittings. JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE 1. The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities Tabled 11.10.1984 Final response tabled in the House of Representatives 23.5.1984. SELECT COMMITTEES 1. Statutory Authority Financing (a) Volume 1 Tabled 8.9.1983 Interim responses 15.12.1983 and 22.10.1984 (b) Volume 2 Tabled 13.10.1983 Interim responses 15.12.1983 and 22.10.1984 See comments on 'Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth: Fifth Report' above. 2. Private Nursing Homes in Australia Tabled 21.1.1985 The Government is commencing a major internal review of nursing home programs which will draw on the Senate Committee's Report. As the review will not be finalised before the end of 1985, a final response will not be possible until the Autumn Sittings 1986. An interim response is expected to be made in the Budget Sittings. 3. Video Material Tabled 1.3.1985 Recommendations concerning the Australian Capital Territory have been referred to the House of Assembly for consideration. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) — by leave-Last night in the adjournment debate Senator Black inferred that the Free Enterprise Welfare Foundation Ltd, of which I am a patron, had channelled money to the Queensland National Party. That is not true. I wish to place on record that the Foundation was formed to raise funds for a drug education centre on the Gold Coast and the Premier and I have the honour to be patrons. It is a pity that Senator Black does not have the foresight to see the value of such an educational centre, the aim of which is to educate and alert young people to the terrible dangers of drug addiction. I appreciate what the Foundation is doing to raise money for such a worthwhile centre. I do not believe there is anything wrong with being patron of such a noble foundation. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave- In reply to a question which I asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) today, she said that she had released a report on affirmative action. From the interjections of Labor senators opposite, it seemed they had a copy and they inferred that I did not even know that I had received one in my office. I have checked and I have not received one, nor has any other member of the Opposition. In inquiring into the situation I found that only Caucus members received a copy of the report, Opposition members did not receive a copy and 'If they are lucky they may receive one today'. I believe this is the second occasion on which the Minister has conducted this sort of nonsense in her office; that is, giving only Government members copies of a report, as she did in the case of the Schools Commission grants. The Opposition was totally ignored. I think that this is absolutely reprehensible, Mr President, and I ask you to do something about it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-Immediately I heard Senator Walters's question this afternoon, I asked my office to make inquiries about the distribution arrangements for the report. At this stage those inquiries are proceeding. It was certainly the intention that copies of the report would be circulated to all members and senators as is customary. When I have an explanation of what happened I will make that known to the Senate. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief statement relating to proceedings of the Senate this week. In accordance with customary procedures, I have shown it to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Mr President, This week a report was tabled by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on ''Conscientious Objection to Conscripted Military Service''. This report deals with a most controversial subject. The Senate has had no opportunity to debate this report-no opportunity to comment on this report in any way at all. While the members of the final Committee who drafted the report were drawn from both Government and Opposition Senators it is fair comment that while they may have a similar and particular point of view it is not the view of others of us. On behalf of a number of my colleagues, who because of the restricted time available do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Senate, I wish it to be recorded that this Report enjoys neither the unqualified nor the unanimous support of the Senate. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Estimates Committee's Hansard. Leave granted. Senator HILL(South Australia) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present the report on the annual reports referred to the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator HILL —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my short speech relating to this report in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- REPORT ON REPORTS Tabling Statement by Senator Robert Hill Because of time and resource constraints, it has not been possible for the Committee to attempt a detailed appraisal of each of the reports referred to it at this stage. In the first section of this report we report on a group of annual reports which in the main are concerned with the enforcement of Commonwealth criminal laws. These reports are: the Australian Federal Police Fifth Annual Report 1983-84; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions First Annual Report for period 5 March 1984-30 June 1984; the Special Prosecutor, Mr R. V. Gyles QC's Second Annual Report 1983-84; the Special Prosecutor, Mr R. V. Gyles QC's Final Report for period 1 July 1984-21 September 1984; and the Special Prosecutor, Mr R. F. Redlich QC's Second Annual Report 1983-84. As is stated in the Committee's report: This is an area in which there have been some important recent developments such as the use of Special Prosecutors for the investigation and institution of prosecutions in relation to illegal activities identified by the Costigan Royal Commission into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union; the creation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and the establishment of The National Crime Authority. The common thread running through the reports relating to criminal law enforcement is their recognition that if there is to be any reduction of crime in Australia there needs to be co-ordinated and vigorous law enforcement and the prosecution and stripping of assets of those people who derive large profits from such activity. These annual reports are a very important part of the background to the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1985 recently before Parliament. The Committee draws attention to the major points made in the reports and comments on the extent to which the Bill meets the points raised in the reports. The Committee also reports at this stage on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance First Annual Report 1983-84; the High Court of Australia Fifth Annual Report 1983-84; the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman Annual Reports 1983-84; and the Trade Practices Commission Tenth Annual Report 1983-84 The Committee intends to report on the remaining reports referred to it in the Budget session. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 10) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 10A) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 10B) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 10C) 1985 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1985 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1985 Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 Debate resumed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.12) —Immediately prior to the luncheon adjournment I was speaking on the Australian Sports Commission Bill. I understand that new legislation will be introduced in the Senate this afternoon, which the Senate is required to deal with as a matter of urgency. As a result of that we have a very real difficulty with the amount of time available. Whilst the Senate might find itself denied the eloquence of the balance of my speech, I ask the Senate for leave to incorporate in Hansard the balance of my speech. Senator Georges —I want to make a comment before I agree. It seems to me to be impossible under the Standing Orders for an honourable senator to incorporate a speech which he does not have prepared in a form which is legible for Hansard. I raise that point at this stage. Leave Granted. The speech read as follows- In his second reading speech, the Minister pointed to a persistent theme, which he said had emerged during the investigations of the Interim Committee: the need for a mechanism that allowed a much greater direct involvement by sport itself in determining needs, priorities and strategies for action Yet under this legislation it appears that the priorities and strategies for action will be those that accord with the wishes of the Government. The Minister emphasises the ministerial control over the Commission in his second reading speech: 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 Additionally, the Confederation of Australian Sport pointed out that: In the appointment of Members of the Commission, sport has not been consulted, with the result that sport is concerned that many Commission decisions could be reached without reflecting a genuine sports' input The other major part of this legislation is the provision for the National Sports Commission to form a company, the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, for the purpose of raising money for the development of sport. The aim of this Foundation, according to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, is: To attract additional, private sector resources that can be used to support sports development programs that will benefit all levels of Australian sport . . . It will, they assure us- have the flexibility and autonomy required to generate additional funds from the private sector I find it very hard to accept that the Australian Sports Foundation established under this legislation will be truly autonomous. The Commission is to form the Foundation, the Commission is to raise money through the Australian Sports Aid Foundation for the purposes of the Commission, and the Commission is to administer and expend money raised by the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. It appears that the Australian Sports Aid Foundation will be very closely bound to the Commission's strategic plan which must of course be designed to fit in with Government policy, and requires ministerial approval. This is very far from my idea of an independent body. Of course, the establishment of an Australian Sports Foundation will also increase the power of the Commission. As the Confederation of Australian Sport pointed out, this would lead to a position where the Commission would control: All of the public sector funding of sport at a national level; a substantial amount of the private sector funding and sponsorship funds; and perhaps see itself as the clearing house for all sponsorship proposals for national sports. In addition, the Minister has said that the Government is giving full consideration to the provision of full tax deductibility for donations to the foundation. This would or course have the effect of directing private sector funds to the Foundation-representing enormous sums of money. The Government estimates direct sponsorship of sport by the private sector is at least $50m. These funds would then be distributed by the Commission, according to Government policy. In addition under this legislation, the Commission needs to have the written approval of the Minister to make grants, or lend money, or provide scholarships or like benefits. Thus the Government has a remarkable degree of financial control over sport, without any obvious benefits for Australian sport. There are no guarantees of sports role in the Foundation to be found in the legislation, rather the dominant factor will be government policy. Finally I would make the point that this legislation is a very good illustration of the differences of approach between the Liberal Party and the ALP. As Professor David Kemp put it in the autumn 1984 review of the Institute of Public Affairs: Wise government . . . will not overburden itself by trying to take away the capacity to plan from individuals and groups and locate this authority in government itself. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(3.13) —I will conclude the second reading debate. Because of the time constraints I will not make a detailed response to criticisms raised by the Opposition. I simply point out that the claims that there has not been consultation are quite wrong. There has been extensive consultation in the preparation of the legislation. Indeed, the modus operandi of the Australian Sports Commission will be consultation with sporting organisations and other relevant organisations. I think it is clear that there has been adequate and satisfactory consultation, given that expressions of support to the Commission have come from virtually all sporting organisations-for example, organisations associated with tennis; Australian football; rugby league; soccer; rowing; volley-ball; the Australian Olympic Federation; the Australian Institute of Sport; the Australian Sports Medicine Federation; and the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, amongst many others. So the Bill is the product of consultation. It is supported broadly throughout the sporting community. I believe it will achieve the objective of helping to support and stimulate a great variety of sporting activities which Australians enjoy. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Hearn, J. M.Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D.Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. F.Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J.Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D.Georges, G. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J.Brownhill, D. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G.Grimes, D. J. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretJones, G. N. Carrick, Sir JohnTate, M. C. Short, J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —I rise to place on record a total rebuttal of the claim made by certain Opposition speakers that this Bill was opposed by all sports and sports associations across Australia. I have letters from the National Football League of Australia Ltd and from the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED (Incorporated in Victoria) 120 Jolimont Road Jolimont, Vic. 3002 Tel. (03) 63 4977 7 May 1985 Mr L. J. MartinPresidentConfederation of Australian Sport78 Jolimont StreetJolimont, Vic. 3002 Dear Les Re Australian Sports Commission I have chosen to write to you direct rather than complete your Confederation's Questionnaire as I am concerned that certain answers may create an impression that the NFL is for one body and against the other. We believe that the Confederation and the Sports Commission should have two very important but distinctly different roles. The NFL is most appreciative of the Confederation's initiatives and achievements and fully supports it as the organisation to represent the interests of National Sporting Organisations. However we strongly support the concept of the Australian Sports Commission, with its independent membership, being responsible for policy and allocation in respect of Federal Government funding. As with every statutory authority, there will be some shortcomings. Certainly, I was disappointed at the large membership of the Commission. I have personally spoken to John Brown, Ted Harris and Bruce McDonald along these lines. However, I am satisfied that the establishment of the ASC is a most progressive innovation. Its structure and the independent nature of its membership will permit it to make a positive contribution to Australian sport. The general thrust of its activities should, I believe, receive our full support. Having been a member of the past Sports Advisory Council, which I found to be ineffective and at times parochial, I personally support the advent of the ASC and do not agree that a separate advisory committee is necessary. The NFL does not conform to the view that the Commission should be representative of National Associations as this would again lead to parochialism and sectional lobbying evident in the former Sports Advisory Council. Whatever the perceived failings of the Commission's present membership, it is at least independent in a sense that the individuals are not open to instruction from sporting associations. The interim Commission comprising expertise in Business, Public Sector and Sport, is considerably more progressive than a return to the system of an Advisory Council, essentially representing vested interests. I am confident that any areas of concern regarding the roles of the Confederation and the Commission can and will be resolved. Yours sincerely A. J. AYLETT President 17.5.85 The Hon. J. J. Brown, M.P.Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism,Parliament House,Canberra Apparently the LTAA was referred to in Parliament yesterday by the Opposition as being opposed to aspects of the Australian Sports Commission Bill. I wish to make it clear that the LTAA, in fact is not in opposition to the Bill and indeed specifically declined to answer a questionnaire circulated by the Confederation of Australian Sport dealing with it. This was done because it was felt that the questionnaire was loaded and we certainly did not wish to appear to be party to providing material for opposition use. I may say that I had, previous to this telex forwarded correspondence to you. Nothing in the above statements is meant to suggest that the Confederation of Australian Sport has dishonoured the confidentiality of its questionnaire. COLIN McDONALD Executive Director, Lawn Tennis Association of Australia Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 6 (Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 and Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985), Government Business, Orders of the Day be considered in the following order: (a) Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1985; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1985; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Retention Lease Fees) Bill 1985. (b) Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985; Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985; Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985. (c) Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985; Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills 1985. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.22) —I am a little concerned about the fact that, although the Senate has been going to very great pains to consider the Government's program and to push through legislation quickly, some of the legislation which we have been dealing with over the last few days and which has been subject to relatively minor amendments-I think one amendment was in the telecommunications package of Bills and the other in the social security package-will not be dealt with by the House of Representatives. This chamber does not control the behaviour of the House of Representatives, but I would have thought that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) had some say in the matter. It has been estimated that between $50,000 and $100,000 of the taxpayers' money is being spent on bringing back the House of Representatives. I am told that the House of Representatives will sit for a planned one hour under, no doubt, the usual procedures of gags and guillotines. In that hour two of the three Bills which have been amended in this place will not be dealt with and, therefore, will not become law until the Budget session. I find that not only strange but also rather offensive. I think most Australians would also regard it as rather offensive. I ask the Government to take urgent steps to ensure that the House of Representatives gets the messages which have been sent from this place and deals with them. To do less would be to short-change the taxpayers and the people of Australia. It might be argued that this Senate should simply collapse in a heap on its amendments. I can only remind the Senate and the Government that, at the beginning of this session, a number of statements were made when the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Grimes) put down the program for the session. As I recall, we commented that it looked like we had a fairly heavy program. We talked about the fact that very often the Senate has been put in an awkward position with respect to dealing with legislation after the House of Representatives has risen. As I recall, it was common ground between the Opposition and the Australian Democrats that we were not going to be blackmailed out of dealing with legislation in the proper way by this sort of use or abuse of the Parliament. I just want to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we have shown a great deal of co-operation in the last two weeks of sitting to meet the requirements of the Government's program. We have forgone many debates. The Democrats gave up General Business last week and took a relatively small portion of time this week in return. We have not run matters of public importance debates on most of the days in the last two weeks of sitting. We have done a number of things to try to ensure that we will conclude the program in good order this afternoon. I would find it extremely offensive, as well as extremely wasteful, if the Bills which have been amended in this chamber were not dealt with by way of a message to the House of Representatives. I will register the strongest possible protest if that matter is not remedied immediately. I think it is a disgrace and I hope that the Government will do something about it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.25) —Before the Australian Democrats join in the rhetorical stakes on this one might I indicate that, while I fully understand what Senator Chaney has said, I believe it is quite possible that his remarks on this subject may prove premature. Senator Chaney —Are you changing your mind? That is good. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to determine the order of business in the House of Representatives. Certain discussions are taking place at this moment and I hope it will be possible to resolve the matter satisfactorily. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.26) —I certainly welcome the comments that have come from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) because there is some very real concern on this side of the chamber about the repercussions that could occur-if the rumour that is going around the place at the moment turns out to be correct-in a number of areas, not least of which are those areas in the community that could have quite an unfortunate impact made on them by the non-implementation of some other clauses in the legislation. Senator Chaney was perfectly correct. Both his Party and ours made very clear statements that we believed that our role as members of parliament did not end when the House of Representatives rose; that we still saw the need to look at legislation on its merits and to amend it where necessary; and that we were not going to be either directly or indirectly blackmailed into passing, untouched, legislation brought into the Senate after the House of Representatives rose. For us to do that would simply be tantamount to saying that we did not have to be here at all, to giving the Government a blank cheque and virtually to saying that a bicameral system did not need to exist for some parts of the parliamentary year. The Government knew of the changes to the National Crime Authority legislation well over 24 hours ago-perhaps not quite so long; I think the session is getting to me-- Senator Durack —You are quite right. Senator HAINES —I am right; it was the day before yesterday. The days are running into each other and I think that is affecting all of us. From memory the decision we took on the social security and repatriation legislation was made around 11 o'clock this morning, so there has been plenty of time for a Cabinet meeting, if it was necessary, to consider the legislation when a message was sent to the House. If there was not time for such a meeting, I would have thought that there was surely time for the Minister to speak to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about it. Senator Chipp —That is all that would be necessary. Senator HAINES —Indeed, it is all that was necessary, as Senator Chipp says. I hope that the comments the Minister has made indicate that at least one of those two courses was taken and that good sense prevails, as it tends to do on the majority of occasions in this place, with the occasional hiccup, of which I hope this is not going to be one. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1985, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1985, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Retention Lease Fees) Bill 1985 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all such Bill's together in Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Debate resumed on motions: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.30) —The purpose of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1985 is to increase the rate of freight adjustment levy on Bass Strait crude from 1 January and from 1 March this year, and then to provide for increases in the levy as a percentage of the special freight allowance component of the import parity price for Bass Strait crude so that the levy, in effect, will be adjusted to the import parity pricing formula so long as it remains. The Bass Strait freight adjustment levy is an attempt by the Government to reconcile some converging interests within the refining industry between refiners in Victoria and those in New South Wales and Queensland particularly. It is not a scheme that the Opposition has been very happy with. In fact, we criticised it and we support these proposed amendments only as an interim arrangement. The Opposition hopes that there will be an early move to a free market and that in that much more satisfactory atmosphere there will not be the same complaints or need for such legislation as this. Unfortunately, when the Senate is about to rise, this is not the time to engage in a debate on the important subject of a free market for oil, but hopefully there will be opportunity for debate on that at an early date in the Budget session. The package of legislation to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and associated Acts is important. Although the Opposition supports it, it is certainly a matter which should be the subject of a good deal of consideration and debate in this chamber. This package of Bills makes a large number of important amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and associated legislation. They have been the result of a good deal of work over many years and they make some very useful changes to the legislation. The most important of those changes is to introduce for the first time the availability of retention leases. This has been needed for some time in the industry. It will be welcomed by the industry and I am glad that the Government has rearranged its program today at the last minute to enable this legislation to be passed. The legislation had been sitting at the bottom of the Notice Paper for some time and until the last minute it looked as though the Government had forgotten about it. The Opposition welcomes the fact that it is now being brought on this afternoon, even in this rush, so that it can be passed and so that the industry can have the benefit of the proposals for retention leases. Without going into further discussion about the nature of those proposals and the nature of the legislation concerning them, the Opposition expresses its very grave concern that there are proposals floating around from the Government-proposals which have no doubt been inspired from the highest sources in the Government-about prohibitive fees being imposed for retention leases which may well render them to be of no commercial value or of very little commercial value once they have been introduced. This legislation does not do that; it provides for a reasonable lease fee at a mid-point between existing fees applying for exploration permits and production licences. During the debate on the proposed cash bidding legislation rejected by this chamber a couple of weeks ago, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, indicated that the Government would be looking at alternative measures to make up the expected revenue shortfall. He noted two possible measures to which the Government is giving consideration; namely, a retention lease premium of, possibly, $10m, or a signature bonus for the granting of leases in highly prospective areas. I do not know whether these proposals were made simply in a fit of pique at the rejection of the legislation, but very serious concern has been expressed about them by the industry. The Opposition sincerely hopes that the Government is not seriously proposing to go ahead with the proposal for a premium of the order of $10m for a retention lease. Certainly, that proposal justifies entirely the concern of industry that the whole cash bonus bidding system was a revenue raising exercise. That was always strenuously denied by the Government, yet at the very moment that that proposal was about to be defeated the Government has made these suggestions. This legislation does not contain that proposal, but in the light of what Senator Gareth Evans has said, and other statements that have emanated from the Government, the industry has raised a very great concern about it. This Parliament is putting through a proposal of great benefit to the industry, one which it has required and sought for a long time; yet at the same time there are suggestions floating around which, if implemented, would render it virtually useless to the industry. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will give some indication of present Government thinking on that matter. