Tuesday, 10 September 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate of the death on 31 August 1985 of Sir Macfarlane Burnet. I seek leave to move a motion of condolence. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 31 August 1985 of Sir Macfarlane Burnet O.M., A.K., K.B.E., places on record its recognition and esteem for his meritorious public service and unique contribution to medical science, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family. Mr President, in both Houses of Parliament we customarily offer condolence motions on the deaths of political colleagues and have only rarely moved motions of condolence for distinguished Australians who have not joined the Parliament. Such motions have been passed for Dame Nellie Melba and for Sir John Monash, and it is my privilege today to propose that the Senate pass a similar motion for Sir Macfarlane Burnet. When we talk about Sir Macfarlane Burnet we are dealing with an Australian with a large and ambitious vision. His great work has made life safer and better for generations of people in this country and around the world. His career was distinguished by intellectual brilliance, by unswerving diligence and dedication and by a determination to push forward the boundaries of medicine and science. The range of Sir Macfarlane's work was daunting. He moved from one field to another, innovating and making improvements in every field he addressed. Today we remember especially his pioneering work in the study of viruses, including the investigation of influenza and the examination of polio, Murray River encephalitis and smallpox-like viruses. Sir Macfarlane's peers fully recognised his unique talents. He was a Nobel Prize winner; he won the Copley Medal; he won a royal medal from the Royal Society of London; he was President of the Australian Academy of Science; and he was knighted. These honours were all due and proper recognition for outstanding service. It is proper that we should honour Sir Macfarlane Burnet, as Australia is fortunate indeed to have enjoyed the benefits of his research, his teaching, his guidance and his experience. We have lost one of our most intelligent countrymen. We cannot make up for that loss but we can indicate to his widow and family, his colleagues and the scientific community both in Australia and overseas that we respect, honour and commemorate what he did for all Australians and the world beyond. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition wishes to associate itself with the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and supports the words of commendation which he has spoken in support of that motion. We are acknowledging a man who made an extraordinary contribution to Australia. He was the first Australian living and working in this country to be awarded a Nobel Prize and the Opposition believes that it is appropriate that he should receive this mark of respect from the national Parliament. On behalf of the Opposition I express sympathy to his widow and his children. If I may add a personal note, I express sympathy to his son Ian who worked in Papua New Guinea when I was there and with whom I spent a good deal of time. The Opposition supports this motion. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —The National Party of Australia wishes to be associated with this motion of condolence. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, has said, seldom do we move a motion of condolence in this chamber for people other than members of parliament, but such was the stature of Sir Macfarlane Burnet that we have done so today. He was a great man in many aspects, a man who stood astride the pages of modern history. Australia is really a small country, but men of the calibre of Sir Macfarlane Burnet have given us international standing. His work has been recognised around the world. He was a man from humble beginnings. I think it was only last Sunday on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Show that a complete program was devoted to an interview with him. He gave a great discourse on his work and his humble upbringing. One was able, in no small way, to ferret out the great contribution he had made to medical science, not only in Australia but to the world in general. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —It is with deep sorrow that I rise to support this motion of condolence. I cannot pretend to speak on behalf of the several medical graduates in this chamber- no doubt they will speak for themselves-but it is fair to say that each one of us, on our journey through medical training, was able to study the books written by Mac Burnet, to be taught the wisdom he gave to the world, and to share the pleasure that an Australian medical scientist achieved such eminence and was, in fact, our first home grown Nobel Laureate. His work on immunology and on viruses opened up a new era for the world. Much of what is possible today in the field of immunology stems from the work which Mac Burnet did overseas and in Australia. He was not only a scientist, he was a medical scientist. He was the father and the path-blazer of a great trail of Australian medical scientists, who continue to do great honour to this country. It would be inappropriate, in this motion of condolence, if we did not mention the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne over which Mac Burnet presided for so many years and which he led to such a great and pre-eminent place in Australian medical research. Many people will have heard the words of Sir Gustav Nossal, who I suppose has the best of both worlds-a Sydney education and a Melbourne appointment. Sir Gustav Nossal paid his own tribute to the life and work of Mac Burnet in a very eloquent way: He has shaped and led medical research not only in this country but for much of the world. His life was one of glorious achievement and his heritage is one which belongs to all the world. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate our support of the condolence motion moved today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I endorse the comments made by previous speakers with regard to Sir Macfarlane Burnet's eminence and his contribution to medical science, both within Australia and outside it, and extend our sympathies to surviving members of his family. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-As honourable senators may have become aware, there has been a change in the leadership of the Federal Opposition. The Hon. John Howard is now the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Neil Brown is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list showing the full Opposition shadow Ministry and the representation of shadow Ministers in the two chambers. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Shadow Minister Shadow Minister representing in the other Chamber * Leader of the Opposition... Hon. John Howard, MP... Fred Chaney * Leader of the National Party, Opposition Leader in the House and Shadow Minister for Defence... Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, MP... Peter Durack * Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations... Hon. Neil Brown, QC MP... Fred Chaney * Deputy Leader of the National Party and Shadow Minister for Primary Industry... Hon. Ralph Hunt, MP... Stan Collard * Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce... Senator the Hon. Fred Chaney... John Moore * Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy... Senator the Hon. Peter Durack... Ray Braithwaite * Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs... Hon. Andrew Peacock, MP... Peter Durack * Shadow Treasurer... Hon. Jim Carlton, MP... Tony Messner * Shadow Minister for Finance and Taxation... Senator the Hon. Tony Messner... Jim Carlton * Shadow Minister for Trade... Mr Ray Braithwaite, MP... Peter Durack * Shadow Minister for Communications... Hon. Ian Macphee, MP... Austin Lewis * Shadow Minister for Community Services and Status of Women... Senator the Hon. Peter Baume... Charles Blunt Shadow Minister for Northern Development and Local Government... Hon. John Moore, MP... Austin Lewis Shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment... Senator Stan Collard... David Connolly Shadow Attorney-General... Mr John Spender, QC MP... Peter Durack Shadow Minister for Health... Mr James Porter, MP... Peter Baume Shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs... Mr Peter Shack, MP... Peter Baume Shadow Minister for Transport and Aviation... Mr Bruce Lloyd, MP... Brian Archer Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Public Administration... Mr D. M. Connolly, MP... Peter Baume Shadow Minister for Territories... Senator Austin Lewis... Peter White Shadow Minister for Social Security... Mr Charles Blunt, MP... Peter Baume Shadow Minister for Small Business and Administrative Services... Mr Wilson Tuckey, MP... Brian Archer Shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... Mr Alan Cadman, MP... Tony Messner Shadow Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation... Mr Peter White, MC MP... Stan Collard Shadow Special Minister of State and Shadow Minister for Science... Senator Brian Archer... John Spender Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs... Mr Tim Fischer, MP... Austin Lewis Shadow Minister for Housing and Construction... Mr Julian Beale, MP... Brian Archer * Denotes Member of Shadow Cabinet The Opposition Whip will be Mr Ewen Cameron, MP, Member for Indi. The Deputy Opposition Whip will be Mr Neil Andrew, MP, Member for Wakefield. The National Party Whip remains Mr Noel Hicks, MP, Member for Riverina-Darling. The Senate Opposition Whip remains Senator Bern Kilgariff. The Senate Deputy Opposition Whip remains Senator Margaret Reid. The Senate National Party Whip remains Senator Glen Sheil. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pre-School and Child Care Services: Funding To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We agree with ``No cut for kids'' and urge you for a reverse proposal on cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Maguire (from 351 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: No cut for kids: We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 323 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 Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 90 citizens) and Zakharov (from 144 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and opression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Teague (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of `X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 80 citizens) and Sir John Carrick (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have: 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 243 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 208 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Elstob (from 139 citizens) and Foreman (from 205 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the Federal Government's petrol price increase will have a widespread and adverse effect on the people of the Northern Territory and other outback areas of Australia; That the Territory's mining and pastoral industries will suffer as a result of the price increase; That the Territory's tourism industry will suffer as a consequence of increased air fares flowing on from the petrol price rise; That the already high cost of freight to Territory residents, business and industry will increase even further because of the fuel factor of freight charges; That the price increase will generally disadvantage the people of the outback, to whom petrol powered vehicles and equipment are a necessity. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Federal Government to give further consideration to the people of the Northern Territory and other outback and isolated regions of Australia in the matter of this petrol price rise. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from three 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 size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 126 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to The Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Government did not honour its promise to consult with veterans before introducing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Oppose any sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which would have the effect of reducing veterans' benefits and particularly that section which seeks to change the onus of proof. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 76 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 the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``State Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 806 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we oppose the government's decision to amend the Repatriation Act. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should repeal the Repatriation Act Amendments Bill 31.5.85. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 159 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we support the concept of a Flat Rate Personal Taxation system and reduction in Government Spending for Australia, as proposed by the Premier of Queensland and endorsed by Mr John Stone, to replace all other forms of taxation both existing or currently proposed in the Government's `White Paper'. A flat rate taxation system will provide incentive, encourage growth and create employment throughout Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should support a Flat Rate Personal Taxation system for Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 237 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That there is no Medicare office in Wyong district and Wyong has a large and growing population. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Medicare office be established in the Wyong shopping area forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable. That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 796 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 Michael Baume (from 3,554 citizens), Bolkus (from 98 citizens), Brownhill (from 391 citizens), Button (from 684 citizens), Chipp (from 1,520 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 1,494 citizens), Gietzelt (from 1,420 citizens), Grimes (from 318 citizens), Hamer (from 554 citizens), Lewis (from 1,351 citizens), Macklin (from 1,008 citizens), Messner (from 104 citizens), Richardson (from 2,536 citizens), Sanders (from 72 citizens), Townley (from 237 citizens) and Zakharov (from 1,018 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 Senator Teague (from 96 citizens). Senator Sheil —Mr President, in view of the fact that the last petition was from over 32,000 petitioners, I seek leave of the Senate to have the petition read. Leave not granted. To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as `Capital Gains Tax after death' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 32,165 citizens). Petitions received. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act 1982. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain metal working machines, certain robots and related equipment, and for related purposes. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain tractors, tractor cabs and related equipment, and for related purposes. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973, and for related purposes. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that the new leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Howard, has announced his new shadow front bench, further notes: (a) That the composition of the John Howard team represents an obvious drift to the `right' by the Liberal-National coalition partners; (b) that it represents a deep threat to the policies of consensus and conciliation, so successfully being carried out by the Australian Labor Party Government under Prime Minister Mr Hawke; (c) his declared policies of deregulation of the labour market and `privatisation' of the major public industries; and (d) that it is now obvious both from Mr Howard's public comments since the demise of Mr Peacock, and from his choice of shadow spokesmen, that in the unlikely event of Mr Howard ever becoming Prime Minister, he would not be in a position to work in any degree of harmony with the organised labour movement, and would thus destroy the very real progress that has been achieved since the advent of the Hawke Government in 1983. Senator CHANEY —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that the management and workers at the Mudginberri abattoir reached an agreement resulting in higher wages, increased productivity and lower costs which enabled the meatworks to achieve a more competitive position and the meatworkers to earn higher wages? Consistent with his oft-stated view that Australian industry must become more competitive, does he agree that agreements along the lines of that at Mudginberri, which benefit both employer and employee and which improve productivity, should be encouraged by the Government? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to confirm or deny the allegation by Senator Chaney. If I need to be more specific for those members of the Opposition who do not understand, I am unable to say whether there was increased productivity, for example, as a result of the agreement which took place at Mudginberri. I have heard Senator Chaney assert that as a fact. I am not sure whether it is correct. The question of events at that abattoir is within the purview of the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I will pass Senator Chaney's question to the Ministers concerned and see whether I can provide him with an answer at an appropriate time. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's reply. In light of his responsibility for Australian industry generally and his, as I said, oft-stated view that Australia had to be more competitive, will he examine the facts and obtain an answer to the question I have raised, and give the Senate his view as to whether Australia's competitive position can be improved by other enterprises entering into the same sorts of constructive employer-employee relationships? Senator BUTTON —I will consider all those matters. Senator Chaney knows only too well that I am in favour of increased productivity and I am in favour of lower costs. I am not necessarily in favour of higher wages in particular enterprises. I will see whether I can provide an answer to Senator Chaney in respect of a matter that is not in my particular area of responsibility. I see some intellectual validity in the point which the honourable senator makes. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Are the present whereabouts of Robert and Jenny Williamson known? If the answer is in the affirmative, where are they? If it is in the negative, is the Government presently taking action to establish their whereabouts? If so, what action is being taken to obtain their release? Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe I have some up to date information on this matter, but at the moment I have not got access to it. I will put it on the record at the end of Question Time. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My question also concerns the dispute at the Mudginberri abattoir in the Northern Territory. Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the meat industry picket line at Mudginberri, the abattoir has lost a $2.5 million export contract to Taiwan and that other contracts with Europe are in grave danger? Does he accept that the prime cause of this loss was the refusal of Commonwealth meat inspectors to cross the picket line? If so, will the Government compensate the Mudginberri operators for the lost contracts? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to answer that question fully in respect of detail. I agree that a loss was incurred by the abattoir in question which I thought was about $2m. I am unable to say at the moment whether the loss was directly attributable to the failure of Commonwealth meat inspectors to enter the premises, although I know that the decision of the Federal Court-- Senator Walters —John, that is dreadful. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters shows a new enthusiasm this week. I knew of a decision of the Federal Court which stated, as I understand it, that the Commonwealth had acted quite properly in this matter. I do not think there is any question of the Government paying compensation to the abattoir in question in light of that decision and in light of the circumstances of this case. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen the item in yesterday's Adelaide Advertiser which quoted a State Opposition spokesman as saying that the Budget had shown no commitment to the River Murray? Is the Commonwealth committed to providing continuing assistance for River Murray improvements? What funds have been provided to further upgrade water supplies in South Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did see the report in the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday, 9 September, to the effect that the Budget shows no commitment to the River Murray. That report is totally incorrect. In fact, the Budget includes an allocation of $316,200 towards the administrative expenses of the River Murray Commission and, in addition, $1,828,800 for the Commission's capital works program, which includes remedial work at Hume Dam and the replacement of aging cranes used in the operation of the Commission's locks and weirs. Also, $231,000 is being provided for a program of salinity control investigation works, co-ordinated by the River Murray Commission, for the investigation of possible new works to reduce river salinity in South Australia. In addition, $793,000 is being provided under the Federal water resources assistance program for salinity control works and related research in South Australia. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a small table indicating the overall allocation of funds to South Australia which relate to that program. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Water resources assessment... 600,000 Floodplain management-River Torrens... 1,000,000 Murray Valley salinity and drainage program... 793,000 Adelaide and Northern Towns water treatment scheme... 5,600,000 Total... 7,993,000 Senator HAINES —Is the Minister for Finance aware that some banks, including the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, are effectively charging higher housing interest rates by imposing or increasing service or administrative charges in order to sidestep the 13.5 per cent ceiling on home interest rates? Can the Minister say what the Government intends to do about this mechanism, which amounts to no less than a de facto deregulation of housing interest rates? Further, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will neither abolish the ceiling of 13.5 per cent on home loan interest rates nor permit banking institutions to achieve effective abolition of the ceiling by the use of service fees or other similar devices? Senator WALSH —I was aware that some banks, at least, had imposed loan service charges. Specifically, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank have imposed a service charge of about $25 for a home loan. The increase in the rate of interest for a $30,000 home loan at that rate of charge is just over 0.08 per cent, so it represents a minuscule increase in the interest rate. The Government's general view is that interest rates are a matter for the commercial judgment of financial institutions, but it has retained the ceiling on housing loan bank interest rates of 13.5 per cent. Some financial institutions-one, at least-are presently charging the maximum rate of 13.5 per cent. Others charge rates which vary down to 12.5 per cent. The increase-the de facto increase, if one likes-in interest rates, due to a $25 home loan charge, as I have already said, is a minuscule increase to whatever rate of interest a particular financial institution is charging. There are no Government proposals either to change or to abolish the ceiling. I stress again that with the exception of one or two financial institutions the ceiling is not operative. However, the Government will keep under review the home loan service charge to ensure that it is not used as a surrogate interest rate increase. A fee of $25, which I am advised is the approximate fee charged by the ANZ Bank and the Commonwealth Bank, does not seem to be unreasonable as a service charge for a loan. Senator HAINES —I ask a supplementary question. I seek clarification from the Minister. In fact, the charges in respect of the Commonwealth Bank amount to something like $70 per annum for an average home loan of some $40,000. I do not consider that insignificant, although I would be inclined to agree- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question. Senator HAINES —Can the Minister say whether he is likely to do anything, given the fact that the charges that are being imposed by the Commonwealth Bank are significantly higher than the $25 per annum that he cited as an example? Senator WALSH —A piece of quick mental arithmetic indicates that even a service fee of $70 on a $40,000 loan represents about a 0.17 per cent increase in the interest rate which is still very much less than the margin between the rate actually being charged by most financial institutions and the 13.5 per cent regulated ceiling. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters been drawn to reports that former staff of members of parliament are being given `accelerated promotion' on their return to the Australian Public Service? Is there any truth in these allegations? Senator WALSH —I am aware of reports along the lines outlined by Senator Crowley and criticisms published in the Canberra Times on 29 and 30 August from a Mr Barker, the President of the Foreign Affairs Association and a Mr David Connolly who, I understand, until yesterday was the Opposition's spokesman on Public Service matters. Senator Peter Baume —He still is. Senator WALSH —I withdraw that. The bodies on the decks of the Liberal Party Titanic move around so frequently that I think I could be excused for not managing to be fully aware of the most insignificant of them and their present positions. Specifically, those criticisms dealt with the reintegration into the Public Service of officers returning after they had worked for a period with members of the House of Representatives or senators. The reintegration process is designed to ensure that such people are not disadvantaged in their subsequent Public Service careers. It also ensures that they cannot be subject to any political interference. The Reintegration Assessment Committee determines the level at which such officers return to the Service having regard to such things as their previous classification, the duration of employment, the nature of duties they performed and so on. To date six cases have been considered by the Committee, three of which served a period working for Ministers, one for a Government back bench member of parliament and two for Opposition senators. The public complaints about the reintegration process have begun only since the return to the Australian Public Service of a staff member who was previously attached to the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, even though there were previous cases involving staff of Liberal senators, the subsequent Public Service levels of whom were determined by the Reintegration Committee. In the particular case to which I refer, Ms Mara Moustafine had served as a Class 9 officer- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I do not think there is anything in the Standing Orders that prevents the Minister from boring the Senate. This is a very long answer to a question that I would have thought could be answered reasonably briefly. Many honourable senators are seeking to ask questions, and I wonder whether the Minister can give us a shorter reply. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —I have cut out as much extraneous detail from the text that has been supplied as possible. Since November 1981 Ms Moustafine had served as a Class 9 officer in the Office of National Assessments and the Department of Foreign Affairs and then, for something more than 18 months, was attached to the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The fuss in this case has been stirred up by, among others, the honourable member for Mayo, who I understand is Mr Alexander Downer, a former officer of the Australian Public Service in the Department of Foreign Affairs. On 4 August he issued a statement which, among other things, referred to `jobs for the boys', `preferential promotion' for former ministerial staff members, and `parachuting political cronies into senior Public Service positions'. I have written to Mr Downer suggesting that he retract his insinuations that Ms Moustafine's case was dealt with improperly and that he apologise both to Ms Moustafine and to the officers concerned. I have not yet received a reply. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the details of the six public servants to whom I referred earlier who have served terms of varying lengths in ministerial, members of parliament or senators' offices and who have been subsequently reintegrated into the Public Service. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Name Date of application MOPS Act employer(s) Public Service Department Previous classification Length of service with MP Classification determined by RAC Louise Turner... 15 November 1984 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, MP Social Security, Victoria Clerical Administrative, Class 1 9 years 8 months Clerical Administrative, Class 5 Colleen Waide... 8 January 1985 Ken Fry, MP/ John Langmore, MP Arts Heritage &Environment Clerical Administrative, Class 1 7 months Clerical Administrative, Class 5 Milton Catelin... 8 January 1985 Senator Messner Australian Bureau of Statistics Clerical Administrative, Class 1 1 year Clerical Administrative, Class 6 John McEwan... 27 February 1985 The Hon. Chris Hurford, MP Housing and Construction Clerical Administrative, Class 9 2 years Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Lorraine Doherty... 14 December 1984 Senator Lajovic Administrative Services Clerical Administrative, Class 1 10 years (approx.) Clerical Administrative, Class 6 Mara Moustafine... 3 June 1985 The Hon. Bill Hayden, MP Foreign Affairs Clerical Administrative, Class 9 1 year 7 months Clerical Administrative, Class 11 Senator WALSH —I draw attention to the fact that one public servant who served a one-year term in Senator Messner's office entered as a Class 1 and was reintegrated as a Class 6. That was a difference of five classes. In Ms Moustafine's case the difference in classification after 18 months with the Minister for Foreign Affairs was two classes. Yet Mr Downer, who saw fit to smear quite improperly both Ms Moustafine and the Public Service officers who serve on the reintegration Committee, was apparently not at all disturbed by the case concerning Senator Messner's office. Senator BROWNHILL —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate accept that section 45D of the Trade Practices Act provided the only protection for the civil rights of the Mudginberri abattoir management and its employees against a long campaign of union intimidation? Will the Government abandon any plans it may still have to attempt to repeal this section of the Act? Senator BUTTON —I thought the burden of the questions I was asked previously on this matter was that nothing had afforded protection of rights to the proprietor of the abattoir and that he had suffered immensely because nothing had afforded that protection. That is in spite of the fact that action was taken under the provisions of section 45D of the trade practices legislation. That simply illustrates a point the Government has made on numerous occasions that the resolution of industrial disputes is not best brought about by provisions in the trade practices legislation. I would have thought that the honourable senator might have thought a little more about his question before he asked it. That position has been expressed on numerous occasions by the Government, in this place and elsewhere, and it is borne out, I believe, by the unfortunate circumstances which have occurred in connection with that abattoir. The Government has no immediate plans to repeal clauses of that legislation. Senator BROWNHILL —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that it was the union's decision to picket that took the dispute out of the arbitration system? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether I am in a position to agree or disagree about that. That is a question of fact and I will get an answer from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. I refer the Minister to the need for sustained investment in Australia's manufacturing industry if the task of industry revitalisation and restructuring is to be successfully achieved. What is the latest outlook for manufacturing investment and how does it compare with the economy as a whole? Senator BUTTON —Senator Robertson is astute, as usual, in asking a question about a very important matter to which I answer that manufacturing industry investment was certainly shaky in the early part of the economic recovery but there is now cause for a more optimistic outlook. Total new fixed capital expenditure in real terms was around 4 per cent in 1984-85-a marked pick up from recent years-and is estimated to be a little higher this financial year. Manufacturing, in particular, has had a marked rise in investment and for the June quarter 1985 over the June quarter 1984 manufacturing investment rose by 23 per cent. Intentions over the coming year seem to indicate a better figure than that, so the recovery is definitely beginning to filter into manufacturing investment in a positive way. Taken with recent encouraging figures on manufacturing production and productivity, there is room, as I said, for cautious optimism. Naturally, much depends on the state of the economy generally. I think the Government can say, again with a cautious degree of pride and achievement, that the growth rates which have been sustained since this Government was elected to office and which will continue in the forthcoming year, give cause for optimism. There is cause for optimism in the investment figures which I suggest will be fully realised. Senator SHORT —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications: Is he aware that as part of the continuing vicious union campaign being waged against the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd in Melbourne that company's telephone lines were cut more than a month ago? Is he also aware that legal action is to be instituted by the company against Telecom because of Telecom's failure to restore normal telephone services at the plant? Will the Minister take whatever action is within the Government's power to have Telecom instruct its employees to restore normal services as a matter of urgency before the company is forced into liquidation or will the Government continue to acquiesce in the death of this small business by the illegal and undemocratic actions of certain militant unions? Senator WALSH —I have a briefing from the Minister on this question. It is probably from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. However, that briefing does not cover the specific points that Senator Short has asked about; so the best I can do, I am afraid, is to refer the question to the Minister for Communications for his response. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it true that Australian veterans currently enjoy the most generous repatriation system in the world? How would its benefits be affected by the implementation of the so-called economic rationalist philosophy of the new Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Howard? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Foreman asked me about the generosity of the repatriation system which has been in operation, of course, since World War I. It is perfectly true that the repatriation system is the most generous in the world. There should be a bipartisan view on maintaining that degree of generosity. For example, the Government allocates between two and 20 times as much of its Budget to spending on veterans as any other comparable country. The Government spends between three and 20 times as much on each surviving veteran and it pays between one and a half and six times as many compensatory payments, that is, disability and war widows' pensions, per thousand surviving veterans. That, of course, is a commitment which has been continued over the years by respective governments. However, Senator Foreman asked me a question in respect of the economic rationalists, or the dries as they are now called, who seem to be predominant in the Liberal Party. I suppose the problem of whether policies enunciated by sections of the new element in the Liberal Party will be implemented will need to be examined by the veteran community. For example, it appears that Mr Howard is on record as saying that the Ministry should be reduced from 27 Ministers to 23. Therefore, one is entitled to pose the question whether the Department of Veterans' Affairs might be abolished if such a proposal to reduce the number of ministries eventuated. We know, of course, that Mr Howard is committed very strongly to reducing the deficit. If he were to reduce the deficit by some $2 billion it would mean, on a pro rata basis, that my Department would be required to make cuts in excess of $100m. As we have heard from Senator Messner and other spokespersons for the Opposition parties, the Opposition intends to abolish the assets test. That would cost my Department another $40m. We are looking down the barrel at likely cuts of $140m should a new dry, Tory-type government come to office, by some mischance, in 1988. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the Minister's answer basically is internally inconsistent. He seems to be mixing up additional benefits and additional expenditure with cuts. Senator Robert Ray —That is his privilege. Senator Chaney —I am sorry, Mr President; apparently that is the Minister's privilege. Therefore, I withdraw the point of order. Senator GIETZELT —Some spokespersons closely associated with the leadership of the Liberal Party have suggested, for example, that there should be means testing or taxing of disability and war widows' pensions, or that the disability pension should be treated as income in determining service pension entitlements, or that there should no longer be dual eligibility for the service pension, the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, and so on. So one is entitled when one is asked such a question in the House-in this case by Senator Foreman-to query whether the generosity that has been a feature of the repatriation system over the years will be maintained should, by some mischance, a Howard government be elected in 1988. Senator MESSNER —I remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate of his wonderful appearance in Playboy magazine recently-which was most revealing-when he described payroll tax as a burden on industry which, in fact, discourages employment. Does he accept that the proposed capital gains tax and taxing employers for employee fringe benefits will simply add to industry cost burdens and futher discourage employment? Even at this late hour, will the Government heed the call of 18 business organisations which met in Canberra a fortnight ago and drop the capital gains tax proposal and the fringe benefits tax proposal applying to employers from the package expected to be announced in a week or two? Senator BUTTON —I think in fairness I ought to say that anything concerning me in Playboy was in printed form rather than in pictorial form. I think the comment Senator Messner attributes to me was correctly read by him, which surprises me in itself. Insofar as taxation of capital gains and fringe benefits is concerned, the Government will make an announcement about that matter at an appropriate time. Senator Messner keeps referring to the proposed capital gains tax and so on. I think he should bide his time in patience and see what comes out of the review of the taxation system. He will not have to wait very long. I must say that in any announcement the Government makes it will take care to see that it is not detrimental to business initiative and investment. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the President's gallery of members of the Legal Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to them a warm welcome to Canberra. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. What were the changes to the secondary assistance scheme for 1980 that the Government announced in the Budget? What is the Government intending to do to bring these changes to the attention of parents in the community? Senator RYAN —The Treasurer announced generous changes to the secondary assistance scheme which pays an allowance to students from low income families to enable them to complete the last two years of schooling. The maximum level of that allowance will be lifted from $23 to $35 a week in 1986. That is the first step in the Government's plan to increase these allowances until they are equivalent to the unemployment benefit for the same age group. As Senator Morris's question suggests, it is important that all students eligible for this dramatically increased assistance are informed of this. Consequently, through my Department of Education I have made a number of arrangements which I hope will ensure that young people who may be considering the possibility of staying on at school, but may be worried about their financial support, will be aware of what is offered to them and will be able to get the assistance. Immediately after the Budget my Department distributed 3,500 sets of explanatory statements, including detailed statements on the increases in allowances and benefits to the media, government and non-government education authorities, teacher and parent organisations and many other interest groups. Currently, the Department is preparing additional publicity material including a detailed information booklet, publicity brochures and posters. These will be distributed to all secondary schools and to all interest groups and education authorities to ensure that as many students as possible are able to benefit from the increased allowances. In addition, the SAS application form will be distributed to all secondary schools and an information card will be distributed to people in receipt of family allowance benefits for children turning 16, because at 16 years of age the students will become eligible for SAS depending upon income tests. This method of publicising schemes through the family allowance payment has proved effective in the past. I have written to the Minister for Finance seeking additional funds to publicise the SAS benefits further through advertisements. The Department will also continue to publicise the SAS through metropolitan and provincial media and by sending representatives to attend career nights, meetings of school guidance officers and other people who have regular contact with students and their parents. In conclusion, if any members from either side of the Senate are interested in having access to this publicity material to advise constituents, they are very welcome to seek it from the Department. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I refer him to the sweetheart deal on wages between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions under which the Government plans a tax cut in August 1986 to offset the belated, partial and inadequate discounting of wage indexation next April. Will the Government now give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that these tax cuts either will or will not be conditional on the ACTU delivering industrial peace, which is its part of the deal, particularly during that five-month gap? In other words, will the Government deliver if the ACTU does not? Senator WALSH —That question has about as much relationship to reality as does a Patrick Partners prospectus. Australia has just had two years of economic growth approaching five per cent and is poised for a third year of economic growth of five per cent. The critical factor, as I have always said, in sustaining high rates of economic growth is an effective wages policy and an agreement with the union movement. This Government has achieved that. I suppose that there is a bit of pique on the other side that this Government has delivered what the previous Government so spectacularly failed to deliver; that is, sustained high rates of economic growth in conjunction with a fall in the inflation rate approaching 15 per cent. If I may say so, I regard it as impertinent that the architects of the disastrous policies which plunged the country into the worst recession since the 1930s, and which gave us for the first time in history double digit inflation as well as double digit unemployment should have the audacity and effrontery to criticise, in this Parliament or anywhere else, the central plank of this Government's economic policy, which has delivered sustained and high rates of economic growth in association with falling rates of inflation. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns recent media reports that the talents of Australia's intellectually gifted children are wasted and that insufficient attention is given to such children. Will the Minister respond to these comments? Does the Government have a particular policy regarding intellectually gifted children? Does the Minister agree that gifted children should be given special consideration in the educational process? Senator RYAN —I believe that intellectually gifted children, like all Australian children, are being well served by committed and well qualified teachers in schools throughout Australia. As well as this general attention to the needs of those children, there is a special program run by the Commonwealth through the Commonwealth Schools Commission called the program for gifted and talented children. It has been running for a number of years-since 1979, in fact-and since 1982 approximately $100,000 has been set aside each year for projects involved with the education of gifted and talented children under the project of a national significance program. The amount of $109,000 has been made available for 1985. Some 27 projects have been supported under this element of the program. Support has also been provided for a national seminar held in Melbourne in November 1981, a national seminar on curricula for gifted and talented children in Brisbane in May 1983, and a national conference held in Melbourne in August 1983. The advisory group for this program is at present focusing on the education of gifted and talented girls as well as the gifted in such special populations as Aboriginals, children from non-English speaking backgrounds, children from low socio-economic areas, children from isolated areas, and disabled children. I think Senator Elstob can be assured that the needs of these children, like the needs of all groups of Australian schoolchildren, are being properly addressed through Commonwealth programs. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the series of rolling wildcat strikes being conducted by members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia in Canberra, which strikes are seriously disrupting public transport services in this city. I ask: Is it a fact that Transport Workers Union members are striking because they refuse to accept a decision of the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the effect that drivers and supervisors within the Public Service have already received wage increases in accordance with their due and that no case has been made out for any further pay adjustment? Is it a fact that the only way in which the Government can effectively tackle industrial blackmail by its own employees, such as that now taking place and the bans applied to revenue collections earlier this year, is for it to restore the Fraser Government's 1977 Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act? Is it not a fact that the Government is simply powerless to restore proper public services in these circumstances and must resort to pathetic ministerial bleatings for the union to stop it? Finally, I ask: Will the Government reinstate the CE(EP) Act or are its hands tied by the recently renegotiated sweetheart deal it did with the unions, otherwise known as the prices and incomes accord? Senator BUTTON —I do not know why the Transport Workers Union has engaged in rolling strikes in Canberra, but I will ask my Commonwealth driver tonight and let the honourable senator know tomorrow. Senator Lewis —I suppose the Minister has no idea so he has to ask his driver. Is that the situation? Senator BUTTON —I am not being flippant. I think that is as good a way of finding out as any. The point I make is that the motivations might be highly subjective and diverse. I will refer the rest of the question to the Minister for Territories and endeavour to obtain an answer for Senator Lewis, insofar as it requires an answer in relation to matters of fact. The question was embellished at the end by a fair slab of rhetoric about such matters as the restoration of the 1977 Fraser Government legislation. I thought that even Senator Lewis might have appreciated that we did not feel that that legislation in its operation bestowed particular benefits on anybody, particularly the public. Senator Lewis —How else are you to control these people? Senator BUTTON —That is a question which the Opposition keeps asking. `How else are you to control these people?' asks Senator Lewis. I remind Senator Lewis again that whether he likes it or not-he will not like it and he is going to cop it in the next minute or two-the level of industrial disputation in this country is at its lowest for 17 years. It was at its highest in the last decade in 1982 under the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government introduced the legislation which Senator Lewis, flushed with the success of his survival on the front bench, now raises in this Parliament as the path for the future of the Liberal Party of Australia in opposition-interminably in opposition, I am afraid. Senator Lewis goes back to 1977 and talks about this legislation as some model which will solve all the problems. It did not solve any of the problems when the Opposition was last in government. Senator Chaney knows that it did not because it did not help him much in his dispute. The record of the Opposition when in government in respect of these matters was abysmal. This Government has, over two years, articulated a different approach to those questions. It has achieved results by that different process. The only person who does not seem to understand it is Senator Lewis. God help the people of Canberra with the new Howard spokesman on Territories in the Senate. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister sent a message of condolence to the Greenpeace organisation over the death of a crew member as a result of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior? What action is the Government prepared to take to repudiate this act of international terrorism? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure whether a message of condolence was actually sent to the Greenpeace organisation. I will find out about that. It may well be more appropriate that it was sent somewhere else; for instance, to the relatives, if any, of the deceased photographer who was on the ship in question. I will obtain information about that aspect of the question for Senator Vallentine. My colleague Senator Gareth Evans, as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, made a statement about this issue at the appropriate time. We have had discussions with the New Zealand Government about this matter. My interpretation of what has been said to this Government is that the New Zealand Government would like to handle the matter and does not feel that the situation would be helped by comments from other governments at this stage. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. Was it not the case that the National Clearing House for Youth Studies was established in 1981 because of an increasing concern over the growing level of youth unemployment? Is the Minister aware that, due to the halving of the participation and equity program funding, the National Clearing House has announced that it will no longer be able to continue its vital publication role in this area? Is it not just as essential now as it was in 1981 for the National Clearing House for Youth Studies to continue this invaluable work as it is, in fact, the only source in Australia of detailed information with regard to youth, particularly considering that this is International Youth Year? Senator RYAN —I am familiar with the project to which Senator Macklin's question referred. I think it is a project which has been quite useful. It was a clearing house for curriculum studies relating to changes in secondary education to keep more young people in the system and to prepare them better for the work force. I understand that the reason for the finishing of that project had nothing to do with the Government's decision to stretch the PEP funds over two years but, rather, was a decision of the Australian National University, which had been host of this project, not to continue it. I have been pursuing the matter but I understand that the ANU, which of course is an autonomous institution, no longer wishes to be involved in this project. I should add that I have raised with my Department the possibility of the Department taking over the clearing house functions. When that is sorted out, I will certainly make sure that Senator Macklin hears about it. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He will recall that on 22 March this year I asked him to comment on the accuracy of an article in the Sydney Daily Mirror headed: `Assets: Home checks'. The Minister, in his response, described the article as gutter journalism of the worst sort and said that he and the Minister for Social Security would be referring the article to the Australian Press Council. Can the Minister indicate whether the Press Council has responded to his complaint? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I do recall the question asked of me by Senator Giles about a front page story alleging that the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, and I had agreed to a number of visits by taxation officers in respect of aged persons and the assets test. I indicated my dismay at the article and my repudiation of the intent of the article, which certainly created a great deal of concern in the minds of aged persons-veterans, in my case, and aged persons in the case of Mr Howe. I checked out the story with Mr Howe, who had not seen the article to which Senator Giles referred. He was just as indignant about it as I was. So both of us, as Ministers, referred the matter to the Australian Press Council. In the first instance we received a very unsatisfactory response from the Australian Press Council. We sought further reconsideration of the complaint. I am pleased to advise Senator Giles that a communication has now been received from the Australian Press Council upholding our protest at the misinformation and distortion of the Government's and Minister's position, so our appeal has been upheld. Senator PUPLICK —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister seen a Press release issued by the Minister for Communications dated 28 August announcing that a new study is to be undertaken into television station ownership rules? Is it a fact that the terms of reference of the study direct it to have regard to `the Government's stated policy objectives'? Does the release go on in a footnote to record that these policy objectives are to be found in two ministerial Press releases and a speech to the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations? Why is it that the Government's stated policy objectives have not been outlined in a statement made to the Parliament but rather in media releases or speeches made outside the Parliament? Will the Minister now ask his colleague to do this Parliament the courtesy of making such vital and significant policy statements to the Parliament itself where they can be debated in full? Senator WALSH —Surprisingly, I am not aware of that Press statement issued by Mr Duffy, apparently on 28 August, but I will put the substance of Senator Puplick's request and question to Mr Duffy for his response and in particular I will ask whether Mr Duffy will consider making a statement in the Parliament about this matter. That is a decision for Mr Duffy to make, of course. Should Mr Duffy decide to make such a statement and it is fully debated, as Senator Puplick suggests, I think there would be a severe embarrassment for the Liberal Party of Australia because the logical responder to the statement would be the Liberal Party's leading wet, Mr Macphee, in what is now supposed to be a dry party. Senator PUPLICK —I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the reason Parliament has not been favoured with a statement by Mr Duffy is that, if there is any severe embarrassment, it would be occasioned by the Minister trying to make a settlement about all the contradictory policies which so far he has only managed to dribble out in Press releases? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of any contradictory policies dribbled out by way of Press release or in any other way by Mr Duffy. I am, however, aware of a gaggle of contradictory policies, both past and present, being dribbled out by the present Opposition. If Senator Puplick likes to hang around for the next hour, I will give him a few examples. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Education read statements reportedly made by a John Reid at a meeting of the principals of independent schools, describing the public education system as an `intellectual desert'. Is there any basis for this description? If not, what steps can the Government take to ensure that his uninformed opinions on education do not affect his role with the Australian Bicentennial Authority? Senator RYAN —I did notice Mr Reid's reported comments, and I made some public comments on those comments myself. I find it extremely disappointing that a person in such a high profile public position as the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority should have made such an insulting and ill-informed attack on the public education system. I do not think I have to regale the Senate with incidents of high intellectual achievement within the public school system, because I am sure all honourable senators know of such achievements in schools in their own electorates as, indeed, we know of other high achievements-- Senator Gareth Evans —Here we all are on the front bench. Senator RYAN —Senator Gareth Evans himself is an example, as are Senator Grimes and Senator Peter Baume. I think all honourable senators will be aware that various public schools of various kinds in States and Territories throughout Australia have achieved, and continue to achieve, the highest level of academic achievement, as do various private non-government schools throughout Australia. This is known to all of us. It does not need detailed refutation by me at this point. I conclude by repeating my regret that such a statement was made. I believe that it is particularly inappropriate that the Chairman of a project which is supposed to result in a very harmonious celebration by all Australians from all backgrounds of the bicentennial of European Australia in 1988 should have made what is an insulting and diverse comment. I hope that Mr Reid will have the opportunity to correct his own false impressions of the public education system and perhaps publicly make an admission of the error he has committed. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. It relates to the distribution of the affirmative action progress report at the end of the autumn session of Parliament. What was revealed by the Minister's inquiry into what happened with the distribution of the report within Parliament House? Does the Minister recall that she undertook to inform the Senate of the outcome of her inquiry, as page 2963 of Hansard reveals? Is it a fact that Opposition senators were excluded from the distribution while members of Caucus received their copies? If this is so, why did it happen and under whose instructions? Senator RYAN —I certainly recall that I undertook to investigate this matter, because I was concerned to discover that all members of the Senate had not received this important report when it was first tabled. I also recall that the Office of the Status of Women and the officers here responsible for distribution did provide an explanation. Unfortunately, it is not in the brief today and I cannot recall the details of it. I will ensure that it is tabled in Parliament tomorrow. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to various demands for what has become colloquially called small government, in particular for a smaller level of spending by the Commonwealth Government? Has the Minister responded to these calls? Senator WALSH —There are regular calls for small government and reductions in government expenditure. Those calls, ironically, are most frequently made by people who simultaneously advance proposals to increase expenditure. I have in mind principally, of course, the most prominent members of the Opposition. Specifically, I note that a resolution which was passed at the Liberal Party Federal Council meeting, which I think was held in July, called for a cut in expenditure of 4 per cent as a proportion of gross domestic product, which on last year's outlays is more than $8 billion. I am ever alert for, of course, and eager to receive helpful suggestions about how government expenditure might be cut without seriously affecting the quality of life in Australia or the economic growth that we have been enjoying over the last few years, ever since the previous Government was ignominiously dismissed. Given that that Liberal Party Federal Council resolution was supported by the then Leader and then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party-and, as far as I am aware, by all members of the Liberal Party except perhaps Steele Hall, Mr Macphee and a few dozen other people-I wrote to Mr Howard on 1 August, drawing his attention to that point and asking whether he would care to nominate a list of cuts totalling $8 billion from last year's outlays which I would then consider or put to the Expenditure Review Committee and the Cabinet. I am still waiting for a reply. I issued a Press statement on 4 August, reminding Mr Howard that in April this year he had condemned other critics of the level of government spending who failed to provide `specific suggestions as to where cuts may be made'. I am still waiting for a reply to that letter. Although Mr Howard has publicly condemned others who say that expenditure should be cut without specifying where it should be cut, I still have not received any reply to the Press statement or the letter which I wrote. Since Senator Messner has done nothing to offend the Sydney Stock Exchange, and he is now the shadow Minister for Finance, I will also send a copy to him and invite his suggestions as to how $8 billion may be cut from outlays. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. What measures have been taken by the Government to encourage General Motors-Holden's Ltd or a consortium to produce six-cylinder engines in Australia? Have any limited imports of the Nissan six-cylinder engine for GMH commenced? Is there any possibility that a six-cylinder engine plant will be established in Australia in the future, following the substantial fall in the Australian dollar, which makes importation of the engine less attractive than previously? Senator BUTTON —The question of the manufacture of a six-cylinder engine in Australia has been the subject of discussion for some time. The Government sought General Motors' agreement to the production of a six-cylinder engine in Australia in regard to its new car, but it was explained to us at the time that the plans for the development of that car were too far down the track. However, as I understand it, there have been discussions with the companies regarding the future production of a six-cylinder engine in Australia. Those discussions have been held with the Automotive Industry Authority which was established under the car industry plan. I will seek a more comprehensive answer from that body. Insofar as I am able to answer within the bounds of commercial confidence, I will advise the honourable senator in due course. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a proposal that the payment of the unemployment benefit to young people should be conditional upon their undertaking a course of instruction in a tertiary institution for a period of two or three days a week? Further, can the Minister say whether the proposal is feasible and what would be the cost of implementing any such proposal? Senator WALSH —I do not think I can answer off the top of my head whether it is feasible in the physical, mechanical sense, although an obvious implication is that there would be a huge influx of students into institutions. So, prima facie, it would appear that it is not possible, even in the physical, mechanical sense, to do what the present Leader of the Opposition suggested. However, based on the assumption that the cost of providing this tuition for that number of people was the same as the average cost of providing tuition in technical and further education colleges at present, I can tell Senator Jones and anybody else who is interested that the Opposition Leader's proposal would cost $600m a year in additional outlays if the unemployed were to spend two and a half days a week, or 50 per cent of a full time course, at a TAFE college. If they were to do it at a college of advanced education or university the cost would be appreciably higher. This is just another example of ill-considered ideological prescriptions for vast increases in government spending in a wild and scattergun manner. By contrast, the Government does recognise the importance of youth education and training to develop skills for young people which will benefit them and society as a whole. That recognition was embodied in the youth policy announced by the Prime Minister on Budget night. So the contrast between the two parties on this question is that, whereas the Opposition Leader shoots from the hip in a wild commitment for a minimum additional $600m of expenditure, the Government planned in a rational and disciplined way. If I may offer a little more gratuitous advice to Senator Messner, who, according to Senator Rae, by grace of the Sydney Stock Exchange has replaced him as the Opposition spokesman for Finance, I suggest that he try to restrain his Leader from his propensity for irresponsible spending proposals lest he lumber the Liberal Party Opposition with yet another prospective $10 billion deficit. Senator GARETH EVANS —Earlier in Question Time today Senator Cooney asked me a question about Dr and Mrs Williamson. I am now able to supply the following information, which has been provided to me by the Department of Foreign Affairs: Dr and Mrs Williamson were kidnapped near Quetta in Baluchistan, Pakistan, on 18 May. Dr Williamson, who is a hydrologist, is employed by an Australian company on contract to the World Bank. He was working in Baluchistan and living in Quetta when the couple were abducted. The Williamsons were originally abducted by members of the Sasooli tribe living in an area straddling the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. In exchange for the couple's freedom, the release from prison of a Sasooli tribal leader was initially demanded. Since then the situation surrounding the kidnapping has become confused and it now seems possible that the Williamsons are no longer being held by the Sasoolis. Information of relevance is hard to acquire and almost impossible to check. It does appear, however, that the Williamsons are being held inside Afghanistan. Primary carriage of efforts to locate the Williamsons and secure their release, unharmed, has of course been with the Government of Pakistan, which has pursued its responsibilities with diligence. Australian officials have kept closely in touch with the Pakistanis, and to that end, an officer of the Embassy in Islamabad has visited Quetta on a regular basis since the kidnapping. Information has also been sought from a number of other sources. Additionally, the Government has officially sought the consular assistance of the governments of the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, as well as the assistance of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the World Bank. Friendly governments with representatives in Afghanistan have been asked for their help but no hard information has yet resulted from these approaches. Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs have kept in daily contact with Dr and Mrs Williamson's families in Victoria. I am extremely concerned, as is the Foreign Minister, that, after almost four months, we appear to be no closer to a resolution of this matter than we were before. Mr Hayden has again written to the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Yaqub Khan, asking that the Pakistan Government's best endeavours be continued to secure the early release, unharmed, of the couple. Honourable senators can be assured that this Government will continue to do all that it can to secure the early release of Dr and Mrs Williamson. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 21 August I gave an answer to a question by Senator Sanders on the GEOSAT satellite tests issue. The questidon was in two basic parts. The first part remains unchanged but the second part certainly requires some correction which I am happy to put on the public record. Mr President, it is a long answer. I am perfectly happy to read it out, but if Senator Sanders and other honourable senators are content for me to incorporate it in Hansard and the Senate would prefer that, I am happy to do so. I am in the hands of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the incorporation? Senator Chipp —We would prefer it if the Minister could pay us the courtesy- The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am just conscious of the length of the answer; I am not trying to do anything else. Senator Sanders asked a number of questions of me on 21 August but they can be summarised into two: Firstly, whether the Government was aware that GEOSAT satellite tests would collect gravitational data to improve the accuracy of Trident II submarine launched ballistic missiles? Secondly, was the Government aware that the GEOSAT satellite is being funded by the Trident II project? As I indicated, my answer to the first question remains unchanged but my second answer requires correction. As to the first question I said: . . . the Geosat validation flight series that has just concluded is not directly related to any missile tests . . . The Government certainly does not deny that there is a wide range of uses, civil and military, for Geosat data but . . . our co-operation is provided on the understanding that that data will provide benefit for Australia. In my answer I indicated what some of those benefits would be. I reiterate that all data from the GEOSAT validation tests is available to the Australian Government. I should further add in this respect that after giving the answer my attention was drawn to the DMS Market Intelligence Report material on GEOSAT which appears to have been the basis for Senator Sanders's question and which has also been the basis for a good deal of media speculation. DMS market intelligence report on GEOSAT is, however, deficient in that it portrays the sole mission of data collection as relating to the improved accuracy of SLBMs. It ignores the many military and civilian purposes for which GEOSAT data is collected. It is also the case that the DMS report is not quite up to date on funding arrangements. I will come back to that in a moment. The Pentagon has described GEOSAT derived geodesy data as having broad civil and military application and only indirect application to programs such as the Trident II program. As Dr Ball of the Australian National University recently said of the P-3 validation flights, the relationship with the United States nuclear programs is so marginal that there is no reason for public concern. My answer to the second question requires correction. I stated: The GEOSAT program . . . is not connected to the Trident program funding. That aspect of my answer was incorrect in that it referred to what will be practised from October this year but it did not address earlier arrangements. As I have mentioned, under the 1985-86 financial year Budget request, which was submitted to the United States Congress in January this year, for the next four financial years from 1 October 1985 the GEOSAT program will be funded under the Defence Meteorological Satellite program-DMSP. This arrangement will be in keeping with the broad multifaceted nature of GEOSAT's function. That, of course, is the explanation of why I misled the Senate in giving my previous answer. I was confusing the future with the past. As a matter of budgetary convenience the previous practice was that the United States Navy requested and received funds for the GEOSAT program as a Trident II Budget line item. I regret that my previous answer on funding arrangements related to the Budget request currently before Congress and did not address the preceding funding arrangements. Senator Sanders —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave not granted. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Sanders asked to make a brief statement on the correction that Senator Evans just made. Would it not be courteous for the Government to allow Senator Sanders to make it now, which is a more appropriate time, rather than later? The PRESIDENT —Order! I sought the leave of the Senate for Senator Sanders to make a statement. As I read the situation, leave was not granted on both sides of the House. Senator Chipp —Which Minister said `no'? The PRESIDENT —Order! Leave was sought but it has not been granted. Senator RYAN —In Question Time today Senator Walters sought information about the circumstances of the circulation to senators and members of the progress report on affirmative action. I undertook to provide Senator Walters with that information tomorrow but as it has come to hand I will provide her and other honourable senators with it now. A minute from the Affirmative Action Resource Unit from the Office of the Status of Women, which has responsibility for the circulation of the document, states: In reply to your Minute of 3 June 1985 concerning the release of the Progress Report on the Affirmative Action Pilot Program. The Minister released the Report with a covering Press Release on Thursday 30 May 1985. Address labels were provided by the Caucus Secretariat for distribution to Labor Caucus members. On Friday 31 May 1985 when Members were recalled for the special one-day sitting copies were addressed and distributed by the Office of the Status of Women to all remaining Members and Senators. Senator WALSH —I was asked a question by Senator Short regarding telephone communication with the Dollar Sweets company in Melbourne. I have since been advised by Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, that the Commonwealth Police are investigating the cable damage, which it is believed was deliberately done, that on 27 August Telecom made available to the company a mobile telephone-I presume radio operated and therefore not dependent on the cable-and that independently of that three lines are and have always been operating, in working order, at the plant. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —by leave-First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for his candour in admitting his mistake. I find it quite disturbing, though, that the mistake was made in the first place. Senator Chipp —It was not the Minister's mistake. Senator SANDERS —No, it was not the Minister's mistake, but somewhere in the Department of Defence or perhaps in the liaison between the United States and Australia there was a slip-up, and that is quite disturbing to me. The other thing that disturbs me is the fact that the tests are connected with Trident II. The tests are definitely connected in terms of gathering data to improve the accuracy of the Trident II missiles and, as such, using the bases in Australia to further these tests and to further the accuracy of the Trident II goes against the pledge of the Hawke Government not to allow Australian bases to be used in this manner. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —The personal explanation concerns question No. 412 on the Notice Paper which has been brought to my attention. That question, by Senator Bolkus, mentions my name in a context which purports to suggest a possible misuse of the community employment project scheme. I wish to clarify my position in this matter and to acquaint the Senate with the facts relating to this question as the question contains several inaccuracies. Paragraph (2) of the question asks: Is Senator D. Vigor a member of the Board of the Directors of ACE Television. I am indeed a director of Adelaide Community and Educational Television. I am proud to be its current Vice-President. I was Foundation Chairman in 1978 of the organisation which grew into Adelaide Community and Educational Television Inc and I am totally committed to its aim of bringing public television to Adelaide. Paragraph (1) of the question asks: Was a Mr Donald Chisholm employed under a Community Employment Project (CEP) grant to work for ACE Television in South Australia; if so, and in view of the fact that Mr Chisholm receives both the unemployment benefit as well as income from his two small businesses in South Australia, how can this person qualify for a CEP grant. Mr Chisholm was employed from 7 May 1984 to 6 May 1985 by ACE Television under a CEP grant. Mr Chisholm qualified for the CEP employment by being registered with a Commonwealth Employment Service office for a fixed period, as required by law, prior to commencing employment with a CEP grant. The information suggesting that Mr Chisholm received remuneration from any other source during his employment with ACE Television is, to the best of my knowledge, false. Mr Chisholm, I understand, was a director of two small businesses in that period. He was not an employee, nor did he receive any directors' fees. ACE Television was well pleased with his services. Paragraph (3) of the question asks: Is Donald Chisholm also a member of the Board of Directors of ACE Television. Mr Chisholm was an interim director and an inaugural director of ACE Television but resigned before taking up the 12 months employment with that association. Mr Chisholm has continued to work for ACE Television in a voluntary capacity since May 1985. He is not currently a director of ACE Television. In the interests of saving public money and in light of the answer I gave to Senator Bolkus's question, I hope that he will withdraw this misleading question from the Notice Paper. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I seek leave to make a brief statement in response to information given by Senator Walsh, for which I thank him. Leave granted. Senator SHORT —I thank Senator Walsh for his information that, first of all, the Commonwealth Police are investigating this matter concerning Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. As I understand it, legal advices have gone to the Government and others today about this matter. I do wish to comment on Senator Walsh's correct statement to the effect that mobile telephone lines have been installed at the Dollar Sweets company. That is so. However, the reason they have been installed is that the relevant Telecom union has refused to take action to restore the normal services. The mobile telephone lines provided for the company are not listed lines. No customer or any other person can obtain the number. As a result, despite the existence of those lines, for all practical purposes there is no telephonic communication available to that company or, more particularly, to its customers. For that reason, the company cannot receive any business. Therefore, the point of my question is not in any way altered by the information which Senator Walsh provided, but I thank him for it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to information which Senator Ryan gave me. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —A short time ago, Senator Ryan made known the results of her inquiry which were that some members of Caucus did receive the interim report on the affirmative action pilot program before the rest of the Senate. It was not until I complained that the rest of the Senate had not received the report that, as she said today, the rest of the Senate got the report. Senator Ryan did not answer my question as to why this was so and on whose direction it was done. That was the emphasis of my question. It is not right that some members of the Senate should receive Government reports earlier than other honourable senators. I lodge a very strong complaint regarding Senator Ryan's portfolio. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The disastrous consequences of the Government's wages pact with the Australian Capital Trade Unions for interest rates. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.33) —All around Australia today people are complaining about interest rates-high interest rates that are getting higher every day. High interest rates are affecting people's decisions to buy cars and other big ticket items such as furniture. Most of all, and most importantly, high interest rates are affecting people's decisions-their wishes, hopes and dreams-to buy their own home. These people are asking: `Why are interest rates rising'? We are being assured every day by Mr Keating and Mr Hawke that the economy of Australia is getting better. On 21 December last year in the course of the election campaign Mr Hawke assured the Australian people as follows: the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Of course, `bright' is the operative word. Taking that statement in the proper way we should have assumed that interest rates would rise, which is what they have done. He continued: the best is still ahead of us. Australia and Australians will, during 1985, reap the interest rates rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the field and sown the seeds. In the very near future, we will harvest the crop. Some crop, the people of Australia are saying! Why have these interest rates risen in the way they have? Of course, the answer is very simple. It is just as it was outlined in an Age article on 31 August 1985 by Robert Garran. He said that the rate at which interest rates are rising is due to a deliberate policy of this Federal Government. The reasons for this are varied and numerous, and I will come to some of those points a little later. In general terms, the differences and the problems arise because of the Hawke Labor Government's mishandling of the economy and its negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Why has the Government been forced into a corner on these issues? The simple reason is that it has failed to grasp the nettle on the question of wages. I quote Robert Garran, who said in the Age: If, despite its war of words, the ACTU and its members accept a decision by the Arbitration Commission to discount wages, the outlook should improve. But this is most likely to be achieved because of some kind of deal with the Government. He went on to say, most significantly: The danger then would be that the money and currency markets may decide the deal is as bad as a full wage rise would have been. I think that sums up precisely the situation with regard to the latest pact with the ACTU. Just how bad is the deal? Less than two weeks ago Mr Keating gave an unequivocal assurance that the Government would argue before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a full discounting for the price effects of the devaluation. Then Mr Keating announced the Government's most recent cave-in. According to the deal done between the Hawke Government and the trade union bosses, there will be no discounting of wages for devaluation in September 1985-no discounting whatsoever. Instead, the Government has agreed to a 2 per cent discounting in the March 1986 national wage case-something that is yet to be decided in terms of what inflation rate may then apply. It is true that the 2 per cent discounting factor will cover the period until March 1986, but it will apply even if the price effects of the devaluation are greater than 2 per cent. So the Government has locked itself into that arrangement to discount wages by 2 per cent even if the devaluation effect is greater. It is no wonder that the money markets are very nervous about this Government's actions. It is true that the Government significantly underestimated the likely effects of the depreciation early this year. There is no reason to believe that it will get its estimate right next time. It is also true that the Hawke Government has conceded the ACTU's highly dubious 4 per cent productivity claim. It has merely subtracted one per cent from the claim to allow a future claim for 3 per cent. In other words, the Government is pepared to give the ACTU only 3 per cent. I suppose we should be happy about that. This productivity deal has the appearance of being nothing more than a disguised pay increase in addition to indexation, which, of course, is the basis of the accord. The Confederation of Australian Industry, which was excluded from any discussions between the ACTU and the Government on these important issues, has produced figures that demonstrate that between March 1983 and March 1985 productivity growth in this country was negative. According to the CAI, the entire growth in output has been more than matched by the growth in the number of hours worked. Mr Keating's statement on the ACTU pact in no way challenges or answers that assertion. It is pretty clear that the employers think this deal is bad. It is also clear that the consequences of it for the Australian people will be just as bad. This is, of course, quite beside the further point that emerged from the pact with the ACTU that in September 1986 a tax cut of some $2 billion will be given. I am sure that Senator Walsh, if he were to tell the truth, would be very upset at that kind of announcement, notwithstanding the fact that he may support tax cuts in general, when such a decision is taken so far from the actual events, without knowing the figures and without even having any possible budget against which to assess that cut. Senator Cook —Are you opposed to tax cuts? Senator MESSNER —I have pointed out that we are not opposed to tax cuts at all. What we are complaining about is the fact that the Government is promising these things without any possible understanding of how they might affect its Budget. These things were all pointed out in the Australian Financial Review of 12 April this year and have been the subject of debate in this chamber at another time. The Financial Review stated: Mr Hawke's basic credibility problem with all this- that is, the problem of negotiating wages- is that he is negotiating about wage rises that are in addition to full indexation. He is not specifically addressing the question of discounting indexation for the effect of the currency devaluation but debating the ACTU on its own ground-about extras and on-costs that were never a part of the accord anyway. Mr Hawke is at sea because even a serious argument about possible additions to full indexation is rightly inimical to financial markets. The balance is so fine between full indexation of wages and inflation that confusion about where the Government stands must inevitably lead to fears in the markets, as Mr Hawke is finding. That comment, of course, is just as relevant in today's market situation as it was on 12 April this year. The article from which I have just quoted speaks of markets. Indeed, the overseas money markets are demonstrating that there is again a very serious lack of confidence in the Australian dollar, which fell to about 66c this morning on the New York market. In recent times we have seen utter chaos in the domestic money market. The prime interest rate has now reached 18.5 per cent and the interest rate for home loans is now 13.5 per cent, having risen from 11.5 per cent. But what of real interest rates? Here lies the very important and significant problem for this country. I have before me a table which demonstrates that, as of July 1985, we have, the highest real interest rate-5.3 per cent-that this country has seen for 50 years. Senator Teague —How much was that? Senator MESSNER —A real interest rate of 5.3 per cent. I point out to Senator Teague that that is the difference between the nominal interest rate and inflation. That figure of 5.3 per cent represents the highest interest rate that this country has seen for 50 years. I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INTEREST RATE ON HOUSING LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS FOR OWNER OCCUPATION Nominal and Real-1975-1985 Nominal CPI Move- ment Real 1975 March... 