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.37) —The Australian Democrats support this legislation for very much the reasons Senator Durack has mentioned and also share the concern he has expressed at the rumours that have gone right through the oil industry. I have had several communications today and yesterday indicating that the Government is considering increasing what is now a very modest and eminently reasonable retention lease fee of $4,500 a block, which is half the fee for a production lease, to some very vast figure. The amount of $10m has been mentioned in the telegrams and representations I have had today. This is basically a retaliation on the part of the Government because it was not able to get cash bonus bidding through this Parliament. I hope, as does Senator Durack, that all this talk is merely a manifestation of the natural irascibility of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) when he does not get his way, which we have seen before, and that he would not consider putting in a retention lease fee which would have the consequence of discouraging further exploration. In relation to cash bonus bidding, the Government showed a remarkable predeliction for killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We caution it not to contemplate doing the same thing here. It also should not resort to dirty tricks such as considering this as a Budget Bill or device of that kind if it wants to increase it at some stage. It is relevant that since these Bills are directed towards increased exploration, particularly in off-shore gas prone areas and in deep water, the question of our own fuel self-sufficiency becomes a factor. I sound a note of warning to the Government and the community that the status of Australian oil reserves is not as reassuring as it was even a short time ago. That has a very direct bearing on whether or not pressure should be applied to the industry to extract more money from it somehow to get money up front before it gets the chance to explore. As it stands now, of the 231 million cubic metres of demonstrated recoverable oil as at 30 June last year, 200 million cubic metres is in the Gippsland basin area. There also is the largest resource of demonstrated sub-economic oil; some 31 million cubic metres of the national total of 57 million cubic metres. So these figures demonstrate the extent to which Australia's oil dependence has rested on one region which is now rapidly being depleted. We had hoped that Jabiru would be the discovery which would solve all of that, with initial projections of 200 million barrels. These projections have been downgraded to around 40 million barrels. This has caused a revision of world production estimates by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Far too little notice has been taken of this and far too little mention made of it. The estimate has decreased from 185 million barrels a year in 1985 to 160 million barrels a year in 1988. That implies that our self-sufficiency and the time in which we can rely on getting oil from our own resources are much less than it was thought in the past. Predictions of one kind or another exist, of course, but it is a very risky business. Oil is not an infinite resource and at some stage the rate of discovery will decline. We have no way of knowing in advance when that will be but, as I have said, the latest BMR projections show us that it will be a lot sooner than we thought even a year or so ago. The Jabiru situation should point Australia again to the urgent need, not only to encourage exploration and development through measures such as are contained in these Bills as they stand, but also to develop the technology of alternative energy sources. It is very depressing to note that the Government is spending so little on alternative energy sources. In 1983 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, for instance, spent only 0.8 of one per cent of the total research budget on renewable energy. An area which deserves increased research and development is the production of methanol from natural gas. We have vast resources of natural gas, the rate of discovery of which far exceeds that of oil. It has been demonstrated by known technology, including by our neighbour, New Zealand, that this can be converted to methanol and to petrol. It can be a useful motor spirit. In California cars running on methanol now use about one million gallons every year. In 1979 the State legislature set aside $10m to investigate these alternative fuels. There have been some claims made before that these methods will not work. The results demonstrate that on a fleet basis they are successful. Motor vehicles run well and successfully using this fuel and could be expected to do so in Australia. The strategic implications of these Bills are obvious. I will not go into them. They are recognised by New Zealand and should be recognised here. We probably have enough crude oil in known fields and in projected funds to meet our needs to the year 2000, which is 15 years away. The lead time for methanol production is at least five years. The changeover time for the automobile industry to produce a significant number of suitable cars is very much longer than that. I urge the Government that the time to begin the changeover to alternative fuels, such as methanol, or at least to begin active planning in that area, is now. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.42) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their support for these measures and I wish them an appropriately speedy passage. There are many issues which, if we had time, it would be pleasant to debate but I will have to defer that debate until-- Senator Durack —It might not be pleasant but they are important. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would be very happy to debate those matters with Senator Durack or anybody else, even Senator Mason, in the Budget session. As to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1985 and allied Bill legislation, I acknowledge that not everyone is totally happy with the freight equalisation formula. I know that people are never likely to be happy with it because there is an element of compromise about it. I simply say, as I have said to the industry, that in the event that we do not move to a free market situation in January next, as has been foreshadowed as a possibility following the very extensive policy review going on at the moment, I am happy to undertake to review the freight equalisation arrangements as I was requested to do, I think by Senator Durack, in the latter part of this year. Whether that review will produce any variation from the existing formula remains to be seen but I certainly acknowledge that it is a continuing source of debate within the industry and deserves further evaluation if the present regime is to continue beyond the end of this year. I now refer to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill and allied Bills. Senator Durack said that a very large number of important changes are made in the legislation. There does not seem to be either the time or the necessity to debate them now. Both Senator Durack and Senator Mason raised the possibility of more substantial fees being imposed for retention leases than those presently provided in the legislation. I say simply that the alleged proposals floating around are no more than that at this stage and, certainly, the Government has made no decision on the matter. I assure the Senate and the industry that there would be full consultation with the industry as to the impact of any such fees on the retention licences that we are creating today before any such decision were to be made. I repeat: The cash bidding legislation was not designed primarily as a revenue raising matter. I have said that endlessly during the debate on that; I repeat it now. I said, as I have said over and over again, that revenue was a secondary consideration, and it was there on the books as a secondary consideration. The Government will have to have regard to the implications of the rejection of the cash bidding legislation from a revenue point of view. It will do so in the Budget context; but at this stage it is quite premature to speculate on what course of action, if any, the Government might adopt in this respect. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests or debate. Consideration of House of Representatives messages: House of Representatives messages: MR PRESIDENT Message No. 135 The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ''A Bill for an Act relating to the dairy industry'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of representatives has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate, for the Reasons shown in the annexed Schedule. The House of Representatives desire the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the said amendments. House of Representatives, H. A. JENKINS Canberra, 24 May 1985 Speaker Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to the amendments of the SenateThe Senate amendment is not acceptable because- This amendment, which would have the effect of extending export pooling for butter and cheese for two years, is counter to the basic thrust and purpose of the Government's new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry. As export pooling is a major cause of the industry's present problems (including overproduction) it should be terminated as soon as possible. The Government does not accept that the temporary continuation of export pooling is a necessary transitional arrangement as possible transitional difficulties associated with the termination of export pooling are covered by other Government decisions. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that clause 13 of the original Bill be restored. Mr PRESIDENT, Message No. 136 The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ''A Bill for an Act to make provision for the collection of levy imposed by the 'Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Act 1985' and the 'Dairy Products Levy Act 1977', to establish trust funds for use in support of the marketing of dairy produce, and for related purposes'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate, for the Reasons shown in the annexed Schedule. The House of Representatives desire the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the said amendments. House of Representatives, H. A. JENKINS Canberra, 24 May 1985 Speaker Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- This amendment seeks to alter the basis on which market support payments for dairy produce will be paid under the legislation. The Government considers that its mechanism for determining market support payments is preferable to that proposed by the amendment in that it takes into account market price relativities. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that clauses 19 and 20 of the original Bill be restored. MR PRESIDENT, Message No. 137 The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ''A Bill for an Act to amend the 'Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977', and for related purposes'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has considered the Message of the Senate requesting the House to make an amendment in such Bill. The House of Representatives has not made the requested amendment. House of Representatives, H. A. JENKINS, Canberra, 24 May 1985 Speaker Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Committee- (a) does not insist on the amendments made by the Senate in the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 and the Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed; and (b) that the Senate's request for an amendment to the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985 not be pressed. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.49) — The Opposition is opposing the motion moved by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. In opposing it, perhaps I should say to Senator Walsh that I have seen Senator Button about this matter, and I just want to back our case by having incorporated in Hansard a message from John Bennett, the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, supporting the moves by the Opposition in regard to the three amendments, and a further message from John Bennett containing the result of a vote supporting the Opposition's amendments at a United Dairyfarmers of Victoria conference at Swan Hill. I seek leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to have those messages incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The messages read as follows- AUSTRALIAN DAIRY INDUSTRY CONFERENCE 576 St Kilda Road,Melbourne,Victoria 3004 23 May 1985 The Honourable R. J. D. Hunt, M.P.,Shadow Minister for Primary Industry,Parliament House,Canberra,A.C.T. 2600 Dear Shadow Minister, The Australian Dairy Industry Conference fully supports the amendments which have been moved in the Senate today. While accepting the thrust of the Kerin Plan, the industry believes that the amendments are necessary to facilitate a smoother transition from the existing arrangements. Yours sincerely, JOHN P. BENNETT Chairman The President of the ADFF, Mr John Bennett has just phoned the following from the UDV Conference at Swan Hill ''That the conference endorse the actions taken by the ADFF and requests the Senate to reject the Kerin Plan unless it contains the three amendments inserted by the Senate. Carried 215 votes to 28.'' Sgd. J. Bennett 3.30 p.m. 29 May 1985 Senator COLLARD —I thank the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Walsh's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A.Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O.Gietzelt, A. T. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J.Brownhill, D. Mason, C. V. J.Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J.Chipp, D. L. Parer, W. R.Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Evans, Jack Sheil, G.Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Vigor, D.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G.Tate, M. C. Carrick, Sir JohnGrimes, D. J. Short, J. R.Jones, G. N. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretMcClelland, Douglas Messner, A. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.58) —I find it somewhat distasteful to be aligning myself with the forces of darkness and ignorance, but for procedural reasons it is necessary to move: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.58) —I move: At the end of the motion, add: ', and that the Message to the House of Representatives be dispatched forthwith so that that House may consider the message at its meeting this day'. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.59) —The Opposition supports the amendment moved by Senator Macklin. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.59) —The Government will oppose that silly amendment. The Opposition collectively, the Australian Democrats and all the other dilettantes and spineless jellyfish in the Liberal Party of Australia who, on the first test of the newly asserted Liberal Party economic rationality, failed to take on the National Party of Australia, were told the last time these Bills were before the Senate that the Government will not accept the amendments it is proposing. Therefore, it is futile to proceed with this amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Macklin's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Mason, C. V. J.Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J.Chipp, D. L. Parer, W. R.Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Evans, Jack Sheil, G.Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Vigor, D. B.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T.Black, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, Robert,Cooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A.Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Carrick, Sir John Tate, M. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret McClelland, DouglasMessner, A. J. Coleman, R. N.Puplick, C. J. G. Jones, G. N.Short, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(4.07) — The Opposition does not oppose this necessary legislation. Indeed, I am in receipt of a telex from the Wool Council of Australia seeking its urgent passage because of the wild fluctuations in the Australian dollar. This legislation will merely assist internal rearrangements of the funding for wool research, development, promotion, marketing and all the rest of it. The Opposition supports this legislation. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.08) —As I have had a request from the wool industry to have this legislation passed this afternoon, I seek the indulgence of the Senate to have a few notes incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Speech on Wool Industry Amendment Bill Package 1985 The Wool Industry is vital to the Australian economy, with exports expected to hit a record 2.5 billion dollars this financial year. Since the breaking of the drought the market has continued to make strong gains and has, since January this year, risen by more than 13%. Furthermore, forward estimates are predicting an 8% price increase for next season, over this season's prices. The weakening Australian dollar against the U.S. currency resulted in an immediate increase of 48c a kilo, bringing the average cost of wool to 563c a kilogram-an all time high. World consumption of wool rose by 3% in 1983 and is now at its highest level in 12 years. Therefore a combination of a devalued dollar, increased demand and favourable seasonal conditions have given some cheer to local woolgrowers, merchants and the Australian Wool Corporation. In fact, the Australian Wool Corporation is now to the point where it is almost out of debt and its wool stockpile could drop below the 1 million bale mark by the end of the season. The current situation is ample vindication for the Australian Wool Corporation buying stance and reserved buying decision for the stockpile may prove advantageous to the trade as supplies decline toward the end of the season. I congratulate the Corporation on its judgment. China, a significant user of Australian wool continued to attract market development interest and in the years to come could become one of our major markets. China's plans for the modernisation and expansion of their own wool textile industry include a significant demand for technology transfer and Australia has demonstrated that it can help considerably in this area. The Prime Minister's wool initiative with China (similar to his steel initiative) though not fully developed and still in its infancy needs to be approached with some degree of caution in that there could be problems if the plan were too grandiose and delivery of the full program was seen to falter. The Australian Wool Corporation is presently endeavouring to identify and develop new markets for Australian wool with the aim of increasing wool textile production in developing countries. In addition it is the main contributor to the International Wool Secretariat contributing almost two thirds of the I.W.S. budget in 1983-84. (Funds are provided for world wide wool promotion in proportion to the weight of its net exports of wool.) Perhaps the greatest challenge now facing the Corporation is determining the relativity between wool types for SUPPORT and reconciling differences in support from State to State. In setting floor prices for wool or tariff levels for manufacturers I think that consideration should be given to exchange movements. Although the demand for wool is increasing, competition from both cotton and synthetic fibres remains intense with synthetic fibre manufacturers claiming to have made further technological improvements in their fibres. In order to remain competitive production rates in the Australian Textile Industry have increased dramatically. This in turn has placed great demand on the quality of wool fibres. Considerable problems have occurred in recent years at various stages of production with poorer quality wool but C.S.I.R.O. processing trials should help to identify scouring conditions necessary to achieve optimum wool quality and processing efficiency throughout all stages of manufacture. As wool is sold in highly competitive markets, we must ensure that our products are not disadvantaged in any way by other fibres and that we at least maintain our market share. The Wool Industry's growth and future prosperity will depend very much on our ability to find and develop new markets, to improve the economic efficiency of all stages of production, processing and marketing of wool and on our ability to meet the changing and challenging demands of the world textile and fashion markets. Research, marketing and wool promotion are vital, both to the wool industry and to the Australian economy. Since the Wool Tax Acts of 1964, woolgrowers have paid a levy of 8% of the sale value of shorn wool. 5% of this was allocated through the Wool Tax Act to the Australian Wool Corporation for market support. Additional wool tax regulations divided the remaining 3% between wool promotion and market administration expenses (2.5%) and research (0.5%). The New Wool Industry Amendment Bill will enable these apportionments to be varied slightly on the recommendation of the Wool Council of Australia. The Council would like to be able to vary the wool market support component of wool tax receipts between 4 and 5 percentage points instead of the rigid 5% as it now stands and to make corresponding variations in the apportionments to wool promotion and research. This need for flexibility has been brought home by the falling value of the dollar. In spite of returning higher prices to some woolgrowers, the devaluation has resulted in an increase in the funding required from Australian woolgrowers to meet their commitment to the International Wool Secretariat. This increase could amount to $25 million in 1985-86. Thus, it is of considerable importance that this Bill be passed before the 1985-86 selling season so that variations can be made in the allocation to wool promotion as recommended by the Australian Wool Council. These amendments to the Act would enable additional funds to be directed to wool promotion or research whenever necessary to ensure that Australia retains its competitive position. The focus of consumer and fashion demand is presently on light weight high quality fibres of 23 microns or finer. With record prices being paid for superfine wool (19 microns) Tasmania has long been renowned for its fine and superfine merino wool and this year a record price of 16800c per kilogram was paid by Fujii Keori of Japan for superfine wool produced by Mr Jim McEwan of Cressy. Also in recognition of the tremendous contribution the Taylor family of ''Winton'' have made to the superfine wool industry, Fujii Keori uses the name ''Winton'' on its top quality products. The ''Winton'' stud near Campbell Town in the Tasmanian Midlands has been operated continuously for 150 years by the Taylor family and theirs is one of the few remaining studs in the world to breed pure saxon merino sheep. There are many other Tasmanian families like the McEwans and Taylors who have had a great influence on the Tasmanian wool industry. These include the Cameron family from Ross, the Thirkells from Cressy, O'Connors of Cressy and Avoca, Gibsons of Epping, Dunbabins of the East Coast, Dowlings of Ross and the Scotts from Ross. In mentioning so few families I am probably doing an injustice to other people who have made a significant contribution to the industry in Tasmania in recent years. However, these high returns are not being received by producers of broader wool types. In fact, prices for 25 to 27 micron wool fell this year, resulting in substantial increases in Corporation stockpiles of these types. However, devaluation is helping these and other broader types to clear. Thus we need to develop and exploit new opportunities for wool and new products that will utilise these coarser wools. Most of the carpets which utilise coarser wools are imported into Australia from New Zealand but I am pleased to report that once again Tasmania is leading the way for the rest of Australia. A recent $1 million contract to supply axminster carpets to the Sheraton Hotel in Hawaii places Tascot Templeton in a favourable position on the world carpet market. To remain competitive we need to develop new fibres, yarns and specialised yarn blends and develop new fashion products particularly leisure and sportswear. More money must be directed into textile research and research into a whole range of issues including improved production, diseases in sheep, breeding programs, biotechnology, improved pasture species, wool harvesting and the development of improved wool measuring instruments. The optimism shown by the Wool Council of Australia in recent months is, I feel, well founded and the flexibility provided for in this Bill should assist the wool industry to compete more effectively in the world market. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.09) —Today during the luncheon period a number of honourable senators who are leaving the Senate after various periods of service made speeches which, in a sense, were valedictory speeches. I do not want to speak at length on behalf of the Government in relation to the speeches that were made. Let me say at the outset, however, that a naughty thought occurred to me when those honourable senators were speaking: Why do they not leave every Friday? I say that in the spirit that they were all very fine speeches which, in a sense, summarised the views they have individually expressed over many years in this chamber. I noted that for probably the first time in their careers each of the honourable senators who spoke was listened to with great respect by the chamber. That is something that has not happened here in the last 15 or 16 years in the case of Senator Scott, or the last two or three years for Senator Jack Evans. I suppose my greatest association with Senator Cyril Primmer has been as a senator for Victoria. We were senators in very gloomy days for the Australian Labor Party and travelled together around the country. I regard Senator Primmer as a mate and will always do so. We developed that mateship, I think, working together as senators from Victoria. I do not want to go in detail into his service on various committees of the Senate and so on. I just want to say that as a contributor here he has always been a stirrer, and that is not a bad thing to be. Since we have been in government he has stirred us quite a bit on numerous issues. He has played a catalyst role in the chamber, quite apart from his service on parliamentary delegations and committees, and we will certainly miss him. Senator Scott said that I once supported him for the Deputy Presidency on the basis that I liked the way he read the prayers. I liked the speech he gave today too. It was a very dignified speech and, if I may say so, a very well structured speech, because in a sense he related what he felt when he first came into this chamber and the contribution he thought he could make to what he feels now, on leaving. I suppose in one sense it is sad that we will all do that. We will not feel that terribly much progress has been made. Nonetheless, we will have advanced important points of view in the Senate, and I know Senator Scott has done that over the period he has been here. I say personally to Senator Scott that I think at times he has even tolerated my views on rural issues. We have had the opportunity of discussing them together and I, from time to time, have learned a number of things from him and I very much appreciate that personally; Senator Scott has always been, if I might use an old-fashioned word, a gentleman in dealing with everybody in the Senate, including us, and that has been a very nice quality about his presence here. Senator Lajovic was elected 10 years ago. I thought he explained in a very poignant speech his history as an Australian and as a senator. I think he did us more than kindness in saying how flattered he was to be a member of this chamber. I guess most of us see it as an honour, but sometimes we wonder whether it is such an honour to be elected to this chamber and to listen to some of the debates that take place. Senator Lajovic has contributed a very strong point of view, with which not all of us would agree from time to time but which we have certainly learned to respect. He has also improved my knowledge in Russian history immensely and kept me aware during the last few weeks by having me read a biography of Peter the Great, which has been an interesting experience. Senator Jack Evans has been here less time than the others. I have already spoken to him and expressed my appreciation of his vigorous interest in a wide range of issues, many of which concern my portfolio responsibilities. I think he has been very fair to deal with and I appreciate his enthusiasm. I do not always agree with him, of course, but it would be strange if I did. He has played a very lively role in the Senate since he came here and we are sorry about his retirement and replacement by a senator from the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Senator Jean Hearn has been a senator since 1980, following Ken Wriedt into this chamber. She has taken a very active interest in a number of social reform issues. We have perhaps seen that more in the Australian Labor Party than in the Senate. She has been a member of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts since September 1981 and she has pursued those interests very vigorously. She has also been a very active senator in Tasmania. I had some objection to her activities from time to time because she kept sending me missives about what she had discovered at the Longford branch of the Labor Party about a particular social problem. Things like that are not always easy to deal with. I just give that as an example of her vigour which has caused problems for me. I do not wish to say any more. I just wish to say on behalf of the Government that we value the contributions which have been made by departing senators. I think we can collectively say that we respect them all, although we may not necessarily have agreed with them all on various issues. In each case, we wish them a long and happy retirement. It is much nicer to be speaking in this form of valedictory speech than in the normal condolence motions which we sometimes have in the chamber. In the case of the retiring senators, we wish them a long life and a very happy retirement. We hope that we will see them back here from time to time as our visitors. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.16) —On behalf of the Opposition, I express best wishes to the five retiring senators. I endorse almost everything said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in his remarks. I will not be up to my usual annoying self and pick out those little bits I disagree with. Instead, I will address some additional remarks, particularly to the two retiring senators from the coalition. I had a very difficult early time with Senator Doug Scott. I had two major complaints against him. First of all, he is about 20 years my senior and one of the early experiences I had in this place was to be taken on to a squash court and absolutely whipped by Senator Scott, who at that time was suffering from a very bad hip. That was bad enough, but after I had been here for a little while I went home and my wife said to me: 'There is only one senator who always speaks sense'. I asked who that was and she said that it was Senator Scott. She has not made such a complimentary remark about any other senator that I can recall. I can only say that it has taken me most of the 11 years that I have shared the Senate with Senator Scott to get over those two initial obstacles in our relationship. Senator Scott has made a very wide contribution in this place. He tended to be a little self-deprecating in his comments earlier today when he said that whilst he had had almost every position-it is true that he has had every position from your own, Mr President, very briefly to the deputy presidency; he has been a Minister, a Party leader, a committee man, a leader of delegations and so on, all of which is contained in the parliamentary records-he had not had many of those jobs for long. In fact, he was Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia from 1976 to 1980 and the Leader of it from 1980 to 1985. He has been one of the great constants of the Senate in the time that I have been here. I have always found him utterly reliable. Having read the maiden speech he made in 1970, part of which he quoted earlier today-indeed, the very paragraph I had intended to refer to this afternoon-I can only say of Senator Doug Scott that I believe that he has consistently represented the values that he expressed in his maiden speech. No one can ask more of a representative than that. I would like to repeat one of the five points he made at lunch time today as I think it is a lesson to all of us in times when political theories tend to be advanced with great enthusiasm. Doug Scott said in his maiden speech: We should temper our concern for pure theory with social and political considerations lest we become slaves to ivory towered conceptions. I think there was a bit of an echo of Doug Scott's words in what was said by Senator Jean Hearn. Doug, I say to you on behalf of the Opposition that I hope we remember all of your five points. I for one will certainly remember that fifth point in the years ahead in opposition and, I hope, in government. I thank you for what I think has been an outstanding contribution to the Senate. I wish you and your wife well in what I know will be a very happy retirement from this place. Senator Lajovic was kind enough to say when he came here that it was the proudest moment of his life. I think that was a very nice thing to say about arriving in the Senate and it is good that he still feels much the same about it 10 years later. Senator Lajovic's expression of pleasure at being here reminds me of the story about an American senator who said that he spent his first three months in the American Senate wondering how he got there and he spent the rest of his career wondering how everybody else got there. I think there may be a touch of that in your career, too, Misha. Although for you it was a wonder to you to arrive here, as you have seen more of it I am sure that you have come to understand that in this representative chamber you have had a very proper and appropriate place. It should be part of the record this afternoon that the surprising thing is not that Senator Lajovic became a senator, but the fact that Senator Lajovic survived to come to Australia. If honourable senators have read any of the history of Senator Lajovic's original country in the period in which he lived there, they will know that he lived through dangerous and difficult times. Whatever one's politics in those days, life was very difficult. The complex battles which were fought, in both an intellectual and a military sense, during Misha's early lifetime I am sure took their toll of many of his contemporaries. I have often thought that it is an extraordinary coincidence that a Slovenian child, born when Misha was, should arrive here in the Senate, but it is even more extraordinary that he survived. We are very pleased that you did, Misha, and that you have graced this chamber. In Senator Lajovic's maiden speech, he told us that immigrants had provided 59 per cent of the growth of population since 1947. Most of us in this place are not of first generation immigrant stock; we are all of immigrant stock. I simply wish to say that as a member of the Liberal Party I was always very proud of the fact that Senator Lajovic was one of our representatives. I am sorry that his obvious accent will be missing from this place because I believe that that alone was an encouragement to the great mass of immigrants who have come to this country, and you were a very good demonstration of what can be done. Your account of your early life here, which was very similar to the early life of so many post-war migrants, and your subsequent success in every sense in this country, are things we should all remember. On behalf of Opposition members, I thank you for your contribution to us, both in immigration debates and across the whole spectrum. I am reminded by what Senator Button said of the comment made by Senator Wheeldon after, sadly, not the retirement but the death of Senator Greenwood, when he said that there was so much that Senator Greenwood said that he disagreed with, but he thought the loss of Senator Greenwood was the loss of the voice of a very important group in the community which would not be represented so readily thereafter. Senator Lajovic has represented a section of the Australian community in particular which, without him, will not be so well represented, although I can assure Senator Lajovic that we will do our best. As far as Senator Primmer, Senator Hearn and Senator Jack Evans are concerned, time does not permit me to say anything further, because I am sure other senators wish to speak. I say only that each of them has made, in my view and in the view of the Opposition, a significant contribution in this place. I join with Senator Button in saying that the speeches which have been made today are a useful reminder of the principles that brought each of those senators in here and of what they sought to achieve here. The Opposition wishes all of them well and hopes they will have very happy and useful retirements. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.25) —I join the Australian Democrats in paying tribute to the five senators who are retiring. As I listened to the speeches of honourable senators I could not help remarking to myself how the Parliament has changed, over the 25 years that I have been a member, in the human relationships that exist between people. Probably the most abstemious senators here, Senator Haines and Senator Macklin, coerced me the other night to go into the members' bar to have an end of session drink with them. It is the first time I have been in that bar for four or five months and it was totally empty. When I came to the Parliament almost every member of the Parliament, from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, used to go into that bar regularly. The Country Party members were always on the left hand side for some obscure reason. For an even more obscure reason all Australian Labor Party members were on the extreme right. The Liberals used to drink in the middle. Everybody had two drinks on average, and then went to dinner. During that half hour there was an interchange of views and personalities between all parties; there was a lot of fun and a number of personalities around the place. In latter years, that fun and those personalities seem to have gone. I think the Parliament is poorer for it. For example, I have probably spent only five minutes in private conversation with Senator Jean Hearn during the whole of her tenure here and I think that is a pity. We also seem to be breeding a new race of politicians-very sincere, earnest people who are so busy with themselves and their parliamentary duties that the time for fun and social intercourse with one another seems to be going. I do not like to sound like an old soldier but I wonder where are the characters like Eddie Ward, Bill Wentworth, Les Haylen, George Pearce, Bert Kelly, Jeff Bate, Kennelly, Murphy, Wheeldon, McLaren, Gair, Cormack, Paltridge, et cetera. They do not seem to be here any more. I think the Parliament is poorer for it. I can remember an incident which presiding officers like you, Mr President, would frown upon, and which we do not have any more. It was rumoured that Bill Wentworth changed his personality in the House of Representatives at the time of every full moon. One evening he was speaking in his brilliant way denouncing the Communist Party and the evil in it. Les Haylen had gone down to the bar to borrow a white coat from the barman. The barmen here used to wear white coats then. He stood next to Bill Wentworth in the House and said: 'Excuse me, sir, the green cart is waiting for you.' Of course he was chucked out. I suppose it is one of those incidents at which one had to be present to know how funny it was. Characters like Les Haylen and Wentworth do not seem to be here any more. Perhaps it is a better place; perhaps it is not. I can remember Senator Chaney's father being the mischievous organiser of a game of football every Thursday night in room U41. About six of us were involved-Malcolm Fraser, Bill Snedden, Fred Chaney Snr, Shane Paltridge and a few others. We used to manufacture a paper football and allow the frustrations and latent hatreds of the week to come out. I can remember being a little vigorous with Malcolm Fraser on several occasions at those games of football. We had that kind of experience with one another. I knew little of Cyril Primmer until we joined the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania. We served on that Committee together for six or seven months. I got to know Cyril Primmer very well, which I had not done to that stage. I formed an incredibly high respect, admiration and affection for him. He is a decent, straight and caring man. In all that time I never heard him speak ill of any other human being. Senator Gareth Evans —Except in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Senator CHIPP —I have that reference in my note too. Only on one occasion have I heard him speaking vigorously in the Senate. Whether we agreed with him or not I admired the way he stuck to his personal campaign. Senator Georges —He proved to be right. Senator CHIPP —Yes, he did. He stuck to his personal campaign on that. Although he displeased Senator Gareth Evans from time to time-probably with good reason on that issue-he was, as Senator Georges said, proved to be right. The thing that is terrific about Cyril Primmer is that over recent years he has seemed to look younger every year. He is looking forward with such zest to his retirement down on that farm of his in the Western District that I am sure that if we see him in a year or two he will be looking like a callow youth by then. We wish you well, Cyril, in your retirement. I have a similar affection for Doug Scott. As I think Senator Button said, Senator Scott is not only a gentleman but also a gentle man. I certainly will miss the contribution he makes to this place and the example of honour and decency that he sets; but perhaps I will miss mainly the very pleasant conversation we have every morning when the cricket is on about selecting the Australian team and making very erudite comments about its performance and about who should open the bowling and who should open the batting. I have one other comment that I would like to make about Senator Scott at this stage. Many people will forget that he was appointed a Minister and remained a Minister for about 12 months. He belongs to the same party as Ian Sinclair, who at that time had temporarily stood down or been stood down from the Ministry. It was essentially for that reason that Doug Scott became a Minister-it was his turn because of his ability and his seniority. But when Ian Sinclair was cleared of the charges and Malcolm Fraser decided to reinstate him in the Ministry, the gracious and generous way in which Doug Scott put his own ministerial career to one side and did not rock the boat within the National Party was an example of selflessness to all honourable senators. With respect to Senator Lajovic, I think he summed matters up himself in his speech. Having been a member of the Liberal Party-but this could apply to any political party-I know how difficult it is to get preselection, particularly on a Senate ticket. Senator Lajovic had disadvantages in the gaining of preselection in the Liberal Party that nobody else here has faced. He overcame those disadvantages-the accent, the fact that he was born in another country, and so forth. It is to his eternal credit that he was able, by sheer persuasion and by his example, to gain preselection. I hope that, in the trip that he takes when he leaves, he will give the warm regards of my wife and me to that town by a certain sea in my wife's country of Austria, which, if I were to name here, Mr President, you would rule me out of order-for wrong reasons, but quite properly so. That is a private joke that Senator Lajovic and I share. His delightful European sense of humour has enchanted us all. I do not know Senator Hearn very closely. I have been impressed with the interest and the compassion that she has always shown, in the few speeches she has made, for people less fortunate than herself, and with the great concern she has shown for the welfare of animals and about cruelty to them. It is Senator Jack Evans for whom I reserve my final comments. This may well be no reason for other senators to thank him, but had it not been for Jack Evans there would be no Australian Democrats today. Contrary to popular belief, when I resigned from the Liberal Party in 1977, my whole intention was to get out of politics. The last thing in my mind was to help to form a new political party. It was Jack Evans, whom I had not met then, who pleaded with me to come and address a meeting in Perth. It was in Perth, with Jack Evans chairing an overflowing meeting in the Perth Town Hall, that the Australian Democrats were born. I regard it as a tribute to Jack Evans personally that my friends in the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party say that the Democrat senator they least like to deal with is Jack Evans-not because he is unpleasant, but because he is such a tough negotiator and so unyielding in the deals that he pushes for the Democrats. I think that is a tribute in itself. I can say that there is no harder working Democrat-in fact there is no harder working senator-than Senator Evans. He will be dreadfully missed in this place. I am sure we will see him back. I wish him and his wife godspeed in their visit overseas and for the future. I do not know how many people listen to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts of Parliament, but this I do know: I reckon I can name at least five people who will be silly enough, nostalgic enough, and sentimental enough to be regular listeners to the Senate in the next few years. I wish all those honourable senators well. I congratulate them on their service to the community and to the Senate. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(4.36) — On my own behalf and on behalf of the rest of the members of the National Party of Australia in this chamber, I wish to be associated with the remarks that have already been made. One of the attributes of this place is one that too few people are aware of. Even though honourable senators are elected as representatives of political parties, it is not long before their colleagues see them as individuals. No matter what a senator may think he is, no matter what cloak or ego he hides behind when he comes here, he is soon stripped down to the bare essentials and people see him as he is and treat him as they find him. On occasions such as this, we really see that happen. We heard some very moving speeches at midday when the retiring senators spoke to us. Now, we are all speaking on the valedictory. The very nature of the Senate, with its committee system, has been alluded to. Honourable senators cannot work within the committee system without getting an appreciation of each other's qualities. In gaining an appreciation of each other's qualities, we get to know each other so much better. I, like Senator Chipp, have not come to know Senator Hearn very well. One quality that has come across is her concern and compassion for other people, particularly those less fortunate than we are and the underdog. Her concern for world peace is something which we all share. We probably differ on the way that it should be achieved. Senator Primmer, my old dairy farmer mate, if you like, and I on quite a few occasions sat here late at night and reminisced and decided that any sensible dairy farmer would have been in bed long ago, and indeed he would have. Cyril, it has been great to know you. It has been great to serve with you in this place and, indeed, on some committees. You have been a stirrer at times, but we all appreciate that. As Senator Button said, this place needs stirring every so often. When I was thinking about what to say to Senator Jack Evans, I thought: 'By gee, it was just last Wednesday that I was pouring bucketsful of scorn on the Australian Democrats'. I might add I was enjoying it too. That is one of the ironies of this place. If I could misquote the Bard: 'On Wednesday I came to bury you; today I am here to praise you'. In your short time here, we have learnt to appreciate your qualities, your debating ability and the way that you have hung tenaciously to your ideals and put forward the Democrats' position on the matters in which you have expertise. It has been a great privilege to know Misha Lajovic. I suppose, if I were to live a half a dozen lifetimes, I would not have to go through the experiences that Misha and Tatjana had to go through to be part of a democratic society. Misha told us that when he left his home country and got a job as an interpreter he never dreamed that one day not only would he be an Australian but also part of one of the highest forums in this land. He said that that says a lot for Australia. Misha, that says a lot about you and your qualities. I refer now to my colleague Doug Scott. On a previous occasion I remarked that when the bells rang Doug was usually out of the door before I was. I can see his rollicking gait as he walked down the passageways ahead of me as though he was still on the bridge of a Fairmile. I think the term he uses is 'going flat out, 22 knots, and everything rattling'. But with the even beat of an old engine driver I can soon pass him and get to the chamber before him. All the things that have been said about Doug are true. He has been a Whip's delight. He did whatever was required of him. He gave his complete loyalty. If we wanted him to talk for five, 10 or 20 minutes, he did it. The important thing about it was that when we read his speeches they all made sense. We cannot all admit to that when we have had to filibuster on certain occasions. Doug, you have made a great contribution. You have been a gentleman and a scholar. We all know about that hip of yours. My only concern is that you do not make a claim under section 47 in the near future and, having done so, make personal representations! On behalf of the National Party, as I said when I began this valedictory, I wish all senators who are retiring all the best. The Senate is a great place. Few other people know how this place operates. We do form friendships and they breach all political lines. That is how it should be. We do appreciate each other's qualities. I hope that all the senators involved have a wonderful time in their retirement. The PRESIDENT —As President of the Senate I join with those who have spoken in conveying my best wishes to our colleagues, Senators Primmer, Scott, Lajovic, Hearn and Jack Evans, who are retiring, and thank them for their services to the Parliament, to the Senate and to Australia. Senator Primmer and his wife, Lorna, have been friends of mine for many years, long before Senator Primmer himself entered Parliament in 1971. He has been a loyal, conscientious and dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party. I know he is highly respected on both sides of the House, and I wish him well. Senators Scott and Lajovic are senators of different political persuasion from me, but with me have represented the State of New South Wales in this Parliament for a number of years-Senator Scott first in 1970 for a short time, and then from 1974 onwards, and Senator Lajovic since 1975. They have both been dedicated servants to the Senate and to the State they represent and in the time we have known each other I think it fair to say we have formed a warm friendship. Senator Hearn came to us from Tasmania in 1980 as a result of the retirement from the Senate of the then leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, the Hon. Ken Wreidt. In her brief time here she certainly has played an important and sincere part in the affairs of the Parliament. Senator Jack Evans is the only member of the Australian Democrats who is retiring. Senator Evans was elected in 1983. He has been most active in the debates that have taken place in this chamber and I am sure his services to the Parliament will be missed. So it is that two Labor stalwarts are leaving us; the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate is retiring; Senator Lajovic of the Liberal Party makes his exit; and, for the time being at least, so does Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats. All the political parties represented in the Senate are losing great personalities and great talent as a result of the retirements taking place here today. I personally have enjoyed the company of all our retiring colleagues. My life has been made richer for having known each of them. I wish each of them and their respective spouses long, healthy and enjoyable retirement. I trust that periodically they will be returning to Canberra to renew friendships and acquaintances. I also want to say that I understand that during the forthcoming parliamentary recess the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mr Doug Blake, who has worked in the Parliament for 35 years, will be tendering his resignation. I am sure that all honourable senators join me in thanking him for his lengthy service to the Parliament and wish him and his wife well in their retirement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.44 p.m., until 2 p.m. on 20 August 1985, unless previously called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following papers were tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Notice of compulsory acquisition by the Commonwealth of certain Lands at Bullsbrook, Western Australia for the purpose of Defence (Gazette No. S186, 30 May 1985). Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1985- No. 20-Electricity (Amendment). Regulations 1985- No. 10-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act- Amendments of the Schedule to the Subsidy Scheme in relation to the states of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 80. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGES-ASSENT TO LAWS: Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following Laws: 30 May 1985-Messages- No. 20 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 40 of 1985) Excise Tariff Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 41 of 1985) Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 42 of 1985) Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 10) 1985 (Act No. 43 of 1985) Sales Tax Act (No. 10A) 1985 (Act No. 44 of 1985) Sales Tax Act (No. 10B) 1985 (Act No. 45 of 1985) Sales Tax Act (No. 10C) 1985 (Act No. 46 of 1985) Sales Tax Laws Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 47 of 1985) Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 48 of 1985) Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 49 of 1985) No. 21 Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Act 1985 (Act No. 50 of 1985) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 138) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Has Australia linked itself closely with the Western Group to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva; if so, has this prevented Australia from supporting the Working Group established to discuss a nuclear test ban and, specifically, prevented it from discussing a moratorium on nuclear testing and proposals for a treaty to ban underground nuclear tests. (2) Has Australia adopted this position in order to align itself with the United States, which does not want to stop nuclear tests in order to promote its laser weapons program for outer space. (3) Is there any reason why the Australian Government cannot support a nuclear test ban whilst working on a water-tight system for the verification of nuclear tests, as surely a moratorium on tests above 3 kilotons will allow for instruments to be placed in appropriate territories so that tests under 3 kilotons could also be monitored. (4) What are the objections concerning a complete moratorium on nuclear tests. (5) Has Australia, as part of the Western Group, with regard to the Working Group established to examine the arms race in outer space, prevented discussion on any draft treaties or other substantive proposals; if so, is not this stand inconsistent with the stand Australia and other Western nations adopted (with the exception of the United States of America and Great Britain) in supporting UN Resolution 38/70, which specifically requested the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a treaty for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. (6) Will Australia immediately call for a halt to all weapons tests in outer space and request prompt negotiations to identify more precisely what is to be forbidden, pending the conclusion of appropriate treaties. (7) Is Australia not supporting the establishment of a Working Group to deal with the issue of a nuclear weapons freeze under the Agenda heading of 'Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and . . . Prevention of Nuclear War'; if so, why. (8) Is it still feasible, given the possible difficulties in verifying a total nuclear weapons freeze, to limit the testing and deployment of a number of ballistic missiles, on the United States side to the Minutemen II and III, the M-X Poseidon, Trident I and II and Pershing II missiles and on the Soviet side to the SS-13, 17-21, 23, SSN-6, 8, 17, 18, SSX-24, SSNX-20 and 21; if so, will the Australian Government immediately call for a one year freeze on the testing and deployment of these weapons, pending negotiations for arms cuts. (9) Will the Australian Government as an immediate contribution to a nuclear weapons freeze stipulate that no quantitative additions be made to the joint United States-Australian military bases at Pine Gap, North-West Cape and Narrungar for a specified time. (10) Will the Australian Government ensure that these matters are taken up with the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Butler, and other officials in Australia's delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and that the Australian delegation will openly declare these proposals at the Conference on Disarmament and seek to have them established as the basis of a clearly identifiable Australian position. (11) Why did the Minister for Foreign Affairs not supply answers to questions (1) to (10) above in 1984, since notice of them was given in Question No. 1152 on 13 September 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Australia is a member of the Western Group in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva. This has not prevented Australia from expressing its strong support for the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the earliest possible date. Moreover, participation in the Western Group has enabled Australia to exert influence in an attempt to resolve a procedural dispute which has been holding up work in the Conference on the nuclear test ban issue. This procedural impasse arose from the decision by the Socialist Group (i.e. Warsaw Pact) and the Neutral and Nonaligned Group to oppose the re-establishment of a subsidiary body of the Conference in the 1984 session to address the nuclear test ban issue unless a new mandate for the subsidiary body were agreed. (Subsidiary bodies of the Conference are now called ad hoc committees not working groups). These two Groups each proposed draft mandates which differed in some particulars but both called for the ad hoc committee to initiate negotiations on a nuclear test ban treaty. Both these proposals were, however, not acceptable to some other member countries of the CD, including the United States, who regard such negotiations as premature. Australia, therefore, proposed a compromise mandate calling on the CD to undertake substantive work on the scope and compliance and verification aspects of a comprehensive nuclear test ban 'with a view to the negotiation of a treaty'. The Western Group, including the United States, agreed to this proposal. Although this Australian initiative was supported by many of the Neutral and Nonaligned members of the Conference as well it did not prove acceptable to all members of the Conference. As I said in the Conference in Geneva on 7 August, 1984, Australia would have preferred a mandate calling for immediate negotiations but since there is no consensus for such a mandate, it proposed instead a mandate that would, if accepted, have enabled the Conference to address the technical issues which need to be resolved before a Comprehensive Test Ban could be concluded. The delegations which withheld their agreement to this proposal achieved the result that no work on the nuclear test ban was undertaken by the Conference in 1984. This procedural deadlock has regrettably persisted to date in 1985 despite Australia's continuing efforts to resolve it and the support which those efforts have received from Western and Neutral and Nonaligned delegations. China has said that it will join in the work of the ad hoc committee if Australia's proposal is agreed by the Conference. (2) The motivation of Australia in this activity has been to try to bring about the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because that is Government policy and because it accords with the obligations of all parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith towards nuclear disarmament. As indicated above, the United States agreed to the Australian-proposed mandate to have the CD undertake substantive work with a view to the negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. One might say the United States aligned itself with Australia. The Government does not believe that Australia's objective of achieving the conclusion of a treaty would have been better served by aligning Australia with the Soviet Union and other countries which, by insisting on an 'all or nothing' approach, prevented the CD from undertaking any work on the nuclear test ban issue in 1984. (3) The Government's objective is a ban on all nuclear tests, not just those over a certain size. The question rightly alludes to the problems of verification, particularly of explosions below a certain size. (There are problems of measurement at distance of underground explosions much larger than the 3 kiloton TNT equivalent figure mentioned in the question). It is precisely to seek internationally agreed answers to questions of this type that Australia has proposed that the CD should undertake detailed practical work on the verification and implementation requirements of a Comprehensive Test Ban. I tabled in Geneva a set of principles to guide the CD's work on this subject. It is also with a view to resolving such questions on an internationally agreed basis that Australia has proposed that the CD should proceed forthwith, without waiting for conclusion of the test ban treaty, to establish a fully operational global seismic network, possibly supplemented with atmospheric fallout samplers and other technologies. The Government has also provided funds for the expansion of Australia's own seismic detection capabilities so as to strengthen our ability to contribute to such a global network in support of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (4) The main objection to a moratorium (i.e. a voluntary suspension of nuclear tests) is that no reliance could be placed on it. The moratorium on nuclear testing observed by the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union from 1958 ended in 1961, when the Soviet Union resumed testing. Australia advocates, instead of a moratorium, a legally binding treaty with effective measures for verification and compliance. There are no proposals before the CD for a moratorium on nuclear tests. The objection voiced by the Soviet Union, India, Argentina and other countries to a complete ban on nuclear tests is that it would not allow so-called 'peaceful nuclear explosions'. Australia, for its part, supports a complete or comprehensive ban on all testing including so-called 'peaceful nuclear explosions'. This issue is known as the 'scope' of the treaty and is one of the issues that the Australian-inspired mandate would have had the CD address. (5) No. There was no ad hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space established during the 1984 session of the Conference on Disarmament. Again the reason was a procedural dispute centring on the extent to which the mandate would call for immediate negotiations. Australia co-operated with members of the Western and Neutral and Nonaligned Groups seeking a solution that would have enabled the CD to undertake useful preliminary work for treaty negotiations by identifying the issues to be covered in such negotiations. Australia's position was that whereas it could have agreed to a different mandate, it also agreed that the logical and methodical way to proceed to address the novel question of arms control in outer space was to begin by identification of the issues. (Part 6 of the question alludes to the need for such work.) I suggested to the Conference as one of the issues for consideration in this context the possibility of measures to protect from attack all satellites (early warning, communications and the like) which contribute to the preservation of strategic stability and can be instrumental in monitoring disarmament agreements. I also suggested that the same protection be extended to the ground stations which are essential to the operation of these satellites. As in the case of the nuclear test ban issue, the efforts of Australia and other countries from the Western and Neutral and Non-aligned Groups to achieve a compromise which would have enabled the CD to perform useful work on outer space arms control were unsuccessful in 1984. While it was deeply dissatisfied with this outcome, the Government does not believe that its objective of bringing about agreements to prevent the extension of the arms race to outer space would have been better served by the Australian delegation aligning itself with delegations which took an 'all or nothing' stance and consequently prevented the CD from agreeing to undertake any work at all on outer space arms control in 1984. The Government believes that the Australian delegation's activities were fully in accordance with Australia's support for resolution 38/70 at the 1983 United Nations General Assembly. In particular the mandate which Australia supported and which would have allowed the ad hoc committee to begin work by identifying the issues for subsequent negotiation, reflected the approach successfully adopted a few years ago on the subject of chemical weapons. In that case it enabled the CD to undertake much useful work towards a Convention to ban chemical weapons, to the point where a draft treaty on this subject was recently tabled by the United States. In fact, the Chemical Weapons Ad Hoc Committee was the only organ of the CD to undertake constructive activity in 1984. The Australian Delegation participated prominently in this work. This year, following further negotiations in which Australia participated actively, the Conference on Disarmament agreed in March 1985 to establish an ad hoc committee on outer space with a mandate virtually identical to that supported by Australia in 1984. (6) Unfortunately the CD never got to the point in 1984 of considering ancillary interim measures to facilitate negotiations of treaties on arms control in outer space. Whether a moratorium on testing would in fact serve this purpose is a moot point. Such a moratorium has been proposed by the Soviet Union but is unattractive to the United States since the Soviet Union already has an operational anti-satellite weapon system which it has tested in space some 20 times, whereas the United States has only began to test the system it is developing. As indicated above, in 1984, Australia supported unsuccessful efforts to have the CD identify more precisely what should be forbidden in future treaties to prevent an arms race in outer space. Hopefully the CD will now undertake this work. (7) This question in fact relates to two separate items of the agenda of the Conference. Australia has not participated in the inconclusive debate over the establishment of an ad hoc committee to deal with the agenda item 'Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament'. The establishment of such a committee was opposed by the Western nuclear weapon states. They argued that only the nuclear weapon states themselves can actually negotiate a reduction of their own nuclear arsenals and that the INF/START processes are the most appropriate means of doing so. The Soviet Union advocated a nuclear disarmament subsidiary body in the CD but it also seems highly unlikely to allow the CD to negotiate away its nuclear arsenal. Part of the Warsaw Pact's proposal for the ad hoc committee was that it should draft a nuclear disarmament program. This would have been duplicative of the work already carried out by the CD on a Comprehensive Program of Disarmament, which is to include a balance of nuclear and conventional disarmament measures. Australia has frequently expressed its support for the resumption, continuation and successful conclusion of the bilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. Australia has supported the establishment of an ad hoc committee on the agenda item 'Prevention of Nuclear War, Including all Related Matters'. This would discuss nuclear-related matters and Australia has been active in trying to promote agreement to this end. In the event no agreement was reached to establish ad hoc committees on either of these agenda items in 1984. (8) The question of limitations on the deployment and testing of ballistic missiles is a matter that has been under negotiation between the superpowers intermittently since 1969; some agreements have been reached between them (the SALT accords) but negotiations were suspended throughout 1984. Australia took the view that the immediate priority was a resumption of superpower negotiations on these issues and that this objective was not assisted by proposals for new approaches which do not address the problems which have been encountered in this context to date. The superpower negotiations were resumed in early 1985 and the Government strongly supports their objective of securing deep reductions in nuclear weapons and the avoidance of an arms race in space. I very much doubt that it would prove feasible to secure the agreement of the superpowers, either to limit the testing and deployment of ballistic missiles to the models listed in the question or to suspend the testing and deployment of these missiles for a year. One example of the reasons why neither proposal seems likely to commend itself to the two superpowers is that last year's suspension in their negotiations on these subjects arose from their inability to agree on limitations to 'intermediate range nuclear forces' (INF), which include, among other weapons systems, the Soviet SS20 and the United States Pershing II missiles mentioned in the list. The first proposal would impose no restraint on further deployments of these missiles, the second would be seen by the NATO countries as conferring an advantage on the Soviet Union. This is because the Soviet Union would retain the SS20s which it deployed when NATO had no modern INF missiles but NATO would be prevented from deploying the missiles it has planned to counter the SS20 deployment, in the absence of agreement for their removal. Moreover, current complaints by the United States about Soviet implementation of restrictions under the SALT II agreement on the testing of new ballistic missiles illustrate the difficulties of verifying compliance with agreements to restrict testing of ballistic missiles to specified models. As Australia sees it, there is another more pressing issue to be agreed between the superpowers. This is the limitation on their strategic arsenals which they will observe after the end of 1985 when the SALT II arrangements are due to expire. (9) No. As the Government has made clear, these facilities contribute to the avoidance of nuclear war and to the verification of arms control agreements. It would not assist those objectives to prevent additions and improvements to the facilities. No variations to these facilities can take place without the Australian Government's knowledge and consent. (10) As it is evident from the annual reports of the Australian Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament and other widely distributed public material, that Delegation, headed by the Ambassador for Disarmament, and other Australian officials engaged in disarmament work are fully briefed on all the matters addressed in this question and on the other matters on the international disarmament agenda. I would also draw attention to my own statements in the Conference on Disarmament on 7 August 1984 and to the United Nations General Assembly on 4 October 1983 and 2 October 1984. Contrary to the implication in the question, Australia's strong support for a comprehensive nuclear test ban, for agreements to avoid the extension of the arms race to outer space and for effective measures to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race has been declared on many occasions and Australia's position on these issues is clearly identified. As the public record further indicates we have gone beyond a mere declaratory position to the much more difficult and thankless task of seeking to achieve practical results, especially in support of a comprehensive nuclear test ban and a comprehensive convention against chemical weapons. I expressed the Australian view of the disputes in the Conference on Disarmament about ad hoc committees and their mandates in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 2 October 1984 when I spoke of 'a shameful procedural deadlock holding up the agenda of negotiations'. On 7 August I had expressed directly to the Conference itself Australia's deep dissatisfaction at this stage of affairs. The efforts of the Government and the Australian delegation in Geneva will continue to be directed at seeking to have the Conference on Disarmament undertake the negotiating tasks for which it was established, and to seek the conclusion of effective and verifiable agreements, notably on the Comprehensive Test Ban, a Chemical Weapons Convention and Outer Space. (11) A reply was prepared for Question No. 1152 in October but it was regrettably mislaid in the run-up to the elections in December last year. (Question No. 16) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Is the Government aware of the allegations of police involvement in organised crime and, in particular, child pornography, in Queensland. (2) Does the Government have any information on these sorts of activities by police in Queensland. (3) Would it not be more appropriate to refer this matter to the National Crime Authority so that its resources and expertise would be available, in spite of the Queensland Government's stated intention to investigate this matter. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, I am aware of Press reports of the allegations. (2) No. The Australian Federal Police only has jurisdiction to investigate criminal activity where breaches of Commonwealth legislation are involved. In the present context, pornography, in particular, would be a matter subject to Queensland legislation. (3) The NCA may investigate a matter which involves relevant criminal activity as defined in the National Crime Authority Act. Under the Act, a reference enabling the Authority to use its coercive powers may arise in one of two ways-the Authority can seek a reference from a Government (via the Inter-Governmental Committee as appropriate) or a Government, (with the approval of the IGC as appropriate), could directly refer the matter to the NCA. It must be remembered that the National Crime Authority was not established to deal with all allegations which might arise in the public arena. It was primarily established to deal with those investigations which are beyond ordinary police powers. (Question No. 46) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Finance upon notice, on 27 February 1985: (1) Did the Department of Finance tell the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Examiners, visiting Australia to study science and technology matters, that: Technology, and the Research and Development necessary to generate and apply technology, should in our view, be regarded as simply another input into the production process of goods and services. (2) If so, did the OECD Examiners specifically criticise and reject this view, expressing 'considerable trouble' at accepting it as valid; and (3) If so, does the Minister for Finance see any need for this view to be now discarded by the Department of Finance. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The Department is often invited to express views on matters which impinge on its responsibilities and has made numerous submissions to various inquiries of interest to the Government, including the OECD Examiners Report on Australian Science and Technology Policy. In pursuing their inquiries and preparing reports, it is desirable for members of policy review committees to have the benefit of broadly based advice and opinions, including those with which they may choose to disagree. I have no intention of directing my Department as to the views it will put to OECD examiners on this or any other subject. (Question No. 74) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: In what circumstances can the widow's pension be paid to a husband who is forced to renounce work to look after his family following the death of his wife. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A male sole parent is not eligible for widow's pension. However, subject to the same income or assets test as the widow's pension and to prescribed residence conditions, a male sole parent may be paid a supporting parent's benefit. The rate of supporting parent's benefit payable is the same as the rate of widow's pension. (Question No. 77) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What approaches have been made by the Queensland Minister for Racing, Mr Hinze, the Queensland Government, the Queensland Police Force or the Queensland Turf Club to either the National Crime Authority or the Australian Federal Police for assistance in either the present caffeine doping scandal or the earlier Fine Cotton fiasco. (2) Will the Special Minister of State issue an immediate assurance to the Queensland Government that the facilities of the Federal Government and its instrumentalities are available to help investigations should Queensland wish to stamp out racing malpractices threatening Queensland racing and an important national industry. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the only approach made to the Australian Federal Police has been a request from the Queensland Police for assistance in regard to the Fine Cotton inquiry. I am not prepared to indicate the exact nature of that assistance as this could prejudice police investigations. I am informed by the National Crime Authority that it has adopted the general practice of neither confirming nor denying that approaches have been made to it on particular matters. (2) Racing malpractices in Queensland fall within the jurisdiction of the Queensland State Government. If the Queensland Government should find any matters which involve a breach of Commonwealth law, no doubt it will take the relevant steps to involve the appropriate Commonwealth authorities. (Question No. 167) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Has the Australian Government sent a formal protest to the Government of South Africa regarding the killing of at least 19 black South Africans on 21 March 1985 when police opened fire on a funeral procession in Cape Province. (2) Does Australia intend to raise the matter or support any other nation that does so in the United Nations. (3) Will Australia re-affirm, in the strongest terms, its total opposition to sporting contact with South Africa until the repulsive apartheid policy is totally abandoned, and the slaughter of blacks ceases. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Government's very strong opposition to apartheid has been placed firmly on public record. Most recently the Government, in response to tragic violence in South Africa, made a strong statement on South Africa to the United Nations Security Council on 8 March 1985. Mr Hayden made a statement in Parliament on the deplorable killings in Uitenhage on 21 March, the day of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre. The Government sees no other purpose being served by making a purely formal diplomatic protest. The South African Government is kept well aware of the Australian Government's views and concerns on apartheid through our Embassy in Cape Town and the South African Embassy in Canberra. (2) Yes. Australia supported the provisions of Security Council Resolution 560 adopted on 12 March 1985 which condemned South Africa's policy of apartheid and endorsed the Security Council President's statement on 22 March expressing grave concern over the rapid deterioration of the situation in South Africa. (3) On 26 October 1983 the Government announced its decision to strengthen its policy on sporting contacts with South Africa following a general Cabinet review of Australia's relations with South Africa. This policy, which aims to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa, is in line with the Government's total rejection of apartheid and with its objective to persuade the South African Government to dismantle the apartheid system. This policy is also consistent with both the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/6 of November 1976 and the 1977 Gleneagles Declaration on apartheid in sport. (Question No. 197) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State the following question, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) With reference to the investigation concerning Mr Christo Moll and his associates and various figures in Australian public life, will the Special Minister of State provide up-to-date information on the state of the investigations by the Australian Federal Police into Mr Christo Moll's tax avoidance activities, said to have resulted in revenue losses exceeding $200m. (2) Has the Special Minister of State received requests for indemnity for Mr Christo Moll, either from Mr Moll himself or from the Australian Federal Police, to obtain detailed information on Mr Moll's activities and associates with a view to successful prosecution of offences committed; if so, what decisions have been made with respect to such requests, what are the reasons for the decisions and have further investigations provided the Minister with any grounds to review his decision. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am not prepared to reveal details of the continuing Australian Federal Police AFP investigations into the affairs of Mr Christo Moll as this might prejudice the outcome of such investigations. (2) I am advised by the AFP that Mr Moll did raise with them the possiblity of his being granted an indemnity. He was told how to make a formal request but as far as the AFP are aware, he has not made such a formal request nor has any been made on his behalf. (Question No. 222) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: Did Qantas recently decide to reject designs for new uniforms which had been commissioned by it from Sydney designer Mr Trent Nathan; if so: (a) why was it considered necessary to reject the designs; (b) if the designs were considered to be unsuitable, why was no further attempt made to secure the services of another Australian designer; (c) why did Qantas management in February 1985 'deem it appropriate to start to assess international designer interest' one month before Mr Nathan made his final presentation to Qantas' Wardrobe Selection Panel on 13 March 1985; and (d) why did Qantas management find it necessary to 'quickly commission' an international designer to develop the new Qantas wardrobe after rejecting Mr Nathan's designs. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As this matter is one which falls within the operational responsibility of Qantas management, advice was sought from the Company, which has provided the following information. (a) Over 15 months ago Qantas commenced a program for the development and manufacture in Australia of a new wardrobe for its cabin crew, sales and airport personnel. The main costs and work involved is in the manufacture of the garments and a firm decision was taken that the manufacture would be carried out in Australia. From the 43 Australian organisations which responded to Qantas' invitation to design this wardrobe, a short list of eight finalists was selected by a fashion consultant panel. In August 1984 a distinguished panel of six fashion and design experts viewed presentations from these eight Australian designers. The panel recommended to Qantas that none of the eight submissions were acceptable but if the Company still desired an Australian design, then one of the eight finalists, Trent Nathan, could be given a second opportunity to develop a totally new concept. (b) As the Company was most anxious to commission an Australian designer, one finalist was given a further six months for this task. On 13th March 1985 he made his final presentation to three Australian members of the panel. It was the unanimous conclusion of these judges that Mr Nathan's further attempt did not meet the overall standard of design excellence that was needed. The present Qantas female cabin attendant's uniform was developed by a leading international designer some 12 years ago and put Qantas into the forefront with a uniform of design excellence that has also stood the test of time. It has been a great disappointment to the Company that it has not been able to find an Australian designer, after some 15 months of searching, who could create a wardrobe concept anywhere near the standard achieved with the present design. Furthermore, the Company's new corporate identity program, of which the new wardrobe was an integral part, had already commenced, and the staff associations involved had been promised the introduction of new uniforms commencing in December 1985. (c) In February 1985 the Australian judging panel expressed their concern at the apparent lack of progress being made by Mr Nathan during the six months since granting his second opportunity. Consequently the Company considered it prudent to assess without commitment whether there was any interest on the part of top international designers to design for Australian manufacture. (d) The unanimous recommendation of the judges following Mr Nathan's final presentation on 13th March was that his design concept fell far short of the Company's objectives. The recommendation to reject Mr Nathan's designs was unanimously supported at the time by the Staff Advisory Panel, which had been actively involved in this project for over 12 months. This panel consisted of representatives nominated by the Cabin Crew Associations, Federated Clerks Union and the Australian Transport Officers Association. Qantas management accordingly recommended to the Board that an international designer be commissioned to develop the new Company wardrobe. The Company has not yet commissioned any designer and is currently in discussion with the various staff unions and the Fashion Industry Council of Australia. Regardless of selection of designer the garments will be made in Australia as is the present, and past, practice. On this occasion, the manufacturer will provide over $1m to that portion of Australia's fashion industry which manufactures in Australia. (Question No. 223) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) Why does Qantas use a Paris-based consultant, Eric Giordan, for inflight and marketing advice instead of an Australian company. (2) What remunerations or other rewards were paid by Qantas to the seven person panel which recently rejected commissioned designs for new staff uniforms prepared by Sydney designer Mr Trent Nathan; how many members of the Panel have associations with overseas companies; and how many members of the Panel have connections with Vogue magazine. (3) Is Vogue Australia employed by Qantas as a professional consultant. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Qantas has advised in relation to the particular question: (1) Qantas because of its worldwide operations uses a number of consultants to advise on a wide range of topics. For example, a panel of distinguished Australian authorities on wine advises the Company on the selection of Australian wines to be served on Qantas aircraft throughout the world. Mr Eric Giordan's role is to advise the Company on the selection of some European items for inclusion in the Inflight Shop for on-board sales. (2) The remuneration paid to the judging panel is a matter of confidentiality between the Company and the persons concerned. In accordance with Company policy the members of the wardrobe selection panel at the time of appointment provided the Company with a declaration stating: 'I understand your Company's desire that the members of the panel retained to judge the submissions of the designers should be, and be seen to be, unbiased and objective and consequently to this end, I confirm that I have no financial, or other interest either direct or indirect in any of those designers' business'. Two of the judging panel are employees of Bernard Leser Publications Pty. Ltd., the publishers of Vogue Australia magazine. (3) Vogue Australia as an independent expert was consulted in relation to the new wardrobe. Vogue Australia has also provided advice to the Company on minor inflight items. (Question No. 230) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) What is the name, designation and salary of each member of the staff of: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Ministry; (c) the Caucus Secretaries; (d) the Government Party Committees; (e) the Leader of the Opposition; (f) the Shadow Ministry; (g) Government and Opposition backbenchers; (h) the Australian Democrats; and (i) Senator Harradine. (2) Which staff members are permanent public servants and to which departments are they attached. (3) What was their level prior to taking up their present positions. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) The details as at 1 May 1985 are set out in the following tables prepared by the Department of the Special Minister of State. Information as to the level of staff and the Department to which they were attached prior to taking up their present positions is shown where readily available. INDEX OF TABLES Table A List of Staff for the following: The Prime Minister The Ministry The Government Whip in the House of Representatives* The Government Whip in the Senate* The Caucus Secretary* The Government Caucus Committees Secretariat* The Leader of the Opposition The Deputy Leader of the Opposition The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate The Leader of the National Party The Deputy Leader of the National Party The Shadow Ministers* The Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives* The Opposition Whip in the Senate* The Leader of the Australian Democrats The Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats The Australian Democrat Whip* Senator B. Harradine* *See Table C for names of Electorate Staff Table B List of Consultants employed by Ministers Table C List of Electorate staff employed by Senators and Members Table D Salaries Table A STAFF OF MINISTERS AND OFFICE-HOLDERS AS AT 1 MAY 1985 Classification Occupant Former level Department/Authority The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P. Prime Minister Principal Private Secretary Mr G. C. Evans P Director, Level 2 Treasury Senior Private Secretary Mr J. Nicholson P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Employment and Industrial Relations Personal Secretary to Prime Minister Mrs J. D. N. Sinclair Private Secretary/Cabinet Mr R. S. Mitchell P Clerical Administrative, Class 9 Prime Minister and Cabinet Private Secretary/Administration Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Miss J. A. Saunders Assistant Personal Secretary to Mrs Hawke Ms E. S. Massey P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary/typist Ms V. Hodgson P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Treasury Secretary/typist Mrs J. B. Hamon P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary/typist Miss J. A. F. MacDonald P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Special Minister of State Secretary/typist Ms E. M. Bogusz P Word processing typist, Grade 1 House of Representatives Secretary/typist Mrs H. LeNevez P Steno/secretary, Grade 1 House of Representatives Telephonist (Clerical Assistant, Grade 5) Ms J. Danzey Principal Adviser Mr P. E. Barron Senior Adviser Mr R. D. Hogg Senior Adviser Dr R. Garnaut Adviser/International Relations Mr J. Bowan P Director, Level 1 Foreign Affairs Private Secretary Vacant Speech Writer to Prime Minister Mr D. A. Buckingham P Foreign Affairs Officer 4 (Class 11) Foreign Affairs Assistant Personal Secretary Miss J. P. O'Brien Journalist, Grade A2 Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Miss J. T. Willis Secretary/typist Miss J. J. Nicholson Secretary/typist Ms F. Beirne P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Treasury Electorate Officer 3 Ms M. Tamburrino Electorate Officer 2 Miss D. Scurry Electorate Officer 1 Ms J. Matthews The Hon. Lionel Bowen, M.P. Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Vice-President of the Executive Council Principal Private Secretary Mr B. E. Burdekin P Foreign Affairs Officer 3 Foreign Affairs Senior Adviser Mr K. R. Bennett Senior Private Secretary Vacant Private Secretary Mr P. Willis Private Secretary Mrs P. E. Baker Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. J. Armstrong Personal Secretary Vacant Secretary/typist Vacant Electorate Officer 3 Mrs B. Fahey Electorate Officer 2 Mr J. Richardson Electorate Officer 1 Ms T. Reading P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Senate Senator the Hon. John Button Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and Leader of the Government in the Senate Senior Private Secretary Dr G. N. Evans P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Prime Minister and Cabinet Private Secretary Mr R. F. Johns Assistant Private Secretary Mr P. A. Clark Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Personal Secretary Mrs P. E. Smith Personal Secretary Miss G. W. Baker P Steno-secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary/typist Ms V. T. O'Neill Electorate Officer 2 Miss J. K. Phillips Electorate Officer 2 Ms L. Woods Electorate Officer 2 Miss L. A. Careedy* Ms B. Worrall* Senator the Hon. Don Grimes Minister for Community Services Senior Private Secretary Mrs N. Burns Private Secretary Ms L. Briggs P Clerical Administrative, Class 9 Social Security Private Secretary Miss P. P. Warn Journalist A1 Ms L. Hornsby Assistant Private Secretary Ms R. T. Huxtable P Clerical Administrative, Class 7 Prime Minister and Cabinet Personal Secretary Ms S. Oldfield Secretary/Typist Ms A. T. O'Connor P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Social Security Electorate Officer 3 Ms C. E. Walker Electorate Officer 2 Mr M. Powell Electorate Officer 1 Ms K. Willis* Mrs A. O'Byrne* The Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P. Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations Senior Private Secretary Mr P. J. Medlock Private Secretary Mr D. J. McKenzie Private Secretary Mr D. Ingles P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Prime Minister and Cabinet Journalist A2 Mr R. T. Hill Journalist A2 Sport, Recreation and Tourism Assistant Private Secretary Ms M. A. Carew-Reid P Clerical Administrative, Class 6 Energy and Resources Personal Secretary Miss H. M. Connors Secretary/Typist Ms M. McFadden Clerical Assistant 2 Miss L. Faure Electorate Officer 3 Mrs N. I. Garnder Electorate Officer 2 Mr J. W. Matthews The Hon. P. J. Keating, M.P. Treasurer Senior Private Secretary Mr A. S. Cole P Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Treasury Private Secretary Mr G. J. Smith P Senior Finance Officer 2 (Class 9) Treasury Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Ms S. Miller P Senior Finance Officer 1 (Class 6) Treasury Journalist Grade A2 Mr T. Mockridge Personal Secretary Ms J. M. Kell Secretary/Typist Ms D. L. Sella P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Treasury Secretary/Typist Ms A. Henderson P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Treasury Electorate Officer 2 Mrs E. G. Charchalis Electorate Officer 2 Mr M. J. Hatton Electorate Officer 2 Vacant The Hon. Mick Young, M.P. Special Minister of State and Leader of the House Senior Private Secretary Dr J. Loy P Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Prime Minister and Cabinet Private Secretary Mr J. R. Rau Assistant Private Secretary Miss K. A. Lewis Assistant Private Secretary Mr C. E. Whelan Personal Secretary Ms V. Gregory P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services Secretary/Typist Ms E. Koundouzi P Typist, Grade 1 Special Minister of State Electorate Officer 3 Mrs P. Johnston Electorate Officer 2 Miss C. Hudson Electorate Officer 1 Miss L. Vassallo Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh Minister for Finance Senior Private Secretary Mr I. D. Henderson Private Secretary Mr N. R. Edwards P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Prime Minister and Cabinet Private Secretary Ms M. Swift Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Personal Secretary Miss P. R. Haigh Secretary/Typist Ms L. Cavanagh P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Attorney-General's Electorate Officer 2 Ms N. Masel Electorate Officer 2 Mr M. F. Jones Electorate Officer 2 Miss H. D. Hendry P Typist, Grade1 Resources and Energy The Hon. Bill Hayden, M.P. Minister for Foreign Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Costello P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Local Government and Administrative Services Journalist, Grade A2 Mr L. Pearce Private Secretary Vacant Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine P Clerical Administrative, Class 9 Foreign Affairs Assistant Private Secretary Miss L. Holgate P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Social Security Assistant Private Secretary Mr R. F. Whiddon Personal Secretary Ms D. J. Taunton P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 House of Representatives Secretary/Typist Miss G. Walker P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Foreign Affairs Electorate Officer 3 Mrs Y. Tully P Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Local Government and Administrative Services Electorate Officer 2 Ms D. L. McKenzie P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Prime Minister and Cabinet Electorate Officer 1 Ms K. McLeod Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan Minister for Education Senior Private Secretary Dr A. Thomas P Foreign Affairs Officer 2 Foreign Affairs Private Secretary Miss S. C. Portway Private Secretary Mr B. Wood Assistant Private Secretary Mr G. Holland Personal Secretary Ms W. H. Inkpen P Typist, Grade 2 Education Secretary/Typist Vacant Secretary/Typist Mrs M. Chalmers Electorate Officer 3 Ms G. J. Hush P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Foreign Affairs Electorate Officer 2 Vacant Electorate Officer 1 Ms R. Malone* Ms M. E. Matinez* Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC Minister for Resources and Energy Senior Private Secretary Mr T. H. Spurling Private Secretary Mr G. L. Jungwirth Private Secretary Mr R. Wells Private Secretary Ms S. P. Tongue Journalist A2 Mr S. Payne Assistant Private Secretary Ms C. Neville Personal Secretary Mrs A. L. Andrews P Typist, Grade 1 Attorney-General's Secretary/Typist Miss J. M. Puffitt Electorate Officer 3 Vacant Electorate Officer 2 Miss J. L. Knorr Electorate Officer 1 Mr M. Borowick The Hon. J. S. Dawkins, M.P. Minister for Trade Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Delaney Private Secretary Mr G. D. Gardner Private Secretary Ms J. Lawe-Davies P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Prime Minister and Cabinet Assistant Private Secretary Ms H. Mills Personal Secretary Ms P. G. Ryan Secretary/Typist Miss J. Clifford P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Trade Electorate Officer 2 Miss T. R. Calzoni Electorate Officer 2 Ms E. D. Lorin Electorate Officer 2 Ms L. Robson The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Minister for Primary Industry Senior Private Secretary Ms J. E. McKay P Clerical Administrative, Class 9 Bureau of Industry Economics Private Secretary Mr A. R. Gleeson Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. M. Tanzer Personal Secretary Mrs B. R. Meijer P Personal Secretary Primary Industry Personal Secretary Miss M. F. Conley Secretary/Typist Miss A. Murray Electorate Officer 3 Ms M. A. L. Green Electorate Officer 2 Mr S. F. Hughes Electorate Officer 1 Mrs M. A. Blake The Hon. Stewart West, M.P. Minister for Housing and Construction Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Ross Private Secretary Vacant Journalist Al Ms K. A. Walsh Assistant Private Secretary Mr A. J. Robinson P Clerical Administrative, Class 8 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Personal Secretary Ms S. Sadauskas Secretary/Typist Ms P. M. Bourke P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Electorate Officer 3 Mrs J. B. White Electorate Officer 2 Mr A. H. Hill P Senior Research Officer, Grade 1 (Class 6) Bureau of Statistics Electorate Officer 2 Mrs J. O'Shea The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, M.P. Minister for Defence Senior Private Secretary Mr S. W. Hickman P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Resources and Energy Senior Private Secretary R. H. Mills P Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Defence Private Secretary Dr D. B. Lundberg P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Employment and Industrial Relations Private Secretary Ms M. Anderson Assistant Private Secretary Ms L. T. Holman Assistant Private Secretary Ms C. D. Young Personal Secretary Ms L. Cullen Secretary/Typist Miss K. A. Bissaker P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Public Service Board Electorate Officer 2 Ms V. Ferguson Electorate Officer 2 Ms M. Maruff Electorate Officer 2 Mrs M. Crispin The Hon. Chris Hurford, M.P. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr L. J. Early P Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Industry and Commerce Private Secretary Ms J. Gordon Journalist A1 Mr M. Atkinson Assistant Private Secretary Ms S. Veltman Personal Secretary Ms. S. Schreiber Secretary/Typist Vacant Electorate Officer 2 Ms J. M. O'Brien Electorate Officer 2 Miss A. K. Hurley Electorate Officer 2 Mrs M. Lindsay The Hon. Brian Howe, M.P. Minister for Social Security Senior Private Secretary Mr R. K. Forward Private Secretary Mr P. R. Madden Assistant Private Secretary Mr B. V. Shaw P Clerical Administrative, Class 8 Aboriginal Affairs Assistant Private Secretary Miss C. T. Crowe P Steno/secretary, Grade 1 Defence Support Personal Secretary Mrs E. L. Riley P Typist, Grade 2 Local Government and Administrative Services Secretary/Typist Vacant Electorate Officer 3 Ms A. Ferrante Electorate Officer 2 Mr I. J. Campbell Electorate Officer 1 Ms E. Bucher * Mrs C. Forte * The Hon. Peter Morris, M.P. Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation Senior Private Secretary Mr P. J. Reece P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Arts, Heritage and Environment Senior Private Secretary Mr D. F. Wallace P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Aviation Private Secretary Mr L. M. Jacob Private Secretary Vacant Journalist A2 Ms J. E. Millar Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Mr P. T. Kerr Personal Secretary Ms S. Egan Secretary/Typist Vacant Electorate Officer 3 Mrs J. Moase Electorate Officer 2 Mr N. Barney Electorate Officer 1 Mrs B. Stokes * The Hon. John Brown, M.P. Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism Senior Private Secretary Mr E. Klein Private Secretary Ms S. Hunt Private Secretary Ms A. E. Vass Private Secretary Mr A. Luchetti P Clerical Administrative, Class 8 Social Security Assistant Private Secretary Miss F. Grew Personal Secretary Miss V. Ginnane Secretary/Typist Mrs M. Meneghello P Steno/secretary, Grade 2 Australian Government Publishing Service Electorate Officer 3 Mr D. Sharpe Electorate Officer 2 Ms M. H. Bacon Electorate Officer 1 Mrs D. Beamer The Honourable Neal Blewett, M.P. Minister for Health Senior Private Secretary Mr W. D. Bowtell P Foreign Affairs Officer 2 (Class 7) Foreign Affairs Private Secretary Mr P. J. Baulderstone P Clerical Administrative, Class 5 Local Government and Administrative Services Journalist A2 Mr D. B. Butt Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Personal Secretary Mrs J. Dogan P Steno secretary, Grade 2 Special Minister of State Secretary/Typist Miss E. Gomsi Electorate Officer 2 Ms S. P. Stephens Electorate Officer 2 Ms V. McCusker Electorate Officer 2 Mrs D. B. Ellershaw The Honourable Barry O. Jones, M.P. Minister for Science Senior Private Secretary Dr K. R. Butler Private Secretary Mrs P. J. Kennedy Assistant Private Secretary Miss T. L. Etherington P Steno secretary, Grade 1 Science Personal Secretary Ms M. R. Barry Clerical Assistant 2 Miss S. Dokl Electorate Officer 3 Miss K. N. Murray Electorate Officer 2 Mrs C. McDonald Electorate Officer 1 Vacant The Honourable Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Senior Private Secretary Mr M. A. Brown P Clerical Administrative, Class 9 Australian Development Assistance Bureau Private Secretary Mr G. Keogh Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Ms L. Holub Personal Secretary Miss H. C. Payne Secretary/Typist Ms E. Dascarellos Electorate Officer 3 Mrs S. Surdich P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Special Minister of State Electorate Officer 2 Ms M. Weston Electorate Officer 1 The Honourable Michael Duffy, M.P. Minister for Communications Senior Private Secretary Mr M. F. Fleming Private Secretary Mr T. Burton P Assistant Research Officer Local Government and Administrative Services Assistant Private Secretary Miss M. L. Nolan Personal Secretary Ms S. E. Coombs P Steno secretary, Grade 1 Special Minister of State Secretary/Typist Ms C. M. Browne Steno secretary, Grade 2 Treasury Electorate Officer 2 Ms R. O'Ryan Electorate Officer 2 Mr Eric Wilson Electorate Officer 2 Vacant The Hon. Barry Cohen, M.P. Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment Senior Private Secretary Mr S. Sergi P Foreign Affairs Officer 4 Foreign Affairs Private Secretary Mr P. M. Conway P Clerical Administrative, Class 10 Education Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. West Personal Secretary Vacant Secretary/Typist Vacant Electorate Officer 2 Mrs R. Ransley Electorate Officer 2 Mr A. N. Sansom Electorate Officer 2 Ms J. M. Spring The Hon. A. C. Holding, M.P. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr K. Wilson Private Secretary Ms P. O. Navuetaki Assistant Private Secretary Ms D. C. Merryfull Personal Secretary Ms R. Forster P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Primary Industry Secretary/Typist Mrs E. Howard P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Aboriginal Affairs Electorate Officer 3 Miss E. Willox Electorate Officer 2 Mr E. McCormick Electorate Officer 1 Ms J. Hetherington* Mr J. Lenders* Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt Minister for Veterans' Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr P. J. Hansen Private Secretary Mr J. G. F. Gilling P Research Officer, Grade 2 Employment and Industrial Relations Private Secretary Mr M. Johnson Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. Curry Secretary/Typist Mrs T. Reed Electorate Officer 3 Ms N. Solomon Electorate Officer 2 Mr R. Salpeter Electorate Officer 1 Mr R. Bellamy The Hon. Tom Uren, M.P. Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services Senior Private Secretary Ms L. M. Chester P Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Special Minister of State Private Secretary Mr F. G. Muller Assistant Private Secretary Mr M. Andrews P Clerical Administrative, Class 6 Local Government and Administrative Services Personal Secretary Ms S. Armstrong Secretary/Typist Ms L. Peraic P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services Electorate Officer 3 Mrs D. Miles Electorate Officer 2 Ms F. M. Rees Electorate Officer 1 Mr A. Albanese Mr B. C. Humphreys, M.P. Government Whip in the House of Representatives Clerk Miss J. M. McKain See Table C for names of electorate officers. Senator E. A. Robertson Government Whip in the Senate Clerk Mrs J. O. Harvey P Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Local Government and Administrative Services See Table C for names of electorate officers. Mrs R. J. Kelly, M.P. Caucus Secretary Personal Secretary Ms C. J. Mundy See Table C for names of electorate officers. Government Caucus Committees Secretariat Mr R. V. Free, M.P., Co-Ordinator Director (Private Secretary, Grade 1) Mrs J. Gordon Personal Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs J. Cook Personal Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs R. E. Cornwell Legislative Assistant Mrs J. G. Crawley Legislative Assistant Mrs P. Everson The Hon. A. S. Peacock, M.P. Leader of the Opposition Private Secretary, Grade 4A Mr B. C. Jerrfiess Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr I. Perkin Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr J. Moses Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr P. Georgio Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr J. T. Harvey Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr P. Woolcott P Foreign Affairs Officer Foreign Affairs Private Secretary, Grade 2 Dr P. C. Kerr Journalist, Grade A2 Mr A. Drysdale Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss A. E. Gubbins Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss D. Norton P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Australian Audit Office Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Prof. C. Walsh Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms J. Bendall Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss K. L. Logan P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Taxation Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss M. Salsone Electorate Officer 3 Mrs J. Carter Electorate Officer 2 Ms L. Neilson Electorate Officer 1 Mr M. Traill The Hon. J. W. Howard, M.P. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Private Secretary, Grade 3 Dr G. Henderson P Principal Executive Officer (Class 10) Employment and Industrial Relations Journalist, Grade A2 Mr H. Hodges P Clerical Administrative, Class 8 Prime Minister and Cabinet Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss B. A. Williams Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Ms M. Sells Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. Pascoe Electorate Officer 2 Miss J. M. Saunders Electorate Officer 2 Mrs K. Vollett Electorate Officer 2 Mr E. R. White Senator the Hon. F. M. Chaney Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr P. Blanchard (a) Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss A. Cleverly (b) Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr A. Rutherford Journalist, Grade A2 Mr K. M. Kessell P Journalist A1 Social Security Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss K. Mardardy Electorate Officer 3 Mrs D. Mansfield Electorate Officer 2 Miss J. Hoskins Electorate Officer 1 Vacant (a) Paid as an Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2. (b) Paid as a Private Secretary, Grade 1 Senator the Hon. P. D. Durack, Q.C. Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr R. J. Hadler Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Vacant Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss S. M. Bostjancic P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Joint House Electorate Officer 3 Miss K. J. Carr Electorate Officer 2 Miss B. Faye Electorate Officer 1 Miss A. J. O'Brien The Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair, M.P. Leader of the National Party Private Secretary, Grade 4A Mr L. D. Bathgate Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss C. Corbiere Journalist, Grade A2 Mr G. Mort Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss C. T. Russell Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms R. Upton P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Treasury Electorate Officer 3 Miss P. Koebel Electorate Officer 2 Miss M. Parisi Electorate Officer 1 Miss D. Lunnon The Hon. R. J. Hunt, M.P. Deputy Leader of the National Party Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr R. Neal Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss F. McKenna P Steno/secretary, Grade 1 Treasury Electorate Officer 3 Mrs J. L. Doyle P Steno/secretary, Grade 1 Special Minister of State Electorate Officer 2 Mrs M. Officer Electorate Officer 1 Mr B. Hawthorn P-Permanent Public Servant. SHADOW MINISTERS Office of Classification Occupant Former level Department/Authority Hon. I. Macphee, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr M. Bartlett Senator Hon. P. E. Baume Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs J. Hinds Mr J. R. Porter, M.P. Steno-secretary Miss K. Mullan Mr P. D. Shack, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. S. Wallace Senator P. E. Rae Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr H. Bray Senator Hon. A. J. Messner Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr B. O'Farrell P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Local Government and Administrative Services Hon. W. M. Hodgman, Q.C., M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr C. Stopp Mr N. A. Brown, Q.C., M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr G. Willis Mr D. T. McVeigh, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss K. McGeorge Mr B. Lloyd, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs L. Jenkins Mr R. A. Braithwaite, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss M. G. Camilleri Mr G. Blunt, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms C. Martin Senator S. J. Collard Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss B. A. Daly See Table C for names of electoral officers. P-Permanent Public Servant. The Hon. J. D. M. Dobie, M.P. Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives Classification Occupant Former level Department/Authority Clerk Mrs C. McVeigh P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services See Table C for names of electorate officers. Senator B. F. Kilgariff Opposition Whip in the Senate Clerk Miss K. Wells See Table C for names of electorate officers. Mr N. J. Hicks, M.P. National Party Whip Clerk Miss G. Van Dam P Typist, Grade 2 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs See Table C for names of electorate officers. THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS Senator the Hon. D. L. Chipp Leader of the Australian Democrats Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr S. Spinderl Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr G. Butman Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Vacant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Ms H. Teichman Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss L. S. Barton Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Ms H. Jeffcoat Electorate Officer 2 Ms A. Defteros Electorate Officer 2 M Peters Electorate Officer 2 Ms L. Vick Senator C. V. J. Mason Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats Electorate Officer 3 Ms V. W. Bourne Electorate Officer 2 Mrs W. L. Barron Electorate Officer 1 Ms J. Macleod* Mr S. Swift* Senator M. J. Macklin Australian Democrat Whip Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mrs A. E. Fischer See Table C for Names of Electorate Officers. SENATOR NOT AFFILIATED WITH A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY Senator B. Harradine Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr D. W. Strangman P Clerical Administrative, Class 7 Local Government and Administrative Services See Table C for Names of Electorate Officers. P-Permanent Public Servant. Table B CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED BY MINISTERS As at 1 May 1985 Minister Occupant Salary Former Level Department/Authority $ Prime Minister Mr N. G. Freudenberg* 36,505 Prime Minister Mr T. C. Dusseldorp 58,318 Attorney-General Mr J. R. Young* 20,000 Treasurer Dr D. B. Hughes* 37,484 Minister for Trade Mr W. P. Butler 67,118 Minister for Trade Mr G. A. Mawer P 58,318 Senior Assistant Secretary Public Service Board Minister for Defence Mr R. J. Cooksey 49,517 Minister for Defence Mr P. Dibb 62,718 Minister for Finance Dr C. A. Emerson 36,172 Minister for Social Security Mr P. L. Raskall 50,787 Minister for Social Security Mr A. Burbidge 39,135 Minister for Education Mr D. J. Ashenden 45,117 Minister for Education Mr W. Hannan 45,117 Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr R. J. D. Nagle 45,117 P-Permanent Public Servant. *-Part-time employee. Table C ELECTORATE STAFF OF SENATORS AND MEMBERS Level prior Senator/Member Electorate Officer Classification to taking up position Department/Authority Senator B. R. Archer J. M. Humphries Electorate Officer 3 B. M. Birrell Electorate Officer 2 K. J. Beste Electorate Officer 1 T. G. Aulich C. J. Heald Electorate Officer 2 S. M. Murphy Electorate Officer 2 A. Bright Electorate Officer 2 * L. Bellchambers Electorate Officer 2 * K. Willis Electorate Officer 2 * Hon. P. E. Baume N. Kirkpatrick Electorate Officer 3 L. Balzanelli Electorate Officer 1 P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Joint House C. Crawford Electorate Officer 2 F. I. Bjelke-Petersen M. J. Cohen Electorate Officer 2 P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services D. T. Burke Electorate Officer 2 D. H. Black Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Public Service Board J. R. Black S. E. Stockwell Electorate Officer 2 J. Hipkins Electorate Officer 2 N. Bolkus S. E. Chandler Electorate Officer 2 T. Tantis Electorate Officer 2 E. Mealey Electorate Officer 2 R. L. D. Boswell S. A. Gonano Electorate Officer 3 H. R. Fraser Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Regan Electorate Officer 1 D. Brownhill J. M. Cox Electorate Officer 2 J. K. Wright Electorate officer 2 P Employment Officer, Grade 4 Employment and Industrial Relations K. K. Bennett Electorate Officer 2 Hon. Sir John Carrick H. Hughan Electorate Officer 3 G. Chapman Electorate Officer 2 * T. Hubbard Electorate Assistant B. K. Childs V. M. Bason Electorate Officer 2 E. A. Fletcher Electorate Officer 2 * J. Larkin Electorate Officer 2 J. E. Scard Electorate Officer 2 * J. Coates K. Spurr Electorate Officer 2 P. Readon Electorate Officer 2 M. Reid Electorate Officer 2 R. N. Coleman S. Reid Electorate Officer 1 M. Bourke Electorate Officer 2 S. Landquist Electorate Officer 3 S. J. Collard B. Van Der Poorten Electorate Officer 1 M. Franettovich Electorate Officer 3 M. Boothby Electorate Officer 2 M. A. Colston M. Dunning Electorate Officer 3 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services D. Rogers Electorate Officer 2 C. Bale Electorate Officer 1 P. F. S. Cook P. Moyes Electorate Officer 3 J. Agnew Electorate Officer 2 R. Harris Electorate Officer 1 B. C. Cooney M. L. O'Hara Electorate Officer 2 L. Tanner Electorate Officer 2 N. A. Crichton-Browne C. A. Wallace Electorate Officer 3 R. Kisely Electorate Assistant E. Crichton-Browne Electorate Assistant R. A. Crowley C. J. Taylor Electorate Officer 2 J. E. Fisher Electorate Officer 2 F. Kaider Electorate Officer 2 R. Devlin C. M. Burr Electorate Officer 2 J. R. L. Hartley Electorate Officer 1 J. H. Rogers Electorate Officer 3 R. C. Elstob P. Hansbery Electorate Officer 3 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services M. Perna Electorate Officer 2 G. E. Orr Electorate Officer 1 J. G. Evans N. F. Goldie Electorate Officer 2 C. J. Walton Electorate Officer 2 D. Newton Electorate Officer 2 D. J. Foreman E. M. Molloy Electorate Officer 3 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services P. A. Mockunas Electorate Officer 2 M. Glastonbury Electorate Officer 1 G. Georges V. Laletin Electorate Officer 3 G. Weir Electorate Officer 2 B. Watts Electorate Officer 1 P. J. Giles R. J. Terry Electorate Officer 2 C. M. Davenport Electorate Officer 2 P. M. Murray Electorate Officer 2* M. A. Mason Electorate Officer 2* Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, D.B.E. S. Stephen Electorate Officer 3 A. Kemp Electorate Officer 2 M. A. Hoban Electorate Officer 1 J. Haines M. A. Oster Electorate Officer 2 R. L. Jacquier Electorate Officer 2 M. M. Podobnik Electorate Officer 2 D. J. Hamer, D.S.C. B. King Electorate Officer 2 P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Local Government and Administrative Services W. Brazil Electorate Officer 2 R. Wilson Electorate Officer 2 B. Harradine V. M. Challenger Electorate Officer 2 J. P. Kearney Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 Bureau of Statistics M. M. Gale Electorate Officer 2* J. M. Hearn B. S. Cundall Electorate Officer 3 J. A. Tunney Electorate Officer 2 P. G. Brown Electorate Officer 1 R. Hill J. Griffin Electorate Secretary H. Altdorffer Electorate Assistant M. Gordon Electorate Assistant P Clerical Administrative, Class 2/3 Taxation D. S. Jessop T. D. Northridge Electorate Officer 3 A. W. Crawford Electorate Officer 2 R. M. Williams Electorate Officer 1* G. N. Jones P. M. Jessop Electorate Officer 3 E. Priestley Electorate Officer 1 T. Roberts Electorate Officer 2 B. F. Kilgariff K. Maurice Electorate Officer 2 S. Dibbs Electorate Officer 2* K. Gibson Electorate Officer 2* C. Marcic Electorate Officer 2* S. C. Knowles S. E. Thompson Electorate Officer 2 J. Clifton Electorate Officer 2 W. M. Cottrell Electorate Officer 1 M. E. Lajovic L. Doherty Electorate Officer 3 P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Local Government and Administrative Services H. Black Electorate Officer 2 S. Bacon Electorate Officer 1 A. W. R. Lewis J. Hume Electorate Officer 3 J. Bosch Electorate Officer 2 M. Lawrey Electorate Officer 1 Hon. D. McClelland T. Overy Electorate Officer 3 P. M. Smith Electorate Officer 2 D. J. MacGibbon C. Draper Electorate Officer 3 D. Perkins Electorate Officer 2 M. Hardy Electorate Officer 1 G. D. McIntosh H. Butorac Electorate Officer 2 