11.5 17.6 -5.2 September... 11.5 12.0 -0.4 1976 March... 10.5 13.4 -2.6 September... 10.5 14.0 -3.1 1977 March... 10.5 13.7 -2.8 September... 10.5 13.1 -2.3 1978 March... 10.0 8.3 1.6 September... 10.0 7.9 1.9 1979 March... 9.5 8.2 1.2 September... 9.5 9.2 0.3 1980 March... 10.5 10.5 0 September... 10.5 10.3 0.2 1981 March... 11.5 9.4 1.9 September... 12.0 9.0 2.8 1982 March... 13.5 10.6 1.1 September... 13.5 12.3 1.1 1983 March... 12.5 11.4 1.0 September... 12.5 9.3 2.9 1984 March... 12.0 7.6(a) 4.1 September... 12.0 6.1(a) 5.6 1985 March... 11.5 5.5(a) 5.7 July... 12.5 6.8(a) 5.3 (a) Excludes Hospital/Medical component Source: Parliamentary Library Statistics Group HOUSING INTEREST RATES 1950-1975 Year Savings Bank Housing Loans Actual % p.a. CPI Change (financial year) % Real Interest Rates % 1950... 3.88 (1950/51) 13.0 - 8.1 1951... 3.88 (1951/52) 22.5 -15.2 1952... 3.88 9.4 - 5.0 1953... 4.5 1.9 2.6 1954... 4.5 0.7 3.8 1955... 4.5 4.1 0.4 1956... 5.0 5.8 - 0.8 1957... 5.0 1.0 4.0 1958... 5.0 1.6 3.3 1959... 5.0 2.5 2.4 1960... 5.0 4.1 0.9 1961... 5.75 0.4 + 5.3 1962... 5.75 0.2 + 5.5 1963... 5.25 0.9 4.3 1964... 5.5 3.8 1.6 1965... 5.75 3.6 2.1 1966... 5.75 2.7 3.0 1967... 5.75 3.3 2.4 1968... 5.75 2.6 3.1 1969... 6.25 3.2 3.0 1970... 8.25 4.8 3.3 1971... 8.25 6.8 1.4 1972... 7.75 6.0 1.7 1973... 7.75 12.9 - 4.6 1974... 9.5 16.7 - 6.2 1975... 11.5 13.0 - 1.3 Source: Reserve Bank Occasional Paper No. 8A Australian Statistics 1949-50-1978-79. Senator MESSNER —I thank the Senate. There are major reasons why all this has been happening but the fact that our Australian dollar is falling in value is having very significant inflationary effects in the economy. The Government has attempted-attempted only-to do something about that by negotiating with the ACTU. The effect of wage indexation and the accord will, of course, only lead to further inflation through the feeding in of the inflationary effects of the falling dollar. Yet all the Government can do is cave in to trade union pressures and do deals at midnight in hotel rooms to make arrangements with the ACTU. The employers, the other half of the equation, are left out in the cold. Is it any wonder that the Australian dollar today is down to 66c in New York? Senator Cook —When are you going to tell us about your record? Senator MESSNER —I will come to that. Senator Cook may be interested to hear a few facts about it. We all understand that the problem of the falling dollar and its inflationary effects stem from the real difficulties that this economy suffers because of a lack of competitiveness, because of the high cost of labour in this country and the effects upon the ability of this country's exporters to sell on world markets. This has led to a very significant rise in the deficit on our current account and the balance of payments. Let me cite the increasing balances which have occurred during the Hawke Labor Government's term of office. The deficit on current account in 1982-83 was $6.3 billion. In 1983-84 it rose to $7.4 billion. This year it is $10.1 billion. That has to be found by the importing of capital. Because of that rising effect, the Government is being forced to allow borrowings to be made. That means that interest rates in this country, by deliberate Government policy, have to be kept high-higher than the rates applicable overseas-in order to attract money to this country to pay for the growing deficit that is entirely in the responsible hands of the Hawke Labor Government. Those figures demonstrate that for three years we have nearly doubled our deficit on current account and, as a result, we are being forced to borrow more and more overseas to cover it. Those are the facts and that is the reason we are seeing interest rates rise at the rate we are. For those who are concerned about the effect of all of this on our growing overseas debt, let me cite a few figures. In 1983, the year in which the Hawke Labor Government came to power, our total gross debt overseas was $36.4 billion. It has now risen, in 1985, to $68.4 billion. As a proportion of gross domestic product, it has risen from 22 per cent to 33 per cent. An increase of 50 per cent in just three years has occurred under the Hawke Labor Government. Is it any wonder we are seeing an increasing loss of faith overseas? The cost of servicing the debts that we are accumulating as a result of these policies is very interesting. The repayments in the first year of office of the Hawke Labor Government, in 1983, were $6.6 billion. They are now $11.5 billion a year. As a proportion of exports, those servicing payments have risen from 11.1 per cent in 1983 to 14.4 per cent. These are the facts and these are the reasons why this Government is being forced to drive up interest rates in order to protect its own situation and to protect a falling Australian dollar. It can only lead to a viciouscircle with increased interest rates in order to protect further the Australian dollar. As it falls, so it will generate further inflation through this Government wage indexation system and its pact with the ACTU, and continue to drive the cost of money higher and higher. The outlook is very bad for individuals. Some people in this country are finding it hard to borrow money for their homes. Instead of borrowing $40,000 over a period of, say, 20 years to buy a house, banks are being forced, because of the rising cost of money, to increase the term of those loans and many people are having to take on a 29-year loan. They will be paying off the loan further and further into the future. Mr Keating says that this Government is a `can do' government. It sure is. It is just giving in to what the unions demand. All of us on this side know that. Senator Walsh —High growth. Senator MESSNER —Senator Walsh can tell us all about that when he has his opportunity. What is Mr Keating really trying to say to us? In effect, of course, he is only kidding. All he is doing is ensuring that, through his control over interest rates and the method in which he is operating, fewer and fewer people will get housing loans. He is not protecting people. Interest rates will continue to rise and the value of the dollar will fall. The wage decision and the lack of confidence which exists will add to that. We will have a higher deficit on our current account overseas. Our money supply target, which is now in the order of 20 per cent, has blown out substantially. We have a rising overseas deficit, debts and servicing requirement. That adds up to a very sorry picture of the administration of this country's economy by the Hawke Labor Government. Let me try to sum up all of this. The disastrous wage pact with the ACTU focuses all attention on that chief area of concern in economic affairs. That piece of madness has now created a new round of loss of confidence in this Government both in this country and overseas. This comes hard on the heels of the MX missile crisis, confusion over ANZUS, the refusal to acknowledge, firstly, the wage problem arising from the devaluing dollar, the cosmetic expenditure cuts in May and, of course, all the other political factors which are around at the moment. It is just another land-mine in the mine-field labelled the accord into which this Government has stumbled. Indeed, it resembles a game of blind man's bluff, with the Government being pushed around from one union pillar to another trying to find some kind of settlement. Indeed, these accommodations with the trade union movement which follow one upon the other are just examples of giving in at the first available opportunities. Keating has waved his paper of surrender at the Australian people, proclaiming not peace in our time, but peace at any price. The consequences of this are disastrous. Australians do not deserve this gang of union puppets to run their country. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.53) —If there are any remaining doubts about the Bourbons of the Liberal Party of Australia having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, Senator Messner should have removed them. The day after the agreement to continue the accord for another two years was announced, the Melbourne Age economic columnists, Terry McCrann and Kenneth Davidson, agreed that that was the best news the Australian economy had had for a long time-the continuation of the accord and the agreement to discount wages by 2 per cent in the March 1986 case. I think neither of them would be offended if I described them as coming from almost the two extreme ends of the spectrum of economic thought in Australia. They are somewhere close to the extreme ends of the spectrum, anyway. I thought that if McCrann and Davidson can agree about any single policy, just about any sane person ought to agree with it. Unfortunately, we have just had demonstrated to us that that is not the case. This Government has already delivered two years of economic growth approaching 5 per cent. During that same time the inflation rate was almost halved. We are entering our third year of 5 per cent economic growth, something that has not happened in Australia since the early 1950s. Senator Siddons —Four and a half per cent, of course. Senator WALSH —I said `approaching 5 per cent'. We have created more jobs in 27 months than the Fraser Administration created in 87 months. The central economic policy underpinning that spectacular achievement is, as I have always said, an effective wages policy-in this case the accord. During that same period, and because of the accord and the high rates of economic growth, the real labour unit cost has fallen to a level lower than it has been at any time since 1970-71. In the short time this Government has been in office the real labour unit costs have fallen by 7 per cent. Central to all that has been the success of the incomes policy known in Australia as the accord. I can remember lecturing the Liberal Party when we were in opposition about the vastly superior economic performance of a number of other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They were countries such as Austria, West Germany, the Netherlands and Japan-that is not an exhaustive list-which throughout the difficult economic decade of the 1970s had maintained economic growth rates high enough to keep unemployment at levels only marginally above the full employment levels of the 1960s, and which had successfully controlled inflation, usually keeping it down to the order of 2 or 3 per cent per annum. I drew Liberal members' attention to the fact that the common denominator in all those countries which through the 1970s had an economic record vastly superior to that of Australia, whether formally enshrined in legislation or not, was the existence of an effective wages policy. The Liberals failed to learn then; they have failed still. I regard it as impertinent that the people who presided over the worst depression Australia has seen since the 1930s, who gave us the highest interest rates in history, who gave us double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time-something no previous government had done-and who destroyed 250,000 jobs in their last disastrous year of office should now seek to criticise the foundation stone of this Government's highly successful economic policies. In opposition and in government all the responsible people in the Labor Party have made it very clear that the continuation of the accord is central to sustained high rates of economic growth and acceptable levels of inflation. We have a wages policy. The Opposition says that it has a wages policy. Its policy is to deregulate. There really is no acceptable alternative but to have a wages policy or to deregulate. The Opposition is noted for contradictions in economic policy in a number of areas, but there is no greater contradiction than in its attitude to wages policy, both in government and in opposition. In May 1981 the then Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, presided over the demolition of centralised wages fixing. He said in May 1981: `We will let market forces determine the level of wages in Australia', and market forces did precisely that. Wages went up 13 per cent in the next year and 14 per cent in the year after. That was the consequence. One does not have to speculate or theorise. The empirical evidence shows that following the deregulation of the labour market, or the abandonment of a wages policy in May 1981, we had the greatest wages explosion Australia had seen for almost a decade. Eighteen months later, confronted with the disastrous consequences of its ideology, the Fraser Government then swung to the other extreme and imposed a wages freeze-the most centralised and rigidly regulated wage system that anybody can conceive. The contradictions are still here. On the one hand we are urged by Senator Messner and others that we must have full discounting. On the other hand we are told we should have a free market for labour. It is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture as to how one achieves full discounting in a deregulated market. The only way discounting can be achieved is through a centralised wage fixing system and an effective incomes policy. I would have thought that it would have been obvious even to the shadow Minister for Finance, who was installed in his position by courtesy of the Sydney Stock Exchange club, which decided last week that as well as getting even with Andrew Peacock it would get even with Senator Peter Rae because of what he had done to it while a member of various Senate committees. It insisted that Senator Rae be dumped from the front bench, and he has been replaced by Senator Messner. Senator Messner —What an imagination! Senator WALSH —That is what Senator Rae said. I have the transcript here and I will show it to Senator Messner if he likes. I would have thought it would have been apparent even to Senator Messner, or even to the discredited former Treasurer, that there is no way in which one can achieve wage discounting outside of a regulated and centralised wage fixing system. The principles of discounting and of a free market for labour are mutually exclusive. It is true, as Senator Messner has said, that interest rates are, by historical standards, high. They are, however, significantly lower than they were during the last disastrous year of the previous Government. I draw Senator Messner's attention to the fact that in April 1982 rates on commercial 90-day bills were 22.5 per cent. In June 1982 on two-year Commonwealth bonds they were 16.5 per cent and at the same time on 15-year Commonwealth bonds they were also 16.5 per cent. Although high at present, they are significantly lower than those figures which I have cited. There is another significant difference. At that time-that is, in the last days of the Fraser Government-people were borrowing money to remain solvent. They were virtually borrowing money in order to be able to eat. People or businesses are borrowing money now to invest, and the latter is a far more healthy situation, obviously, than the former. The essential difference is that under this Government growth is high, extraordinarily high by Australian standards. Largely because of that high growth and the demand for funds, interest rates are also high. At the end of the previous Government's period in office interest rates were even higher but growth was negative. In spite of that record and the history of what has occurred in Australia and overseas, members of the Opposition, ideologically blinded as they are, still insist on deregulation and still condemn the prices and incomes accord, which has delivered this country the highest sustained rate of economic growth, accompanied by low inflation, that it has seen since the early 1950s. They have learnt nothing from their experience when they actually deregulated wages. In 1981 they said: `We will let the market sort it out'. That policy produced a wages explosion. There was a 27 per cent increase in wages in just two years. Simultaneously, it produced the highest level of industrial disputation seen for many years. A figure approaching four million working days was lost in the last year of the Liberal Government, a figure which has now fallen by some 65 per cent. For all that, members of the Opposition have still learnt nothing. Their blind ideological prejudices lead them to assert that the very same policies which produced disaster when they were in government-they produced the highest level of unemployment which we have seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s, simultaneously producing double-digit inflation and the highest interest rates in history, which destroyed 250,000 jobs in just 12 months-be resurrected in order to wreak similar damage to that which they had wreaked previously. There are times when, I suppose, to be fair, one ought to acknowledge that the present Leader of the Opposition is an honest man. When speaking at the National Press Club a couple of weeks ago, for example, he said that the industrial relations front would become an economic battleground over the next five to 10 years. That statement should send a chill down the spine of every responsible Australian. We should feel a chill that this man, who is now the Federal Leader of the Opposition, should propose and welcome a policy which he himself forecast would make industrial relations an economic battleground over the next five to 10 years. For example, I would have thought that Mr Howard's proposal to introduce policies which he not only says but also knows will have that effect would send a chill down Senator Siddons's spine. What the last year or 18 months of the Fraser Government produced under Mr Howard's wages policy-that is, almost four million working days lost because of industrial disputes in a 12-month period-is, by Mr Howard's own admission, what we can expect as normality if he should become Prime Minister and if his policies were to be actually adopted. I can understand the frustrations of the Liberal Party, that policies which it assiduously ignored in opposition and intellectual arguments to which it refused to listen in opposition have now been applied and have been demonstrably so successful. I can understand it being somewhat frustrated by that and I can forgive it for that frustration. However, I find it very much harder to forgive the continual campaign of sabotage which the Opposition has engaged in ever since it has been in opposition. By sabotage I mean its continual attempts to talk down the value of the Australian dollar-attempts which in fact pre-date the 1983 Federal election-and to talk up interest rates. Perhaps a measure of the desperation of the more perceptive members of the Opposition is the realisation that the only chance they have of getting back into government while the high and sustained rates of economic growth, underpinned by the accord, continue to improve the general living standards of Australians and continue to give the unemployed at least some hope of obtaining employment-hope that they did not have before-is to seek desperately for prescriptions which might threaten that stability and growth. I can understand it but, naturally, I cannot forgive it. Senator Messner in opening his speech referred to sowing the seeds and harvesting the crop. I think he was quoting the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) although I am not sure why he did so. The seeds were sown by this Government in the weeks before it assumed office. The seed which was sown was an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for an effective wages policy. Australia has been progressively harvesting the crop ever since. It has been doing so in the form of 400,000 additional jobs, two years and a prospective third year of real economic growth rates approaching 5 per cent, inflation coming down to almost half the level that prevailed when we came to office and interest rates which, though high by historical standards, are still significantly lower than those which prevailed at the time that the last Government went out of office. Perhaps most importantly of all, upward pressures are being exerted on interest rates because of the high rates of growth and the private demand for investment funds as distinct from the high interest rates which prevailed in the closing desperate months of the previous Government when people, and business in particular, were trying to borrow money to remain solvent. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(4.10) —Senator Messner's contribution to this debate would have been far more convincing if he had spent some of the time available to him on outlining and detailing an alternative approach to what the Government has done. He failed to do that. He spent most of his time pointing out our problems with our balance of payments and he failed to show what connection the Government's wages policy has with high interest rates or the balance of payments. At least I did not gather the connection if Senator Messner argued it. The Opposition is not spelling out details of an alternative approach and that, I believe, is essential if it is to be an effective opposition in this place. There is one essential flaw with the Government's negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it is this: Direct negotiations with the ACTU take no account of the interests of employer organisations or-this is most important-small business. So the Government must get in place a wages policy which takes account of those vital interests and vital concerns in the community. However, having said that, I believe that the Government's deal with the ACTU will not greatly affect interest rates. Given the circumstances relating to industrial relations in this country, certainly in terms of practical politics, we have at the moment the best deal that we could have hoped for. In fact, we have a better deal than I thought was possible a few days ago. This deal gives us the opportunity for steady economic growth over the next two to three years without strong inflationary pressures and without opportunistic demands on wages by powerful trade unions. If the Government introduces some imaginative, stimulatory policies when it announces its tax reform package, we can hope for the underlying assumption on which the Government based its Budget, namely, a 4 1/2 per cent growth rate. Provided some additional stimulatory factor is announced soon, we may achieve the 4 1/2 per cent growth rate that has been predicated. For the record I think it is worth while to spell out the elements of the deal between the ACTU and the Government. Firstly, there is to be no discounting of the 3.8 per cent consumer price index increase for the March and June quarters, but there will be a 2 per cent discount of the CPI claim in April 1986. This discount will absorb most, if not all, of the inflationary effects of the devaluation. The second important point is that tax cuts of approximately $5 for those on average weekly earnings will apply from September 1986 to compensate for the 2 per cent discounting of the April 1986 wage increase. The ACTU has agreed to cut the 4 per cent productivity claim to 3 per cent and that will be taken as superannuation benefits to be phased in over a three-year period. These measures will stop the inflationary effects of the devaluation being locked into the accord and they will give us the prospect of a steady growth rate in the Australian economy. So to that degree at least the Government is to be congratulated. It has pulled off a deal that nobody thought was possible. Speaking for members of my Party, we did not think it was possible two weeks ago. The concern of the Liberal Party of Australia that the wages deal will affect interest rates is essentially a red herring. The Liberal Party paints the scenario that any wage increase will frighten off overseas investors and if that happens we will have to have very high interest rates to attract overseas money to the country. I suggest that the quickest way to frighten away overseas money is to have a period of uncertainty about wage demands in this country. The worst thing an overseas investor can face is the unknown. At least now investors have a firm program for the next two or three years. Senator Messner —I suppose that is why the United States dollar is so high? Senator SIDDONS —I am coming to that. Overseas investors now know what they can expect. In the early 1980s there was a wages explosion which occurred when the Fraser Government was in power. The only solution that was available at that time was to allow very high interest rates and to put the squeeze on the economy in an attempt to contain wage demands by unions which were running wild and out of control at that time. As I think Senator Messner pointed out, it is necessary for us at the moment to have high interest rates if we are to attract the funds that are necessary to balance our current trading account. We need to attract foreign money if we are to support our barely floating Australian dollar. Why have we got into this precarious position: It is because the scenario of the 1980s has not worked. The then Government said that it was going to apply massive investments from the mineral boom to resources development in this country and that those projects were going to earn their keep, earn foreign exchange and pay the interest bill incurred at that time. These investments in energy resources and mineral development in our country are not earning the foreign exchange that was predicted and of course we now have to keep our interest rates at some eight per cent above those that apply in Japan, the United States of America or Western Europe generally. The fact of the matter is that there is no easy solution to the problem we are in. Any Australian government would have its back to the wall. It is necessary for us to weave a way out of the precarious situation that we are in and there is only one way that can be done. Firstly I think it is important that all Australians realise that we are in a precarious position, that we have got to put our hands to the wheel, as it were and steel our reserves of effort to earn foreign exchange. There is no other fundamental solution. Government policy, above all else, should be directed to that one objective. We have to look at the areas available in our community and our economy that give the best prospect for earning foreign currency and then direct resources into those areas. I mentioned earlier that the Government's approach has one essential flaw. It has frozen out small business and has frozen out employer organisations in the wage fixing process. I want to put an alternative scenario to the Government and to the Liberal Party-a scenario which, as far as I am aware, is in stark contrast to the approach that Mr Howard is advocating right now. The Democrats believe in centralised wage fixing. We believe that workers should be allowed the bottom line of minimum award conditions that can be set and should be set by a centralised wage fixing system. In addition to that, we believe that there should be new legislation introduced that will allow collective agreements to be negotiated directly on conditions to apply for specific industries. I believe it is optimistic in the extreme to believe that conditions for places as far afield as Darwin, Hobart, Perth and Sydney can be established by a centralised wage fixing body. Of course there are local conditions. Of course there are the interests of small business which cannot always meet the conditions that apply across the country as the best common denominator. The only way that this great anomaly in our centralised wage fixing system can be addressed is to allow legislation that will give the parties concerned, if they so wish, the opportunity to negotiate on specific conditions above a minimum set by our centralised wage fixing system. Senator Short —That is our policy. Senator SIDDONS —As I understand it, the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia is to negotiate wages downwards. Senator Messner —You don't know what you are talking about. Senator SIDDONS —If that is not the policy, the Liberal Party has an urgent task to make it clear to the public. I could quote many references in the Press where the Liberal Party has said just that. As I heard the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, say the other day, youth wages will be reduced by direct negotiations. He said that they would negotiate with small industries, small companies, to get wages down to the level which small business could afford. If that is not reducing what is already established as the law of this country-the wages and conditions under which people in industry operate-I do not know what is. If that is not Liberal Party policy, I suggest that the quicker it makes that clear to the public at large the better off the Liberal Party will be. Without a doubt there has to be an opportunity for direct negotiation on special conditions applying to special industries in special geographically located areas of this large continent. It is very necessary, before that can happen, that we put in place legislation which will allow such agreements to be legally enforceable. At present they are not. We can negotiate until we are blue in the face; we can write down on paper any agreement we like. Such an agreement at this moment is not legally enforceable. We are suggesting, as we set out in great detail in our collective agreements legislation, the Industrial Democracy Bill, that there is a need for a new legislative framework that will allow employers, unions and individual groups of employees to negotiate legally binding agreements which are quite separate and distinct from provisions in the conciliation and arbitration legislation. We suggest that this should be based on the corporations power under the Constitution. However, in the meantime the prices and incomes accord is vital. We see it as a very substantial achievement of the Government. Trading wage discounting for tax cuts avoids the danger of locking the inflationary effects of devaluation into the wage fixing system. It is the most we could expect from the Labor Government and it is certainly preferable to the confrontationist course which I believe the policies of the Liberal Party would inevitably lead to. I believe that neither the approach of the Government nor, as I understand it, the approach of the Liberal Party is satisfactory. Certainly, the confrontationist approach is not satisfactory. We have to develop an environment of co-operation and not confrontation in relation to wage fixing in this country. This environment can be established only if we embrace the principles of industrial democracy which I set out in the Bill I introduced two weeks ago in the Senate. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.25) —I am pleased to be participating in the debate today, on the matter of public importance which states: The disastrous consequences of the Government's wages pact with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for interest rates. The Opposition has brought forward the matter of public importance to highlight the great damage the Government's cowardly and continual kowtowing to the trade union movement is doing to this nation. Before turning to that matter I shall mention a couple of comments made, first of all, by Senator Walsh, and then by Senator Siddons. Senator Walsh talked about the economic growth in this country in the last two years and the reduction in the rate of inflation. In effect he praised the Government and gave it credit for those results. Let us look at some of the facts. Certainly, inflation is down compared with that of two years ago but it is not down relative to the inflation rate in other countries around the world. We have an inflation rate which is almost twice that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. That figure above the OECD average is higher than that occurring during the years of the previous Government. Our balance of payments deficit proportionately is the largest of all countries in the Western world. In the last 12 months our currency has depreciated by more than any other currency in the OECD and, despite what Senator Walsh said, our interest rates in real terms are the highest of any country in the Western world and are higher than they have been in this country for 50 years. I will come back to that later. So much for some of the `facts' that Senator Walsh produced. It is true that economic growth as measured by the gross domestic product figures has been higher in the last two years. It has been good. Senator Walsh omitted the reasons for this, which have been spelled out by Opposition spokesmen over the last couple of years. They have also been acknowledged by people such as Senator Walsh's predecessor as Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins. He acknowledged honestly last year when he was Minister for Finance that the recovery in the economy since the Australian Labor Party came to office was due essentially to three factors: First, the breaking of the drought in 1983, secondly, the recovery overseas and, thirdly, the wages freeze that the previous Government-and the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard-introduced in 1982 which laid the framework for much of the recovery that has since occurred. Senator Walsh also omitted to mention that,although one of the reasons for the difficulty that the Australian economy faced in the late 1970s and the early 1980s was that it was part of a worldwide recession, the problem went deeper than that for Australia. We were still living through the problems of the 1970s, not just those occasioned by the Whitlam Government but, more importantly, the problems occasioned by the actions of the Australian Council of Trade Unions throughout the 1970s when it was led by the now Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. The chickens came home to roost in the late 1970s and 1980s. Those chickens were hatched by the ACTU and, primarily, by the now Prime Minister, the then ACTU President, Mr Hawke. So much for some of the things that Senator Walsh said. Senator Siddons made some interesting comments. I am not sure that I followed him too well because in one sentence he was castigating the Opposition for not having a policy and in the next sentence he was proposing policies which were, and are, those of the Opposition. I agree with Senator Siddons that there are no easy solutions to the problems that we in Australia face today. But there are some things we can do. First, we have to make ourselves competitive as a nation. The only way to do that is to act more responsibly and to realise that we are going broke following the Government's policy course at the moment. We cannot afford the policies that are being undertaken. That is the essential reason why we have difficulties and for the lack of competitiveness that we now face. What do we do about this problem? As a government we would do several things. We would take a responsible and tough attitude to government spending because if we did not the problem would continue to compound. Therefore, we take a tough approach to taxation, which flows from the Government's spending approach. We will see later in the month what proposals the Government will be putting forward. They will put more and more burdens on the taxpayer, particularly the productive sector of the economy and the small business sector, through capital gains tax and other forms of tax on business. These are the sorts of things that we have to avoid doing if we want to make this country grow and make it competitive. We have to take a firm hand on monetary policy. In the last 18 months, monetary policy has blown out. It is out of hand. Monetary targeting has been abandoned by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) because it all got too hard and he and the Government were not prepared to take the tough decisions that are necessary to have a proper monetary policy. The final thing that we have to do-Senator Siddons alluded to it but did not seem prepared to come all the way with the Opposition-is to break the yoke of regulation of the labour market. We have to make the labour market more flexible. We have to do the sorts of things that Senator Siddons suggested and talk about and develop the sorts of policies that have been Opposition policies for the last 12 months or more. We have to make agreements that are legally enforceable. I agree with Senator Siddons, but he is not saying anything new. He is reiterating the policies of my Party. So much for some of the things that have already been said. I now come back to the matter of public importance. Our wording of the matter of public importance is framed in terms of the effect of the wages deal on interest rates. I will concentrate my remarks on that point, but the Opposition could just as validly have worded this matter of public importance to highlight the disastrous consequences that the Government's capitulation to the ACTU last week will have on inflation, economic growth, employment, our balance of payments and the value of our dollar. It is not possible to separate these different elements. They are all closely interwoven. Let us look at the content of the deal struck last week between the Government and the ACTU, a deal which is breathtaking in its arrogance. It circumvents the authority of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It pre-empts the outcome of the present wage case and subsequent wage cases when the Commission might have had other ideas, ideas which it was created and paid to have, about possible ways to proceed. All those were pre-empted by the deal last week between the Government and the ACTU which gives full wage indexation in the current national wage case without any discounting for the depreciation of the Australian dollar. There is to be a 2 per cent discounting-and that is questionable when one looks at the fine print-in the April 1986 wage case. In exchange for this so-called sacrifice by the unions there is to be a compensatory tax cut in September 1986 and support for the ACTU's productivity claim, though reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, in the form of compulsory superannuation by all employers. There will be unspecified tax reform. We will wait until later in the month for that. Additional price restraints will be imposed on businesses because the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, say that profits are now back to the level of the early 1970s, and that is as high as they ought to go. This ignores completely the fact that the profitability of the corporate sector in the 1970s was far lower than in the 1950s and the 1960s which were the decades that really saw growth in this country. Yet that is written into the agreement that Mr Keating and Mr Willis released last week. So there will be a tougher approach to business and acceptance of a union proposal for a capital goods investment strategy. I understand that that proposal is quite contrary to the views of the Government and, in particular, its Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. Above all that, there has been the granting at long last of the Australian Council of Trade Unions' dream of full superannuation, regardless of the cost to the nation. That is an extraordinarily generous package. It gives the unions, as I said, one of their more cherished objectives-full national superannuation. It gives a permanent tax cut to compensate for a temporary deferral of part of a wage increase. It is an extraordinarily generous package for the unions, but what sort of a package is it for Australia? For Australia it is an extra- ordinarily bitter package because it virtually guarantees an acceleration in inflation, further depreciation of the dollar, a slowing in economic growth and a reduction, if not an actual downturn, in employment growth. The Hawke Government, through its agreement last week with the ACTU, has once again become an accessory to the crime of job destruction. Of course, the package guarantees what is the main subject of this matter of public importance; that is, a further hike in interest rates in Australia and their maintenance at and increase beyond the highest levels for 50 years. Our interest rates, when adjusted for inflation, are the highest since the Great Depression. They have been at record levels since earlier this year. They have increased further in recent days and they are now, as a result of the wages deal, destined to go to new record heights over the months ahead. Who is it that gets hurt by high interest rates? The people who get hurt by high interest rates are the individuals, ordinary Australians, particularly those on lower and middle incomes who have to borrow funds to purchase the things they want in life-not the luxuries of life but the necessities and the semi-necessities. They are the people who are hurt by high interest rates. They are the people who have struggled for years to try to buy homes and who are now finding homes put out of their reach and who, if they want to buy a car or the essentials of life, have to borrow money for it as they cannot otherwise afford to pay for it. Individuals, including home buyers, are the people who are hurt by the policies of this Government leading to this high interest rate structure. The other group in the community which is most hurt is small business. Large business can generally, in one way or another, live with high interest rates because, important though they may be, they are a less significant element for it in its total operations. It is the small businessman who runs his business on overdrafts and who never or rarely has enough capital to be on the right side of the ledger in cash terms who will be the sufferer and is the sufferer under this high interest rate regime into which we have got ourselves. The reason we are in this regime, as I have said, is the gross economic mismanagement of this Government over the past 2 1/2 years. The Government cannot wash its hands of the interest rates issue. It has compounded any upward influences on rates. It has done so blatantly, deliberately and decisively and it has also done it in defiance of its own statements. Surely we all remember that during the last election campaign both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said that interest rates would fall in 1985. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.40) —In rising to speak to this matter of public importance, I note with interest the competition on the other side of the House to see who can sound the driest. I have listened as speaker after speaker has risen to show us that he is part of the new dry Liberal Party. I can understand the fairly desperate search of Opposition members for a new identity, a new philosophy, because no matter how much camouflage is used to cloud the reality the members of the Liberal Party who sit opposite are the people who failed Australia from 1975 to 1983. They are the same tired people and they have the same failed policies. If given a chance, they will fail again. The Liberal Party, bereft of talent and ideas, has hit a brick wall. That has never been more evident than it is to those of us who have had today to sit and listen to what amounts to a defence of a period in Australian history that will go down as one of our worst economic recessions; that is, the period of the Fraser Government during which the new Liberal leader, John Howard, was Treasurer. We do not really have to imagine what Australia would be like if it were led by John Howard because all Australians had an opportunity in those years to see the theory in practice. Their verdict, after they had looked at it in practice, was that the Liberal Party should be thrown out of office. Its irrelevance in serious economic debate suggests that by now it has become an anachronism. While John Howard was Treasurer we had the worst recession in 50 years. That can be contrasted with the economic performance of this Government. Its economic policies have been right. Since taking office it has pursued a set of cohesive economic policies which have borne fruit quickly. The fiscal, monetary, wages and industrial relations policies that we have undertaken have ensured a significant transformation in the economy, an economy finally based on growth rather than an economy based on contraction and riddled with double-digit unemployment and inflation, as was the case during the Liberal Party's years on the treasury bench. Crucial to the Government's overall economic success, crucial to its strategy, has been the implementation of a cohesive and workable wages and incomes policy. What killed off the recoveries of the 1970s was the boom, inflation and bust cycle. We had it too often. When any slight recovery occurred, fuelled by the sort of inflation that we saw under the Howard regime, we saw the gains of the recovery quickly disappear. They were quickly frittered away. In many instances uncontrolled wage increases caused by the lack of a clear wages policy were the major contributors to inflation. The Government realises that if that cycle is to be broken in the 1980s, if we are to maintain long periods of growth and stability, there have to be adequate wage control measures married with wage moderation. The Government has been able to achieve that through the wages and incomes policy, the cornerstone of which is the accord with the trade union movement, that historic accord which over the last couple of years has done Australia proud. The accord has been successful both in moderating wage increases within affordable limits and in achieving Australia's remarkable economic growth, a growth that has placed it at the very front of all the member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development during the last 12 months. It will certainly remain in that place in the next 12 months when growth might well outstrip the projections that have been announced in the Budget. Already figures show that it is quite possible that growth will go higher than 5 per cent. The major plank of the accord in achieving this has been the policy of wage indexation whereby movements in wages are linked to movements in prices. Let us look at the success of that policy under the Australian Labor Party. Average weekly earnings grew by less than 5 per cent in 1983-84 and less than 6 1/2 per cent in 1984-85, so the rate of growth in average weekly earnings that was inherited by the Hawke Government when it took office has already been halved. What is more, we now have the lowest level of industrial disruption and strike activity for 17 years. Industrial disputation will remain at these record low levels. In the 12 months to May 1985 we had a 65 per cent reduction in strikes, in days lost. When Howard caused a wages explosion he also caused industrial chaos. Already under Labor, in the first 2 1/2 years of the Hawke Government, that has been changed. More importantly, when one looks at those things that are supposed to motivate those opposite, we look, firstly, at real unit labour costs. We see that today the level of real unit costs is well below that of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Since Labor came to office there has been a 7 per cent reduction in real unit labour costs. The 2 per cent discounting of wage claims will give rise to a further reduction in real unit labour costs. I note that that point was not taken up by the Opposition in this debate. There has been no discussion whatsoever on unit labour costs. The reason for this is that the Opposition just cannot handle the reality of the statistics, that is, the economic indicators by which the people will be able to judge just who governs them better. The second thing that we should look at is profit share. Again, the Liberal Party has had to stop talking about profit share, which is dear to the hearts of members of the Liberal Party. Profit share crashed under Howard and Fraser when bankruptcy rates went up. Under us it has not been the bankruptcy rate that has gone up; it has been profit share. It is as high as it was in the late 1960s. Since the trough under the previous Government, profit share has gone up 5 percentage points. It has gone up 5 percentage points since we took office. Surely that is an indication of the Government's successful wages policy. It is a policy that has been successful in putting 400,000 Australians in work already. The level of inflation has fallen from 11 1/2 per cent to 6 1/2 per cent. The recent wage agreement can, I think, ensure two more years of wage restraint; two more years of growth, and two more years of increased employment levels. Let us look at the agreement itself. It delivers a 2 per cent discount to wage indexation adjustments in the April wage case. There will be a delay in the implementation of the productivity case, with the benefits to be restricted to a 3 per cent wage equivalent to be provided over two years in the form of superannuation benefits, the least expensive form to employees of increased remuneration. There will be a tax cut in September 1986. On the other side of the coin there is, therefore, an ongoing commitment to agreed wage fixing principles for another two years which will ensure that our economic recovery can continue unhindered by excessive wage increases. The agreement will ensure that the beneficial effects of the recent devaluation will not be thrown away. They will not be wasted. It will ensure that inflation and interest rates will not be fuelled by a reckless wages policy. Let us contrast that with the record of the Fraser Government with John Howard as Treasurer-that is, the Liberal-National Party rule. If one looks at those last desperate years when things were going badly, when they were out of control, one sees that John Howard and his cohorts desperately changed policy week after week trying to find some way to solve their problems. All they were able to achieve, by attempting for a while the abandonment of centralised wage fixing, was a massive wage explosion. In fact, the last 27 months of that Government saw wages increase by 28 per cent. In 1980-81 they went up 13 per cent; in 1981-82, 14 per cent and in 1982-83, another 13 per cent. That is what the abandonment of central wage fixing can do. If it is tried again the same thing will occur. I note that this new dry look with which we are being assailed today is often presented-I note that in Senator Short's contribution it was done rather badly-in the name of small business. It is said: `We will abandon central wage fixing and, therefore, we will fix up all the problems of small business'. The reality is exactly the opposite. Small business would be crushed. How can small employers seriously expect to bargain with strong and big unions? All that will happen, if it is tried again in Australia, is what happened when it was tried previously under John Howard. The big unions will win big increases from big business and those big increases will flow to small business, crushing and crippling it. To those small businessmen who worry about this Government, they should look only at the level of bankruptcy and at how the rate soared under John Howard's reign of the economy in Australia. The bankruptcy rate went up by hundreds of per cent in a few years. That is what will happen if centralised wage fixing is abandoned and if the benefits of the accord, which was won by hard bargaining between the Government and the Auatralian Council of Trade Unions, are ever wasted. Not only are we able to save small business from the problems of a wages explosion but also we can contrast the record of industrial disputation. When one smashes the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission system and the present wage fixing system, one finishes up smashing business. Inevitably, part of that breakup, part of that problem, will be an enormous growth in the level of strikes and industrial disputation. It happened before. The problem is being solved under this Government. Obviously we will never have a system where strikes do not occur any more, but all Australians must have noted in the past two and a half years how the level of disputation has gone down. If one opts for confrontation in the industrial relations field, one gets strikes. When strikes occur it is not only big business that gets hurt but also small business, which desperately awaits supplies, suffers. It is small business which will bear the brunt if yet another doomed Liberal Party attack is mounted on the trade union movement. The trade union movement is not perfect. Only a couple of weeks ago in this place I made a speech in which I strongly attacked one union, the Builders Labourers Federation. I will do that again if a trade union behaves in the same irresponsible manner. But when the ACTU and the Government can get together and give Australian workers an increase in their wages that Australia can afford, give Australian employers the certainty of being able to plan for a period of growth, growth that will not be hindered by unchecked wages growth by way of another wages explosion, and make absolutely certain that we will not have to put up with another period of strikes and disputation which will cripple our economy, all that small business has to do is look at the alternative. It will not need to look for very long to realise that what happened under Fraser and Howard can happen again. The only hope that it will not happen again is for the Australian people to stick to the Hawke Government, a government that has delivered on the economy and will continue to do so. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(4.53) —I remind the Senate of two basic facts. Firstly, last week's sweetheart deal between the Hawke Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions can only fuel wage inflation and, therefore, increase inflationary expectations. Secondly, the inevitable consequence of this will be a further rise in interest rates to the detriment of home buyers, small business and primary producers. I found it quite amazing, yet interesting, that Senator Richardson could spend nearly a third of his allocated time talking about the Liberal Party and our Leader, John Howard. Obviously he was rather short of things to say about his Government's record in relation to the matter of public importance which is before us but, of course, that is understandable. It is quite amazing that Senator Richardson should be worried about our concern for small business when this country is confronted by big government that leapt into bed with big unions and big business. I think it is quite amazing that no one on the Government side has yet spoken on the subject matter of this matter of public importance, which covers the disastrous consequences for interest rates of the wages push by the ACTU. It will be very interesting to see whether the Government's final speaker will cover this area or whether he will continue to pursue the angle of industrial relations. This Government cannot avoid the fact that it has retreated from its original pledge to ensure that the effect of devaluation of the Australian dollar would be discounted in future wage rises because it is placing a higher value on its tradeoff with the ACTU than on the general welfare of the Australian people. This Australian Labor Party Government will cause this country to suffer some inevitable consequences of its gutless decisions. I would like to detail some of those. The Government's failure to achieve full discounting will erode the benefit devaluation has given us-the competitive advantage it gives to our struggling export industries. When we look at the dispute at the Mudginberri abattoir it is obvious that this Government really does not care too much about the export industries either. This display of weakness will only cause the international financial community to pass further judgment on the state of the Australian economy. The next such display of collective horse sense, unwelcome as it might be for the Hawke Government, could see the value of the Australian dollar fall to something like 50c against the United States dollar. In order to retain investment funds within Australia interest rates will have to rise further. This situation is in addition to the purely domestic consequences of the retreat from discounting. The Hawke Government refuses to acknowledge that the whole pattern of across the board wage increases, which by their very nature ignore the capacities of individual industries or, for that matter, employers to pay, will result in cost rises being passed on to the consumer. This, in turn, will boost both the consumer price index and, equally importantly, the expectation of continued high inflation that pushes up interest rates. No doubt the Hawke Government, like any socialist government in economic difficulties, would like to ignore these economic facts. However, no government as yet has learned to repeal the law of supply and demand. The Hawke Government would have us believe that the accord is of inestimable value to Australia and that its preservation is worth a few nasty economic consequences. This celebrated accord, however, is nothing more than a trade off between a Labor government and one sectional interest, the members of which happen to be its political paymasters. This is acknowledged by Peter Dawkins and Richard Bandy when writing in the Australian Economic Review for the second quarter of 1985 regarding the wages policy of the accord. They support the contention of the Federal Liberal Party that other interest groups-farmers, small business, the self-employed, the jobless and the smaller States-will have their rights trampled on. The sum total of the equation is that the Australian people lose out with them. Dawkins and Bandy state: The basis of the accord is the power of the unions. On this issue the leaders of the ACTU are quite explicit. They see it as broadening their influence into other areas of society than simply wages and conditions of employment. Put simply, this means that the accord is not a device to protect the living standards of employees but a vehicle for aggrandisement of trade unions and those who run them. Only a few weeks ago the Hawke Government was warning us about the inflationary consequences of wage rises without discounting. That is interesting, and I would like to quote some of the things the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said as recently as 31 July. He was reported as saying that Australia faced an inflation rate of 8 per cent or more in the next year. He also admitted that this would be double the inflation rate of our major trading partners. Mr Hawke equally understands the connection between inflation and interest rates. He said: I have heard it said that inflation to the economist is as sex to the novelist: Both are associated with a rising rate of interest. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in presenting the Budget last month admitted a rise in the Consumer Price Index of 8 per cent this year and a worse inflation rate than that of our trading partners. Both then and at the National Press Club on 21 August he affirmed the commitment of the Hawke Government to full discounting. I wonder what has happened. Last week, however, we were told that there will be no discounting in the September wage case and 2 per cent discounting next March. Well, that is a slight turnaround, is it not? The Treasurer is left with voicing a pious hope that this cave-in `will have virtually the same beneficial effect on inflation outcome'. At the same time the ACTU has had another win over this spineless Government. It has been conceded 3 per cent of its 4 per cent productivity claim-a claim that will, of course, be visited on productive and marginal enterprises alike. Clearly, in any so-called compromise the Government is making the concessions, but the Australian community foots the bill both in job losses and particularly in higher interest rates. We need to look carefully at what is happening to real interest rates under this Government. My colleague Senator Messner covered much of this in his address, but I think some of it bears repeating. In March 1983, when this Government took office, the real interest rate-the difference between the interest rate and the rate of inflation-was 1.4 per cent. Last July, only just over two years later, real interest rates stood at 6 per cent even though nominal interest rates were much the same. Australia's real interest rates are the highest in the Western world. A survey of 26 July which appeared in the Australian gave us a real interest rate that was 2 per cent higher than the rates in Britain, Japan and the United States and double those of France and West Germany. The Commonwealth Bank in June stated that real interest rates were at their highest level for a century and that `interest rates would continue to embody a premium based on higher inflationary expectations'. Professor John Hewson of the University of New South Wales predicted last month that unless wage and monetary policy changed drastically there was no chance of interest rates easing. The bond rate would be running at 14 per cent by the end of this year. The subsequent capitulation by the Hawke Government will make that prediction even more certain. These rises in interest rates have occurred before the full inflationary effect of devaluation has made itself felt. It is inevitable, therefore, that the impact of interest rates on the Australian community, especially home owners, will increase. No honourable senator should delude himself or herself that home buyers can be insulated from this general rise in interest rates. Home loan rates are already on the rise. Maintaining ceilings on home loan interest rates cannot in the longer term protect the mass of home buyers. As interest rates in other areas continue to rise there will simply be fewer funds for home buyers and available funds will be rationed. Senator Messner —That is right. It is already happening. Senator KNOWLES —That is exactly right. This is all part of what this Government sees as redistributing wealth across the board. We believe in creating wealth. This Government believes quite firmly in redistributing wealth. No actions by any government in regulating the home loan sector will prevent Australia's home buyers from suffering from this Government's weakness. Not only has this ALP Government failed to put the interests of ordinary Australians above its political imperatives but also the ACTU has betrayed the very people it purports to represent. The leaders of the ACTU cannot grasp the fact that the workers whom they want to protect from discounting are in many cases home buyers who will suffer from the high interest rates spawned by wage inflation. However, we should not be surprised. The ACTU, in blindly seeking to maintain real wages at all costs, has given no thought to workers in marginal enterprises who stood to lose their jobs in consequence. The whole philosophy of the ACTU and those who stand in this place and apologise for it is to elevate the powers of unions and worry less about the real welfare of unionists, let alone other Australians. That was made sadly clear to all of us once again during the Mudginberri abattoir dispute when Mr Crean went on the record as saying that the so-called rights of individuals were of less account than the collective rights of institutions-powerful, greedy unions who trample on their own members as much as the general community. What the ACTU is out to preserve is not social justice but privilege. Bill Kelty told the Socialist Forum that the accord had provided Australian unionists with benefits unmatched anywhere else in the world. We might dispute whether unionists benefit in the long run, but we can agree that the union movement in Australia secured a uniquely privileged deal through the accord. By surrendering control of economic policy to the ACTU, this ALP socialist Government has condemned Australians to increasing interest rates. Ultimately, however, the Government will be forced to respond to the inflation unleashed by its deal with the ACTU. Its response will have to be a tight monetary policy, again keeping high real interest rates. How ironic that the ACTU bosses who attack the principle of monetarism should by their actions and in collusion with this Labor Government inflict the most negative consequences of monetarism on their own members. I should be very interested to hear what this Government has to say on this subject in preference to that of the industrial relations which it has pursued this afternoon. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.05) —It is not surprising, as I rise to conclude this debate on behalf of the Government, to see the three speakers for the Opposition cloistered together in a fortress mentality on the back bench. That is where they belong. Their arguments have been as effective as their position in the chamber suggests they should be. After all, this was billed to be the first major economic debate by the new dry, or as some of us would say arid, Opposition. It has been the first debate led by the nine billion dollar man, Mr Howard. We shall hear a lot more about the nine billion dollar man as this debate finalises. It is not surprising, given the leadership change in the Liberal Party and the new dry image, that this debate should be ideological in character. What we have heard this afternoon has been a treatise on the theories of the Opposition. It is cause for thought indeed that, rather than have conducted this debate this afternoon, the Senate could have been considering estimates of government appropriations. Then at least the Opposition, committed to small government, could have scrutinised government estimates in order to see whether there was any fat in government Budgets. Opposition members could have done some real work. But they have not. They have chosen ideology so that they can waffle and, by choosing waffle, they have demonstrated how negative and bankrupt they are in terms of real work, real commitment and real results. The Government welcomes this debate. It is a government of achievement compared to an opposition of dismal failure. It is a government characterised by Paul Keating at the historic Press conference announcing the accord mark 2 as a can-do government, a government that confronts the problems, grapples with the issues, pays attention to the real information and comes up with workable solutions which enable economic growth, fuller employment and low inflation. This Government can be compared with the record of the Opposition as a can't-do opposition. The people of Australia cannot be fooled by rhetoric; they cannot be fooled by the painting of winsome scenarios of what might be in a perfect nineteenth century free market economy of small business-something that is not like the real Australian scenario. People cannot be fooled by those pipedreams. They pay attention to performance and results, and they know when their own well-being is being served. That is happening and has happened over the last two and a half years of this Government. In the numerous speeches I have given over that time on matters of public importance in this chamber, I have concentrated on referring the Opposition to the scoreboard. I have run through all the indicator points of how the Opposition did and how the present Government did. It must be a tiresome diatribe and no one on the other side has ever listened. But it is important to note yet again in this context that we halved inflation. We increased employment and lowered unemployment. When the Opposition was in government unemployment rapidly increased and the prospect of jobs for Australians became a bad dream. We have succeeded in achieving economic growth for Australia, thus not only putting people in employment but also opening up opportunities for advancement and promotion. We have had a period of near 5 per cent economic growth end on end, contrasted to negative economic growth when the Opposition was in government. Given now that the new dry Opposition has proclaimed that its objective is to make industrial relations the centrepiece of its whole strategy, the record on the scoreboard shows that during the Fraser years industrial disputation in this country was, unfortunately, at record levels. During the Hawke years it is at a 17-year low and that cannot be easily set aside. Quite apart from the recitation of economic statistics, the truth is that this is a better country to live in; there is more harmony, more order, a greater sense of security, industrial peace and economic achievement. Australians know that. They not only see it in their hip pockets but also feel it as the current mood. Commentators have constantly remarked upon the change. It is important to say that the Opposition now believes that there is a real choice between the parties. I am glad there is, because the people of Australia have now had the sheep's clothing removed from the wolf's back. Once they see the snarling face of the wolf that wants to plunge this country back into economic chaos, high unemployment, high inflation and massive industrial disputation, they will opt for the Government of security, sustained growth and industrial peace. Our approach, contrasted to that of the Opposition, has been aimed at opting for an incomes policy to economic management. Opposition members, now proclaimed as latter day founders of the free market, adopt an approach of free marketeering that is constrained because, after all, they are a coalition by the dead hand of the agrarian socialists in the National Party. One will watch with fascination over the next few years as the internal contradiction between the demands for subsidies and support which the National Party has made its forte conflicts with the so-called deregulative approach of the Liberal Party. Incomes policies of the sort to which this Government is committed are noted empirically by every study on this subject that has been published to achieve low inflation, low unemployment, high levels of growth, a better sense of security and welfare for the people of countries which adopt those policies, a good level of private investment and social and industrial innovation. They are the hallmarks of the sorts of policies we are applying. Importantly, they provide a framework and setting in which external shocks and the effects they give to economies can be minimised, worked through and resolved collectively without unleashing internal turmoil which will cause the negative effects of those external shocks to be exacerbated. The incomes policy approach enables problem solving of the can-do type that Paul Keating talked about. It also enables governments to take bold initiatives which guarantee that those initiatives once taken can succeed. Let me cite an example from the last Hawke Government. It was that Government that floated the Australian dollar. It was that Government that deregulated the financial markets-things that the now latter-day free marketeers claim they would have done but, when they had the opportunity, did not do. We did those things. We opened bank licences for Australia and we introduced 16 new banks to bring some real competition into the financial market. The fundamental contradiction put by Opposition members in this matter of public importance this afternoon is that they are now, by virtue of the rise in interest rates, saying they will intervene in the free financial markets which we have created and of which they refused to take advantage when they had the opportunity. It is a direct contradiction in their policy. They have not come out and said it, but that is the alternative that they impute by the stand they have taken. The only thing that has been said by the Opposition of a positive nature has been that the deficit should have been lower. Senator Messner, the new found financial spokesman for the Opposition, led in this debate by saying that the deficit should be lower. I hark back to this place just three weeks ago, to Budget day 1985, when the now Leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard, challenged the Government to produce a Budget with a deficit of $5 billion. Three weeks ago, as history will record, the deficit came in at $4.9 billion, Senator Messner now says that the deficit is too large. Already, we see that the papering over of the cracks given the new leadership change is beginning to crack open again. We now see the shadow Finance Minister directly at odds by claiming that the deficit that Mr Howard supported, which is higher than the one we brought in, is too high. Senator Messner —We were talking about the 1986-87 Budget. Senator COOK —The 1986-87 Budget will be very interesting. I remind Senator Messner that we now have accord mark 2. It enables us to overcome the negative effects to the economy of the devaluation of the Australian dollar by guaranteeing that we can hold the accord together with a tax-wages trade-off and with a superannuation scheme which will generate funds for investment and expansion and take pressure off the capital and financial markets in this country by making available in a short order a pool of funds of the order of about $3 billion for investment, growth and the opening of new job opportunities. That will happen in the periods which Senator Messner forecasts as gloomy times. They will not be. We have now set the seal for an economic performance that will be unmatched in Australian history. They are bold words, but let me remind the Senate that Australia is now in a situation of economic recovery. In a labour market at a time of economic recovery when there are shortages of various classifications of skill, the bargaining power of key workers or general workers increases vis-a-vis the bargaining power of employers. We are now moving towards that situation. If it were in a free market situation, that bargaining power would make the wages explosion of the last few years of the Fraser Government look like child's play. In a period of 27 months during the last years of the Fraser Government wages exploded to the tune of 28 per cent over the figures for the previous 27 months. In the same period of our Government, wages have gone up by 12 per cent. Honourable senators should bear in mind that the 28 per cent explosion in wages occurred during a period of contraction and recession. What we have been able to do in a period of growth is to hold down wages as a component cost, to reduce the unit cost of labour and to enable the shares of gross domestic product going to wages, and going to profits, to be exchanged in order to guarantee what we have seen as being the return of record profits to industry and business in Australia. That is what has happened. But we are, as I say, in a period of on-going sustained growth when certain shortages of key classifications and skills are showing up in the labour market. If it were deregulated at this point the explosion of 28 per cent that the Liberals experienced would, as I said, be a pipe-dream. The figure would be much higher than that. The accord-importantly, the accord mark 2-will enable wages to be constrained voluntarily, with no loss of purchasing power to wage and salary earners and at no further on-cost to employers. At the key moment of economic growth at which we need to have in place a contract between the Government and the union movement, we have succeeded in cementing one which will enable to continue those shares which I have talked about and the growth that we have forecast. That is the scenario for the future. Let us turn to the situation that occurred in the past. The matter of public importance that we are discussing is meant to focus on interest rates. As the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in leading for the Government, said, he is affronted and offended by the fact that the Opposition should talk to us and lecture us about interest rates. Let us look at its record. In mid-1982 the rates for commercial bills on 90-day acceptance stood at 19.5 per cent. That was one of the interest rates which applied during the time of the previous Government. Two-year Commonwealth bonds were offered at a rate of 16.5 per cent and 15-year Commonwealth bonds were offered at 16.5 per cent. Those interest rates were much higher than those which are being enjoyed in Australia at present, as a result of the policies of this Government. Of course, we would be wrong if we did not recognise that there are pressures on interest rates. That happens to be a feature of economic growth. With expansion and growth there is competition for the available funds in the market place. That is what is occurring in Australia at the moment. The character of the push for borrowings is that we are experiencing an expanding economy and there is competition for funds for expansion and job creation and to pick up market opportunities. Let us compare that situation with that which applied in the dying years of the Fraser Government, when interest rates were being pushed up as people borrowed in order to try to save their businesses and to prevent their doors from closing. If honourable senators opposite want to argue that point, let them look at the number of bankruptcies which occurred then compared with present figures. We are enjoying a period of economic growth. The people who might be paying higher interest rates at least still have confidence in these guarantees. Their income and their next wage rise are guaranteed to be tied to prices and will be guaranteed by a cut in taxes. Their job security is guaranteed by an expanding economy and increasing employment levels. Their promotion opportunities in the business that they operate or in which they work is also guaranteed as the economy expands and diversifies. It is a vastly different economic setting to the one which Opposition senators have talked about. As well, this Government has taken several steps that ought to be noted in this debate, such as the limitation on global borrowing and an agreement between the States which guarantees that gross public sector borrowing will be reduced to 5.6 per cent of GDP, a fall of 1.5 per cent this year. The global borrowing limits have reduced government competition in the market place to that extent. As well, our lower deficit has reduced government competition for funds. The position that we have arrived at by way of the accord is that now it can be guaranteed that the wages and salaries of wage and salary earners will not lose their purchasing power. On that basis there will not be any wages breakout. On that basis there will be an ability by companies to plan expansion, knowing what their future costs will be. There will be an economic environment conducive to providing lower interest rates and lower inflation. There will be greater stability and greater confidence in the economy. In those circumstances it will be steady as she goes, more of the same end-on-end growth, lower unemployment and constant levels of inflation. We predict that, in the Budget which Senator Messner talked about, inflation will be reduced to the 6 per cent to 7 per cent mark and ultimately will return to the 5 per cent level, a level that the Government of which Senator Messner was a part, under Malcolm Fraser, never achieved. The basic and fundamental fact is that the scoreboard results determine the end of the game, and the scoreboard in terms of our performance compared with that of the Opposition is one of security, growth and confidence in Australia. Assent to the following Bills reported: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 Building Industry Bill 1985 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985 Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act and on behalf of the President of the Senate, I present the annual report of the Department of the Senate for the year 1984-85 and, pursuant to resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982, I present the annual report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing for the year 1984-85. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act, I present the annual report of the Joint House Department for the year 1984-85. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated 10 September 1985. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, I present Special Report No. 1 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman relating to the Cotton case involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table the following paper: Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto, pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901, for the year ended on 30 June 1985. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That consideration of the statement in Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.26) —Mr Acting Deputy President, in order to enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 6. Prior to the sitting of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 5.27 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Aboriginal and and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act-Declaration relating to significant Aboriginal objects, dated 21 June 1985 (Gazette No. S 224, 24 June 1985), accompanied by a statement from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Automotive Industry Authority Act-Directions under the Motor Vehicles and Components Development Grants Scheme, dated 29 August 1985. Coral Sea Islands Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 1-Endangered Species (Repeal). Defence Act-Determinations 1985- No. 52-Special Royal Navy Allowance Paid to RAN Members Posted to and Serving in Britain. No. 53-Separation Allowance. No. 54-Meal Allowance Overseas. No. 55-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 56-Temporary Rental Allowance and others. Fisheries Act-Notices- No. 75B-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 75- Restrictions relating to rock lobster pots. No. 136-Prohibition relating to the use and possession of rock lobster pots in certain waters off Victoria. Lands Acquisition Act-Land, etc., acquired for Airport purposes, Eagle Farm, Queensland. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1985-Postal Amendment No. 4. Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Aboriginal Affairs-B. M. Mansell Determinations 1985 Nos 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products). Co-operative Societies. Dog Control. Housing. Plumbers Drainers and Gasfitters Board. Pounds. Motor Traffic. Weights and Measures. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States, dated 20 August 1985 and 3 September 1985. ADMINISTRATOR'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and Sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Fisheries Licences Levy Act 1984-31 August 1985 (Gazette No. S 347, 30 August 1985). Fishing Legislation Amendment Act 1985-31 August 1985 (Gazette No. S 347, 30 August 1985). Health Legislation Amendment Act 1985-Sections 4, 5, 7 and 10-1 September 1985 (Gazette No. S 346, 29 August 1985). Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1985-Section 33-6 September 1985 (Gazette No. S 356, 4 September 1985). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 145) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: 1. What counselling services are available for deaf persons in the Australian Capital Territory. 2. How many interpreters are available to attend counselling sessions with deaf persons in the Australian Capital Territory and by whom are such interpreters employed. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honour- able senator's question: 1. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority offers no specific counselling service for the deaf. Medical practitioners and other health professionals employed by the Authority provide counselling as an integral part of their normal professional activities. The Authority's Independent Living Centre at Macquarie provides advice and counselling about aids for the disabled, including the deaf. Community groups involved with problems of the deaf advertise the provision of counselling services. Advertising and information material is freely available from the Authority's ground floor Information Centre. 2. The Authority is aware of only one deaf interpreter in the Australian Capital Territory. This person is self-employed and is understood to work with community agencies. The National Accreditation Authority (NAATI) is responsible for the accreditation of sign language interpreters in the Australian Capital Territory as well as all translators and interpreters. Advice to the from NAATI is that there are no interpreters for the deaf accredited in the Australian Capital Territory at any level. (Question No. 150) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: Are the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom on the threshold of an agreement designed to bring peace to Northern Ireland; if so, has the United Kingdom released any details of the proposed agreement to the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Government has no information concerning any imminent agreement designed to bring peace to Northern Ireland. I understand, however, that Anglo-Irish discussion are continuing and are addressing such matters as the ways in which the security services, police and judiciary can be made more acceptable to the Northern Irish Catholic minority. The Australian Government welcomes the fact that the consultative process between the British and the Irish is continuing and that good-will remains on both sides in the effort to find a resolution of the Northern Ireland situation. (Question No. 151) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: In view of a report in the Daily Telegraph of 25 March 1985, in which a spokesman for the Department of Immigration is quoted as having said that a 39 year-old Russian seaman, who failed to report back to his ship before it sailed from Sydney on 7 March 1985 and later sought refuge status, would be allowed to stay in Australia only if he was likely to be subjected to human rights violations in the USSR, has any decision yet been made on the future of the seaman; and, if it is decided that he must return to the Soviet Union, what assurances will the Australian Government seek from the Soviet authorities to ensure his safety and protect his human rights. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has granted the seaman refugee status in Australia pursuant to Australia's obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. (Question No. 161) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: How many appeals have been lodged with the Immigration Review Panel for each of the last 3 years and from which States do each of these appeals come. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No of requests received 1982... 2,250 1983... 4,782 1984... 2,716 A breakdown by State of the requests received is not kept. However records of cases not finalised at the end of 1984 show the breakdown by State as follows: per cent New South Wales... 723 49.1 Victoria... 395 26.8 Western Australia... 149 10.1 Queensland... 102 6.9 South Australia... 60 4.1 Australian Capital Territory... 26 1.8 Tasmania... 12 0.8 Northern Territory... 6 0.4 (Question No. 163) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Is the Lefkoniko Airport in Cyprus being readied for the United States Rapid Deployment Force. (2) Is this airport in that part of Cyprus which is currently under Turkish control. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In answer to the honourable senator's question I refer him to my answer to the same question on 11 October 1984. (Question No. 181) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: Is the Attorney-General aware that services provided by the Marriage Guidance Council in the Northern Territory are currently limited by its budget of only $77,000 per annum, which means that it is only able to operate one office in Darwin, to serve the whole Territory; if so: (a) will the Attorney-General outline what prop- osals, if any, the Government has to extend the services offered by the Marriage Guidance Council to those who live in rural and outback areas, in view of the difficulty this poses for people who live hundreds of miles from Darwin, if they wish to use the service; and (b) if the Government has no proposals to extend the Council's facilities, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is assumed that the amount of $77,000 referred to is the grant initially made available to the Marriage Guidance Council of the Northern Territory Inc., for the 1984-85 year which represented a 26 per cent increase over the 1983-84 grant level (The Council lodged an application for a supplementary grant of $13,240 and an additional grant of $10,000 has since been made. This amount together with the financial assistance of $77,000 already given represents over 88 per cent of the agency's revised budgeted expenditure of $98,805 for the year). (a) and (b) The extension of services into other parts of the Territory is a matter for consideration by the Council itself which is an independent autonomous body. Any application for financial assistance received from the Council for the purpose would be considered on its merits having in mind the viability of the proposal including the likely public use of the service, and in the light of the Government's budgetary strategy at the time. (Question No. 189) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) How many applications have been received for the Pensions Loans Scheme by States and Territories. (2) How many approvals have been granted under the pensions loans scheme by States and Territories. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As at 30 May 1985 16 applications for assistance under the pension loans scheme had been received. Six applications have been withdrawn. Applications current were received from the following States: New South Wales... 