J. Waddington Electorate officer 2 S. Wakeham Electorate Officer 1 J. P. McKiernan S. Files Electorate Officer 2 S. Ellery Electorate Officer 2 B. Mason Electorate Officer 2* L. P. Anderson Electorate Officer 2* M. J. Macklin J. Hadley Electorate Officer 3 B. Boaden Electorate Officer 2 K. E. Burns Electorate Officer 1 G. R. Maguire D. Taylor Electorate Officer 3 K. E. Couper Electorate Officer 2 E. R. Harvey Electorate Officer 1* R. M. Connell Electorate Officer 1* Hon. A. J. Messner C. Miller Electorate Officer 2 A. M. Braybon Electorate Officer 2 M. L. Murray Electorate Officer 2 A. J. Missen B. Block Electorate Officer 1 J. Thomas Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Taxation J. Hall Electorate Officer 3 W. R. Parer S. Santoro Electorate Officer 3 P. G. Collits Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 7 Australian Electoral Commission M. Nagle Electorate Officer 1 C. G. Primmer E. A. Lindsay Electorate Officer 2 K. M. Ayres Electorate Officer 2 P. F. O'Brien Electorate Officer 2* R. Cox Electorate Officer 2* C. J. G. Puplick H. Elliott Electorate Officer 3 P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Science and Technology A. C. Kirk Electorate Officer 2 J. A. Garcia Electorate Officer 1 P. E. Rae L. A. Carmichael Electorate Officer 3 P. R. Rowell Electorate Officer 2 R. T. Rae Electorate Officer 2 R. F. Ray K. G. Morris Electorate Officer 2 D. Cragg Electorate Officer 2 M. E. Reid K. Messner Electorate Officer 3 J. A. Mahon Electorate Officer 2 S. L. Littlewood Electorate Officer 1 M. Reynolds K. Hunter Electorate Officer 3 P Clerical Assistant, Grade 3 Bureau of Meteorology P. Cook Electorate Officer 2 R. Boucher Electorate Officer 1 G. F. Richardson M. Grace Electorate Officer 3 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services D. Tierney Electorate Officer 2 M. Fisher Electorate Officer 1 E. A. Robertson C. Bourke Electorate Officer 3 E. A. Foy Electorate Officer 1 * J. J. O'Keefe Electorate Officer 2 P Teacher NT Teacher Service Hon. D. B. Scott A. Plummer Electorate Officer 2 S. Carey Electorate Officer 2 G. Sheil M. Giles Electorate Officer 2 R. H. Howard Electorate Officer 1 E. G. Robinson Electorate Officer 1 J. R. Short J. K. Riis Electorate Officer 2 D. A. Veitch Electorate Officer 2 M. Mortensen- Electorate Officer 2 Williams K. W. Sibraa M. Geoghan Electorate Officer 3 M. Strassberg Electorate Officer 2 K. Bean Electorate Officer 1 * M. C. Tate D. W. Raneberg Electorate Officer 2 S. J. Daley Electorate Officer 3 E. Viney Electorate Officer 1 * B. C. Teague C. Gardiner Electorate Officer 3 E. Pooley Electorate Officer 2 D. Crosby Electorate Officer 1 * M. Townley M. S. Richardson Electorate Officer 2 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administative Services A. E. Vanstone A. Willemse Electorate Officer 3 M. Hislop Electorate Officer 2 A. Law-Smith Electorate Officer 1 D. Vigor B. C. Musidlak Electorate Officer 3 * G. Stendal Electorate Officer 2 J. Bird Electorate Officer 1 M. S. Walters B. Hurburgh Electorate Officer 3 H. Joske Electorate Officer 2 J. Clarke Electorate Officer 2 J. O. W. Watson C. Campbell Electorate Officer 3 J. Ellis Electorate Officer 2 T. E. Smith Electorate Officer 1 Rt Hon R. G. Withers M. Taylor Electorate Officer 2 S. Withers Electorate Officer 2 R. M. McLean Electorate Officer 2 A. O. Zakharov J. J. Brentnall Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 6 Social Security K. Throssell Electorate Officer 2 J. D. Hoysted Electorate Officer 2 Member Hon. A. E. Adermann G. Ridoutt Electorate Officer 2 K. Hooper Electorate Officer 2 U. S. Murray Electorate Officer 2 K. A. Aldred B. J. Richards Electorate Officer 2 J. L. Logan Electorate Officer 1 D. N. Saltmarsh Electorate Officer 3 J. N. Andrew S. Reeves Electorate Officer 3 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services T. L. Barker Electorate Officer 2* J. K. Milton Electorate Officer 2* J. Dawkins Electorate Officer 1* C. S. Murray Electorate Officer 1* P. J. Baldwin A. Katzman Electorate Officer 2 E. C. Tout Electorate Officer 2 M. Thompson Electorate Officer 2 J. H. Beale B. Herlihy Electorate Officer 3 J. Emanuel Electorate Officer 2 R. A. Snoeks Electorate Officer 1 D. P. Beddall K. Jitts Electorate Officer 2 H. Hubbard Electorate Officer 2 R. Mickell Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Employment and Industrial Relations G. N. Bilney F. Findlay Electorate Officer 2 S. T. Kear Electorate Officer 2* T. Pearson Electorate Officer 2* S. L. Colhoun Electorate Officer 2* C. A. Blanchard P. Tassell Electorate Officer 2 A. Hogg Electorate Officer 2 J. Richmond Electorate Officer 2 C. W. Blunt C. Frayer Electorate Officer 2 L. R. Johnston Electorate Officer 3 A. C. Chitakis Electorate Officer 1 R. A. Braithwaite M. T. Martin Electorate Officer 2 R. McIlvenna Electorate Officer 2 R. J. Mallett Electorate Officer 2 Hon. N. A. Brown, Q.C. A. E. Crisford Electorate Officer 3 K. M. Williams Electorate Officer 2 M. Kilian Electorate Officer 1 R. J. Brown E. Boyd Electorate Officer 3 M. Robson Electorate Officer 2 I. Standborough Electorate Officer 1* A. Brierley Electorate Officer 1* J. M. Brumby R. McKenzie Electorate Officer 2 D. Looney Electorate Officer 2 F. Reid Electorate Officer 2 M. A. Burr C. McLaren Electorate Officer 1 H. Rosevere Electorate Secretary R. Robertson Electorate Assistant A. G. Cadman J. Andrew Electorate Officer 3 V. Rosemeyer Electorate Officer 2 M. Pierce Electorate Officer 1* A. Van Heal Electorate Officer 1* B. Scott Electorate Officer 1* D. M. Cameron C. V. Birbeck Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services L. P. Wade Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Johnson Electorate Officer 2 I. M. Cameron N. M. Pegler Electorate Officer 2 M. Seay Electorate Officer 2 C. A. Gregor Electorate Officer 2 E. C. Cameron M. A. Deering Electorate Officer 3 B. Silverstone Electorate Officer 2 M. Brown Electorate Officer 1 G. Campbell D. Walsh Electorate Officer 1 P. G. McKerrow Electorate Officer 3 S. L. Hills Electorate Officer 2 C. Wood Electorate Officer 2 Hon. J. J. Carlton C. Elton Electorate Officer 3 A. Holford Electorate Officer 2 J. Fisher Electorate Officer 1 D. E. Charles M. Davies Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 7 Communications H. Young Electorate Officer 2 R. Lindell Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 2/3 Resources and Energy R. I. Charlesworth A. Keane Electorate Officer 2 C. D. Towie Electorate Officer 2 E. Collier Electorate Officer 2 J. Child K. Alexidis Electorate Officer 3 J. B. Halloran Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 2/3 Social Security J. Cooper Electorate Officer 1* A. Hockley Electorate Officer 1* R. L. Chynoweth T. Genge Electorate Officer 2 J. K. Ferguson Electorate Officer 2 S. J. Perryman Electorate Officer 2 P. R. Cleeland F. Ure Electorate Officer 2 A. Haermeyer Electorate Officer 3 J. De Martinis Electorate Officer 1 M. R. Cobb P. Richardson Electorate Officer 3 A. L. Scott Electorate Officer 2 A. J. Dimmitt Electorate Officer 1 W. P. Coleman S. D. Creer Electorate Officer 2 J. A. Stearn Electorate Officer 2 I. W. Lees Electorate Officer 3 D. M. Connolly M. Hardin Electorate Officer 3 L. Morrow Electorate Officer 1* L. Gray Electorate Officer 1* B. J. Conquest W. Canniffe Electorate Officer 3 P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Social Security G. J. Bryant Electorate Officer 2 S. Austin Electorate Officer 1 D. B. Cowan W. McKeough Electorate Officer 3 K. Berry Electorate Officer 1* M. Hall Electorate Officer 1* M. D. Cross B. C. Allen Electorate Officer 2 P Typist Supervisor, Grade 2 Veterans' Affairs M. B. Fewins Electorate Officer 2 P Typist Controller, Grade 1 Veterans' Affairs R. Migala Electorate Officer 2 P Typist, Grade 2 Social Security B. T. Cunningham C. J. Murray Electorate Officer 3 K. J. Nielsen Electorate Officer 2 B. M. Shields Electorate Officer 1 E. E. Darling L. McGlynn Electorate Officer 1 M. Freeman Electorate Officer 2 K. Byrne Electorate Officer 2 P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Home Affairs and Environment Hon. J. D. Dobie B. Leigh Electorate Officer 3 R. Smith Electorate Officer 2* M. Wakefield Electorate Officer 2* M. Bowner Electorate Officer 1 A. J. G. Downer D. Phelps Electorate Officer 3 B. A. Rayner Electorate Officer 2 P. Gosse Electorate Officer 1 P. H. Drummond S. Fotakis Electorate Officer 2 J. Wieringa Electorate Officer 2 R. C. Nicholson Electorate Officer 2 S. C. Dubois S. D. Power Electorate Officer 2 B. Todorovska Electorate Officer 1 V. Blackall Electorate Officer 3 Hon. P. Duncan B. Walters Electorate Officer 1 L. Kalionis Electorate Officer 2 J. T. Hyde Electorate Officer 3 H. R. Edwards K. Cairns Electorate Officer 3 A. I. May Electorate Officer 2 C. F. Kelly Electorate Officer 1* G. Provost Electorate Officer 1* R. F. Edwards T. Lewis Electorate Officer 3 J. James Electorate Officer 2 P. Williams Electorate Officer 1* Hon. P. A. E. Everingham P. J. Cowdy Electorate Officer 3 V. M. Croker Electorate Officer 2 P. J. Murphy Electorate Officer 3 C. G. Brown Electorate Officer 1 W. F. Fatin F. Harman Electorate Officer 1 S. Talbot Electorate Officer 2 R. Hughes Electorate Officer 3 P Typist, Grade 2 Local Government and Administrative Services Hon. W. C. Fife P. A. Allbutt Electorate Officer 2 J. Nugent Electorate Officer 3 M. C. Morgan Electorate Officer 1 T. A. Fischer S. Venn-Brown Electorate Officer 2 E. Price Electorate Officer 2 G. J. Jones Electorate Officer 2 P. S. Fisher M. Schleme Electorate Officer 3 P. Birrell Electorate Officer 2* J. Waldie Electorate Officer 2* B. E. Gibson Electorate Officer 1 E. J. Fitzgibbon P. Carlton Electorate Officer 3 C. J. Hansen Electorate Officer 2 A. J. Brierly Electorate Officer 1 R. V. Free A. Aquilina Electorate Officer 2 E. Peters Electorate Officer 2 P Typist, Grade 2 Local Government and Administrative Services G. Hungerford Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 4 Social Security J. Gayler D. M. Goodman Electorate Officer 2 B. Stewart Electorate Officer 2 M. K. Daly Electorate Officer 3* P. Holt Electorate Officer 3* G. Gear G. White Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Irving Electorate Officer 2 S. Paton Electorate Officer 2 B. J. Goodluck J. B. Wilson Electorate Officer 3 B. I. Cusick Electorate Officer 2 C. G. Goodluck Electorate Officer 1 R. N. J. Gorman J. Hartley Electorate Officer 3 S. Caldwell Electorate Officer 2 E. L. Grace M. Vincent Electorate Officer 3 P. Nicols Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Mountford Electorate Officer 1 A. G. Griffiths D. Hughes Electorate Officer 3 G. Lennox Electorate Officer 2 R. Silvestro Electorate Officer 1 R. S. Hall J. M. Turner Electorate Officer 2 S. G. Wade Electorate Officer 1 M. McBryde Electorate Officer 3 R. G. Halverson, O.B.E. P. M. Osmond Electorate Officer 3 J. L. Di-Giusto Electorate Officer 2 D. Jeffs Electorate Officer 1 G. L. Hand M. Caruana Electorate Officer 2 J. Carnegie Electorate Assistant G. Stradijot Electorate Secretary D. P. M. Hawker C. R. Murphy Electorate Officer 2 W. M. Cole Electorate Officer 1 L. J. Slorach Electorate Officer 3 N. J. Hicks R. Baldwin Electorate Officer 2 E. Hookey Electorate Officer 2 Hon. J. C. Hodges C. J. Garry Electorate Officer 3 G. E. Gates Electorate Officer 2 L. E. Fleming Electorate Officer 1 Hon. W. M. Hodgman, Q.C. S. White Electorate Officer 3 K. M. Hall Electorate Officer 3 C. Hellessey Electorate Officer 1 C. Hollis M. M. Bradford Electorate Officer 2 S. M. Copeland Electorate Officer 1 B. C. Humphreys S. Johnston Electorate Officer 1 E. Reed Electorate Officer 3 J. Byrne Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Housing and Construction R. Jacobi P. Holloway Electorate Officer 2 P. T. Wright Electorate Officer 2 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services S. J. Hogben Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Local Government and Administrative Services C. A. Jakobsen A. Deanus Electorate Officer 2 J. McKay Electorate Officer 2 K. Daulby Electorate Officer 2* P. M. Halfpenny Electorate Officer 2* Hon. H. A. Jenkins S. Wilkes Electorate Officer 2 P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services H. Shapiro Electorate Officer 2 P. Pickering Electorate Officer 2 D. F. Jull A. Quinlan Electorate Officer 3 H. Blann Electorate Officer 2 N. Wright Electorate Officer 1 Hon. R. C. Katter C. M. Ahnfeldt Electorate Officer 3 M. Wollaston Electorate Officer 2 S. R. Slann Electorate Officer 1 R. J. Kelly A. Ellis Electorate Officer 3 M. Conley Electorate Officer 2 M. O'Rourke Electorate Officer 1 L. Kent J. Sullivan Electorate Officer 2 R. Dennis Electorate Officer 2 E. Carry Electorate Officer 2 L. J. Keogh P. A. Lawrence Electorate Officer 2 C. Murphy Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Steeden Electorate Officer 2 R. E. Klugman G. Boyce-Monaghan Electorate Officer 3 M. Turner Electorate Officer 2 C. Hartley Electorate Assistant P Clerical Administrative Overseas Telecommunications Commission A. H. Lamb G. A. Adkin Electorate Officer 2 G. B. Freeman Electorate Officer 2 M. Hodgens Electorate Officer 2 J. V. Langmore P. E. Mullane Electorate Officer 2 L. Bacon Electorate Officer 2 H. M. Hill Electorate Officer 2 M. J. Lee J. O'Hare Electorate Officer 3 L. Kirwan Electorate Officer 1 G. Paris Electorate Officer 2 E. J. Lindsay K. L. Carpeter Electorate Officer 2 H. Landman Electorate Officer 2 J. Littlefield Electorate Officer 2 B. Lloyd V. J. Green Electorate Officer 3 D. Murray Electorate Officer 2 B. Bassler Electorate Officer 1* E. McKeon Electorate Officer 1* F. S. McArthur B. Murch Electorate Assistant N. Ward Electorate Secretary P. J. McGauran A. Oussa Electorate Officer 3 P. Elliott Electorate Officer 2 H. Buntine Electorate Officer 1 J. McHugh E. Galtos Electorate Officer 2 F. Gervasoni Electorate Officer 2 B. Netting Electorate Officer 2 Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar H. Ovens Electorate Officer 3 P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services D. Cumming Electorate Officer 2 A. Griffiths Electorate Officer 1* F. Pullman Electorate Officer 1* L. B. McLeay A. L. Williamson Electorate Officer 3 M. Newman Electorate Officer 2 J. Gorrie Electorate Officer 1 Hon. D. T. McVeigh L. M. Peters Electorate Officer 3 A. Woolcott Electorate Officer 2 C. J. Ehrlich Electorate Officer 1* K. Rollason Electorate Officer 1* Hon. I. M. Macphee R. Southey Electorate Officer 2 J. M. Viner Electorate Officer 2 A. Simson Electorate Officer 2* B. White Electorate Officer 2* M. J. Maher M. A. Shaw Electorate Officer 3 N. Merhi Electorate Officer 1 S. P. Martin D. A. Campbell Electorate Officer 3 H. M. Thurloe Electorate Officer 2 N. Akhurst Electorate Officer 1 H. Mayer N. Sparrow Electorate Officer 2 B. D. Evans Electorate Officer 2 L. Lloyd Electorate Officer 2 J. B. Mildren J. Hatt Electorate Officer 1 H. J. Horrocks Electorate Officer 2 D. S. Miller Electorate Officer 3 C. G. Miles G. W. Walkley Electorate Officer 3 J. E. Casboult Electorate Officer 2 N. M. Elliott Electorate Officer 1 P. C. Millar L. Caswell Electorate Officer 2 R. H. Donald Electorate Officer 2 M. A. Olds Electorate Officer 2 P. Milton F. Collison Electorate Assistant L. D'Agostino Electorate Secretary K. Large Electorate Assistant P Clerical Administrative, Class 1 Defence Hon. J. C. Moore C.T. Overett Electorate Officer 2 B. S. Martin Electorate Officer 2 J. M. Hogg Electorate Officer 2 A. A. Morris J. R. Parker Electorate Officer 2 A. E. Cassidy Electorate Officer 3 J. G. Mountford K. Creighton Electorate Officer 2 M. F. Shepherd Electorate Officer 2* E. F. Larter Electorate Officer 2* S. L. Booth Electorate Officer 1 G. B. Nehl P. C. Langford Electorate Officer 3 S. D. Kensey Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Collien Electorate Officer 1 N. P. O'Keefe C. M. Taylor Electorate Officer 2 M. L. Dearricott Electorate Officer 2 J. Wintle Electorate Officer 2* L. R. T. O'Neil C. F. Hutchinson Electorate Officer 3 D. C. McEwan Electorate Officer 3 W. L. Johnson Electorate Officer 2 M. T. Lynch Electorate Officer 1 J. R. Porter S. E. Carey Electorate Officer 3 M. Henderson Electorate Officer 1 S. E. Kasprzar Electorate Officer 2 L. S. R. Price G. W. Lucas Electorate Officer 3 C. A. Baxter Electorate Officer 2 P. A. Frazer Electorate Officer 1* Y. Hajgato Electorate Officer 1* G. F. Punch E. Sandias Electorate Officer 2 N. McAloon Electorate Officer 2 J. O'Connell Electorate Officer 2 P. K. Reith C. Van Lieshout Electorate Officer 3 V. J. Harle Electorate Officer 2 J. Glass Electorate Officer 1 Hon. I. L. Robinson H. Pullen Electorate Secretary L. Baker Electorate Assistant A. C. Rocher J. U. Brophy Electorate Officer 2 A. Nutt Electorate Officer 3 J. Kelly Electorate Officer 1* S. P. Carleton Electorate Officer 1* P. M. Ruddock J. Farrell Electorate Officer 2 R. Lee Electorate Officer 2 C. MacKay Electorate Officer 2 J. Saunderson M. E. Decker Electorate Officer 2 M. L. Beegan Electorate Officer 2 M. Faltermaier Electorate Officer 1 J. L. Scott L. D. Ivchenko Electorate Officer 2P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services J. Gredley Electorate Officer 2 R. J. Mills Electorate Officer 2 P. D. Shack M. Bicknell Electorate Officer 2 R. L. Iustini Electorate Officer 2 D. Newman Electorate Officer 2 J. R Sharp M. Hendrie Electorate Officer 2 B. M. Tozer Electorate Officer 2 S. Cooper Electorate Officer 2 R. F. Shipton A. Moss Electorate Officer 2 J. Hopcraft Electorate Officer 2 A. Walsh Electorate Officer 2 D. W. Simmons J. M. Navin Electorate Officer 2P Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Social Security A. Flannery Electorate Officer 2 S. West Electorate Officer 2 P. N. Slipper T. Bennett Electorate Officer 2 C. G. Rowley Electorate Officer 2 A. M. Muir Electorate Officer 2 W. L. Smith J. R. Calvert Electorate Officer 3 S. W. Eldridge Electorate Officer 2 M. J. Whybrow Electorate Officer 1 J. H. Snow R. Clasper Electorate Officer 2 D. Jay Electorate Officer 3 P. Lockwood Electorate Officer 2 J. M. Spender, Q.C. D. M. Jacobsen Electorate Officer 3 W. P. Christison Electorate Officer 2 P. R. Staples E. Wightman Electorate Officer 2 M. McKenna Electorate Officer 2 L. McInnes Electorate Officer 2 K. J. Sullivan R. Cox Electorate Officer 3 R. L. Elliott Electorate Officer 1 S. Roberts Electorate Officer 1P Typist, Grade 2 Social Security A. C. Theophanous W. Albon Electorate Officer 2 * O. Borthwick Electorate Officer 1 C. Fabian Electorate Assistant M. Tretheway Electorate Assistant * R. E. Tickner A. E. Gillies Electorate Officer 2 L. E. Donley Electorate Officer 2 A. D. Machin Electorate Officer 2 C. W. Tuckey N. Haywood Electorate Officer 2 S. E. Goldstone Electorate Officer 2 M. M. Jardine Electorate Officer 2 D. J. H. Watson S. C. Gilliland Electorate Officer 2 R. L. Forrest Electorate Officer 2 S. Jeffrey Electorate Officer 2 * R. Crofton Electorate Officer 2 * A. P. Webster G. Smith Electorate Officer 3 A. Simpson Electorate Officer 2 H. Wilson Electorate Officer 1 P. N. D. White, M.C. M. Hartstein Electorate Officer 3 F. Wright Electorate Officer 2 S. Mintel Electorate Officer 1 Hon. I. B. C. Wilson B. J. Champion Electorate Officer 2 P Typist, Grade 1 Local Government and Administrative Services P. J. De Cure Electorate Officer 1 R. J. Randall Electorate Officer 3 * F. Vorrasi Electorate Officer 1 * K. W. Wright P. Murphy Electorate Officer 3 K. Murphy Electorate Officer 2 * K. Tilley Electorate Officer 2 * J. McDowell Electorate Officer 1 P Permanent Public Servant. * Part-time employee. Table D SALARIES AS AT 1 MAY 1985 Classification Salary Range ($) p.a. (A) Ministerial Staff Principal Private Secretary* Principal Adviser* Senior Adviser* 58318 Adviser/Int Relations* Principal Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister* Senior Adviser to Deputy Prime Minister* 49517 Senior Private Secretary to a Minister in Cabinet* 47356 Senior Private Secretary to a Minister not in Cabinet* Speech Writer to Prime Minister* 45117 Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister* 37564-39135 Private Secretary* 34846-36172 Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister* 32351-33520 29855-31025 27015-27772-28529 24596-25377-26157 22091-22681-23271-23862 Assistant Private Secretary* 24596-25377-26157 Clerk* 22091-22681-23271-23862 Research Officer* 19640-20231-20821-21411 Press Secretary to the Prime Minister* (Journalist Grade A4) 38600 Journalist Grade A3* 36361 Journalist Grade A2* 34099 Journalist Grade A1* 30702-31860 Personal Secretary 21656-22247-22838 Assistant Personal Secretary 19396-19929-20465 Legislative Assistant 19328-20119-20910-21701 Secretary/Typist 17268-17801-18337 15674-16074-16476 Clerical Assistant Grade 5 17021-17502-17980 Clerical Assistant Grade 4 15863-16197-16532 Clerical Assistant Grade 2 13546-13769-13992-14215 * In addition to salary a Ministerial Staff Allowance of $7847 per annum is payable to occupants of these positions but with the exception of the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Journalists Grade A2 on the Prime Minister's staff who receive Ministerial Staff Allowance of $15694 per annum. Ministerial Staff Allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. (B) Office-holder's Staff Private Secretary Grade 4A* 47356 Private Secretary Grade 3* 34846-36172 Private Secretary Grade 2* 29855-31025 Private Secretary Grade 1* 24596-25377-26157 Journalist Grade A2* 34099 Clerk to Opposition &National Party Whips* 24596-25377-26157 22091-22681-23271-23862 19640-20231-20821-21411 Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2 21656-22247-22838 Assistant Private Secretary Grade 1 19396-19929-20465 Steno-Secretary Grade 1 15674-16074-16476 * In addition to salary an allowance of $7847 per annum is payable to occupants of these positions. The allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. (C) Electorate Staff Electorate Officer 3 23906-24624-25394-26163 Electorate Officer 2 20828-21597-22367-23136-23906 Electorate Officer 1 19391-19853-20315-20828 Electorate Secretary 21656-22247-22838 Electorate Assistant 19328-20119-20910-21701 (Question No. 254) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) What is the effective rate of protection for colour television sets for the period 26 October 1984 to 25 October 1985. (2) What will be the effective rate of protection for colour television sets under the long-term duty rate of 20 per cent. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The effective rate of protection for the local manufacture of colour television sets for the period requested is indeterminable. As a result of the Government's recent decision on assistance for colour television sets the industry is experiencing a period of adjustment including increases in import competition and changes to the levels of value added. These ongoing changes preclude a meaningful estimate of the effective rate of protection for the period requested. (2) The effective rate of protection for colour television sets under the long term duty rate of 20 per cent is of course a matter for prediction. As a result of the Government's recent decision on assistance for colour television sets we expect the effective rate of protection to be similar to the average accorded manufacturing industry. This prediction is based on estimates by the Industries Assistance Commission and an expected increase in value added by some local manufacturers. (Question No. 260) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: What are the salaries and allowances paid to: (a) the Chairman; (b) the Deputy Chairman; and (c) the other members of the Australian Film Commission. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Remuneration Tribunal has determined the annual fees for the Chairman and Members of the Australian Film Commission to be: Chairman $9,052; Deputy Chairman $4,604; Member $4,604. These amounts include an adjustment for the national wage case decision of 3 April 1985. A travelling allowance of $100 per overnight stay in a capital city and $80 in other than a capital city has also been determined for the holders of these offices. (Question No. 279) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that the European Economic Community's Sixth Value Added Tax Directive (Article 13A (1) (n)) exempts the following services from VAT: 'certain cultural services and goods closely linked to theatres supplied by bodies governed by public law or by other cultural bodies governed by the member states concerned', if so, in seeking to apply a broadly-based consumer tax, will the Government be providing for similar exemptions for the arts and artists in Australia. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No decision on introduction of a broadly-based consumption tax in Australia has yet been made, nor will a decision be made prior to the Tax Summit in July. It would be premature of me to express a view on the nature and extent of any exemption which might or should apply on introduction of a broadly-based consumption tax. (Question No. 285) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Has low priority been given to policing of illicit stills in Australia and to excise lost in respect of them. (2) Has a departmental paper, prepared by a Mr Curran, estimated that revenue so lost was a minimum of $3m per annum. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. The illicit distillation of alcohol may occur commercially in large quantities or non-commercially in backyard stills which usually provide small quantities of low grade alcohol for limited distribution or personal use. Because of the revenue potential involved, investigations into the alleged operation of stills suspected of producing commercial quantities are accorded equal priority to investigations into other areas of major commercial fraud or instances where community protection issues are involved. (2) No. Research of departmental files has located a brief minute prepared in July 1979 at the request of officers from the Auditor-General's Office by Mr Curran, a Sydney based officer. In this minute Mr Curran estimated that the amount of excise loss based on maximum utilisation of the illicit stills seized in New South Wales between 1 January and 19 June 1979 as $39,993.75 per day based on maximum utilisation. Mr Curran has since indicated that he was aware at the time the minute was prepared that the stills referred to would normally be operated on an itinerant or seasonal basis and he had no intention of inferring in the minute a per annum loss of revenue based on the daily figure. Subsequent to the audit of the Inland Services operations in several States the Auditor General in Efficiency Audit Report No. 4, dated 11 March 1982, made the following comments on illicit (spirit) production. 'Departmental controls over illicit production vary among collectorates. The most successful programs in terms of numbers of prosecutions involve development of an intelligence and information base primarily through the cultivation of informants, the investigation of likely sources having regard to cultural influences and seasonal factors and selective investigation. From the figures available to Audit, controls are not cost effective on the basis of additional duty recovered although data are not available on the deterrent effect of controls. Eight and a half man-years (salary cost over $110,000) were invested in 1977-78 in search of illicit production leading to the recovery of duty of $19,000 representing 1900 litres of spirit. Almost 4000 litres of spirit and over 4000 litres of wash were seized in 1977-78 and 1978-79 (excise revenue of about $50,000) at costs of almost $250,000 for the two years. The Department advised: There is no data available on the total production of illicit alcohol in Australia. The members of the spirit industry have a vested interest in preventing illicit activity and the lack of information from that source despite constant and direct requests tends to confirm the view that the production of illicit spirit is not significant. Audit cannot disagree with this view. However, given that the duty liability from the daily production of an average still is about $700 there is sufficient risk for the Department to invest some effort in assessing the size and scope of illicit production based on extrapolating from finds. Subject to substantial erosion not being evidenced, a deterrent approach based on cultivation of informants and wide publicity for seizures and fines, could be adopted as the most cost-effective approach. (Question No. 316) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 28 May 1985: (1) Has the Government recently increased the licence fees for warehouses licensed under the Customs Act from $1,900 to $6,646 (for new licences) and $5,346 (for renewals); if so: (a) Upon what basis were these increases of approximately 250 per cent and 180 per cent respectively calculated; and (b) what consultation took place with warehouse licensees prior to the introduction of this new scale of fees. (2) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce prepared to make the report of the consultants Price Waterhouse Associates Proprietary (referred to in Explanatory Statement to Statutory Rules No. 71 of 1985 under the Customs Act) available for study by interested parties. (3) Why, when the scale of fees is set out in Statutory Rules No. 71 of 1985 (Customs Regulations (Amendment)), does Australian Customs Notice 85/107 refer to the Statutory Rules as No. 77; are the Statutory Rules different; if not, is this an error in the Customs Notice. (4) What appeals, if any, lie against the decision to make such a large increase in fees in one step. (5) Are the new scale of fees made in such a way that they are capable of disallowance by the Parliament. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The increases in fees were based on recommendations contained in a report to the Department by the firm of consultants Price Waterhouse Associates Proprietary. The consultants were engaged to advise the Department on improved procedures for determining and recovering costs relating to warehouses as well as depots. The terms of reference for the consultant were as follows: 'The purpose of the consultancy is to review the method of determining charges for licence fees and associated Customs services relating to Customs warehouses and depots. The consultant is required to report on and made recommendations concerning the implementation of an equitable system of charging based on administrative cost recovery principles.' (b) The research by the consultants was carried out in May and June 1984 and involved interviews with the industry associations which utilise the services provided by section 79 of the Customs Act as well as several visits to actual warehouse premises. (2) The consultants provided two reports-one which addressed the specific matters relating to the question of appropriate bases for fees for both warehouses and depots. This report would be made available to interested parties on request. The second report addressed operational matters relating to officers and the conduct of the consultancy and because of this would not be made available to interested parties. (3) The mention of Statutory Rules No. 77 in the Australian Customs Notice No. 85/107 is a typographical error. An amended Australian Customs Notice in course of issue. (4) None. (5) All Regulations are required to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the regulations pursuant to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and may be subject to disallowance accordingly. Senator Gareth Evans —On 15 May 1985 Senator Reid asked a further question without notice regarding the availability of the crime collection unit of the Australian Federal Police in Canberra (Hansard, pages 2028-9). The Special Minister of State has provided the following answers to specific matters raised by the honourable senator: '. . . I am told that in fact the criminal records unit of the AFP was on that day'-11 May 1985-'closed for the first time in 23 years . . .' I am unable to comment as to whether or not the criminal records unit (CRU) has ever been closed before. It was, in effect, 'closed' for one shift on that day. '. . . so information was not available and could not be supplied in response to interstate requests.' While information was available [accessible to the Senior Constable in the adjacent Alerts List Unit (ALU)], neither Operations nor the Senior Constable had been advised or instructed to access it. 'He'-the Alerts List Officer-'had been in the force for only four months and had neither the expertise nor the ability . . .' This is not correct. He was a Senior Constable with eleven years service. It is acknowledged that he had only been performing duty at the ALU [Information Branch (Crime)] since 29 April, 1985 but searching records at the CRU is a simple task. While his initial induction centred on the role and activities of the ALU, he was 'walked through' other units in the Branch and given an insight into operations and systems there. '. . . to get into what I am told were the locked sections closed off by a roll-down garage door device covering the crime collation unit and the criminal records unit.' The sections were locked by a pull-down grille barring access to the 'public', that is, the counter where police call to conduct checks. The grille displayed the word 'Unattended'. The CRU was accessible to the Senior Constable. The configuration of the office space gives open-door access one to the other. It is acknowledged, however, that if the Senior Constable was in the ALU, and office machinery was operating (for example, teleprinter), he may not have heard the telephone in the CRU, had such telephone been ringing at that moment. Additionally, he had not been directed to attend to CRU inquiries. 'It seems that a telex was received from Victoria requesting information about a certain person and a response was sent.' (Leave granted to have the telex incorporated in Hansard) '. . . (it) refers to the fact that police were unable to advise on priors-that is prior convictions-as its crime collation unit would not be on duty until 2300 hours on 11 May 1985 . . . I would like an assurance that this telex was sent from the AFP last Saturday . . .' The telex appears to be a copy of a telex message forwarded to Victoria Police from the AFP Operations Room at City Police Station, Canberra on the evening of 11 May 1985. It is true that neither the CCU nor the CRU were manned for that afternoon shift. One member reported sick, the other was granted 'special leave' due to a family illness. The NCO about to complete his shift reported to a Superintendent (who was then in his office) the fact that only one member (ALU) would be on duty unless other members were called out. The Superintendent directed that there should not be any call-out as he was of the view that the ALU member would be on duty and could handle inquiries for all three units. This is where the system failed. Through lack of communication, the ALU member was not directed to handle inquiries that may be received in the CRU. Further, the NCO to whom the Superintendent spoke advised the Operations Room that there would be noone on duty in either CRU or CCU. Operations Room was not informed that the member in ALU could handle inquiries relative to the unmanned offices. The Superintendent in charge of the area is to review the rostering arrangements to ensure a capacity to have all three units effectively operational 24 hours each day. '. . . overtime has virtually been cut out . . . and there is a ban on overtime.' There is no ban on overtime. There have been some readjustments of priority in the interests of effective and efficient management but overtime is being worked and paid as commitments demand. In no case have essential operational commitments been reduced. '. . . the level of policing is not what it ought to be. There are not as many motor vehicle patrols as usual . . .' There are as many mobile patrols available now as there have been, although during morning shifts some patrols may have only one officer. When emergencies occur, such as the recent demonstration at Parliament House, patrols are redirected to assist, leaving areas such as Woden and Belconnen short of mobile units for the time being. Nevertheless the level of policing is what it ought to be. 'We hear of the drug unit not operating after 4 o'clock in the afternoon . . .' Rosters of the Australian Capital Territory drug squad indicate that only on two occasions in recent months has that unit not operated with an afternoon shift. Both were Sundays. '. . . we hear of the scientific squad not being available after 4 p.m. unless a senior officer specifically says that it ought to go . . .' There has been no restriction on overtime in the scientific units. It is true that some validation by a senior member is required of the need to have a call-out after hours. This procedure was introduced when members in the scientific area claimed that some requests were unnecessary and their time was being wasted. (Question No. 17) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Did Peter Fulcher provide the Australian Federal Police or the New South Wales Police with information relating to or leading to any criminal investigations; if so: (a) did the provision of any such information by Peter Fulcher form the 'extraordinary circumstances' leading to his early release; and (b) if it did, were any results of the provision of that information sufficient to justify the early release. (2) If the information obtained from Fulcher was important enough to warrant the early release of Fulcher on 11 June 1985, why did the Attorney-General bring that date forward by 6 months on 6 December 1984. (3) In view of the fact that New Zealand authorities had warrants for Fulcher's arrest going back before September 1983, why did the Attorney-General: (a) wait 2 months before answering the letter from New Zealand authorities asking if Fulcher was going to be released; (b) refuse to deny or confirm Fulcher's early release to the New Zealand authorities; and (c) not tell the New Zealand authorities that Fulcher had been released until 15 days after the event. (4) Why were there no conditions on the licence issued to Fulcher. (5) What is the legal position of a 'proviso' such as that which was apparently attached to Fulcher's Release on Licence; and what is the legal effect of a 'proviso' which states that Mr Fulcher be of good behaviour and not violate any law until 11 December 1988. (6) Since the Labor Government has been in office, what steps has it taken to organise, simplify and streamline extradition matters between New Zealand and Australia or between Australia and any other country. (7) Will the Government give an undertaking to reform any existing law in relation to New Zealand-Australian extradition, so that repetitions of this affair will not occur. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) It has been consistent Commonwealth Government practice for a number of years to neither confirm nor deny the matters raised by these questions. (3) (a) On 31 October 1984 the Department forwarded a reply to the New Zealand Police. An immediate response could not be given to the New Zealand request because of the need for the Department to consult. (b) The New Zealand Commissioner was expressly told that in cases of this kind it was the Department's practice not to reveal that information to anyone, not even Australian law enforcement agencies, or to prison and parole authorities. (c) Neither the Attorney-General nor the Department informed the New Zealand authorities of Mr Fulcher's release. (4) See answer to Question (5) (5) The Legal effect of the 'proviso' which states that Mr Fulcher be of good behaviour and not violate any law until 11 December 1988 is that if he is convicted of any offence before that date his licence may be revoked by His Excellency the Governor-General acting on the Attorney-General's advice. Mr Fulcher, in these circumstances would be liable to serve the balance of his federal term. (6) So far as extradition between New Zealand and Australia is concerned no amendments of the law are proposed. Extradition arrangements between Australia and New Zealand are applied regularly and are considered effective. The New Zealand Solicitor-General indicated in his report that New Zealand would ensure that in future cases their warrants were recorded well ahead of any possible release. Since the Hawke Government has been in office a draft model treaty has been proposed to form the basis of negotiations with countries to replace 'inherited' treaties and to conclude treaties where hitherto no extradition arrangements existed. An extradition task force has been established to review all Australian extradition arrangements and to improve Australia's extradition coverage. That task force has forwarded the draft model treaty to numerous countries and received favourable responses for treaty negotiations from many of these countries. A negotiating team is travelling to Europe in June to conduct extradition negotiations. Substantial amendments have been made to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act during this session. Many of these amendments have been designed to simplify and modernise Australian extradition practice. (7) See answer to question 6. (Question No. 59) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Does the Australian Government adjust the prices of Australian petroleum products in line with changes in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil prices; if so, why has the Government failed to reduce the price of petroleum products, given the recent reduction in OPEC oil prices. (2) Is an oil import pricing policy which takes advantage of increases in crude oil prices, by passing them on to the consumer, yet ignores reductions in crude oil prices, inconsistent. (3) Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of the increasing hardship caused to the people of the outback who bear the escalating costs of petroleum products every time they travel, by road or air. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Under the import parity pricing system, Australian crude oils are priced at levels equivalent to the cost of importing crude oils of a comparable quality. The Government considers the official price for the Saudi Arabian crude oil, Arab Light, to be the most appropriate international price for import parity pricing purposes. Arab Light is traded in large volumes, is of comparable quality to Australian crudes and would be a major import into Australia if Bass Strait crude was not available. As the official price of Arab Light is specified in United States dollars changes to the $US/$A exchange rate cause changes in the imported cost of Arab Light (in Australian dollars) and hence in the import parity price for Australian crude oils. The 1 March 1985 adjustment to import parity prices incorporated the $US1 per barrel reduction in the official price of Arab Light which occurred on 30 January 1985. However, this $US price reduction was more than offset by the decline in the $US/$A exchange rate over the previous two months-since the previous adjustment to the import parity price. Further declines in the $US/$A exchange rate since 1 March 1985 have caused the further increase in the import parity price which has applied from 1 May 1985. (2) The Government's import parity pricing policy recognises both increases and reductions in the cost of importing crude oil and I draw the honourable senator's attention to the reductions in the crude oil price made by this Government on 1 April 1983, 1 July 1983 and 1 January 1984. (3) A reduction in the exchange rate generally results in an increase in the prices of all internationally traded commodities. The Government recognises that its recent decision to increase the import parity price for crude oil will increase transport costs. It is not considered appropriate that particular sections of the community should be shielded from the effects of the currency depreciation which has caused these price increases-similarly it would not be appropriate to prevent the benefits of the depreciation from flowing through to the export and import competing industries. It is worth noting in this context that an improved outlook for exports will be of benefit to many people in the outback since many of their activities are linked to export industries and that, to some extent, this will offset the costs of higher petroleum prices. (Question No. 76) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that 1002 electricity linesmen and associated workers employed by the South East Queensland Electricity Board have been sacked by the Queensland Government, and that these men were only offered back their jobs if they agreed to new conditions of employment that involved: (a) signing an agreement containing a 'no strike' clause; and (b) agreeing to work a 38-hour week instead of the 36.25-hour week that was in place before the strike and subsequent sackings. (2) Is the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Bill passed by the Queensland Parliament on 2 March 1985 in breach of any conventions of the International Labour Organisation that have been ratified by Australia. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) (a) and (b) Yes. The Government is very conscious of the current situation in the Queensland power industry including the plight of the dismissed South East Queensland Electricity Board (SEQEB) workers and the legislative action taken by the Queensland Government in the last few weeks. The actions of the Queensland Government are contrary to the principles of sound industrial relations and have severely eroded the basic rights of workers to organise and pursue their legitimate goals through appropriate industrial tribunals. It is also a matter of record that the Queensland Government has twice rejected recommendations of the Queensland Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which would have averted the disruption to the State's industry which occurred in February. The Federal Government has intervened in proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to support federal award coverage for power industry workers in Queensland and has introduced legislation into Federal Parliament to facilitate these proceedings and allow all the matters involved in this dispute to be discussed in an independent industrial forum. (2) The Government's legal advisers have examined the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985, as well as other recent Queensland industrial legislation and have identified a number of breaches of international treaties, including International Labour Organisation (''ILO''), Conventions, to which Australia is a party. There may be other breaches disclosed after further examination. Moreover, even where the existence of Queensland legislation itself is not a breach, the exercise of powers or the taking of other action under the legislation would need to be examined to consider whether it constituted a breach of any of Australia's international obligations. The breaches which have been identified so far are as follows: Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (ILO Convention No. 29) Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (ILO Convention No. 105) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights * Under section 3 of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985, the Electricity Commissioner is given an extremely wide power to direct any person who he considers capable of carrying out the necessary work, to perform work to provide, maintain or restore a supply of electricity. * Under section 4 of the same Act, employees of the Queensland Electricity Commission or of an Electricity Board are liable to a penalty for non-compliance with such a direction. While it appears that no penalty attaches to non-compliance by other persons, they may understandably feel under the menace of a penalty, at least until there is a judicial determination on the matter. * These provisions are too wide to be permissible under ILO Convention No. 29 which requires the suppression of the use of forced or compulsory labour. Although some exceptions are permitted under the Convention, the legislation is not confined to the circumstances covered by the permissible exception. * The power to direct may be exercised, even when no real emergency exists, to require non-employees to perform work or to require employees to perform work outside the normal scope of their employment. * To the extent that the legislation does enable the power to be exercised in these ways, it authorises 'forced or compulsory labour' contrary to ILO Convention No. 29 and the existence of the legislation constitutes a breach of that Convention. * Moreover, the power is wide enough to authorise forced or compulsory labour of kinds specified in ILO Convention No. 105. Among other things, the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes. To that extent, the existence of the legislation is in breach of that Convention. * Article 8.3 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights also proscribes forced or compulsory labour. Although provision is made in Article 8.3 for certain exceptions, the power of direction mentioned above is not limited to circumstances falling within those exceptions. To the extent that the legislation exceeds the scope permissible under Article 8.3, its existence constitutes a breach of that provision. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (ILO Convention No. 87) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights * Under section 7 of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985, there is effectively a prohibition on strike activity in the electricity industry. In addition, the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Act 1985 makes participation in a relevant strike an 'illegal' act and imposes a duty to refrain from participating in certain strikes. Employees participating in a 'strike' (as defined) in the electricity industry are subject to an automatic loss of pay, and, at the employer's option, to dismissal or suspension without pay. * ILO Convention No. 87 guarantees the right of workers to further and defend their occupational interests. The Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing body of the ILO ('the Committee') has said on a number of occasions that the right to strike is a legitimate means of exercising this right. * The Committee has also recognised that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited in the civil service or in essential services because a strike there could cause serious hardship to the community. However, the Committee has stated that where there is such a restriction it should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties can participate at every stage and in which awards are binding in all cases on both parties. These awards, once made, should be fully and promptly implemented. * It may be that the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Tribunal established by the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Act 1985 is able to employ such conciliation and arbitration procedures in relation to the matters coming within its jurisdiction. However, that tribunal has no jurisdiction to relieve employees of the sanctions referred to above. Moreover, there is no court or other body independent of the employer, the Minister or the Electricity Commissioner, as the case may be, who can determine whether an employee on whom sanctions have been imposed has, in fact, participated in a relevant strike [see sub-sections 28 (4) and 29 (4) of the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Act 1985 which oust the jurisdiction of the courts]. * These elements of the State legislation do not comply with the rights protected under the provisions of ILO Convention No. 87. Furthermore, the lack of provision for resort to a court or other independent body in relation to the imposition of sanctions conflicts with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which requires the provision of 'just and favourable conditions of work'. * Another breach of ILO Convention No. 87 occurs by virtue of the new provisions enacted in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Act 1985 relating to the cancellation and suspension of the registration of a union. There is insufficient scope for consideration by an independent tribunal of the substance of a case against a union in relation to the grounds for cancellation or suspension. Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (ILO Convention No. 98) * The existence of sections 3 and 4 of the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985, which respectively confer powers that extend to the giving of directions to union members as such, and impose penalties for non-compliance, constitutes a breach of this ILO Convention. (Question No. 84) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Under which Act of Parliament and/or regulations are persons (including members of the legal profession) subjected to a scan-search upon entry into the premises of the Family Court of Australia. (2) Under which Act and/or regulations are the baggage, briefcases or handbags of such persons opened and searched. (3) Under which Act and/or regulations are civilian personnel employed by a private company (i.e. Thomas Nationwide Transport (TNT)) empowered to conduct such searches. (4) What fees are paid to TNT for such services, and under which appropriation are such payments authorised by the Parliament. (5) What guidelines are issued to TNT or other persons conducting such searches, under which Act and/or regulations have such guidelines been issued and how and when have such guidelines been made public. (6) Which Government department or agency is supplied with the written notes taken by such security personnel, and: (a) what are the purposes of keeping such written records; (b) are such records available for inspection under the Freedom of Information Act; and (c) for how long are such records kept on file. (7) Why have legal practitioners and others who require regular admission and access to the Family Courts not been issued with permanent security passes which would allow them entry without the necessity to submit to a search or scan on each occasion of their entry to the Family Courts. (8) Which other Courts enforce such procedures upon people entering them. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2), (3) There is no express Statutory Authority for the security measures which have been put in place on premises of the Family Court. The Authority for the action taken derives from the rights of the Commonwealth as occupier of the premises and the power of the Judges of the Court, as a Superior Court of Record, to control entry on to the premises and the conduct of persons on the premises. The security measures have the approval of the Judges concerned. (4) The average weekly payment to TNT is $7,972 for services at Sydney and Parramatta. These payments are authorised by the Parliament under Appropriation Division 170-2-05. (5) Standing Orders for TNT personnel have been issued by the company following discussions with Family Court officials. They have not been made public. (6) There are no written notes taken as a matter of routine by TNT personnel. A Log Book recording attendance is maintained by the TNT personnel. Any major incidents are to be reported by TNT to the Principal Registrar in writing and transcribed to the Court's normal security incident form. Security incident reports are used to analyse the extent of security threats with a view to providing appropriate responses. Such reports are kept indefinitely. Should a request for access under FOI legislation be received it will be considered in accordance with the relevant Act. (7) There are a number of practical difficulties in administering the procedure of issue of permanent security passes to persons other than Judges and Court staff. The question of the issue of a limited number of permanent passes to persons having frequent business in the Court is being kept under notice. (8) The Sydney and Parramatta Family Courts are the only Family Courts having these procedures in place each day. Other Family Courts may use them in response to a specific threat. I understand that some State Courts adopt similar practices when necessary. In many overseas courts, for example, in the United Kingdom and U.S.A., similar security measures are in continuous use. (Question No. 92) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What is the progress of negotiations for international agreements for the transfer of Australians serving terms in gaols of other countries to complete their sentence in Australia. (2) When will the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General be considering the issue of implementing transfer arrangements. (3) What is the progress of draft legislation and other arrangements for the transfer of Australians who are prisoners in overseas gaols. (4) When will Australian prisoners, in overseas gaols, be able to be moved home. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Negotiations with other countries for international agreements have not commenced. The nature of the proposed scheme is still under consideration within the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. (2) The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General considered the matter of international transfer of prisoners at its last meeting on 2 May 1985. At that meeting, it was decided that the Commonwealth would prepare revised proposals for the Committee's consideration. These would include ways of excluding serious drug offenders from the scheme. (3) The drafting of enabling legislation has not commenced. It would not be appropriate to commence this until the nature of the scheme has been agreed. (4) With the nature of the proposed scheme not yet agreed, it cannot be accurately predicted when prisoners, who might be eligible for transfer under the scheme, will be able to be transferred back to Australia. (Question No. 133) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: In view of the comments in the final report of Special Prosecutor, R. V. Gyles, QC, on the role of certain banks in facilitating the activities of tax avoidance promoters by destroying records and refusing to co-operate with investigations, will the Attorney-General be acting on Mr Gyles's suggestion that compulsory powers may be necessary to make investigations in this area effective. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Upon the completion of Mr Gyles's term of appointment, the work being conducted in his Office was integrated into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr I. D. Temby, QC. Mr Temby established a Major Fraud Division to deal with the work conducted by Mr Gyles. Mr Temby personally conducted a major review of the operations of this work. In relation to Mr Gyles's suggestion that the role of certain banks in facilitating the activities of tax avoidance should be the subject of a separate investigation, this matter was considered by Mr Temby at an early stage after the integration of Mr Gyles's Office. Upon the material available to Mr Temby, he was not prepared to recommend that additional and increased resources should be devoted to this task. This decision was made after taking into account the available evidence and the various competing priorities of outstanding bottom of the harbour investigations. This situation is, however, being kept under review and in the event that material which clearly demonstrates criminality comes to hand, the matter will be reassessed. Additionally the Government has established a working group of officials to examine the question of controls on the operation of accounts with financial institutions and related matters. The working group comprises representatives from the Departments of the Treasury, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Special Minister of State, the Attorney-General's Department, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Federal Police, and the Reserve Bank. The working group is looking at the question of the retention of bank records for a minimum period, the provision by depositors of certain basic information on the opening of accounts and possible reporting requirements in respect of certain financial transactions. So far the working group has invited comments from industry groups such as financial institutions on how the implementation of greater control on bank records will affect their operations. The Treasurer is to report to Cabinet on the working group's findings in the near future. (Question No. 182) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: What is the constitutional basis upon which the Government proposes to impose terms and conditions upon State governments in respect of the allocation and use of State land, in the context of its proposed national Aboriginal land rights legislation in view of the fact that the use and allocation of land within States has been the constitutional responsibility of the States. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 20 February 1985, the Government released the Preferred National Land Rights Model discussion paper. The Preferred Model provides the basis for consultations with the States and interested parties about national land rights legislation. The Preferred Model does not contemplate that terms and conditions will be imposed upon State Governments in respect of the allocation and use of State land. Indeed, as recognised in the Preferred Model, the co-operation of State Governments is welcomed in meeting the legitimate claims of the Aboriginal people for land ownership and the Commonwealth will not seek to override State land rights legislation that is compatible with the Preferred Model. Any Commonwealth law would, therefore, regulate the use of State land only in accordance with these principles and to the extent permitted by the Constitution. In this regard, the principal constitutional powers available to the Commonwealth Parliament are the power to make laws with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws (Constitution, s. 51 (xxvi)) and the power to legislate with respect to the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws (Constitution, s. 51 (xxxi)). I should, however, stress that the Commonwealth has not yet established a final position and, accordingly, the form and content of any Commonwealth legislation is yet to be determined. (Question No. 187) Senator Sheil asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: In view of the sustained fall in world prices of Arabian Light Crude Oil and recent devaluations of the Australian dollar, how does the Government justify continuing the world parity pricing of indigenous Australian oil. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The import parity pricing policy has been adopted by this, and previous, Governments as a means of providing encouragement for petroleum exploration and development and the efficient use of energy resources through petroleum conservation and its substitution by more plentiful energy resources. The import parity price is based on the official price of Arab Light crude oil, converted to Australian dollars, and adjusted to reflect allowances for quality differentials, freight, insurance, loss, and wharfage. This formula ensures that Australian refiners pay prices for indigenous crude oil equal to its replacement value. In March 1983 the official price of Arab Light was reduced by $US5 per barrel and again on 30 January 1985 by $US1 per barrel. These decreases in the official price of Arab Light have been incorporated in the Government's import parity pricing decisions, but movements in the $US/$A exchange rate have also had important effects on prices in Australian dollars. The substantial depreciation in the $A which has occurred over the past few months has been the cause of recent increases in the Australian price. I recall, however, that on 1 April 1983, 1 July 1983 and 1 January 1984 the price of indigenous crude oil was reduced as a result of either decreases in the price of Arab Light or favourable movements in the value of the $A. It should also be noted that the Government has recently issued a discussion paper on 'A Modified Free Market for Indigenous Crude Oil' and is currently seeking comment from interested parties on this issue. (Question No. 217) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a statement made in the Brisbane Sunday Mail on 24 March 1985 by the Queensland Minister for Welfare Services, Mr Muntz, in which he claims marriage breakdowns are hitting Australian taxpayers hard, and of a further claim by Mr Muntz that the Federal Government should spend more money towards marriage support instead of openly promoting 'easy divorce'. (2) What is the cost of supporting the Family Court. (3) Has the Family Court eliminated a great deal of misery within Australia, and swiftly ended marriages that clearly had no chance of lasting success. (4) Has the Family Court saved litigants many thousands of dollars in legal costs that otherwise would have been frittered away chasing lost causes, and in doing so, restored happiness and security to men, women and children who would have otherwise been denied either of these essential factors. (5) What has been the rate of divorces in Australia over the past three years. (6) What can be the effects not only to the matrimonial couple but also any children of an unhappy and hopeless union by being forced to continue the relationship simply because the cost of parting is prohibitive. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Government provides considerable financial resources towards marriage support. In particular, it is aware that there has been increased demand on the services offered by approved marriage counselling organisations. Despite restraints on Government expenditure in recent years the level of funding made available for grants to these organisations has continued to increase. The increases in the last two years have been 10.99 per cent and 11.26 per cent respectively and these figures compare favourably with consumer price index increases of 6.9 per cent and a projected 5.25 per cent in the current year. In the 1984-85 financial year, the Government allocated $4,100,000 in grants to approved marriage counselling organisations and a further $85,000 to approved organisations for conducting programs of pre-marital education. (2) My Department has identified the following estimated costs of supporting the Family Court of Australia and Family Court of Western Australia for the 1983-84 financial year- $ Salaries of Judges of Family Court of Australia 3,080,000 Salaries of staff of Registries of Family Court of Australia 9,142,000 Administrative Overheads of Family Court of Australia (all expenses including superannuation, rent and rent equivalent costs) 8,563,000 Payment to Western Australia for Family Court of Western Australia 2,730,000 Commonwealth Reporting Service (all administrative expenses but excluding superannuation, rent and rent equivalent costs) 3,655,000 Payments to the States for preparation of Welfare Reports 80,000 27,250,000 (3) The Family Law Act, under which the Family Court of Australia was created, provided for a single ground of divorce of irretrievable breakdown of marriage evidenced by 12 months separation. It can be said that the Family Court of Australia has been able to reduce the distress suffered by people who before 1976 would have had to have waited a number of years before being able to obtain a divorce to secure legal recognition that their marriage was at an end. (4) Before 1976, parties to a marriage were able to obtain a divorce on several grounds related to matrimonial misconduct (for example adultery, habitual cruelty). Proof of one of these grounds often involved a petitioning spouse incurring significant legal costs to no useful purpose save to satisfy the procedural requirements for his or her divorce. The Family Court of Australia is able to grant a divorce upon the present single ground which is relatively easy to establish and does not involve a judicial inquiry into the reasons behind the breakdown of the marriage. (5) The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in its publication entitled 'Divorces Australia 1984', states the number of divorces in Australia and the crude divorce rate for Australia (that is, the number of divorces per 1000 of the mean Australian population) for the last three years are as follows- Crude Divorce Number of Divorces Rate 1982 44,088 2.9 1983 43,525 2.8 1984 43,012 2.8 (6) If the cost of obtaining a divorce were prohibitive, unhappy couples who wished to end their marriages would be likely to separate and not take steps to obtain legal recognition of the end of their relationship. This would result in a significant gap between recognition by Australian society, through its laws, of terminated marriages and marriages that have in fact broken down. It would not be in the interests of spouses or their children for this situation to exist. (Question No. 242) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) What has the Australian Government done to show support for the right of a legitimate opposition in South Korea, given the treatment of Kim Dae Jung on his return to Seoul, during the election, and the restrictions still placed on him. (2) Have Australian Government representatives misled Kim Dae Jung. (3) Have there been any official visits to Seoul arranged by the Australian Government of such a kind as to make it clear to the Korean Government that Australia believes that a legitimate opposition exists and should exist. (4) Has the Australian Government made any official representations to the South Korean Government expressing concern at the way Kim Dae Jung is being treated. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In the twelve months prior to Mr Kim Dae Jung's return to the ROK on 8 February, the Government made representations three times to the ROK Government urging that his return should be without incident and without prejudice to the ROK's new forward-looking policies. It is pleasing to note that despite an incident at Seoul airport on his arrival Mr Kim's return to the ROK was in fact relatively incident free, and that he remains unharmed. The outcome of the recent National Assembly elections, which included a healthy showing by the opposition, appears to be a sign of the development of the democratic political process in the ROK and, as such, is welcomed. Since the election, there has been a merger of opposition parties to give the major opposition party, with which Mr Kim Dae Jung is linked, a total of 102 seats in the National Assembly, as compared with the Government Party's 148 seats. The ROK Government's announcement of 6 March that political bans would be removed from the remaining fourteen persons barred from political activity in the ROK was also welcomed. We understand that as a result of this, restrictions on movement and association which had been imposed on Mr Kim since his return were lifted. He is still constrained from forming or joining a political party because of his suspended gaol sentence, but the question of an amnesty for him is already under active discussion among political parties. If a serious incident were to occur involving Mr Kim Dae Jung, the Australian Government would regard it with concern. (2) No. (3) No. The Government has however indicated that it welcomes the ROK's new forward looking policies of liberalisation, and has expressed the hope that the process will continue. Since the National Assembly elections in February this year, the Embassy has met and had extensive discussions with Government and opposition politicians, including Mr Kim Dae Jung. (4) No: - the Government did however make representations on three occasions in the twelve months prior to his return; - his return has been relatively free and he is unharmed; - if a serious incident involving Mr Kim Dae Jung were to occur, the Government would view it with concern. (Question No. 264) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) What was the cost of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) in the financial year 1983-84. (2) Can details be provided of the costs of each aspect of the operation of the Act (that is, publicity, preparation of materials, etc.). (3) What has been the cost of pursuing, from tribunals and courts, a clearer definition of the Act. (4) What has been the actual cost of processing inquiries made under the Act, other than those costs in (1) to (3) above. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Attorney-General's Department receives information from agencies subject to the Act on the costs of the operation of the Act in each agency for the purpose of publication in the Attorney-General's Annual Report to Parliament on the operation of the Act. The Annual Report for 1983-84 was tabled in the Senate on 28 February 1985. As stated in that Report, the total costs identified by agencies for the 12-month period from 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984 was $17,632,712. (2) No records are kept in relation to the costs of each aspect of the operation of the Act. Agencies identified costs only in terms of staff costs and non-labour costs. For the 1983-84 financial year these were- $ Estimated staff costs: (a) 16,961,634 Identified non-labour costs: * printing 221,557 * training 144,473 * fees to legal counsel 74,897 * computer time 32,978 * other 197,173 671,078 Total 17,632,712 (a) This figure is made up of $9,022,146 salary costs and on costs (or overheads) of $7,939,488 being 88 per cent of the salary costs. The on-cost allowance of 88 per cent was applied after consultation with the Public Service Board and the Department of Finance. (3) All appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are brought by applicants seeking review of a decision by a Minister or agency under the Act. Appeals to the Federal Court on questions of law are brought by both applicants and agencies. Records on the cost of defending appeals in the AAT and the Federal Court are not maintained. In the period since the Act commenced operation on 1 December 1982 to 30 April 1985, 369 applications have been made to the AAT and 172 are still outstanding. In the same period appeals to the Federal Court were lodged by five applicants and three agencies. Of these three are outstanding. (4) See the answers to (1), (2) and (3) above. (Question No. 271) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) What height, weight and general fitness standards must be met by those applying for Australian Federal Police positions? (2) Have the standards referred to in (1) above remained the same for male and female applicants since the inception of the Australian Federal Police; if not, what changes have been made and with what purpose? (3) In each of the years from July 1980, how many males and females, respectively, applied to enter the Australian Federal Police, how many were successful in each case and what are the most up-to-date figures for the current financial year? Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)- Height: (Minimum)- Male: 175 cms Female: 163 cms Weight: The applicant's weight must accord with height weight ratios, determined by the Body Mass Index of Quetelet as modified by Bray and as used by the National Heart Foundation. A police doctor will judge this. General- Fitness: Since members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are required to apprehend offenders it is essential that their locomotor capacity be perfectly normal. Applicants must be in good health and successfully undergo a medical examination by a police doctor. Vision: Spectacles may be worn, but vision must be no less than 6/9 unaided each eye. Near vision-read 0.5D at 36-40 cms unaided. Visual fields normal. Colour perception normal with pseudoisochromatic charts (ISHIHARA). Hearing: The whispered voice should be understood at three metres, with the applicant standing side on to the examiner. (2) Height-Males On the formation of the AFP on 19 October 1979 the minimum height requirements were: General Policing Component -Males 175 cm Females 160 cm Protective Service Component -Males 170 cm Females 155 cm (Note-Component transferred to Department of Local Government and Administrative Services on 20 October 1984). During September 1982 the minimum height requirement for males seeking entry into the General Policing Component was dropped to 170 cm due to difficulties experienced in attracting sufficient numbers of suitable male graduate applicants. In September 1983 the minimum height requirements for males seeking entry into the General Policing Component was returned to 175 cm, for the following reasons: (a) The lowering of the minimum height had not had any appreciable effect on attracting greater numbers of suitable male applicants; (b) To recognise the average height for Australian males as arrived at by the National Heart Foundation; and (c) To bring the AFP into line with other Australian State Police requirements. Height-Females In October 1983 the minimum height requirement for females seeking entry into the General Policing Component was raised to 163 cm for the following reasons: (a) To recognise the average height for Australian females as arrived at by the National Heart Foundation; and (b) To bring the AFP into line with other State Police requirements. Vision On the formation of the AFP the requirements were: 6/6 vision without the aid of spectacles is required and colour vision must be normal This requirement was modified in January 1982 to reflect that eyesight tests for both components be the same, namely: (a) 6/9 minimum unaided vision in each eye, corrected to 6/6-spectacles may be worn; and (b) Colour vision to be normal by the use of pseudoisochromatic plates or other recognised tests for colour vision. Weight On the formation of the AFP on 19 October 1979 the height/weight ratios for both components were as follows: Minimum Maximum Height (cms) weight (kg) weight (kg) MALE 170 63.50 72.60 173 65.32 78.93 175 66.13 80.74 178 68.95 82.55 180 71.21 85.28 183 73.94 88.90 185+ 77.11 95.25 FEMALE 155 48.99 63.37 158 49.90 63.86 160 50.35 65.36 163 51.26 66.36 165 52.16 67.35 167 52.61 68.65 170 53.98 69.85 174+ 55.34 71.85 Following amendments to the Australian Federal Police Regulations, the height/weight ratios were determined as follows for the purpose of bringing standards into line with the National Heart Foundation recommendations. Minimum Maximum Height (cms) weight (kg) weight (kg) 163 53.2 66.4 164 53.8 67.2 165 54.4 68.0 166 55.1 68.9 167 55.8 69.7 168 56.4 70.5 169 57.1 71.4 170 57.8 72.3 171 58.4 73.1 172 59.1 73.9 173 59.8 74.8 174 60.5 75.7 175 61.2 76.5 176 61.9 77.4 177 62.6 78.3 178 63.4 79.2 179 64.1 80.1 180 64.8 81.0 181 65.5 81.9 182 66.2 82.8 183 66.9 83.7 184 67.7 84.6 185 68.4 85.5 186 69.2 86.5 187 69.9 87.4 188 70.7 88.3 189 71.4 89.3 190 72.2 90.2 191 72.9 91.2 192 73.7 92.1 193 74.5 93.1 194 75.3 94.0 195 76.0 95.0 196 76.8 96.0 197 77.6 97.0 198 78.4 98.0 199 79.2 99.0 200 80.0 100.0 General Fitness: General fitness standards have remained the same. (3) The following table indicates the number and ratio of male and female applicants to the AFP and how many were successful. Applied Appointed Year Male % Female % Male % Female % 1980-81 687 66 355 34 165 62 101 38 1981-82 781 68 375 32 277 79 61 21 *1982-83 1,506 66 761 34 212 62 132 38 *1983-84 1,160 74 403 26 236 83 48 17 1984-85 to 30.4.85 587 75 192 25 40 9 * Some of these applicants were recruited at the Protective Service Component standard. This Component was transferred to Department of Local Government and Administrative Services on 20 October 1984. (Question No. 277) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) Will the Attorney-General ensure that the new Office of Consumer Affairs liaises with the Australian Customs Service to block the entry of shoddy and/or dangerous goods at point of entry into Australia. (2) Is the Attorney-General aware of the increasing instances of dangerous appliances and children's toys having to be recalled after accidents have occurred. (3) Can the Attorney-General provide details on the number of reported accidents involving goods, referred to above, over the past three financial years. (4) Can the Attorney-General identify the major offending countries exporting shoddy and/or dangerous goods to Australia and advise what action has been taken against these countries and their Australian importers. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I can assure the honourable senator that the Office of Consumer Affairs will continue to liaise with the Australian Customs Service on the need to prohibit the entry of unsafe goods into Australia. Officers from Customs and Consumer Affairs have established close communication on product safety matters since the two areas split from the former Department of Business and Consumer Affairs in 1982. (2) I am not aware of any increase in the instances of products being recalled after accidents have occurred. The number of products being reported by State and Territory consumer affairs agencies as allegedly unsafe has remained at approximately 80 per year. I would appreciate any details the honourable senator may be able to provide on this matter to illustrate the apparent increase. (3) I am unable to provide details on the number of reported accidents involving goods as there is not an injury surveillance system operating in Australia at the current time. A feasibility study into the operation of such a system has been undertaken by the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia. The Office of Consumer Affairs is liaising with the Foundation on the establishment of a pilot study for an all-age, all-injury reporting system. It is hoped this injury reporting system will be operational by the 1986-87 financial year. (4) The source of goods which have been the subject of legislative control under the Trade Practices Act cannot be narrowed to one or two countries. The range of products controlled is varied, as is their source. Dangerous goods are banned from sale by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers. Importers in Australia are directly subject to banning orders and the exporter, in turn, would suffer loss of sales to Australia. (Question No. 288) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Can the Minister urgently investigate allegations made in Queensland State Parliament on 7 March 1985 that a 'Mr Rand regularly flies between 'Silver Plains' (on Cape York Peninsula) and Honolulu without having a customs or immigration clearance'. (2) Could the Minister inquire into the following statement made by Mr Glasson, Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police and confirm or deny the allegation contained in it: 'Police inquiries revealed that Mr Rand has undertaken numerous overseas flights between 1973 and 1983, but again no evidence of any offence in this State has been disclosed relating to these trips. The Commissioner of Police is unable to say whether any of these trips were made without customs or immigration clearance. However, this would be a matter for the appropriate federal departments. While there is no evidence at this stage to directly involve Mr Rand in any unlawful activities, you may rest assured that all possible action will be taken should evidence be forthcoming to support a prosecution'. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I am advised by the Australian Federal Police that this is not a matter for investigation by them. I note that the honourable senator has addressed a similar question to my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. May I suggest she also seek information from my colleague, who is responsible for the Australian Customs Service, namely, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. (Question No. 296) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) Has a report entitled 'Preliminary Report on the Study of Off-spring of Tasmanian Vietnam Veterans' been tendered to the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. (2) Has the report referred to in (1) above been prepared by Professor Charles Kerr of the School of Tropical Medicine in the Commonwealth Institute of Health and Dr Barbara Field. (3) Referring to the report in (1) above: (a) who has the right to publish the report; (b) who paid for the production of the report; and (c) when will the report be made public. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) A report marked 'Confidential' and entitled 'Preliminary Report On The Tasmanian Veterans' Study' was tendered to the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam on 27 May 1985. The Royal Commission gave this report exhibit No. 1932. (2) Statements made to the Royal Commission by Professor C. B. Kerr and Dr B. R. Field show that the preliminary report referred to in (1) above was prepared by Professor Kerr and Dr Field from data made available by the VVAA. (3) (a) I do not know who has the right to publish the report in (1) above. However, please see (c) below. (b) I understand that evidence was given at the Royal Commission hearing that costs incurred in the report's production were met from VVAA funds to which the Government has contributed. (c) At the conclusion of the hearing of the Royal Commission on 28 May 1985 it was indicated that this document may no longer have any status, as one of its authors, Dr Field, sought to have it torn up. I cannot indicate the present status of the document. (Question No. 301) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Communications aware that question No. 157 (notice given 27 March 1985) was originally asked during the term of the previous Government. (2) When can a reply be expected to the question referred to in (1) above. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The answer to question No. 157, asked by Senator Bolkus on 27 March 1985, appeared on page 2470 of the Senate Daily Hansard dated Thursday 23 May 1985. (Question No. 315) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1985: (1) Is the Government aware of reports that cholera has broken out in a number of refugee camps in Ethiopia. (2) Can the Government confirm the report referred to in (1) above, and if so, what measures does the Government intend to take in order to alleviate the suffering of these people. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware that the risk of outbreaks of cholera in Ethiopia has been and remains high, and is apparently worst in the border area with Somalia where there are substantial refugee populations. I understand that cases of cholera have also occurred in a number of famine relief centres in drought affected areas but that the Ethiopian authorities and non government organisations have usually been able to react quickly and to contain the disease. (2) The Government is naturally concerned not only that cholera victims should receive adequate and rapid treatment but also that the more difficult problem of preventing the disease should be tackled. Together with other major aid donors, Australia made these concerns known to the Ethiopian Government and in particular to the Chief Commissioner of the Ethiopian Government's Relief and Rehabilitation Committee, Mr Dawit. In addition, Australia has provided over $1m in medical supplies and personnel to a number of non government organisations including ICRC and the Australian Red Cross, and UNICEF, for the purpose of alleviating the risk of disease in famine relief and refugee centres as part of its total relief aid package of $26m to Ethiopia. Senator Gareth Evans —On 28 February 1985 (Hansard, page 325) Senator Cooney asked me as the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question, without notice: Has any analysis been made by the Attorney-General's Department on any trend since 1970 in firstly, the number of regulations made under Commonwealth legislation providing for monetary or custodial penalties or both where the onus of proof is cast on the person accused, secondly, the number of convictions recorded under such regulations, and, finally, the penalties imposed as a result of such convictions? If the answer is yes, is such analysis available? If the answer is no, is there any plan to carry out such analysis and make it available? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No analysis has been made by the Attorney-General's Department of any trend since 1970 in the number of regulations made under Commonwealth legislation providing for monetary or custodial penalties or both where the onus of proof is cast on the person accused. Nor is there any record of the number of convictions recorded under such regulations or the penalties imposed as a result of such convictions. There is no plan to carry out any such analysis, since, in light of other competing priorities, departmental resources are not sufficient to enable officers to be allocated to that task. In this regard I also reiterate and fully endorse the comments made by my colleague Senator Gareth Evans, in his capacity as my representative in the Senate, in response to a question without notice from Senator Crichton-Browne on 22 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2334) concerning the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on 'The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings'. Senator Gareth Evans —On 28 February 1985 (Hansard, page 331) Senator Crichton-Browne asked me as the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question, without notice: When might the Senate expect an exhaustive and conclusive answer from the Government on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs regarding the onus of proof in criminal proceedings? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The honourable senator's question has been answered by my colleague Senator Gareth Evans in providing a reply to a similar question asked by the honourable senator on 22 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2334). Senator Gietzelt —On 10 May 1985 (Hansard, page 1752) Senator Macklin asked Senator Ryan, as Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the following question: I refer to the tendering on 20 November last year to the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam of a list purporting to be a list of Vietnam veterans who have died since the Vietnam war. Was that a true and accurate list of the figures held by the Department of Defence at that date? Is there any evidence that the Department misled the Commission in the tendering of that list? The Department of Veterans' Affairs has furnished the following information: No list of names of Vietnam veterans was provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the Evatt Royal Commission on 20 November 1984. The Department provided data on deceased Vietnam veterans to the Royal Commission on 23 November and 26 November 1984. Some of that material was eventually tendered to the Royal Commissioner by those assisting him and received exhibit numbers. The material did not purport to be a list of the figures or the names of Vietnam veterans held by the Department of Defence on a particular date. However, part of the material was a listing of names which were common to the Department of Defence nominal roll and to a list prepared by the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. After the material was provided by the Department, it was found that the name of one veteran whose deceased status was known at the time to the officer compiling the material was omitted from a list of 834 names given to the Royal Commission. However, that same list contained the names of four veterans now known not to have served in Vietnam. These facts and the reasons for them were explained to the Royal Commission as soon as they were known.