1 Queensland... 5 Victoria... 2 Tasmania... 2 (2) Two approvals have been granted under the scheme. These applications were received from Victoria and Tasmania. The remaining applications are presently being processed. (Question No. 190) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) How many applications have been made to the Government under the financial hardship provisions of the income and assets test by States and Territories. (2) How many pensioners are receiving assistance under the financial hardship provisions of the income and assets test by States and Territories. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The administrative guidelines for determining claims under the hardship provisions were revised on 26 May 1985. All claims for assistance not granted at that date are being re-examined under the new guidelines. Statistics available prior to the revision of the guidelines are as follows: Claims lodged as at 24.5.85 Claims granted as at 24.5.85 New South Wales... 713 37 Victoria... 493 7 Queensland... 235 15 South Australia... 213 3 Western Australia... 148 1 Tasmania... 37 1 Northern Territory... . . . . Australian Capital Territory... 14 2 (Question No. 218) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: In view of a recent report in the Brisbane Courier Mail concerning the illegal taking and trading of eggs of protected and endangered native birds: (a) Is there any evidence indicating that this trade involves a highly organised national ring, and such activities are widespread in all States; (b) what is the potential danger to our endangered bird species from this trade; (c) what measures are being taken, on an Australia-wide basis, to stamp out this activity both at the point of initial operation, and at the points where hollow birds eggs are sold or leave Australia; and (d) have any arrests been made or charges laid against any person involved in this activity. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) I am unaware of any evidence suggesting that such activities involve a highly organised national ring or are widespread in all States. Nor does there appear to be a highly organised national ring involved in the collection and smuggling out of Australia of viable eggs. Illegal collection of eggs does, however, occur and is of concern. (b) Illegal collection of birds eggs, for whatever purpose, poses a potential danger to endangered birds for a combination of reasons. Removing eggs directly affects the ability of the species to maintain itself. However, the methods of egg collectors can have a more far-reaching effect. Parent birds may abandon any remaining eggs and collectors may also destroy the nesting site in their efforts to obtain the eggs. The practice sometimes followed is to cut trees down to obtain access to eggs. Loss of nesting sites can pose a significant threat to the survival of some species. (c) The collection and possession of eggs of endangered birds is governed by legislation in each State and Territory. Officers of the State and Territory nature conservation agencies, and in some instances State police, are responsible for enforcing this legislation. The export from Australia of such items is governed by the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act which is administered by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Officers of the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police are inspectors under this Act. Since the Act came into effect on 1 May 1984, the penalties for illegally exporting or attempting or conspiring to illegally export native fauna or the products of native fauna are fines of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years for individuals, or fines of up to $200,000 for offences involving corporations. It is inappropriate to provide details of the methods used by the agencies to combat these activities. However, the public, by reporting suspicious activities to their local nature conservation authority or police, have a significant role to play in controlling such activities. At a national level, liaison and co-operation between State, Territory and Commonwealth agencies involved in this and related issues is being strengthened and measures are being developed to facilitate the transfer of information between these agencies. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is also establishing close contacts with its counterparts in countries that are participants in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). (d) The incident reported in the Courier Mail has resulted in 9 people being charged under the New South Wales legislation for collecting 33,000 eggs of protected or endangered birds. There is no evidence suggesting the egg collections were destined for overseas markets. On 11 September 1984, two American citizens were convicted under Western Australian legislation for illegally collecting 29 galah eggs (Cacatua roseicapilla) and 3 long-billed corella eggs (Cacatua tenuirostris). They were also convicted on charges relating to damage of nesting sites. On 12 September 1984, two American citizens coming from Australia were intercepted by United States Customs as they entered the United States. They were found to be in possession of 27 cockatoo and hawk eggs. The prosecution is not yet finalised but the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has provided information to support prosecution. On 5 January 1985, the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory seized 4,509 eggs of which approximately 2,500 have been identified as the eggs of native species. Prosecution on this matter is pending. (Question No. 235) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Given that the recently tabled reports of the Auditor-General indicates severe deficiencies in the financial administration of the National Aboriginal Conference, including the apparent fraudulent negotiation of cheques, is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs concerned that this sort of behaviour by members of a prominent Aboriginal organisation has the potential to bring other Aboriginal organisations into disrepute. (2) Will the Minister take action to ensure that the fraudulent negotiation of cheques referred to in (1) above is followed up, that legal action is taken against those responsible, and that any other breaches of the law, by members of the Conference are investigated and the appropriate legal action is taken. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Legal action is being taken against those responsible and further action will be taken if the need arises. (Question No. 241) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon not- ice, on 22 April 1985: (1) What standards are set by Telecom in relation to each of the following services: (a) Directory Assistance 013; (b) Directory Assistance 0175; (c) Manual Trunk Assistance; (d) Operator-Connected International Calls; (e) Service Assistance 1100; and (f) Emergency Services 000. (2) Have any of the standards referred to in (1) above been altered in the past 2 years; if so, on the basis of what studies or other information were the standards altered. (3) What speed-of-answer statistics are available from each capital city for each of the services referred to in (1) above, for quarterly intervals from 1983 to date. (4) After what period of training is it assumed that a new operator will be able to work at the set standards referred to in (1) above, what is the expected performance in the interim period and are these expectations conveyed to staff when they are recruited. (5) Is Telecom able to provide an estimate of the proportion of callers who fail to enter the queueing system for any of the services referred to in (1) above or who choose to discontinue before an operator is able to provide assistance. (6) What changes have there been in national staffing levels for each of the services referred to in (1) above at 6-monthly intervals since March 1983, and what are the projected levels, at 6-monthly intervals, until March 1987. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) The following answer time objectives are set: (a) Directory Assistance 013; 90 percent of calls to be answered in 10 seconds or less (b) Directory Assistance 0175; 90 percent of calls to be answered in 10 seconds or less (c) Manual Trunk Assistance; 90 percent of calls to be answered in 20 seconds or less (d) Operator-Connected International Calls; 90 percent of calls to be answered in 20 seconds or less (e) Service Assistance 1100; 90 percent of calls to be answered in 10 seconds or less (f) Emergency Services 000; 90 percent of calls to be answered in 5 seconds or less (2) No. The objectives referred to in (1) above have applied for many years. (3) Only combined 013/0175 results are available for Directory Assistance. With this qualification, the information sought is as follows: PERCENTAGE OF CALLS ANSWERED WITHIN OBJECTIVES: DECEMBER 1983-JUNE 1985 Captial city Quarter ended Dec. 1983 Mar. 1984 June 1984 Sept. 1984 Dec. 1984 Mar. 1985 June 1985 % % % % % % % Sydney Dir. Ass.... 56.6 43.9 45.2 51.8 50.8 45.6 57.8 Nat. Trunk... 86.0 79.4 75.9 75.2 71.6 69.1 68.3 Int. Trunk... 91.1 82.8 82.7 68.6 49.2 35.7 44.5 Serv. Ass... 78.3 68.5 72.6 73.1 66.6 54.7 59.5 Emerg. (000)... 99.7 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.7 99.5 99.6 Melbourne Dir. Ass.... 62.3 43.6 45.5 49.6 32.2 34.3 43.8 Nat. Trunk... 85.5 78.1 81.6 89.4 77.8 69.4 87.9 Int. Trunk... 82.2 78.8 69.9 69.8 64.2 59.6 82.8 Serv. Ass.... 71.0 62.9 57.8 58.7 56.4 53.2 60.9 Emerg. (000)... 97.3 99.2 98.1 98.9 96.0 96.0 96.4 Brisbane Dir. Ass.... 61.3 60.7 51.0 55.0 64.0 53.0 67.7 Nat. Trunk... 87.5 88.7 86.7 90.0 79.0 61.0 76.0 Int. Trunk... 86.3 87.3 80.6 83.0 84.0 78.0 74.0 Serv. Ass.... 66.8 66.7 54.3 50.0 54.0 35.0 64.0 Emerg. (000)... 99.0 99.0 99.0 98.0 99.7 99.0 99.0 Adelaide Dir. Ass.... 79.1 73.8 66.7 74.0 58.0 50.1 61.3 Nat. Trunk... 94.5 91.5 93.2 88.0 76.4 73.5 76.9 Int. Trunk... 93.0 89.6 89.0 86.0 74.8 73.9 72.5 Serv. Ass.... 79.4 75.4 67.7 69.0 69.3 59.9 63.6 Emerg. (000)... 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 97.7 96.0 Perth Dir. Ass.... 75.5 61.3 54.3 47.0 45.0 41.0 41.0 Nat. Trunk... 87.5 84.3 84.0 84.0 56.0 66.0 69.0 Int. Trunk... 82.0 80.0 77.0 77.0 52.0 64.0 56.0 Serv. Ass.... 81.3 79.0 68.0 78.0 55.0 52.0 67.0 Emerg. (000)... 99.9 99.8 100.0 97.3 95.3 94.7 96.0 Hobart Dir. Ass.... 80.3 73.9 72.9 72.0 70.5 64.0 72.6 Nat. Trunk... 80.9 75.8 83.1 83.6 84.6 80.9 86.5 Int. Trunk... 87.2 78.9 83.1 74.7 73.1 70.0 87.5 Serv. Ass.... 71.3 71.7 74.6 79.7 77.8 77.1 76.8 Emerg. (000)... 99.5 100.0 99.9 99.6 100.0 99.8 99.6 Canberra Dir. Ass.... 69.6 67.4 45.2 51.8 57.4 42.6 44.7 Nat. Trunk... 81.7 75.5 82.4 71.5 70.4 78.0 83.0 Int. Trunk... 99.0 98.4 98.1 94.0 80.6 76.3 72.0 Serv. Ass.... 82.5 80.2 84.4 83.3 79.8 75.6 76.8 Emerg. (000)... 95.7 93.8 96.5 94.3 95.0 96.2 95.3 (4) Experience shows that it takes from 3-6 months for an operator to become fully proficient following basic training. Staff are expected to show continued and acceptable progress after training, but interim performance standards to be attained by individuals are not specified. (5) The following are the most recent records of call attempts which either failed to enter queueing systems or were abandoned by callers before answer. The figures include repeated attempts, perhaps only a few seconds apart, by the same caller. CALL ATTEMPTS NOT ANSWERED-FOUR WEEKS ENDED 12 JUNE 1985 Capital City Dir. Ass. Nat'l Trunk Int'l Trunk Serv. Ass. Emerg. % % % % % Sydney... 25.5 13.5 44.1 21.0 N.A. Melbourne... 8.3 8.2 15.3 12.3 N.A. Brisbane... 4.9 13.3 13.0 N.A. N.A. Adelaide... 6.2 7.5 17.4 8.0 1.5 Perth... 9.0 8.0 22.0 10.0 0.4 Hobart... 4.3 10.5 15.3 15.8 N.A. (6) Staff numbers for individual service levels are not available for the period March, 1983, to March, 1985, and totals only are shown in the following tables. Also, projected staffing levels are only available at yearly intervals. (a) Past National Staffing Levels Date Number of Staff March 1983... 6628 September 1983... 6414 March 1984... 6140 September 1984... 5883 March 1985... 5880 (b) Projected National Staffing Levels Date Number of Staff June 1985... 5624 June 1986... 5081 June 1987... 4713 (Question No. 247) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) Does the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs maintain only one office in the Northern Territory, located in Darwin. (2) Will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs take action to establish an office of the Department in Alice Springs, so that those who choose to make Central Australia their home can enjoy the same services as other Australians, in view of the large number of people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds who are settling in Alice Springs, and the remoteness, of the nearest office of the Department from Alice Springs. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Department maintains a Regional Office in Darwin which is responsible for dealing directly with the community in delivering post-arrival services and in handling matters such as family migration sponsorship, citizenship, extension of stay and authority to return. Visits to other centres and outlying areas in the Region are undertaken by staff of the Darwin Office. In addition, a Migrant Access Centre and Migrant Resource Centre are operated in Darwin. Both of these provide a range of services for the migrant community at large. (2) The Department regularly reviews both workloads and demands for services in outlying areas. Expenditure and staffing restraints require the careful examination of proposals to extend the existing office network to maximise the benefit to all clients of the Department. New offices are not established without clear justification on the basis of assessed need and taking into account cost/effectiveness considerations. An office in Alice Springs is not considered to be justified at this time. The Department is, however, reviewing the frequency of visits to the area by Regional Office staff. (Question No. 248) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: Is Australia establishing its first embassy in Hungary; if so: (a) what is the purchase price or construction cost of the embassy building; (b) what capital expenditure has been incurred in the embassy's establishment; and (c) what is the total cost of establishment. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. (a) There are no purchase price or construction costs associated with the establishment of the embassy. The Government's intention is to lease suitable office premises and in this regard it is largely dependent on the Hungarian authorities. The embassy is at present accommodated in a hotel. (b) Capital expenditure so far incurred in establishing the embassy amounts to $A98,418. This expenditure was incurred in respect of furniture and fittings ($A70,451) and motor vehicles ($A27,969). The total cost of establishment was $A238,618 (Question No. 274) Senator Missen asked the Minister represen- ting the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environ- ment, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) What is the Government's current estimate of the kangaroo population. (2) Why has the estimate referred to in (1) above been withheld from the general public when it should be available freely under the National Kangaroo Management Program. (3) How does the Government explain the fact that some countries, notably Spain and Italy, have received considerably more kangaroo skins than Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate. (4) How accurate are the ABS figures referred to in (3) above. (5) Does the Government agree that there is a large illegal trade in kangaroo skins. (6) Are kangaroo quotas set at a level to satisfy outstanding European orders. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Aerial surveys of kangaroo habitat were undertaken over extensive areas of Australia during 1984. For those areas surveyed, populations of the Red, Eastern and Western Greys were estimated to be in excess of 10.7 million. Areas surveyed represent approximately 45 per cent of Australia and an estimate of total number of kangaroos would require extrapolation from that figure. (2) The population estimate for those areas surveyed has been derived from pooling survey data from a number of different sources. Estimates for which the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was responsible were made public at the time quotas were set for 1985. Following agreement by the other organisations involved in survey work, their estimates were also made available publicly. (3) The senator may be referring to a recent article `The European Trade in Kangaroo Products' which appeared in Traffic Bulletin Vol. VI No. 5 of 21 January 1985. In this publication, ABS statistics were questioned on the basis of claims by Italian leather dealers. I am not aware of any substantiation of these claims. (4) This question should be directed to the Minister responsible for the ABS. (5) No. Controls on the commercial industry in State kangaroo management programs operate to control kangaroo products entering commercial trade. There is no evidence of a large illegal trade in kangaroo skins available to me. All exports require a permit under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and permits are only issued for kangaroo products taken under approved management programs. Substantial penalties exist for illegal activity. (6) No. In setting quotas no account is taken of export orders. (Question No. 283) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Is the Government aware that between May and August 1984 the Philippines' Forces dropped 300 bombs in a 76-day war in Karandangan, Mindanao, and that on the last day a chemical bomb-reportedly napalm-was dropped; if so, is the Government aware that reference to this incident is contained in a current United Nations report on human rights violations and that a parliamentary committee, under the Philippine Defence Minister, is investigating the incident. (2) Was the napalm bomb referred to in (1) above dropped from a Nomad aircraft. (3) Can the Government give an assurance that no planes given, maintained or modified under the Australian Government's aid program were involved in the incident referred to in (1) above. (4) Will the Australian Government end its military aid and the giving of equipment to the Philippine Government, which so denigrates the value of human life, in view of the constant flow of atrocity stories and appalling violations of human rights in the Philippines. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware of reports that the Armed Forces of the Philippines have used chemical weapons and napalm against Moro National Liberation Front forces in Mindanao. These allegations are being investigated by the Justice Committee of the Philippines National Assembly. The Committee has not yet concluded its inquiry but I understand that the initial investigation by the Committee did not uncover evidence of the use of napalm or chemical weapons. The Government is not aware of any other evidence to substantiate these claims. (2) There is no evidence to suggest that Nomad aircraft have been used to release ordnance of any description. These aircraft, purchased commercially by the Philippines Air Force in 1975, are not fitted with mechanisms to operate any weapons. (3) Assistance relating to aircraft under the Defence Cooperation Program with the Philippines has been confined to developing a maintenance support system for the Nomad aircraft. A Nomad was used to ferry munitions and ground crew during counter-insurgency operations at the Carandangan complex, Lanao del Sur from 5-7 August 1984. A Nomad aircraft was later used for examination of the area as part of Philippine Air Force investigation of allegations that napalm and chemical weapons were used during the operations. (4) The Government supports defence co-operation with regional countries to assist them to develop capabilities to counter external threats and deter the emergence of such threats. The small Philippines program, which has been conducted since 1972, reflects these aims and concentrates on activities which assist in the transfer of technical and managerial skills. The program does not imply, on the part of either Government, endorsement of any or all of the policies of the other. (Question No. 286) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Could the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce confirm that Item 19 of Consolidated By-law No. 8255510, dealing with tariffs on the importing of parts for vintage and veteran motor vehicles, expires on 30 June 1985. (2) Has any directive to replace or extend the by-law referred to in (1) above been made as yet; if so, what is the new rate(s) applicable and what method is applied to calculate this rate; if not, could the Minister explain the likely impact upon a highly specialised Australian service industry with limited lines of supply, of the uncertainty created by not being able to plan more than a few weeks ahead due to departmental bureaucracy. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (i) No; (ii) Provision exists under Part XVA of the Customs Act for Tariff Concession Orders to be issued where goods are not produced and are not capable of being produced in Australia in the normal course of business. The duty rate under a Tariff Concession is 2 per cent which is the same as that which applied under By-law 8255510. The changeover from the By-law System to the Tariff Concession System was announced in 1983 and has been extensively advertised by the Department. The Australian Customs Service is processing applications for concessions in accordance with this legislation. (Question No. 295) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) Could the Minister for Health advise the number of pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions issued for valium syrup for use by children for the years 1979 to 1984. (2) Could the Minister provide the results of examinations by the Drug Evaluation Section and the Adverse Drug Reactions Sections of the Department of Health (see answer to Question No. 472, Hansard, 10 June 1981, p. 3012). Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Valium paediatric syrup 2mg, per 5ml, 100ml is available as an unrestricted pharmaceutical benefit. It is not specifically restricted to the treatment of children and it is not possible to determine how many prescriptions were written for children. However, the following figures represent total pharmaceutical benefit prescribing for this syrup during the years ended 31 December, 1979 to 31 December, 1984. 1979... 8,238 1980... 6,240 1981... 6,548 1982... 5,757 1983... 3,098 1984... 4,393 (2) No relation between diazepam use and the risk of breast cancer had been domonstrated. Animal data indicated that the tumourigenic potential of diazepam is low. Although extrapolation of the results of animal studies to man is difficult, no specific indication that diazepam is carcinogenic was found. (Question No. 300) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) How many medical and non-medical experiments using animals have been undertaken by the Government or Government agencies during the last ten years. (2) What species of animals were used in the experiments referred to in (1) above. (3) For what purposes were the experiments referred to in (1) above undertaken. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Government institutions and agencies that carry out experiments or fund research involving the use of animals are associated with the Health, Primary Industry, and Science Ministries. Relevant laboratories are located in all States as well as the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. The responsibilities of my portfolio only extend to research involving animals conducted by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and this question should also be directed to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Primary Industry. However, no central compilation of animal experimentation is undertaken by the Government and there is no statement available of the number of medical and non-medical experiments conducted by Government agencies over the last ten years nor any breakdown of the purposes of these experiments and the animal species involved. Depending upon the viewpoint of the research worker, an experiment can extend over hours, months or years and there would need to be agreement on what constitutes an experiment before attempting such a compilation. I understand that the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare is addressing the need for statistics on animal experiments to be collected on a uniform basis in the course of its present Inquiry. Most Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research involving the use of animals is concerned with the control and prevention of animal diseases, improved animal husbandry, and the conservation and management of native and introduced fauna. Details of species and numbers of animals used in experiments by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Divisions for the years 1981/82, 1982/83 and 1983/84 are given in Table 1. These figures do not include breeding stock nor animals held in reserve that have yet to be used for research purposes. The statistics in Table 1 were compiled following the establishment within Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Divisions of Animal Experimentation Ethics Committees in accordance with the requirements of the NH&RC/CSIRO AAC `Code of Pratice for the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes'. These Committees are required to maintain `appropriate and adequate records related to animal experimentation'. Earlier details of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's animal experimentation are widely scattered and their compilation would be difficult and the results misleading because of inconsistency in recording. Table 2 gives the number of wildlife animals held by the Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research at its Australian Capital Territory Laboratory. Most of the fauna held by the Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research is run under semi-natural conditions. Some animals may be handled daily, many only once a year, while others are subject to visual observation only. Table 1 NUMBERS OF ANIMALS USED IN CSIRO DIVISIONS FROM 1981-82 to 1983-84 INCLUSIVE Division Year Cattle Sheep Goats Pigs Horses (Donk- eys) Marmo- sets Dogs Rabbits Guinea Pigs Rats Mice Chick- ens Other Animal Health 1981-82 544 3,867 46 70 . . . . . . 136 1,010 1,127 5,686 1,052 . . 1982-83 416 3,926 . . 87 . . . . . . 96 1,057 524 4,307 1,567 . . 1983-84 369 5,705 . . 75 . . . . . . 121 1,265 917 3,797 2,144 . . Animal Production 1981-82 900 18,660 . . 100 2 (3) . . . . 110 . . 320 54,300 12,100 . . 1982-83 685 17,205 . . 100 2 (3) . . . . 110 . . 320 54,300 12,100 (148) 1983-84 679 15,389 . . 100 2 (3) . . . . 110 . . 320 54,349 12,130 (Kanga- roos) Food Research 1981-82 4 45 . . 16 . . . . . . 6 3 41 3,008 250 . . 1982-83 . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 100 3,156 170 . . 1983-84 43 18 . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 172 2,525 250 . . Human Nutrition 1981-82 . . 48 . . 16 . . 38 . . . . . . 4,585 20 . . . . 1982-83 . . 4 . . 9 . . 18 . . . . . . 5,065 . . . . . . 1983-84 . . 36 . . 16 . . 48 . . . . . . 4,665 20 . . . . Molecular Biology 1981-82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . 3,100 47,290 . . . . 1982-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . 61,125 . . . . 1983-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . 45,580 . . . . Plant Industry 1981-82 36 1,620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982-83 36 1,620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1983-84 . . 1,035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tropical Animal Science 1981-82 786 31 3 . . . . . . 19 162 50 648 8,506 . . . . 1982-83 851 62 4 . . . . . . 17 135 32 847 7,994 . . (4) 1983-84 975 54 11 . . . . . . 14 121 24 856 4,511 . . (Camels) Tropical Crops and Pastures 1981-82 1,527 68 17 . . . . . . . . 40 . . 150 . . . . . . 1982-83 1,572 68 . . . . . . . . . . 40 . . 300 . . . . . . 1983-84 1,521 30 . . . . . . . . . . 40 . . 144 . . . . . . Table 2 VERTEBRATE ANIMALS HELD AT CANBERRA, A.C.T., BY THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AND RANGELANDS RESEARCH Species Common name Number 1981 1982 1983 1984 MAMMALS Exotic Species Wild rabbits... 726 390 430 569 Laboratory rabbits... 20 - 24 10 Wild mice... - 500 200 200 Laboratory mice... 50 324 225 150 Brown rat... 2 - - - European red fox... 2 - - - Sheep... 10 - - 3 MARSUPIALS Red kangaroo... 12 3 5 4 Eastern grey kangaroo... 7 5 5 4 Western grey kangaroo... 69 52 52 40 Hill kangaroos... 36 34 34 30 Red necked wallaby... 24 29 29 30 Agile wallaby... 1 - - - Tammar wallaby... 586 657 536 482 Swamp wallaby... 5 4 4 8 Tasmanian bettong... 2 - - - Eastern native cat... 44 26 30 35 Tiger cat... - 4 4 3 Kowari... - - 4 16 Brown antechinus... - - 12 - Brush tailed possum... 82 4 6 4 Northern brown bandicoot... 1 - 20 42 Southern brown bandicoot... - 2 2 2 Long nosed bandicoot... - 3 3 3 Common wombat... 4 6 - - MONOTREMES Echidna... - - - 2 NATIVE RODENTS Bush rat... 6 4 4 7 Swamp rat... 21 - - - Plains rat... - - - 4 Long tailed mouse... 12 - - - BIRDS Exotic Species Blackbird... 3 - - - Starling... 1 - - - Native Species Red rumped parrot... 2 - - - Emu... 2 - - - White Browed scrub wren... 2 - - - White winged chough... 4 - - - Silvereye... 5 - - - Yellow faced honeyeater... 1 - - - Fairy wren... 4 - - - Magpie lark... 3 - - - Freckled duck... - 10 10 25 Pink eared duck... - 2 2 - Black duck... - 4 4 16 Chestnut teal... - 20 20 19 Grey teal... - - - 9 Blue billed duck... - - - 4 (Question No. 307) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) What was the number of bankruptcies in Australia during the financial years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84? (2) What percentage of the bankruptcies referred to in (1) above were associated with the operation and subsequent failure of small business? (3) What is the level of bankruptcies in Queensland compared with the rest of Australia? Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Part (1) and (2) Total number of bankruptcies Percentage of small business bankruptcies 1980-81... 5,154 46.7 per cent 1981-82... 4,575 43.8 per cent 1982-83... 5,151 46.3 per cent 1983-84... 4,909 50.5 per cent * These percentages are estimates extrapolated from the available statistics. Part (3) Bankruptcy District of: 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 NSW/ACT... 1,168 964 1,161 1,161 Victoria... 1,279 1,290 1,315 1,107 Queensland Southern... 666 551 592 746 Central... 12 19 24 29 Northern... 134 812 74 644 87 701 90 865 S.A.... 952 804 912 775 N.T.... 30 30 36 40 W.A.... 626 549 729 705 Tasmania... 287 294 295 256 5,154 4,575 5,151 4,909 Note: The above figures relate only to bankruptcies and orders for administration of estates of deceased debtors under Parts IV and XI respectively of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. They do not include deeds and compositions entered into pursuant to Part X of the Act. (Question No. 310) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Attorney-Gerneral, upon notice, on 21 May 1985: (1) Which Federal Judges were also members of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court at 1 July 1984 (excluding resident ACT Supreme Court Judges). (2) Which of the Federal Judges referred to in (1) above have sat in the ACT Supreme Court since 1 July 1984. (3) On what dates did each Federal Court Judge referred to in (1) above sit in the ACT Supreme Court. (4) On each occasion referred to in (3) above, how much notice of the Judge's availability was given to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Hon. Sir Reginald Smithers, The Hon. Sir Edward Woodward, O.B.E., The Hon. Mr Justice R. J. A. Franki, The Hon. Mr Justice P. G. Evatt, D.S.C., The Hon. Mr Justice R. J. B. St John, The Hon. Mr Justice R. M. Northrop, The Hon. Mr Justice J. D. Davies, The Hon. Mr Justice J. S. Lockhart, The Hon. Mr Justice D. G. P. McGregor, The Hon. Mr Justice I. F. Sheppard, The Hon. Mr Justice T. R. Morling, The Hon. Mr Justice K. J. Jenkinson, The Hon. Mr Justice B. A. Beaumont. (2) and (3) The Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court has advised that during the period from 1 July 1984 to 31 May 1985 the following Federal Court Judges sat in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court on the dates indicated: 1984 1985 McGregor J. July 2,3; 16-19 Feb. 5,8,13 (in Sydney) Aug.4,5; Apr. 19; Sep. 24, 25 (in Sydney); May 20-24; 27-29; Nov. 26-28 Dec. 5; Dec. 7 (in Sydney); Davies J. July 23-26; 30, 31; Aug. 1-3 Oct 2,3; 11; 19; Nov 4; Dec 14, 21; Lockhart J. Aug. 1, 2, (in Sydney); Aug. 14 (in Melbourne); Morling J. Aug. 7; Sep 28; Mar 28; Beaumont J. Feb 12 (in Sydney); Apr 22 (in Sydney); Sheppard J. Feb 11 (in Sydney); Mar 1 (in Sydney); Apr 19 (in Sydney); May 10 (in Sydney); May 31 (in Sydney); St John J. Mar 4-6 Jenkinson J. Mar 11-14; May 27-31 (4) The Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court has advised that no records are kept on the length of notice of a Judge's availability. (Question No. 325) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: As a gesture of goodwill to Tasmania, will the Federal Government undertake to return Tasman Island to the Tasmanian people at a nominal price rather than the commercial price presently being asked. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 31 May 1985 I offered Tasman Island for sale to the State of Tasmania for the nominal sum of $100. (Question No. 327) Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) What is the basis of calculation of the costs of aircraft hours, ship support and patrol boat support shown in Appendix 4 to the Defence Report 1983-84. (2) Are there different methods of calculating the cost of aircraft hours for different types of aircraft; if so, what are they. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The costs of aircraft hours, ship support and patrol boat support shown in Appendix 4 to the Defence Report 1983-84 were calculated on a `Direct Cost' basis. Direct Costs are those costs which can be attributed specifically to the activity and include items such as operating and manpower costs, stores, rations, fuel, maintenance and civil contractor servicing. (2) The direct cost of aircraft hours is calculated on the same basis for each type of aircraft. A flying hour rate is calculated for each aircraft on the basis of: (a) fuel usage; (b) spares consumed; (c) crew costs; (d) service maintenance at depot and squadron levels; and (e) civil contractor servicing costs. Based on the above, the rates per flying hour for the different types of aircraft vary considerably. Some examples are: (a) Airtrainer-$393 per hour; (b) Hercules-$2,504 per hour; (c) Boeing-$5,445 per hour; and (d) F111-$9,472 per hour. (Question No. 330) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 May 1985: Can the Prime Minister advise whether a revolutionary new system of taxation, to which he recently referred in Hobart, has been debated in public forums. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has encouraged considerable community discussion about tax reform, and while in Hobart I outlined the need for such reform and the criteria by which reform proposals should be evaluated. The Government's Draft White Paper on tax reform, released on 4 June, formed the basis for discussions at the National Taxation Summit in July. (Question No. 335) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: What products are currently subject to: (a) quantitative import restrictions; (b) import prohibitions; (c) non-tariff barriers which severely restrict or ban imported products. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (a) Quantitative Import Restrictions TARIFF QUOTA (A) Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Quota - Knitted or crocheted coats, jumpers, cardigans, sweaters and tube tops. - Knitted or crocheted shirts and blouses. - Woven shirts and blouses. - Coats and jackets. - Trousers, jeans and overalls. - Shorts and Male Swimwear. - Women's, girls' and infants' swimwear. - Dresses, dressing gowns, shave coats, kimonos, bathgowns, nightdresses and night shirts. - Sets or garments, suits, tracksuits and rompersuits. - Male pyjamas. - Undergarments for men and boys. - Panties for women, girls and infants. - Brassieres. - Corsets, girdles, panty girdles, corselettes and body suits. - Other garments for women, girls and infants. - Garments of artificial plastic material of rubber and textile fabrics. - Tights, pantyhouse, socks, ankle socks and sockettes. - Footwear and parts for footwear. - Terry towelling, towels and babies napkins. - Bed linen. - Curtains. - Sleeping bags. - Cotton sheeting. - Woven fabrics of man-made fibre. (B) Motor Vehicle Quota - Certain vehicles less than five years of age. (C) Colour Television Receiver Quota - Certain colour television receivers. (D) Developing Country Quota - Sugar confectionery. - Rubber tyres, tyre cases, tyre flaps, inner tubes and interchangeable tyre treads. - Twine, cordage, ropes and cables and articles made therefrom. - Tarpaulins, awnings, sunblinds, tents and camping goods. - Certain made up textile articles, including sunshades, flags, shoe laces, etc. - Ceramic sanitary ware. - Domestic refrigerators less than 200 litres internal capacity. - A.C. motors. - Electric current rectifying assemblies. - Domestic electric fans. - Certain insulated electric wires, cable bars and strip. - Ships and boats not exceeding 150 tons gross register. - Frames for spectacles and goggles. - Slide and film strip projectors. - Loaded cartridges. - Chairs. - Domestic furniture. - Canned ham. - Builders' carpentry and joinery. - Hot rolled products of iron and steel. - Cold rolled products of iron and steel. - Hoop, strip, sheets and plates of iron or steel. - Hot rolled alloy steel. - Tubes and pipes of stainless steel. - Welded tubes and pipes of iron or steel. - Seamles tubes and pipes of iron or steel. - Bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections of iron and steel; hollow mining drill steel; sheet piling of iron or steel. (E) Forum Island Quota - Interior grade plywood less than 5.5mm thickness. - Blockboard. - Passionfruit pulp and juice. - Caribbean pine. - Plastic film and bags. - Matches. - Reconstituted wood. - Furniture and parts therefor. - Certain woven polypropylene bags. IMPORT Licensing - Used, secondhand or disposals earthmoving, construction and material handling machinery and equipment. - Certain used, secondhand or disposals four-wheeled drive vehicles (b) Import Prohibitions. - Goods that are currently subject to import prohibitions are listed in Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. (c) In general, Australia does not use non-tariff barriers to severely restrict or ban imported products for the purpose of protecting domestic industry from import competition. There are, however, a number of measures in place which may indirectly restrict importation of products which do not satisfy health or other safeguards. These include plant and animal quarantine requirements, standards for the protection of human health and safety, copyright protection and markings and product labelling requirements. (Question No. 337) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: Is it the Government's intention to open to Parliamentary committee scrutiny, the No. 2 account of expenditure, which is used to record expenditure on intelligence activities where the financial records relating to those activities contain information which might identify intelligence sources. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: When announcing the Government decision to establish a Parliamentary Committee, the Prime Minister informed Parliament that the Government will be consulting on the details of the Committee's operation. Decisions on these details will be announced in due course. (Question No. 344) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Does Australia have a Government purchasing policy; if so, what is the broad outline of that policy. (2) What, if any, Government purchasing policies are in place in: (a) Japan: (b) U.S.A.; (c) U.K.; (d) Federal Republic of Germany; (e) France; (f) Canada; (g) Republic of Korea; (h) New Zealand; (i) Sweden; and (j) Switzerland (3) Can the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce provide a brief outline of the policies for each country listed in (2) above. (4) Do any of the policies referred to in (2) above involve a firm `buy local' policy; if so, what are the details. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A 20 per cent margin of preference for locally produced goods is applied to Commonwealth purchases. Relevant import duties are taken into account on a notional basis. Preference does not apply to services purchased separately from goods since in the great majority of cases these services necessarily are performed within Australia. Where the 20 per cent general margin would result in an additional cost to the Commonwealth of $200 000 or more, Ministers have discretion over whether or not it should apply. Ministers also review all purchases valued at over $100 000 where application of preference is insufficient to give the contract to a suitable offer of higher Australian content. A group of departments advise Ministers whether, in such cases, a margin of preference of more than 20 per cent is warranted. Factors considered are whether local sourcing would assist the development of competitive high technology industries with growth potential; would assist in establishing or maintaining defence-strategic capabilities; or would avoid significant additional disruption in severely depressed labour markets. Tenderers may be asked to provide additional information on these aspects. The maximum preference margin that may be awarded is 30 per cent. Supplementing these preference margin arrangements, purchasing procedures also provide that Government specifications may not exclude suitable, or reasonably adaptable, Australian or New Zealand-made products; that alternative solutions offered by Australian manufacturers must be considered; that as far as practicable, ordering patterns must be scaled to the minimum economic order requirements of Australian industry; and that briefings be available to unsuccessful tenderers on the reasons why they failed to win orders. These arrangements apply to purchases by all Commonwealth departments and most statutory authorities, however a small number of authorities are restricted by their enabling legislation from applying the preference arrangements in their entirety. (2) With the exception of the Republic of Korea, all of the countries listed are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Details of purchasing policies of members were published by the OECD in its 1976 publication `Government Purchasing-Regulations and Procedures of OECD Member Countries'. Establishing what changes, if any, have taken place in these policies in the intervening period would require approaching each of the relevant countries concerned, since that information is not maintained by departments as a matter of course. More recently, information and comment on aspects of purchasing policies in some of the countries listed in the question (i.e. USA; Canada: UK; Sweden; Japan; France; Federal Republic of Germany) was included in the August 1984 report by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) on Government Purchasing and Offset Policies in Industrial Innovation. I refer the honourable senator to these publications. (3) See (2) above. (4) See (2) above. (Question No. 345) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) What was the gross subsidy equivalent for (a) manufacturing and (b) rural industries for, (i) 1981-82, (ii) 1982-83, and (iii) 1983-84; (2) What was the net subsidy equivalent for (a) manufacturing and (b) rural industries for, (i) 1981-82, (ii) 1982-83, and (iii) 1983-84; (3) What was the consumer tax equivalent for (a) manufacturing and (b) rural industries for, (i) 1981-82, (ii) 1982-83, and (iii) 1983-84. Senator Button —The answer to the honour able senator's question is as follows: Estimates of the gross subsidy equivalent (GSE), net subsidy equivalent (NSE) and consumer tax equivalent (CTE) for manufacturing and agriculture in 1981-82 and 1982-83 are shown in the following table. The estimates for 1983-84 will not be available for some time. ESTIMATES FOR GSE, NSE AND CTE FOR MANUFACTURING AND AGRICULTURE: 1981-82 AND 1982-83 Manufacturing 1981-82a 1982-83b Agricultureb 1981-82 1982-83 ($) ($) ($) ($) GSE... 8,700 9,600 369 650 NSE... 5,800 6,000 101 370 CTE... 10,500 11,400 275 557 (a) Estimates only-figures not published by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) (b) Preliminary-final figures are to be published shortly (c) Excludes assistance to value-adding factors The Senator is referred to the IAC's previous publications, Trends in Assistance to Manufacturing (May 1980-an updated version of this publication will be released shortly) and Assistance to Australian Agriculture (1983), for detailed information on the derivation and interpretation of these measures. In particular, it must be emphasised that these measures only represent income transfers, primarily from consumers to other sections of the community-to factors of production, including employees who are also consumers-resulting from the assistance structure. As such, a number of important qualifications should be made: In the case of the manurfacturing sector, the CTE-which is the amount of income transferred as a result of consumers paying higher prices for both domestically produced goods and imports, through such measures as tariffs, import quotas and discriminatory domestic pricing arrangements for agricultural commodities-is a tax on all consumption, not only final consumption. That is, since some manufactured goods are used as inputs into other manufacturing processes the CTE estimates the tax on both manufactured final goods and the inputs used in the production of these final goods. These transfer measures cannot be used to indicate the economic costs to the community of assistance. The economic costs of assistance are the efficiency losses that occur because resources are not allocated to their most productive uses and because consumption patterns are usually distorted relative to the patterns that would exist if there was no assistance. (Question Nos. 348-375) Senator Chaney asked all Ministers, uponnotice, on 31 May 1985: (1) What was the value of purchases of equipment and services for each statutory authority in the Minister's portfolio for (a) 1979-80; (b) 198-81; (c) 1981-82; (d) 1982-83; and (e) 1983-84. (2) What percentage of the purchase for each statutory authority for the years referred in to (1) above was sourced from Australian industry. (3) What was the value of the purchase for each statutory authority for the years referred to in (1) above by Australian Standard Industrial Classification code and the percentage sourced from Australian industry. Senator Walsh —As indicated above, the honourable senator asked the identical question of all Ministers. With their concurrence, I provide the following answer on behalf of all Ministers: (1), (2) and (3) The details sought by the honourable senator would require a substantial commitment of resources to collect and collate and, even so, it is problematical as to whether the information could be provided in the form requested by the honourable senator. Given its commitment to containing public expenditure and sensible use of resources, this Government is not prepared to authorise the substantial expenditure which would be required to provide an answer to the honourable senator's question. (Question No. 378) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: Can the Minister for Trade give figures on the increase or decrease in Australian trade with South Africa for financial years (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84 and (c) 1984-85, for (i) Australia as a whole and (ii) each Australian State. Senator Button —The following answer to the honourable senator's question has been provided: (i) Australia's trade as a whole is set out below. You may care to note that the only figures available at present for 1984-85 are year to date (YTD) ten months to end of April 1985 Imports Increase or Decrease Exports Increase or Decrease $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 1982-83... 84,944 +47,421 144,533 +137,201 1983-84... 132,365 *281,734 10 months to April 1985(p)... 112,765 178,604 * Includes $110,000,000 recorded as a re-export item and described as a floating structure. (ii) Trade with South Africa by each Australian State IMPORTS 1982-83 Increase or Decrease 1983-84 YTD April 1985(p) EXPORTS 1982-83 Increase or Decrease 1983-84 YTD April 1985(p) $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 New South Wales... 28,278 (+14,820) 43,098 50,242 29,801 (+1,486) 31,287 21,955 Victoria... 27,298 (+12,440) 39,738 28,439 30,764 (+6,399) 37,163 41,541 Queensland... 9,769 (-1,187) 8,582 9,891 4,759 (+9,883) 14,642 13,165 South Australia... 3,729 (+3,945) 7,674 4,935 12,403 (+3,090) 15,493 10,537 Western Australia... 12,695 (+14,183) 26,878 15,138 62,098 (+2,079) 64,177 85,521 Tasmania... 3,029 (+3,187) 6,216 4,111 653 (+2,784) 3,437 1,398 Northern Territory... 10 (-9) 1 . . . . (+58) 58 42 Australian Capital Territory... 136 (+43) 179 2) 4 9 Re-exports... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,978 (+111,497) 115,475 4,436 (p) = preliminary and subject to revision n.a. = not applicable Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (Question No. 381) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 31 May 1985. (1) When a dog is injured on a street in the Australian Capital Territory, does the dog patrolman take the animal to a veterinary surgeon or is the dog destroyed at the scene of the injury. (2) What training in animal euthanasia do Australian Capital Territory dog patrolmen receive. Senator Gietzelt —The following answer has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) This is left to the patrolman's discretion. (2) They are trained in humane methods of animal euthanasia by the Government veterinarian. However, Australian Capital Territory dog patrolmen do not carry or use restricted or dangerous drugs. (Question No. 382) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) What hours is the Australian Capital Territory dog pound open: (a) week-days; (b) week-ends; and (c) public holidays. (2) What are the fees for reclaiming dogs from the dog pound. (3) What is the fee to purchase a dog from the pound. (4) What is included in the purchase fee. (5) Does the Australian Capital Territory Dog Pound have a resident caretaker. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. (b) 8.00 a.m.to 4.00 p.m.on Saturdays only. (c) Closed (2) If the period that has elapsed since a dog was seized does not exceed 24 hours - a fee of $27; If that period exceeds 24 hours but does not exceed 48 hours-a fee of $41; and if that period exceeds 48 hours-a fee of $55.00 (3) $69.50 plus the fees charged by a veterinary surgeon of the purchaser's choice for examination of the dog for disease and any necessary immunization and for sterilizing the dog if it is over 6 months old. (4) The purchase price consists of $55 poundage, $12 transportation charge and $2.50 registration fee plus veterinary charges mentioned in (3). (5) No. (Question No. 383) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Does the Australian Capital Territory Dog Pound have a veterinary surgeon check incoming dogs. (2) How is the spread of disease prevented without veterinary assistance. (3) Are dogs checked daily by a Government veterinarian or does that veterinarian only destroy pound dogs. (4) What action is taken if a dog is in need of veterinary attention while at the pound. (5) Are pound dogs ever destroyed by shooting, if so, where does the destruction take place. (6) Are all pound dogs destroyed by a veterinarian at the pound. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) A check by a veterinary surgeon will be made if necessary. However this decision is left to the trained pound staff. (2) The spread of disease is prevented by strict hygiene. Veterinary assistance is available and sought whenever necessary. (3) Checks on a daily basis are normally carried out by the trained pound staff. Destruction of unwanted pound dogs is only a part of the Government Veterinarian's duties, which also include checking the dogs whenever required. (4) Dogs anywhere under pound staff control are given protection, care, and veterinary attention whenever necessary. (5) Dogs may be destroyed anywhere by shooting with due regard to safety but it is a method of last resort and is only occasionally used. (6) While less than half the impounded dogs are recovered by their owners, humane euthanasia by a veterinarian is arranged for the unwanted remainder. (Question No. 384) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: In 1984, how many- (a) dogs were collected by the Australian Capital Territory Dog Patrol per day per van; (b) residences were visited regarding complaints involving dogs; (c) residences were visited regarding dog registration; (d) dogs were found to be unregistered when visits to residences took place; (e) prosecutions commenced for owning non-registered dogs; (f) dogs were sold by the Dog Pound; (g) dogs were destroyed; and (h) dogs were returned to their owners. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (a) The information maintained concerning the operation of the dog patrols is not in the form which allows this statistic to be extracted. However an examination of a random sample indicated an average collection rate of 2.5 dogs per van per day. (b) As in (a) above, details sought are not readily available. However, 2,885 complaints were lodged about dogs in 1984 including requests to remove dead animals and collect stray dogs. An analysis of a sample indicates that 34 per cent of complaints involved visits to residences for purposes other than the removal and collection of animals. (c) Details not available. (d) Details not available. (e) Three. (f) Two. (g) 855. (h) 663. Senator Gareth Evans —On 16 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2070) Senator Puplick asked me, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, a question without notice relating to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Attorney-General has provided me with the following additional information in answer to Senator Puplick's question: The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to which Senator Puplick referred is Re Joyce E. Shewcroft and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (27 February 1985). The Tribunal considered the operation of section 24 of the Act which permits agencies and Ministers to refuse an applicant access to documents if giving access would substantially and unreasonably divert resources from other operations. One of the issues before the Tribunal was whether the motive of the applicant could be taken into account in applying this provision. Contrary to the impression which the honourable senator has of the finding of the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not find that the request was made in order to embarass the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that the applicant had a genuine personal interest in the information in question and that access might also serve the public interest. Without holding that it was necessarily entitled to do so, the Tribunal took this into account in the applicant's favour but nevertheless still upheld the claim of the Corporation to refuse the request on the basis of section 24 of the Act. Since, to the extent to which the Tribunal took motive into account the applicant was favoured in reaching its decision, there was no occasion to consider an appeal. In its Report on the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and aspects of the Archives Bill 1978 (paragraph 8.1), the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs said: `The premise on which the whole Freedom of Information Bill is constructed is that access to information is a matter of right and not something which is dependent on a showing of interest or need to know in any particular case'. In introducing the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 in the Senate the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, said: `Access to information under the Bill will not depend on the person seeking access having to show a special interest in obtaining information. Lack of a special interest will not be a ground on which information can be withheld' (Hansard 9 June 1978, page 2689). In introducing the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 1983 in the Senate on 2 June 1983 the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, did not refer to the question whether the motive of applicants is a matter to be taken into account by tribunals and courts. Since there has been no decision of the Tribunal or of the Courts which is contrary to the principle in issue, the question of amending the Act as suggested by the Honourable Senator does not arise. There are cases in which the Tribunal has suggested that the Act should be applied in favour of persons having access to documents relating to their own affairs, but that is not regarded as being in breach of the principle referred to-see the 1983-1984 Annual Report by the Attorney-General on the Freedom of Information Act, paragraph 4.7.3. At the same time it should be noted that the motive of an applicant in seeking access to documents may be relevant to the question whether access should be given as an exercise of discretion even though the request might otherwise properly be refused under an exception or exemption in the Act. Moreover, it may also be relevant to the question of remission of charges payable under the Act. (Question No. 139) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Is Australia a member of the Paris Convention on land-based pollution of the sea; if so, is it a voting member. (2) Has Australia ratified the Paris Convention; if not, why not, and when does it intend to do so. (3) Will the Government support a recommendation from the Greenpeace Organisation to achieve `zero' emission of radioactive waste from Sellafield in 2 years by the application of up-to-date technology. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia is not a party to the Paris Convention on land-based pollution of the sea. The Paris Convention relates to discharges of pollutants from contiguous land-based sources into parts of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and their dependant seas. The Convention restricts membership to invited States. Australia has not been invited to become a member. (2) See (1) above. (3) The Australian Government opposes the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea. However, since Australian is not a contracting party to the Paris Convention, it is unable to support recommendations in that forum. (Question No. 140) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Does the Government intend to ratify the London Dumping Convention before the London Dumping Convention meeting in September 1985: if not, why not. (2) What instruction will be given to Australia's representatives in relation to the following matters: (a) ocean dumping and seabed emplacement of nuclear waste materials; and (b) a Scandinavian initiative for a 10 year phase-out period for ocean dumping. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. Yes. 2. The Government is vigorously opposed to the dumping of nuclear waste at sea, as announced in its response to the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council report on Australia's role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (tabled in Parliament on 23 May 1985). Briefing for the Australian delegation to the September 1985 meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Dumping Convention has yet to be prepared, but will reflect the Government's announced policy. (Question No. 149) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) What has been the funding, including salaries, from: (a) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization appropriations; and (b) other sources, in each of the financial years 1981-82 to 1983-84 inclusive for CSIRO research in-(i) direct solar energy, (ii) wind energy, and (iii) biomass energy. (2) Will the Minister for Science provide the title of each project referred to in (1) above and a short description and the names of the CSIRO Divisions involved. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The information is contained in the attached table. (2) The title and short description of each of the projects referred to in 1, and the names of the CSIRO Divisions involved, are as follows: DIRECT SOLAR ENERGY Greenhouse Design-Centre for Irrigation Research. Traditional greenhouses consume large amounts of fossil energy (oil, electricity) to maintain the required temperature range. In this project a low-energy greenhouse has been developed, which achieves the same result using solar radiation, with possible monetary savings of up to 80%. Solar Energy Storage-Division of Applied Organic Chemistry. This project consisted of chemical research aimed at improving the performance of flat-plate solar collectors and developing efficient photovoltaic cells. Solar Energy Research-Division of Mechanical Engineering. This project consisted of fundamental and engineering research into the basic heat and mass transfer processes needed in thermal applications of solar energy. Systems studied included high-temperature collectors, tropical cooling systems and low-energy greenhouses. Solar Energy Systems-Divisions of Energy Chemistry, Energy Technology and Mineral Chemistry. The project includes improving the performance of flat-plate domestic solar collectors, developing high-temperature collectors for industrial use, measuring solar radiation in selected locations, developing photovoltaic cells and using solar energy to obtain hydrogen from water. Ion-Beam Deposited Thin Film Coatings For Solar Energy Devices-Division of Applied Physics. Research into the deposition of thin films by ion bombardment to improve the quality and reduce the cost of such films for use in solar conversion technology. Solar Cell Manufacture using Ion Implantation-Division of Chemical Physics. In this project ion implantation and rapid annealing have been used in the doping stage of solar cell manufacture using single crystal silicon. Satisfactory solar cell performance was achieved, but capital costs will restrict utility to large systems with throughputs of several megawatts per year. WIND ENERGY Hydrology and Climatology-Division of Land Use Research. The wind energy research project was aimed at assessing the potential of Australia's wind energy resources. The project included a survey to determine which areas might be suitable for wind power generation. Wind Power Assessment for Tasmania-Divisions of Mathematics and Statistics, and Water and Land Resources. This project involves the installation of wind monitoring and recording equipment in two locations in coastal north west Tasmania, the analysis of data collected together with data from Cape Grim, and a computer simulation and probabalistic modelling study of the integration of wind power from the area into the State electricity grid. Integration of Windpower on a Large Scale into State Electricity Grids with Short Term Storage-Division of Mathematics and Statistics. The project was aimed at determining how much wind power could be incorporated into State grids before substantial operational difficulties and increased costs resulted from temporal fluctuations in wind and losses of wind energy in off-peak periods. The project also involved an economic optimization of the operation and planning of State grids with wind power capacity and storage. BIOMASS ENERGY Biotechnology-Division of Chemical Technology. This project consists of the study of the application of biotechnology to the production of liquids and gaseous fuels from plant biomass such as agricultural crops, algae, trees and from the residues left over from agricultural and forestry activities. Agro-Industrial Systems-Division of Chemical Technology. This project consisted of the exploration of possibilities for the increased utilization of agricultural materials, particularly lignocellulose, through greater integration between agriculture and industrial processing, to produce fuel. Project Crop-Fuel-Division of Plant Industry. Oilseed oils can be used in diesel engines as partial substitutes for distillate. This project includes research on the nutritional and water requirements of oilseed crops and the breeding of oilseed crops suitable for Australian agricultural conditions. New Crops and Technology-Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. Ethanol has been widely suggested as a partial substitute for petrol, leading eventually to the adoption of petrol/ethanol blends. This project investigates the potential of forage sorghums in northern Australia as sources of fermentables for ethanol production. CSIRO RESEARCH EXPENDITURE (All figures show expenditure in $'000s) Type of Research 1981-82 Approp. Other Total 1982-83 Approp. Other Total 1983-84 Approp. Other Total Direct Solar Energy... 2,235 334 2,569 2,748 245 2,993 3,453 145 3,598 Wind Energy... 191 27 218 135 1 136 120 23 143 Biomass Energy... 1,280 193 1,473 1,350 39 1,389 1,311 144 1,455 Approp: Funded from CSIRO Appropriation Other: Funded from other sources. (Question No. 171) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Which social welfare payments paid by the Department of Social Security are neither income-tested nor subject to taxation. (2) For each of the above payments, what are the reasons for the exemption from both an income test and taxation. (3) Have such payments always been free from an income test and taxation; if so, how long have they been paid on the current basis. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following social welfare payments paid by the Department of Social Security are neither income-tested nor taxed: (a) Family allowances. (b) Invalid pension when paid to the permanently blind below age pension age and additional pension for the first child of blind pensioners. (c) Handicapped child's allowance paid in respect of severely handicapped children. (d) Double orphan's pension. (e) Mobility allowance. (f) Incentive allowance. (g) Remote area allowance. Remote area allowance and incentive allowance are only available to those in receipt of an income-tested payment, but the allowances themselves are not subject to an income test or taxation. (2)- (a) Family allowances were introduced in 1976 to replace the previous system of child endowment and tax rebates for children. Family allowances, like tax rebates, have the effect of increasing the effective tax threshold for families with eligible children. The major argument in favour of the allowances retaining their income-test free, tax-free status that is generally put is that, at any income level, families with children have a lower capacity to pay tax than individuals or similar families without children. (b) The means test for blind invalid pensioners was abolished in 1954, primarily in order to promote work incentives. Age and invalid pensions were exempted from income tax in 1941. Most basic social security payments again became taxable in 1976, the major exception being invalid pension (including invalid pension for the permanently blind) for those below age pension age. The main reason for this appears to be the argument that any decision to tax invalid pension would create undue disincentives for the disabled and the blind to seek and retain employment, given the special difficulties they experience in this regard. (c) to (e) Handicapped child's allowance, double orphan's pension and mobility allowance are paid in recognition of the special circumstances of recipients of these payments, and it has been the view of successive governments that income-testing and/or taxing such payments would be inappropriate. (f) Incentive allowance is intended to eliminate any disincentive effect that the supplementary (rent) assistance income test has on earnings of sheltered workshop employees and it has therefore been considered inappropriate to income-test or tax the payment. (g) Remote area allowance provides broadly equivalent assistance to that available to taxpayers through the income tax Zone A rebate and is neither income-tested nor taxed in order to maintain this equivalence with the zone rebate. (3) Family allowances, handicapped child's allowance, double orphan's pension and the mobility, incentive and remote area allowances have been free of income tests and taxation since their introduction. Invalid pension paid to the permanently blind has been exempt from tax since 1941 and free of income test since 1954. (Question No. 256) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Has the International Atomic Energy Agency been invited by the Soviet Union to inspect its nuclear power station; if so: (a) can the Soviet Union dictate which of its installations are to the inspected; if so, will the Soviet Union offer only one type of reactor, the Russian pressurised water reactor, for inspection; and (b) does the Soviet Union also use graphite-moderated reactors which can produce weapons-grade plutonium and did the Soviet Union not offer this reactor type for inspection. (2) In view of the principle that inspections are not to interfere with national sovereignty, does this indicate that the IAEA is a useless body and that there are, in fact, no adequate safeguards to ensure that countries with nuclear reactors are not re-processing uranium to produce nuclear weapons. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Agreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in the Soviet Union was signed on 21 February 1985. (a) Nuclear weapon states are under no obligation through their membership of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accept IAEA safeguards on any or all of their nuclear facilities. Their safeguards agreements with the IAEA are consequently described as `voluntary offer' agreements, the scope of which is determined by the offering nuclear weapon state. The agreement between the Soviet Union and the IAEA specifies that `some of its peaceful nuclear facilities, namely several nuclear power stations and nuclear research reactors' will be placed under IAEA safeguards. Under the agreement the Soviet Union is to provide the IAEA with a list of facilities offered for the application of safeguards and the IAEA is to select facilities for safeguarding from the list. The details of the facilities offered and selected are not known. (b) The Soviet Union has graphite-moderated reactors, but as indicated above it is not known whether such reactors are included in the voluntary offer. (2) I am not sure what is meant by the honourable senator's suggestion that IAEA inspections are not to interfere with national sovereignty. When a state enters into a safeguards agreement with the IAEA that state necessarily accepts as legally binding the obligations contained in the agreement. The nature of these obligations depends on whether the particular state is a nuclear weapons state or a non-nuclear weapons state. In the case of a nuclear weapons state, where by definition the acquisition of nuclear weapons is not an issue, the obligations as to submission of nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections are as outlined in (1) (a) above. Non- nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT, which of course constitute the vast majority of states with which the IAEA has safeguards agreements, are obliged to place all of their nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards thereby providing an assurance that any nuclear material within that state is not diverted from peaceful uses. (Question No. 275) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) How many outstanding applications are there from overseas zoos and scientific institutions for koalas. (2) Why are the applications referred to in (1) above not gazetted in the Commonwealth Gazette, as required by the Wildlife Protection Act. (3) What moneys have been allocated for research into koala disease. (4) What action has the Government taken, or does it intend to take, to eradicate the disease Chlamydia psittaci, and what action is being taken to protect remaining koala habitats. (5) Why was information about a meeting convened in Canberra during December 1984 by Professor Ovington withheld from the public and animal welfare groups. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are presently 5 outstanding applications from overseas zoos seeking koalas. No applications have been received from scientific institutions. Zoo applications outstanding are: (a) Tennoji Zoo, Osaka, Japan (b) Higashijama Zoo, Nagoya, Japan (c) Tama Zoo, Tokyo, Japan (d) Ramat-Gan Zoo, Tel Aviv, Israel (e) San Francisco Zoo, California, USA (2) The applications were gazetted in the Commonwealth Gazette on 24 June 1985. (3) Research into koala diseases has been undertaken at a number of Australian scientific institutions. The University of Queensland and Monash University have had research programs running for several years. Scientists from these universities sought assistance from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in December 1984. Interim funds totalling $18,300 were provided to enable the research to continue until the end of the 1984-85 financial year. ANPWS is preparing a long term program of research and survey work and is seeking additional funds in the coming Budget. On 6 June 1985 the Minister announced a joint program for koala conservation with the American Express Company. Under the agreed arrangements the company is to provide a minimum of $200,000 for the program. (4) There are at present no feasible methods for eradicating the disease organism Chlamydia psittaci which is widespread in wild and domesticated animals. The Government recognises the need of further research into koala diseases. Primary responsibility for the management of koala habitat rests with the State governments. The Commonwealth is, however, willing to consider any requests from the State governments for assistance in managing koala populations. (5) On 20 December 1984, ANPWS convened a meeting of veterinarians, scientist and government wildlife officers currently engaged in research on koalas. The summary record of the meeting, following approval by the participants, has been made available to any members of the public who have expressed interest. A further meeting of the group took place on 9 July 1985. (Question No. 287) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) In respect of each piece or lot of land owned by the Commonwealth of Australia and its authorities, corporations, and undertakings, what is the: (a) position or general location; (b) area; (c) value; (d) date at which such valuation was made; and (e) use to which the land is put. (2) In respect of each piece or lot of land leased by the Commonwealth of Australia and its authorities, corporations, and undertakings, what is the: (a) position or general location; (b) area; (c) value; (d) date at which such valuation was made; and (e) use to which the ld is put. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Information in the form sought in the honourable senator's question is not readily available. To obtain this information in relation to some 22,500 owned and leased properties would require considerable effort and staff resources which I am not prepared to authorise. In general, however, the position is that information on land holdings of corporations which are companies, incorporated bodies or statutory authorities which are not subject to the Lands Acquisition Act 1955, is not held by my Department because these bodies are responsible for acquisition and management of their own property. In relation to question (1) (a) and (b) the following table shows an aggregate disposition of Commonwealth owned land in respect of which my Department keeps records, as at 15 May 1985: NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Total ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 68,090 13,814 334,698 707,964 432,826 15,972 26,589 1,599,953 In addition, the following land is secured in parcels which are partly owned and partly leased: NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Total ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 15,284 56,358 98,449 15,563 240 24,862 1,059,853 1,270,609 In relation to question (1) (c) and (d), valuations are obtained only as necessary, e.g. before acquisition or when transfer or disposal is being considered. Valuations obtained are retained on files but are not normally recorded on my Department's Property Information Management System because the information is not required for day-to-day management of the property portfolio. A good proportion of the land holdings involved are of small size and value, such as those used for radio repeater sites in remote locations. The information you seek would need to be extracted manually in respect of each of these properties. In relation to question (1) (e) land may be acquired by the Commonwealth only for public purposes, i.e. a purpose for which the Commonwealth has the power to make laws. The largest parcels of land used by the Commonwealth are most commonly held for defence purposes whilst the smallest are most frequently used for communications or transport facilities. In relation to question (2) (a) and (b) the following table shows the aggregate disposition of land leased by the Commonwealth and for which my Department holds records as at 15 May 1985: NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT Total ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 81,735 1,353 38,895 192,718 6,873 27,219 852 349,645 In relation to question (2) (c), (d) and (e), the answer parallels that to question (1) (c), (d) and (e) except that leased land is not normally valued other than to establish an appropriate rental. (Question No. 323) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) On what date was the removal of asbestos from the National Library commenced. (2) How much longer is the process of asbestos removal expected to take. (3) What is the reason for the removal taking so long. (4) To what extent has the inordinately long time taken led to industrial problems within the National Library and staff disruption. (5) What are the estimated costs of the removal of the asbestos and the time lost due to industrial disputes. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The National Capital Development Commission issued a letter of acceptance to the contractor on 25 June 1984. The actual removal of asbestos did not start until 18 October 1984 because it was necessary for the contractor to conduct a series of smoke tests to establish the integrity of the plastic screen to be used. (2) All major asbestos removal is expected to be completed by August 1985. (3) The most significant problem which faced the contractor was his ability to obtain and train a suitable workforce to effectively and efficiently complete the project. There has been a very high turnover of staff because the work is hard and very tedious. The fire which occurred on 8 March 1985 also caused significant delays to the project. (5) The current authorisation for the project is $1,600,547 and 7 days have been lost due to industrial delays. The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to part 4 of the question: (4) There has been no industrial action by National Library staff related to the removal of asbestos from the building since the removal commenced. Some disruption to the Library's services had been anticipated once a decision had been made to remove the asbestos. Although the Library took all steps possible to reduce inconvenience to users and staff, there have been delays in several services to users. From July 1984 to the end of May 1985 the Library has been evacuated on 14 afternoons and 8 evenings. The need to vacate floor 4 of the Library building while the asbestos is being removed has placed pressure on staff accommodation, limited conference facilities and limited reader services facilities. It has also necessitated the out-housing of approximately 3,000 sq. metres of library materials which has caused delays in providing access to these materials to the Library's clients. (Question No. 338) Senator Collard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: (1) Does the provision of the Navigation Act 1912 (the Act), Schedule 1, Page 311, Regulation 14, deem the Commonwealth Government responsible for issuing warnings on matters affecting navigation within port limits (see answer to question No. 415, Hansard, House of Representatives, 13 May 1985, p. 2238). (2) Does the provision of the Act, Page 124, Part IV, Division 13, Section 269A, infer a duty on the Commonwealth to transmit any serious danger to navigation. (3) What power does the Commonwealth have to delegate or sub-contract its responsibilities under the Act. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Within Australia the Federal Government has arranged for the provision of aids to navigation in the following manner: The Commonwealth is responsible for the provision and maintenance of those aids to navigation necessary for the efficient marking of the coastal shipping tracks outside port limits, used by vessels navigating the coast of Australia. The provision of port, river and inner aids to navigation is the agreed responsibility of the State and Territory Governments concerned. In accordance with this division of responsibility it is a matter for each authority to issue navigational warnings with respect to aids they provide. (2) Section 269A of the Navigation Act 1912 imposes a duty on the master of a ship to transmit certain messages relating to serious dangers to navigation in such a manner that they can be directly received by other ships at sea. Where appropriate, warnings relating to these events, including those set out in sub-section 6 of this section are rebroadcast as navigational warnings by coast radio stations in accordance with directions set out by the Department of Transport. (3) The power to delegate responsibilities under the Navigation Act 1912 are set out in section 9 of the Act. Section 9 provides that the Minister may delegate any of his powers or functions under the Act, other than the power of delegation. (Question No. 379) Senator Collard asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (a) given that some 35 to 40 nurses are now employed on a fee for service basis has the Department costed the proposed change which will transfer the work presently done by these nurses to the Repatriation General Hospital; (b) does the Department plan to provide a fleet of cars for the work use of these new positions; (c) has the Department considered increased costs associated with superannuation and holiday benefits, etc., to be offered under the new arrangements; and; (d) has the Department considered the costs associated with the increased bureaucracy associated with these changes, bearing in mind that it will now be required that all administrative and medical decisions, prescriptions and medicines etc. be obtained through the Repatriation General Hospital rather than directly from individual doctors, pharmacies etc. who have traditionally provided good service. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government's decision to review the arrangements for providing domiciliary nursing care to Department of Veterans' Affairs clients in Tasmania was made in the interest of reducing expenditure on these services. There was particular concern that, in 1982/83 for example, Tasmanian Branch expenditure on domiciliary nursing represented 11.6 per cent of national expenditure, despite Tasmania having only about 4 per cent of Department of Veterans' Affairs clients. An investigation of cost control options was undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Following this investigation, the Government decided to end using fee-for-service providers and to provide services using Departmental employees. This decision is presently under review following a request by the Tasmanian Minister for Health Services that the State be given the opportunity to consider the possibility of providing all the domiciliary nursing needs of my Department's entitled beneficiaries. Discussions are taking place between Commonwealth and State officials on this matter. Another option is also being investigated. Against this background, the answers to the specific questions asked by the honourable senator are as follows: (a) Yes. (There are in fact some 90 nurses now employed on a fee for service basis); (b) No. Under the proposed arrangements, nurses would receive a mileage allowance for the use of their own vehicles, as is the case under existing arrangements; (c) Yes. (d) Under the proposed new arrangements, it would not be the case that `all administrative and medical decisions, prescriptions and medicines etc.' would be obtained through the Repatriation General Hospital.Most decisions on these matters would continue to be made by the existing network of local medical officers. (Question No. 42) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Aviation been drawn to a recent publication entitled Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom by Dick Smith; if so, has the Minister noted Mr Smith's claims regarding the failure of the Department of Aviation to register the Swearingen Metro III aircraft, and the claim that the Metro III aircraft is in fact a safer aircraft than the Metro II aircraft which is registered to operate in Australia. (2) Has the Metro III aircraft been registered to operate by the civil aviation authorities in the United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany. (3) Do the regulations upon which the decision to refuse registration of the Metro III aircraft date back to the 1950s, are they still in force for the determination of such matters and do the criteria set forth in SFAR-41, modifying some of these specifications, constitute unreasonable demands on aircraft manufacturers. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: My attention has been drawn to Mr Smith's publication and I have noted his claims. On 1 March 1985 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure announced that it had decided to look into the issues raised by Mr Smith. A sub-committee chaired by Mrs Ros Kelly, MP, was formed for this purpose. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to refrain for the moment from giving detailed answers to questions on these subjects until the sub-committee has completed its task. However the following brief comment on the technical aspects of the question may be of assistance. Two broad categories of aircraft are recognised through international consensus. A maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 5,700kg represents the dividing line between the `small' and `transport' categories. Different standards of design, maintenance, crewing and general operating conditions apply to aircraft in each of these categories with the more stringent requirements applying to transport aircraft types. The Metro II has been certificated for operations in the `small' aircraft category. The Metro III has been designed and built to standards applicable to `small' aircraft (i.e. MTOW below 5,700kg) and it has not been certificated to operate at weights above 5,700kg in Australia. The US regulatory authorities have permitted some aircraft types, including the Metro III, to operate at weights in excess of 12,500lbs although they are designed only to the standards for `small' aircraft. This departure from internationally accepted practice is allowed by the US authorities only in the case of aircraft that are designed and produced before certain specified dates. Other countries are considering whether they also will allow the operation of `overweight' aircraft, and under what conditions. Present indications are that countries such as the U.K. and Canada have imposed or will impose certain safety related requirements that are additional to the requirements set by the U.S. authorities. At this time my Department believes that several countries besides USA may be operating Metro III aircraft of MTOW above 12,500lbs with special conditions. My Department's approach is similar to that of the U.K. and Canadian authorities. Action is well advanced, in consultation with the aviation industry, to introduce such a provision subject to certain safety related requirements being met. (Question No. 51) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Attorney-General aware of an article by David Combe published in the March 1985 issue of the magazine Matilda; if so, can the Attorney-General provide any information about the 2 allegations contained in the article, firstly, that charges against Mr Laurie Matheson for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth Government are surrounded by a veil of secrecy, and secondly, that officers who investigated Mr Matheson believe that they have been, to quote the article, ``Thwarted by the Hawke Government in their endeavours to secure a conviction''. (2) Can the Attorney-General explain the apparent difference in treatment between Mr Matheson, who seems to have been spared public embarrassment as a result of his prosecution, and Mr Combe, whose personal and public life was destroyed at the time of the so-called Combe/Ivanov Affair and whose rehabilitation has scarcely been accomplished following the unanimous resolution at the July 1984 Australian Labor Party National Conference to restore him to the mainstream of political life. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The article referred to has been drawn to my attention. I am informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has carriage of the prosecution, that it is incorrect to suggest that the charges are surrounded by a veil of secrecy. The charges were mentioned in open court on 15 October and 14 December 1984. They were reported on in the National Times of 19 October 1985. Neither the Government nor the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for media reporting (or non-reporting) of court proceedings. I know nothing which would support the belief said to be held by anonymous investigating officers. (2) This question proceeds on a false premise: see answer to (1) above. (Question No. 112) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is the number of pensioners who will have their pensions cancelled or reduced by the introduction of the assets test on 21 March 1985 50,042; if not, what is the number. (2) What percentage of the pensioners affected by the assets test are elderly farmers owning and living on farms operated by their children and which farms produce income insufficient to sustain two families. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As at 10 May 1985 the numbers of social security pensions cancelled or reduced as a result of the assets test's introduction was 54,918. (2) The information sought is not collected. (Question No. 172) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Following the introduction of the pension assets test, what would be the annual additional cost to the Budget if the age for eligibility for the male age pension was reduced from 65 to 60 years. (2) Does the cost to the Budget in (1) above take into account numbers receiving Service Pensions. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Sec- urity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is not possible to estimate accurately the additional cost of extending eligibility for the age pension to males aged 60 to 64 years. Not only is there a lack of data on their income and assets distribution but it is also not possible to estimate what effect a lowering of the pensionable age would have on labour force participation rates. (3) Nevertheless, if the income and assets distribution and the pension take up rate of males aged 60 to 64 were the same as those of males aged 65 to 69, the additional annual cost would be of the order of $550m. (2) The figure in (1) represents the cost to the Budget over and above social security and service pension expenditure already incurred in respect of males aged 60 to 64. (Question No. 193) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) How many extra licences for public broadcasting purposes does the Minister for Communications anticipate being issued: (a) during the remainder of 1985; and (b) during each of the 3 subsequent years. (2) For how many years would a public broadcasting station reasonably be able to expect major equipment to be reliable, and how many public broadcasting stat- ions are now facing the need to replace major items of equipment if they are to maintain the necessary technical standards. (3) Would the exemption of public broadcasters from the payment of sales tax be an effective way of spreading media skills throughout the community, in view of the training that public broadcasters provide for young unemployed people, and the virtual abdication of that role by other sectors of the radio industry. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty, the number of public broadcasting licences which will be granted over the next several years. The answer to the senator's question is dependent on a number of factors, ranging from the degree of public support that can be generated by groups interested in obtaining a public broadcasting licence, to the Department of Communications capacity to process relevant planning proposals, and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's ability to schedule and complete public enquiries into the grant of each licence. The Department of Communications currently has registered 179 expressions of interest in new public broadcasting station licences, and has on hand 31 planning proposals for such services. (2) The Department of Communications does not gather or maintain data on the type or condition of technical equipment used by public broadcasting stat- ions. As the senator may be aware, the Department is primarily concerned with the adequacy of the signals radiated by licensees. Public Broadcasters make their own arrangements about the provision of technical equipment, and these arrangements vary markedly from station to station. Some licensees have constructed much of their own equipment, whilst others have acquired fully professional transmitter facilities. I suggest that the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia would be best placed to provide the information being sought. (3) Sales tax exemption on capital equipment purchases would certainly reduce outlays for public broadcasters. The Treasurer has arranged for the question of exemption for goods for use by community public radio stations to be considered when amendments to the sales tax law are next under consideration. (Question No. 221) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 April: (1) Is there increasing evidence of an improvement in Sino-Soviet relations in view of the 6th round of talks between the two countries since 1982 aimed at formalising relations being opened recently in Moscow. (2) What would be the likely effects of an improvement in Sino-Soviet relations on the Western Alliance in general and Australia in particular. (3) Is there any genuine sign of a softening of relations between the Western powers and the Soviet Union since the emergence of Mr Mikhail Gorbachev as the new Kremlin leader on 11 March 1985. (4) What is the latest information on genuine progress, if any, of the current round of arms limitation talks. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The sixth round of the talks began in 1982 between the USSR and China and took place on 9-22 April in Moscow. At the conclusion of this round of talks both sides reaffirmed their readiness to expand contacts in the political, economic, scientific and cultural areas. There has in fact been significant growth in the relationship in the last few years, particularly in trade. There has been no progress, however, on the three conditions which China has established for the normalisation and development of political relations. Furthermore, China has made it quite clear that it does not contemplate a return to the close relationship which prevailed during the 1950s. These points were confirmed in statements by Hu Yaobang, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, during his recent visit to Australia. (2) Given the existence of such limits to a fundamental improvement in Sino-Soviet relations, andChina's clearly stated intention to pursue an independent foreign policy, it does not at present seem likely that the process of normalisation of Sino-Soviet relations will have a marked effect on the Western Alliance or on Australia. A reduction in tension between China and the Soviet Union, to the extent that it contributed to a general reduction of regional tensions, would be in accordance with Australia's interest. (3) It is not possible to give a clear-cut or definitive answer to this question. It should be remembered that the most positive development to have occurred recently in East-West relations, the resumption of arms limitation talks between the US and the USSR, is the outcome of an agreement reached several months before Mr Gorbachev came to power. In general, Western countries have taken an attitude of cautious optimism to Mr Gorbachev's statement of willingness to reduce tensions, while noting that many of his specific proposals do not go beyond already familiar Soviet positions. It would therefore be premature to speak of a genuine softening of relations between East and West. (4) The first round of the bilateral arms control negotiations betweens the Soviet Union and the United States took place in Geneva from 12 March to 23 April. Both sides' accounts of the first round indicate that it was largely taken up with procedural matters and presentation of views. No substantive progress was to be expected at the first meeting of what both sides recognise will inevitably be a long, slow process. (Question No. 238) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Can the Minister for Education confirm the report of a directive of the Queensland Education Minister that all State high schools must include `Creation' in their science syllabus. (2) Are requests for literature on `Creation Science' being received so that teachers can carry out the directive referred to in (1) above. (3) Does the Minister agree that the directive referred to in (1) above could lead to publishers censoring science texts for the whole of Australia to ensure that they can be sold in Queensland. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Decisions about the curriculum of Queensland State high schools are matters for the Queensland Minister for Education. I am unable therefore to confirm or deny the report referred to by Senator Macklin. I have however been advised that neither the Queensland Board of Secondary School Studies science syllabus for years 8-10 nor the Queensland biological science syllabus for years 11 and 12 requires the teaching of `creation' as such. My understanding is that teachers are expected, when they are teaching that part of science which deals with the origin of man, to present evolution as a theory and not as fact, and to present creation as an alternative viewpoint. (2) I am unable to comment on whether requests for literature on `Creation Science' are being received by the Queensland Department of Education since that Department's operations are a matter for the Queensland Minister for Education. (3) Being unable to confirm the report referred to by Senator Macklin I am not in a position to assess possible implications for the publication and sale of science texts. (Question No. 243) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) In view of the question of deep ocean transponders placed in international waters close to Australia's coast for the purpose of monitoring the proposed United States MX missile tests, does Article I of the 1971 Seabed Treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in 1973, ban the placing of equipment on the ocean floor for testing or using weapons of mass destruction. (2) Are the deep ocean transponders to be used in the testing of the MX missile, which is a delivery system dedicated solely to nuclear war and is part of a nuclear weapon. (3) Will the Government be calling on the United States to remove the transponders forthwith, or will it fulfil its obligation under the 1971 Seabed Treaty and refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Article I of the 1971 Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof (The Seabed Arms Control Treaty) states inter alia that: The States Parties to this Treaty undertake not to emplant or emplace on the seabed and the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof beyond the outer Limit of a seabed zone, as defined in Article II, any nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction as well as structures, launching installations or any other facilities specifically designed for storing, testing or using such weapons and The States Parties to this Treaty undertake not to assist, encourage or induce any State to carry out activities referred to in paragraph 1 of this article and not to participate in any other way in such actions. The States Parties to the Treaty have not interpreted Article I to have any application to the emplacement on the seabed of deep ocean transponders to monitor the impact in broad ocean areas of unarmed ballistic missiles during the tests of such delivery vehicles. A number of states have conducted test firings of unarmed ballistic missiles into broad ocean areas since the 1960s using such transponders to monitor impact. In this regard, the Final Declaration of the Second Review Conference of the Seabed Arms Control Treaty held in September 1983 stated, inter alia, that the review undertaken by the conference confirms that the obligations assumed under Article I of the Treaty have been faithfully observed by the States Parties. Australia, the United States, USSR and other States Parties endorsed this Declaration. On the basis of the foregoing, and State practice, the Government does not consider the placement of the transponders to be contrary to Article I. It will not therefore call upon the United States to remove the transponders nor will it refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council. (Question No. 272) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: Did the supervisor of the person who drove vehicle ZHM-755 on 23 January 1985 (see answer to question No. 28, Hansard, 8 May 1985 p. 1582) make any further enquiries other than speak to the driver concerned about the speed at which the vehicle was driven; if not, will the supervisor make further enquiries if that person is made aware that the driver's speed was observed by a Federal Member of Parliament and his family. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: The supervisor interviewed the officer concerned on the basis of question No. 28 of 22 February and the response to question No. 28 was based on statements made at that interview. The driver concerned was alone on both the outward and return journeys and as far as Telecom is aware, no other independent witnesses were available for interview. In the circumstances, there would seem to be little point in the supervisor making further enquiries. (Question No. 297) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: With the change to payment of welfare benefits directly into the recipient bank accounts, can the Minister for Communications advise: (a) the annual number of mail items which will no longer be consigned through Australia Post; (b) the value of postal charges on items previously consigned by the Department of Social Security; (c) the number of staff rendered or to be rendered redundant by Australia Post as a result of it losing its largest customer. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, from advice provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (a) Approximately 39 million articles annually will no longer be consigned through Australia Post. (b) Approximately $13m per annum. (c) No staff have, or will, become redundant as a result of the loss of business. The loss of social security postal items will slow the growth in total postings particularly in 1985/86. (Question No. 303) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: How many members of the Army Reserve qualified as `Efficient' in the 12 months from May 1984 to May 1985? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senators's question: Army Reserve Efficiency figures are compiled as at 30 June of each year. Compilation of the figures for 1985 will not be finalised until the end of October 1985 due to the administrative processes involved. The figures will be provided as soon as they become available. (Question No. 313) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to a report in the Melbourne Age of 21 May 1985 which claims the consumer credit legal service in Victoria has found used car dealers are abusing consumers, breaking the law and selling `lemons'. (2) Is the pattern concerning some used car dealers common to the whole of Australia. (3) Would it be a useful exercise to negotiate between the Commonwealth and the States to try to achieve uniform legislation providing for far tougher inspection procedures and far higher penalties levelled against the minority of used car dealers who blatantly rip-off motoring consumers, and bring the rest of the industry into disrepute. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The problem of used car dealers breaking the law and selling `lemons' to consumers is not new and is certainly not limited to Victoria. Whilst there appears to be many media reports of such instances, it is not possible to state exactly the incidence of law-breaking amongst used car dealers. At the Commonwealth level the Trade Practices Commission has taken and will continue to take appropriate action under the Trade Practices Act 1974. As recently as 31 May 1985 the Commission successfully prosecuted a used car dealer in Queensland for displaying vehicles with altered odometer readings. (3) I agree there is a need to ensure that consumers are given adequate protection from unscrupulous traders throughout the Commonwealth. For this reason the Standing Committee of Consumers Affairs Ministers is working towards the introduction of uniform consumer protection legislation. The Trade Practices Act 1974 provides protection for consumers from unfair business practices of corporations. Section 52 prohibits companies from engaging in conduct that is deceptive or misleading. The various paragraphs of section 53 of the Act prohibit companies from making false representations in relation to the standard, quality or grade of goods and services. Part V, Division 2 of the Act implies certain conditions and warranties in contracts for the supply of goods or services by a corporation to a consumer. Those provisions which are of particular relevance to used car buyers are: section 69 (1)-the implied condition that the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods; section 70 (1)-the implied condition that goods will correspond to description; section 71 (1)-the implied condition that goods supplied under a contract for the supply of goods are of merchantable quality; section 71 (2)-the implied condition that goods are reasonably fit for the particular purpose for which they were acquired; section 74-warranties in relation to the supply of services. By virtue of section 68, these conditions and warranties cannot be excluded. The rights which are conferred by Division 2 of Part V are private contractual rights which are enforceable through the State and Territory court systems. The Government is intending to introduce amendments to Parts V and VI of the Trade Practices Act to strengthen the existing protection offered to consumers and to provide a greater deterrent for offenders. I believe that, if the amendments are enacted, there will be adequate legislative protection for consumers at the Commonwealth level. There is legislation in the States to protect consumers from unfair conduct outside the area of Commonwealth power. (Question No. 317) Senator Tate asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 May 1985: (1) What have been the numbers of people employed, and the number of positions for which people are employed, by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985. (2) What has been the total amount paid in wages for the positions referred to in (1) above for the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and (budgeted) 1984-85. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1)- Year No. Staff No. Positions 1983... 3,808 3,878 1984... 3,905 4,015 1985... 4,010 4,175 These figures include part-time officers and positions. The staffing numbers and positions are expressed in full-time equivalents. Because of staffing constraints the number of people employed has fallen short of the number of established positions each year. (2) Total amount paid-in wages: $ 1982-83... 91,298,382 1983-84... 99,136,364 1984-85... 107,957,000 (Budgeted) Notes: (1) Wages refers to all salaries and payments in the nature of salaries (including overtime). (2) Amounts stated are in actual dollars not constant dollars. (Question No. 328) Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: Since March 1983 on which days did the Minister for Defence or his predecessor meet with each of the Senior Officer appointments listed in Appendix 13 to the Defence Report 1983-84. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It would not be possible to answer the honourable senator's question without extensive and detailed research. And there is no certainty that a complete answer can be provided. However, I have met regularly with my military and civilian advisers since assuming the Defence portfolio. I understand that this was the practice of my predecessor, Mr Scholes, as well. Were the honourable senator to make the purpose of his question clearer then I will be prepared to consider it further and offer him some specific advice. (Question No. 334) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Social Security aware that students of architecture who are unemployed are being refused unemployment benefits because the Commonwealth Employment Service classifies them as part-time or casual employees. (2) Is the Minister aware that the students referred to in (1) above are also being refused allowances under the tertiary education assistance scheme because they are not full-time students. (3) Will the Minister undertake to investigate the matters referred to above to ensure that some kind of financial assistance is made available to these students to allow them to continue their studies. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. However, the same conditions apply to students who apply for unemployment benefit as to any other person. An applicant for unemployment benefit must be: unemployed; capable of undertaking and willing to undertake paid work considered suitable for the person; and taking reasonable steps to obtain such work. A commitment to obtaining full-time employment throughout the whole of each period for which benefit is claimed is basic to these requirements. It is the policy of my Department to encourage the lodgment of a claim by any person wishing to apply for unemployment benefit so that each case can be considered on its merits. (2) It is understood that the tertiary education assistance scheme provides financial assistance only for full-time students. (3) The question of income support for students is currently being examined in the context of the Government's youth income support review. (Question No. 336) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: (1) Does the Government consider the signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have adequately complied with their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty. (2) Has the Government decided on its position with regard to the review of Article VI to be undertaken at the Third Review Conference of the Treaty. (3) Has the Government attempted to determine how those signatories to the Treaty who possess nuclear weapons intend to fulfil their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty; if so, how will these obligations be fulfilled; if not, will representations be made to the Review Conference. (4) When the policy line Australia will take at the Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is decided, will input be invited from non-government organisations and parliamentarians; if so, what form will this input take. (5) Will Australia be sending a delegation to the Review Conference; if so, will provision be made for parliamentary and/or non-Government organisation participation on the delegation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) In Australia's view the nuclear weapon states parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have not met the expectations of the non-nuclear weapon states parties as regards the implementation of Article VI of the Treaty. (2) Yes. Australia will be seeking an honest and balanced appraisal of the implementation of Article VI of the Treaty. In this regard we will argue for due recognition of the importance of the resumption of bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union in Geneva on nuclear and outer space issues. However, while registering our strong concern over the lack of substantive results since 1980 in regard to Article VI issues we will be seeking to avoid anything that will endanger the success of the Conference and the well-being of the NPT. (3) Australia's concerns about the implementation of Article VI have been expressed directly to the three powers in unequivocal terms. They also permeate our day to day discussions with the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union on disarmament issues and on the NPT. These concerns include the question of how the three depository powers intend to fulfil their obligations under Article VI. The resumption of the US/Soviet bilatetals in Geneva is a step in this direction. As is widely known Australia's persistent advocacy of immediate resumption of work towards a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, including direct representations to the three NPT depositary States, relates directly to our view of how progress would be made towards the implementation of Article VI. We intend to reiterate these views to the Review Conference. (4) The Government welcomes the interest in the NPT Review Conference from Members of Parliament and non-governmental organisations. It receives views on the Conference from a variety of non-official sources including Parliamentary Committees and individual Members and senators and members of the public in writing and orally at the numberous community meetings and seminars in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and officials of his Department participate. (5) Yes. Australia will send a delegation. A decision on the final composition of the Australian delegation to the Third NPT Review Conference has not yet been made. (Question No. 347) Senator Chaney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) What was the total cost of Federal Government purchases, including statutory authorities, of equipment (including services) for (a) 1979-80; (b) 1980-81; (c) 1981-82; (d) 1982-83; and (e) 1983-84. (2) What percentage of the purchases for each of the years referred to in (1) above were sourced from Australian industry. (3) What was the value of purchases for each of the years referred to in (1) above by Australian standard industrial classification code and the percentage sourced from Australian industry. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services does not undertake all Government purchasing, nor do all Commonwealth bodies report to the Department on their purchasing activities. Sufficient information to derive comprehensive figures is not available from the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, since not all Commonwealth departments and authorities are required to publish details of contracts arranged by them. To provide the information requested would require a significant commitment in terms of time and Departmental resources and involve a survey of all Commonwealth bodies. The commitment of the level of resources required to provide an answer cannot be justified. (Question No. 386) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: Will the Minister for Education please advise how many qualified personnel are employed by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority solely as: (a) consultants; (b) professional support staff; (c) administrators; and (d) classroom teachers. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The terms used in the senator's question need some definition and they are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, there are marginal variations in staffing from week to week and unless otherwise specified the answer refers to staffing in mid-May 1985. Staff funded by Commonwealth Schools Commission Programs are not included. (a) If `consultant' is defined as `teaching staff providing curriculum advice to schools', 27 teachers within the Office of the Schools Authority provide curriculum consultancy services to schools. In addition four short-term consultants are field-based. (b) If `professional support staff' is defined as `teaching staff providing assistance to schools from outside the individual schools', 209 teachers, including the curriculum consultants above, provide such services. Slightly less than half of these are based in the Office of the Authority; others are based in curriculum enrichment centres such as the Maths Centre or provide itinerant services (e.g. counsellors). (c) If `administrator' is defined as `Australian Public Service (non-teaching) staff', there are 204 such staff in the Office of the Authority, 7 in systems wide field-based positions and 741 in ancillary staff positions in schools. There are also 687 teachers in promotions positions in schools, most of whom have a teaching as well as an administrative role. (d) Including the 687 teachers above in promotions positions in schools, most of whom have some classroom teaching duties, there were 2,849 classroom teachers in February 1985. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority employs 4,010 people of whom 3,058 are teachers. Of a total staff, 3,718 work in schools or educational centres and 292 in the Office of the Authority. (Question No. 387) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Why did the Government use the back-door method of tacking changes to entitlements of ex-Service personnel on to the May `Mini-Budget' instead of dealing with them in the entitlements legislation. (2) Was this simply a ploy to make it more difficult for the Parliament to reject part of a government financial package. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is: (1) and (2) The decision by a majority of the High Court in Repatriation Commission v O'Brien in February this year required urgent legislative action. During the consideration of the matters which were covered in the May Economic Statement it was decided to amend the legislation as quickly as possible and to take other steps to find other savings within the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. The Government has made it clear that it wishes to retain a generous repatriation system but without the excessive generosity which arose following the O'Brien decision. One reason for accepting the sunset clause covering the amendments to section 47 was to give the opportunity for full consultation with the ex-service community on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill a draft of which was tabled in the Senate containing the provisions covered by the sunset clause. Extensive consultation and negotiation are proceeding and I expect to bring forward a submission to the Government which will lead to the introduction of a revised Bill during the Budget Sittings. Senator Walsh —On 22 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2333) Senator Harradine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: Has the Minister representing the Minister for Communications had drawn to his attention the decision in the High Court of Australia which upheld an appeal by television stations against the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's perceived right to ensure that children's television programs fitted in with the guidelines as laid down by the Tribunal before those programs went to air? Is it a fact that the Government made great play of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal having that power to ensure the standards of programs for children on all Australian television stations? What action does the Government propose? Does it propose to introduce legislation to enable the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal legally to ensure that its program standards are observed before programs go to air? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As stated in the second reading speech to the 1985 amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, it is the Government's intention to bring forward amendments to clarify and affirm the Tribunal's powers to make standards. Included in these amendments will be provisions to affirm the Tribunal's powers to determine program and advertising standards which embody both qualitative and quantitative rules and to preclassify children's programs designed for the under 14 age group. In the course of the second reading speech Mr Duffy said that the amendments would be introduced in the Budget sittings and that if it were found to be necessary they would be made effective from the date of that speech. Senator Walsh —On 20 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2128) Senator Foreman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: As the first domestic communications satellite is to be launched very soon, can the Minister say whether the possibility of aggregating regional markets is being considered as a means of ensuring that people who live outside the capital cities will have the benefit of extra broadcasting and television services? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The honourable senator would already have a copy of a report by the Forward Development Unit of my Department on future directions for commercial television. Aggregating regional markets so as to provide three commercial television services is discussed in that report. A similar study is underway into future directions for commercial radio. Though this study will not be completed until October it will canvass a range of options for providing adequate commercial radio services. This too may include the possibility of aggregating regional markets. Senator Ryan —On 17 April 1985 (Hansard page 1138) Senator Childs asked me the following question without notice: Has the Minister for Education seen the Press report in today's edition of the Australian in relation to the Queensland Institute of Technology's participation in the Government's equity program? Can the Minister inform the Senate of further information in relation to the Institute? Are other programs envisaged for other higher education institutions? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Queensland Institute of Technology was one of 15 higher education institutions throughout Australia to have recently received a grant under the 1985 equity program. These projects are being funded from the $1m available in 1985 for the equity program in the higher education sector which is administered by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. It is a new program designed to try out approaches to improve the participation of people from disadvantaged groups in the community such as Aborigines, women, disabled persons, ethnic groups, young people from low income families and people living in outer metropolitan and rural areas in higher education. In the honourable senator's State of New South Wales the Commonwealth has provided $245 000 to support projects at Nepean CAE, Macarthur Institute of Higher Education (with Macquarie University and Nepean CAE), the New South Wales Institute of Technology and the University of Wollongong. Further details of all projects were provided in my press release of 14 March 1985. The women in non-traditional professions scheme at the Queensland Institute of Technology is seeking to increase the participation of women in the Institute's engineering and surveying courses by: (a) mounting an active recruitment campaign-including advertising, school liaison, seminars and orientation programs; (b) introducing a preparatory bridging course-which will attempt to redress deficiencies in previous academic background through basic maths, science and engineering subjects; and (c) setting up arrangements including a study area exclusively for these students use, staffed by a woman engineer who will act as a tutor and co-ordinator of the program. It is envisaged that the provisions of such support services will be concentrated most heavily in the first few semesters and that students in the program will move completely into the mainstream course by the end of their third semester. The Commonwealth is contributing $80 000 to the project in 1985. It is open to other institutions to provide similar assistance to groups of students from within the total recurrent funding provided by the Commonwealth. Considerations will be given to other initiatives of this type as the equity program is developed. (Question No. 75) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister, for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) How successful have the Expo '88 Commissioner-General, Sir Edward Williams, and the Authority's Honorary Chairman, Sir Llewellyn Edwards, been in attracting overseas interest in Expo '88, due to be held in Brisbane. (2) What salaries, allowances, and other conditions received by Sir Edward Williams and Sir Llewellyn Edwards are being funded by the Australian Government, and to what level. (3) What overseas travel has been undertaken by Sir Edward Williams and Sir Llewellyn Edwards; who has given authorisation for the trips; and how much money has been spent by the Commonwealth Government on this aspect of Expo '88 to date. (4) Has any future undertaking been given by the Commonwealth Government to further finance this project. (5) How many countries have so far given firm commitments that they will take part in the projected Expo '88. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Invitations to participate in Expo '88 were sent through diplomatic channels to all countries with which Australia has normal relations in September 1984. The Commissioner-General for Expo '88 Sir Edward Williams has called on 51 Heads of Mission in Canberra to encourage active consideration of Australia's invitation. There have been a number of follow-up discussions with foreign missions in Canberra and Brisbane. To date Great Britain, Tonga, New Zealand and San Marino have formally announced their intention to participate. Firm assurances of the intention to participate have been given to the Prime Minister by the governments of the United States of America, Canada, Japan and China. A number of other countries have expressed interest in participating and are actively considering Australia's invitation. (2) Costs of the Authority Chairman, Sir Llewellyn Edwards, are not being funded by the Australian Government. The Commissioner-General, Sir Edward Williams, is a Commonwealth appointee. He receives a daily fee of $345 for each day he is engaged on Expo '88 duty. The Australian Government meets the cost of the Commissioner-General's travel within Australia at the same rate as applying to Permanent Heads and overseas travel in accordance with that paid to Ministers. The cost of provision of office facilities, official cars as required and telephone costs at place of residence are being met by the Commonwealth. Official hospitality expenses are also met by the Commonwealth. (3) Approval for, and costs associated with overseas travel by the Chairman of the Authority are not the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has met some costs associated with four overseas visits by Sir Edward Williams when he has undertaken duties in his capacity as Commissioner-General for Expo '88. In this respect, expenditure totalling $40,103.16 has been incurred associated with the following visits: (i) 5-30 May 1984-Vancouver, New Orleans, Vienna, London, Paris; (ii) 26 September to 1 November 1984-Tokyo, London, Paris, Vienna, Bahrain, Singapore; (iii) 30 November to 13 December 1984-Paris, Hong Kong, Beijing; (iv) 26 April to 31 May 1985-London, Paris, Berne, Geneva, Rome, Moscow and Singapore. The Commissioner-General's overseas travel is subject to the Minister's approval. (4) The Commonwealth has provided $3m in the 1984-85 appropriations as an initial contribution towards the capital cost of its participation in Expo '88. Future Commitments are under consideration by the Government. (5) See answer to (1) above. (Question No. 166) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Education's attention been drawn to a document headed `ATF Parliamentary Briefs' circulated to senators by the Australian Teachers Federation, in which it is claimed that specific spending on the professional development of teachers has declined sharply and fairly consistently from $31.6m in 1976 to $10.8m in 1985. (2) Is the Minister aware of ATF claims that it would take an injection of $10m in the 1985 budget to restore spending levels for this purpose to 1983 levels, and of further claims that by and large State Governments had also cut spending in this area, some quite savagely. (3) Will the Minister give consideration to the ATF's recommendations to support the main recommendations of the Review of the Commonwealth Professional Development Programme (PDP), including: (a) maintenance and expansion of the Commonwealth PDP which will provide in-service courses for teachers designed to address the national priorities of the Commonwealth Government such as disadvantaged schools, computer education and multicultural education; (b) the establishment of a proper system of State-based committees to ensure the funds in the PDP are well spent; and (c) the establishment of a School Development Fund so that schools themselves have the capacity to develop appropriate curricula and provide staff with opportunities for in-service education. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am aware of the claims made by the Australian Teachers Federation in the document `ATF Parliamentary Briefs' that specific spending on professional development of teachers has declined sharply since 1976. Direct comparisons between figures for 1976 and 1985 are misleading as the programs to which the funds relate are not directly comparable. There have been major changes to the Schools Commission's teacher training and development programs during the years 1976-85. A total of $27,032,000 was appropriated for expenditure on professional development activities conducted under the provisions of the Schools Commission's programs prior to 1 January 1976. These funds were provided for the following purposes: (a) Library training and associated teacher replacement or remuneration costs $4,378,000 (b) Special education training courses and associated teacher replacement or remuneration costs $10,916,000 (c) General development activities and associated teacher replacement or remuneration costs $8,919,000 (d) Education centres- recurrent grants-$764,000 capital grants-$2,055,000 $2,819,000 In 1976 funds for library training were combined with funds provided through the Services and Development Program for general development activities and associated teacher replacement or remuneration. The total appropriation in 1976 provided through the Services and Development Program and through the Special Education Program was $18,226,000. In 1977 funds for special education training were also incorporated into the grants provided through the Services and Development Program and the allocation totalled $18,595,500. Between 1978 and 1979 funds for professional development were maintained approximately in real terms at 1977 levels. In 1980 the Fraser Government imposed cuts on the Schools Commission's funds which resulted in reductions of 26 per cent over 1979 levels for the Services and Development Program to $15,237,000. This program was renamed the `Professional Development Program' in 1982 and continued to provide general provisions for teachers, parents and members of the school community to take part in in-service activities. Funding levels were maintained at the reduced 1980 levels during the 1981-83 period. In 1983 the Hawke Government decided that for 1984 the general provisions of the Professional Development Program should be reduced from $17,438,000 (1983) to $10,812,000 with the introduction of the Computer Education Program and the Participation and Equity Program, each of which contain significant financial provisions for professional development. A total of $52,246,000 was provided for these two programs in 1984. The majority of Commonwealth funds provided in the Professional Development Program were to be used for the support and funding of activities rather than for teacher replacement. The introduction of the Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program in 1985 which places special emphasis on in-service training has further increased the present Government's substantial support for professional development. (2) Yes. I am aware of the claims made by the ATF that it would take an injection of $10,000,000 to restore spending levels to those of 1983. However, these claims take little account of the significant additional support for teacher development made available through the three major new programs introduced since the Government came to office. The decision to reduce direct funding to the Professional Development Program in 1984 was also based on the Government's belief that the primary responsibility for general professional development rests with the employing authorities and the teaching profession itself. The Government considers that Commonwealth funds should be applied to support Commonwealth objectives in education. (3) The Government stated in its Guidelines to the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission for 1984 that insufficient attention has been given to defining and co-ordinating the relative roles and funding responsibilities of the various parties involved in professional development. It has requested the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to undertake jointly a major review of all aspects of teacher education. An Interim Report has been completed and is being distributed to all interest groups for comment. The Government has also requested the Commonwealth Schools Commission to undertake a review of its Professional Development Program as part of its general review of specific purpose programs. To assist in its review tasks the Schools Commission commissioned a study by Dr Frank Coulter and Mr Lawrence Ingvarson. The report of this study, entitled `Professional Development and the Improvement of Schooling: Roles and Responsibilities', has been published by the Commission and distributed to the educational community for comment. The Schools Commission has received a response from the ATF to this report in which the points mentioned by Senator Jones are raised. These matters will be considered by the two education commissions in the context of the Joint Review of Teacher Education, and by the Commonwealth Schools Commission separately in its Specific Purpose Programs Review. The reports of these reviews will be finalised later this year and will then be given detailed consideration by the Government. (Question No. 173) Senator Maguire asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) What was the total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in (a) April 1984; and (b) April 1985 or the latest available month. (2) What was the total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in South Australia in (a) April 1984; and (b) April 1985 or the latest available month. (3) In which Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities in South Australia, and by how much, did employment fall between April 1984 and April 1985 or the latest available month. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) 421,300; (b) 427,000 (December 1984). (2) (a) 37,000; (b) 36,800 (December 1984). (3) Particulars of Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities in South Australia which recorded falls in employment between April and December 1984 are as follows: Department of Defence-114 Department of Housing and Construction-181 Department of Primary Industry-24 Department of Social Security-65 Department of Veterans' Affairs-67 Australian Federal Police-79 Australian National Railways Commission-403 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-22 Health Insurance Commission-47 Recommended. (Question No. 188) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Is there a shortage of qualified physio, speech and occupational therapists in the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service; if so, is the Minister for Community Services concerned about this shortage. (2) Is there a high turnover rate of these professionals; if so, (a) what is the reason for this; and (b) what steps is the Minister taking to mitigate the effects of this turnover, and to counter this by way of incentives and improvements in salary and conditions, in order to attract more people, for longer periods, into the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. There appears to be no significant or abnormal shortage of physiotherapy, speech therapy or occupational therapy staff in the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, related to the normal approved establishment for such staff. At 31 March 1985 there were 43 physiotherapists, 19 speech therapists and 86 occupational therapists in full time CRS employment across the country. Twelve physiotherapist, 3 speech therapist and 11 occupational therapist positions were vacant. (2) (a) The turnover rate also appears to be following a normal pattern. All vacant positions are being, or have been advertised, and normal Australian Public Service recruiting procedures are being followed. (b) Routine recruitment advertising is expected to maintain recruitment at its normal level. (Question No. 239) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs been approached by the Blinded Soldiers of St Dunstan's, Australia, concerning the eligibility for service pensions of service personnel who are blinded in training. (2) Does Recommendation No. 32 of the `Report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review', which reads: `(a) For the purpose of the Review the existing provisions relating to service pension be maintained except as provided below. (c) The grounds for eligibility be age, permanently unemployable and permanently incapacitated. The age and permanently unemployable test be the same as prescribed in the existing legislation and permanently incapacitated be the test for invalid pension in Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1947', indicate an addition to the eligibility for the service pension. (3) Does the Minister believe that it was not the intention of the Review Committee that there be any exception to the Theatre of War criteria that would entitle an ex-serviceman blinded in training to a service pension; if so, why does he so interpret it. (4) In 1939, was the total compensation for the blind ex-serviceman the same whether the serviceman was blinded in action or in training. (5) In 1956, were ex-servicemen who were blinded in training granted a portion of the blind person's social security pension, given that no difference was made between those blinded on active service or in training. (6) Do civilian blind, no matter what their income, still receive the full invalid pension, whereas ex-service personnel receive only part of that pension until they turn 70 years of age. (7) Does the government agree that ex-servicemen blinded in training have the same problems as those who were blinded in action, (8) Will the Government ensure that the anomaly referred to above is removed when the revised repatriation legislation is introduced. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Mr L. Greenham, the Vice President of the Blinded Soldiers of St Dunstan's, wrote to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 28 October 1984 concerning his interpretation of recommendation 32 of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review relating to service pension eligibility. (2) No. The test for permanent unemployability at present applied is administratively the same as that for the invalid pension. The proposed change will give legislative authority to the practice. (3) Yes. The Advisory Committee outlined in some detail its recommendations on `qualifying service', the term proposed to replace `theatre of war', in recommendation 32 (i). It was not proposed that the principle of restricting the service pension to veterans who have incurred danger from the enemy be changed. Further support for this view can be found at paragraph 10.14 of the Advisory Committee's report where it said `There is a need to ensure that a person served where there was some danger from hostile forces before being eligible for the service pension'. (4) Yes. Disability pension compensation for blindness resulting from service does not depend on whether the veteran was blinded in training or not. (5) No. In 1955 means test ceiling limits were eliminated for age, invalid and disability pensioners receiving disability pension. At the same time the ceiling limits were eased but not eliminated for blind age invalid and service pensioners who also received disability pension. There was no change to the requirement for veterans to have theatre of war service before being eligible for service pension. (6) Yes. The rate of age or invalid pension for veterans may be reduced depending on the rate of disability pension received. Age or invalid pensioners with no disability pension are not subject to this limitation. These limitation provisions do not apply to veteran service pensioners. (7) Yes. That is the reason why standard disability compensation, at the Special Rate of $175.75 per week, is paid to all veterans blinded as the result of their service, whether this occurred in training or not. (8) The repatriation legislation will continue to provide disability compensation as outlined in the answer to Question 7. There will also be no change to the basic requirement that veterans must have experienced danger from hostile forces before being eligible for the service pension. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee as explained in the answer to part (3) of the Question. There really is no anomaly. In the case quoted, the veteran does not have an entitlement to receive a service pension because he does not have the requisite service. Adequate compensation is available through the disability pension system. (Question No. 255) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Has the Government received representations in relation to the importations of tyres that have been banned from other markets because of manufacturing faults. (2) Are tyres that have been banned from other markets because of manufacturing faults being imported into Australia. (3) Do standards exist in Australia that local manufacturers of tyres are required to meet for safety or other reasons; if so, are imported products required to meet the same standards; if not, why not. (4) What action, if any, has the Government taken to ensure that faulty tyres are not offered for sale in Australia. Senator Grimes —The Acting Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Neither the Department of Transport, which was consulted on this question, nor the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce are aware of any evidence that tyres banned from other markets because of manufacturing faults are being imported into Australia. (3) Australian Design Rules 23A and 23B apply to both locally manufactured and imported tyres fitted to new passenger cars and derivatives. There are no mandatory standards for new replacement tyres for either passenger car tyres or for bus and truck tyres. (4) The Australian Transport Advisory Council, which comprises Federal, State and Territory Ministers with transport responsibilities, is undertaking, as a priority item, a comprehensive review of all aspects of road vehicle tyres. A recall code to cover tyres is under consideration. (Question No. 267) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) How many conductors currently hold positions with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation orchestras. (2) How many of the conductors referred to in (1) above are Australian born. (3) Is the ABC seriously concerned with promoting talented Australians in the area of conducting. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information supplied by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) 8 conductors currently hold positions with the ABC orchestras. They are: Wilfred Lehmann Patrick Thomas Albert Rosen Werner Andreas Albert Sir Charles Mackerras Hiroyuki Iwaki Piero Gamba Nicholas Braithwaite (2) Wilfred Lehmann, Patrick Thomas and Sir Charles Mackerras are all Australian born. (3) The ABC is very seriously concerned with promoting talented Australians in the areas of conducting. It arranged a special conductors course in Brisbane in 1984 and intends to hold a further one in 1985. (Question No. 280) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: Will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment give an assurance that the Government's stated commitment to restore funding in real terms to the Australia Council at the 1975-76 level will be honoured in the 1985-86 Budget in respect of the final third still outstanding, and that in making this restoration the Government will not discount the supplementary grant made to the Council of $802,000 in 1985 for the so-called `companies of excellence'. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Enviroment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government fulfilled its November 1984 election promise in the Additional Estimates for 1984-85 by providing $802,000 to the Australia Council for support for companies of excellence. Announcements concerning the content of the 1985-86 Budget will be made at the appropriate time. (Question No. 281) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Community Services ask his department to investigate the cost effectiveness of establishing Community Services' staff within selected rehabilitation centres on a pilot basis to maintain the Government's fundamental commitment to decentralisation. (see answer to question No. 186, Hansard, 8 May 1985, p 1593). (2) Will the Minister study the benefits of a number of Queensland departmental officers being decentralised to existing rehabilitation centres rather than being based in Brisbane, given the low priority allocated to travel by departmental officers in the past and the resulting limited local assessment of regional projects. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As previously advised there is no plan at this stage for further decentralisation of the Department of Community Services. The possibility of further decentralisation, including the question whether some pilot projects might be mounted, will be considered in a few months time when staffing of the present Departmental structure is completed. This consideration will take into account what means are most appropriate for obtaining assessments of regional projects. (Question No. 284) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: Is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation investigating the feasibility of a nuclear waste storage site in Australia. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The advanced nuclear waste disposal material synroc invented and patented by the Australian National University is currently being developed in conjunction with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Tests to date indicate it is a significant advance on overseas technology. On 21 May 1985 the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, tabled the report of the Commonwealth-State Committee on the Management of Radiocative Waste Arising from the Medical, Industrial and Research Use of Radionuclides. Among the recommendations of the Committee which the Comonwealth supported was: `Investigation by the Commonwealth for the development of facilities for interim and long-term storage of radioactive wastes.' As a logical sequence to this recommendation by the Committee and the synroc development, the CSIRO Division of Geomechanics has recently completed a preliminary study on isolating deep underground nuclear waste encapsulated in synroc. The study reported on overseas methods of waste storage and the design criteria for environmental barriers required between the stored material and the biosphere. No site in Australia has been proposed in the study as an underground repository for synroc containing nuclear waste. (Question No. 308) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) What is the current income limit for eligibility for the Australian Capital Territory Junior Secondary Bursary (the Bursary). (2) When was the last review of the income level for the Bursary. (3) When was the income level for the Bursary last increased. (4) When is the next income level review for the Bursary to take place. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) $6 000 is the current adjusted taxable family income under the scheme; (2) At the Budget time last year. (3) January 1979. (4) It is normal practice to review conditions for this scheme in the Budget context. Senator Walsh —On Tuesday 19 March 1985 (Hansard, page 385) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: Can the Minister ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board and management is advised that Queensland viewers, reliant on the remote area television service, are totally dissatisfied with the news and weather services as presented directed from Sydney? This means that these communities are totally out of touch with their State news and weather forecasts. Can the Minister ascertain why the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is failing to provide relevant news and weather services to these remote communities? Furthermore, can he advise when the ABC will adopt the Government's commitment to localism and provide appropriate services to local communities which, after all fund the Corporation? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have been advised by the ABC that the Corporation is aware that a number of Queensland viewers are dissatisfied with the ABC's news and weather services. As a result of this, on 11 April 1985 senior ABC executives met with representatives, including Parliamentarians and rural industry groups, of regional Queensland areas to discuss the problems associated with the Remote Area Television Service (RATS) in Queensland. On 15 April 1985, the ABC announced that it would be conducting a study into the viewing needs of its audience in Queensland regional areas. As part of this study, the ABC will also review the desirability of the Northern Territory continuing to receive the Sydney/Melbourne version of the ABC National. The RATS transmitters; in Queensland which service Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek take this version instead of the Brisbane National in response to the Northern Territory's wishes. Consultations will be held with Federal Parliamentarians representing Queensland regional areas and the ABC Queensland Advisory Council when sufficient data, including costings, has been collected by the study group. It is expected in the longer term that when the ABC converts to the use of the AUSSAT satellite system for program distribution, ABC RATS transmitters in Queensland will be fed directly from Brisbane. The programming will then be part of the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite service (HACBSS) which will provide separate programs for south-eastern Australia, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia. The ABC has responded to the Government's review into localism and subsequent report, `Localism in Australian Broadcasting' (the Oswin Report) which states: `4.78 With regard to television studios in major provincial areas, the ABC submission to this Review indicated that it had re-evaluated this policy and decided on a phased withdrawal of the services provided in regional centres (Rockhampton and Townsville). The decision was based on the manner in which ABC television will be distributed once the domestic satellite is in operation (through capital city services and HACBSS, which will make ABC television available to the 300,000+ Australians who currently receive no television) and the difficulty of providing regional television services on a cost-effective basis. 4.79 This approach is endorsed by the Review. The responsibilities of a national broadcaster to provide particular regional services on a permanent basis were more effectively undertaken through radio, for economic reasons and for the greater flexibility which that medium can provide-particularly when the second regional radio network is operational. As well, the priorities of a national broadcaster should place extensive regional television services well behind the provision of a service to remote areas which currently have no access to television. Furthermore, as recognised by the ABC in its submission, the expansion of regionally oriented and produced commercial television services through supplementary licences will further fulfil the programming needs of regional television audiences and complement the ABC's national service. With this in mind, ABC Radio is expanding its services in Queensland with the development of the Second Regional Network. This will happen as soon as practicable after the Aussat satellite launch later this year. In north Queensland there will be a new radio studio at Mount Isa and upgraded studios in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton. This expansion, coupled with the extension of ABC-FM, will ensure that in the next few years regional listeners will have a choice of three ABC radio services. Senator Walsh —On Wednesday 22 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2355) Senator Jack Evans asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice on a recommendation of the Hancock Committee for parties to be able to make their own arrangements for the prevention and settlement of disputes, and a supplementary question concerning the Australian Democrats Bill on collective agreements. In my reply, I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Hancock Report recommends an amendment to Part X of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which deals with industrial agreements. The amendment suggested is designed to enable parties to enter into an agreement by which they could resolve disputes through their own agreed processes of conciliation and arbitration. It is intended that such agreements would operate to exclude the effect of federal awards and any state prescriptions which would otherwise cover the area. It was the committee's view that, if this recommendation was to be implemented, parties choosing to enter into `private' conciliation and arbitration agreements should use those agreed processes for regulation of their entire industrial relationships. The agreements, however, would be enforced through the provisions of the Act. The implementation of this recommendation will need to be carefully assessed by the Government and all concerned parties during the consultations which will take place regarding the Report. The Committee states that the proposes of opting out see significant benefits flowing from this approach-industrial relations benefits in terms of the greater commitment which is supposed to flow from agreements negotiated between the parties, and economic benefits from the greater flexibility for the parties to fix wages and conditions in the light of specific economic circumstances. These perceived advantages will need to be carefully weighed against the anticipated effects on the predominant, formal system of conciliation and arbitration. The most significant disadvantage of such an approach would be the lack of any mechanism whereby public interest considerations could be brought to bear in determining wage outcomes in the informal system. A further related issue concerns the need to ensure that the wider wages policy is not destabilised by outcomes in the informal sector. The advocates for opting out take the view that this would primarily lead to negotiated rates and conditions less than those provided by awards and tribunals. It is more likely however, that this course would be mainly pursued by unions and employers operating in the more profitable sectors with a higher capacity to pay. Should such agreements provoke claims for increases in the traditional sector based on equity and comparative wage justice arguments, there would be significant wage pressures which could ultimately destroy any wages policy and thereby have adverse, rather than favourable, effects on employment. It may be that the viability of a dual system depends upon a number of critical pre-conditions involving acceptances by trade unions and employers that the two systems were effectively mutually exclusive. Other concerns would include ensuring that the opting out is voluntary and that exploitation would not occur rising from an imbalance of power between the parties. These factors obviously require very close and careful consideration. It needs to be noted that the alteration scheme can only apply, in a constitutional sense, to federally registered employer and employee organisations and in relation to an actual or impending interstate industrial dispute. Finally, while the report recommends greater flexibility through these provisions, it also notes that the existing system already provides some flexibility in dealing with industries or firms facing economic difficulties affecting their capacity to pay. Thus it recomends, subject to certain constraints, the retention of the ability of the Commission to allow wage levels lower than would otherwise be prescribed as a means of protecting employment. In relation to the supplementary question the answer is: No. For the reasons outlined above, the Government would be concerned to ensure that any measures aimed at allowing parties to seek alternatives to the current conciliation and arbitration arrangements did not undermine the Government's wages policy. In addition to this consideration the Bill also gave rise to a number of constitutional and practical difficulties. Senator Grimes —On 23 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2423) Senator Reynolds asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice as to whether I was aware that the Queensland Government had deliberately planned the recent raids on two fertility control clinics for over twelve months and, in carrying out the raids, had seized Medicare documentation. Senator Reynolds also asked what rights the Federal Government had for the protection of confidentiality of Medicare documentation and whether action could be taken to have Medicare documents returned immediately. I undertook to seek further details from the Minister. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: My Department was not involved and had no knowledge of the raids carried out by the Queensland Police. My Department has examined the legal position of the privacy of patients' medical records seized by the Queensland Police in the raids. The records seized are believed to be the doctors' own records of patients' clinical details and accounts. They are not the property of the Commonwealth. The powers of the Commonwealth concerning the privacy of patients' medical records are directed towards unauthorised release of information by officers of the Commonwealth. Those powers are not relevant to the seizure by the Queensland Police of doctors' records under search warrant in connection with alleged offences against State legislation. I sincerely hope that the Queensland Government would ensure that patients' medical records receive the same high degree of security that they are given by Australian Federal Police procedures. Recent press reports seem to indicate that belated consideration has been given to store the records securely, following the outcry in the Queensland press. (Question No. 55) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 27 February 1985: (1) How often has the National Capital Development Commission approved building plans which were outside the NCDC's own guidelines for each year since 1973. (2) Has any such decision to approve building plans which were outside the NCDC's guidelines been in each case: (a) subject to the agreement of all parties concerned; and/or (b) challenged by any of the parties affected by such decision; if so, (i) how long has each such challenge taken to resolve, (ii) did any decision involve the NCDC accepting responsibility for decisions taken by it, and (iii) did the settlement of any such challenge involve the Commonwealth in the payment of damages, if so, in how many cases and how much in each case. (3) Are there any outstanding disputes concerning decisions about building plans; if so: (a) how many cases are outstanding; (b) how long has each case been under consideration; and (c) when will each case be resolved. (4) What action has the NCDC taken to ensure that its officers do not make decisions which are outside its guidelines. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The National Capital Development Commission's Design and Siting Policies contain stated objectives or performance standards and allow for some small discretion in the application of quantitative standards where the objectives or performance standards of the policies are met. The policies are therefore not inflexible regulations. When building plans have been approved by the Commission as to design and siting they are assessed by the Department of Territories for building approval. Structural alterations internal to buildings are a matter for the Department and are not subject to the Commission's Design and Siting Policies. From approximately 120,000 Design and Siting applications received since 1973 it is believed that only five applications have been approved which could be considered to be outside the objectives of the Design and Siting Policies. (2) (a) and (b) In all five cases, complaints were received either from neighbours or from nearby residents. One case has been the subject of legal action. (i) In two cases the Commission was able, in consultation with the respective applicants, to resolve the matters expeditiously. In one other case the Commission was, over an approximate two month period, successful in obtaining the `in principle' agreement of the applicant lessee to modify a structure to lessen its effect. The matter has yet however to be finally resolved. In the remaining two cases no corrective action could be taken by the Commission and the complaints remain unsatisfied. One of these last cases is the subject of a claim for damages that is not yet settled. The matter has been proceeding for some six years. (ii) Yes. (iii) No payment of damages to settle a dispute over a Design and Siting approval has been made by the Commonwealth. (3) (a) There are currently two disputes awaiting resolution through appeal to the Design and Siting Review Committee established pursuant to the ACT Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance 1964. (3) (b) One application for review was lodged with the Design and Siting Review Committee on 19 February 1985; the other at a subsequent date. (3) (c) The resolution of appeals is a matter for the Design and Siting Review Committee. (4) Professional officers are trained in the application of the Commission's Design and Siting Policies and are required to reach a high level of competence prior to being delegated the authority to deal with applications. In addition, delegates are required to report to their respective supervising officers weekly. (Question No. 67) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Communications aware of media reports expressing public concern about the recent decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to grant an FM public radio licence in Canberra to a racing and sporting organisation linked with the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority. (2) Does the Minister consider it appropriate that the ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority should be in a position to influence or control a public broadcasting licence. (3) Does the Minister consider that statutory authorities should be major financers of public broadcasting stations; if not, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that statutory authorities, other than educational institutions, are not issued with public broadcasting licences (as reflected in the guidelines for public broadcasting issued in 1978), or that public broadcasting licences are not issued to groups which statutory authorities are in a position to control. (4) Does the Minister consider that the recent changes to the Broadcasting and Television Act, which permit a single member of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to decide a matter before him or her, are appropriate in a contested hearing; if not, does the Minister intend to change this state of affairs in the forthcoming changes to the Broadcasting and Television Act. (5) Given the nature of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's recent decision not to grant a licence to Canberra Stereo Public Radio, will the Minister be calling for applications, in the near future, for a further public FM licence to service music and arts interests in Canberra. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) As stated in a reply to a Question Without Notice on 28 February 1985 on this subject, the granting of licences is a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, not the Minister. The matter of the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority's involvement in the applicant is discussed at length in the Tribunal's Report into the Grant of a Category S Public Broadcasting Station Licence to service the Canberra Statistical District, paragraphs 11.29 to 11.63. (3) It is proposed that new provisions be drafted for the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, covering eligibility, ownership or control matters which will apply specifically to public broadcasting, abandoning the current unsatisfactory application of commercial sector provisions to public broadcasting. These amendments would reflect the main points of the Guidelines issued in 1978. The application of these provisions is and will continue to be a matter for the Tribunal. (4) The uniform inquiry procedures in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985, recently passed by Parliament, will streamline Tribunal inquiries and give early warning of contentious issues likely to arise in the course of an inquiry. The Tribunal may in such cases choose to consider these issues as a body, or appoint more than one member to hear the inquiry. (5) A successful appeal has been made to the Federal Court since the original decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal not to grant a licence to Canberra Stereo Public Radio. An appeal against this decision has now been lodged with the Full Court by Canberra District Racing and Sporting Broadcasters, the group to whom the Tribunal had originally granted a licence. It would be inappropriate for me to take any further action pending the outcome of this appeal. (Question No. 178) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Is the new Darwin International Airport completion date to be postponed, given speculation to that effect. (2) Is the Minister for Aviation concerned at the standard of facilities at both the present Darwin and Alice Springs Airports, through which a great volume of international visitors now travel, given the view recently expressed by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, that `many people abroad fail to distinguish between the States and Territories of Australia'. (3) Is the Minister concerned that those international travellers, who have passed through Darwin Airport and described it as worse than most third world countries, may be leaving Australia with an unfavourable view of our facilities as a result of the Commonwealth apparently failing to come to grips with upgrading these airport facilities. (4) What is the expected completion date for the new Darwin International Airport and when does the Commonwealth intend to accept its responsibility for upgrading the Alice Springs Airport, given the huge amount of funds that have been invested in international standard accommodation to encourage tourists to the Northern Territory. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has recently decided to defer further work on the redevelopment of civil aviation facilities at Darwin Airport pending a reappraisal of the project, expected to take some six months. (2) I am concerned at the standard of facilities at Darwin and I have asked my Department to identify any urgent works which may be necessary to enable the existing terminal to continue in operation until new facilities are completed. I am also concerned with the standard of facilities at Alice Springs Airport and discussions are continuing between the Northern Territory Government, Alice Springs Town Council and my Department, with a view to Alice Springs Airport entering the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP). The purpose of discussions is to determine the scope of works necessary to enable Alice Springs Aerodrome to enter the ALOP on a transfer arrangement acceptable to all parties. Once agreement has been obtained, new facilities can be programmed and could be expected to become operational three to four years after transfer to ALOP. (3) I am concerned at the impression created by the airport facilities at Darwin. The Government is still committed to upgrading passenger facilities. The reappraisal of the project is designed to ensure that this upgrading is carried out in the most cost effective way. (4) The completion date for the redevelopment of Darwin Airport depends on the outcome of the reappraisal investigations. Likewise the completion date for any improvements at Alice Springs Airport will depend on the outcome of discussions concerning the airport entering the ALOP. (Question No. 227) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: Will the Minister for Aviation advise when the safer Metro 3 and other smaller aircraft, which are currently in use in the United States, Germany and England, will be approved for use in Australia. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: At this time the Metro III aircraft is restricted to a maximum take-off-weight (MTOW) of 5,700 kg (which is approximately 12,500 lbs). Two broad categories of aircraft are recognised through international consensus. A maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 5,700 kg represents the dividing line between the `small' and `transport' categories. Different standards of design, maintenance, crewing and general operating conditions apply to aircraft in each of these categories with the more stringent requirements applying to transport aircraft types. The Metro III has been designed and built to standards applicable to small aircraft, i.e. MTOW below 5,700 kg. The US regulatory authorities have permitted some aircraft types, including the Metro III, to operate at weights in excess of 12,500 lbs although they are designed only to the standards for `small' aircraft. This departure from internationally accepted practice is allowed by the US authorities only in the case of aircraft that are designed and produced before certain specified dates. Other countries are considering whether they also will allow the operation of `overweight' aircraft, and under what conditions. Present indications are that countries such as the UK and Canada have imposed or will impose certain safety related requirements that are additional to the requirements set by the US authorities. At this time my Department believes that several countries besides USA may be operating Metro III aircraft of MTOW above 12,500 lbs with special conditions. My Department's approach is similar to that the UK and Canadian authorities. Action is well advanced, in consultation with the aviation industry to introduce such a provision subject to certain safety related requirements being met. (Question No. 228) Senator Knowles asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: What were the costs of providing security measures at HMAS Stirling Naval Base in Western Australia during the women's `so-called' peace camp demonstration from 1 to 15 December 1984, including, in particular, the costs of: (a) the use of navy buses to transport naval personnel to and from the base through the demonstrators' picket lines; and (b) the cost of wages, including overtime, for Federal Police involved in controlling the demonstration. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The total cost to the Department of Defence was $42,238 including $2,134 for fuel issues to navy buses. In respect to Federal Police involvement I am advised the total cost to the Department of the Special Minister of State was $212,135 including $63,635 and $120,000 for wages and overtime respectively. (Question No. 237) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Do mining operations at Mount Etna cause a threat to the Little Bent Wing bats at Bat Cleft, particularly to the `maternity cave' which is the breeding ground for these bats. (2) Is it not important that Bat Cleft should be preserved, as it is one of only four sites in Australia where these insectivorous bats breed. (3) As Bat Cleft has a unique ecological environment with an exact balance of temperature and humidity for breeding of the Little Bent Wing bat, does it seem likely that there could be another cave in the area which would be a suitable alternative breeding ground. (4) Can the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment take any action to ensure that this unique area of our heritage, referred to above, is preserved. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Any large scale mining activity in close proximity to a maternity cave for bats gives cause for concern. Bat Cleft is a maternity cave supporting a population of approximately 100,000 breeding females of Little Bent Wing bats. (2) Five breeding sites are presently known for the Little Bent Wing bat but its distribution extends from Kempsen to Cape York and it is possible that there may be other sites. Preservation of Bat Cleft is important, as it serves a local population of approximately 250,000 Little Bent Wing bats, which constitutes up to 80-90 per cent of the estimated Australian population. (3) There are no published reports of other caves of similar structure in the region. (4) Preservation of populations of bats and their breeding habitat in the Mount Etna region is the responsibility of the Queensland Government. (Question No. 245) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Territories been drawn to a television commercial which advertises a well-known brand of chocolate and also features `on-location' scenes of the exterior and interior of the Canberra Carillon. (2) Did the Government agree to the use of the Carillon for the purposes of producing a television commercial; if so, what fee, if any, was payable; if not, does the Government intend to protest to the company concerned for taking the liberty that it did. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I am aware of the television commercial referred to which features `on-location' scenes of the interior and exterior of the Canberra Carillon. My Department was consulted and agreed to the filming of the commercial. There was no fee payable. (Question No. 258) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) Does a single person living in a de facto relationship have to take unemployment benefits as a married person. (2) When submitting an income tax return, can a single person living in a de facto relationship claim for his de facto spouse as a dependent; if not, does that single person then have to pay income tax on that part of his unemployment benefit which exceeds the threshold for a single person. (3) If both (1) and (2) above are correct, what action will the Minister for Social Security take to provide that a single person living in a de facto relationship can take unemployment benefits as a single person. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A person living in a de facto relationship is a `married' person within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The maximum rate of unemployment benefit in respect of the person claiming is half the combined married rate. An equivalent amount is payable to that person in respect of his/her spouse if he/she is not in receipt of pension or benefit in their own right. Such additional payment for a spouse could be declined but the rate payable to the person would not be increased to that payable to a single person. (2) The question is more appropriately one for the Treasurer. However, he has advised me that, with effect from 1 July 1984, where a man and a woman live together as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic basis although they are not legally married to each other, entitlement to the income tax rebate for a dependent spouse will be determined on the same basis as if they were legally married to each other. Prior to 1 July 1984, the spouse rebate was only available in respect of a legally married spouse. In addition, special tax rebates were introduced at the same time to ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on social security, unemployment, sickness or special benefits do not have to pay income tax. (3) No action is considered necessary in view of (2) above. (Question No. 269) Senator Walsh —On 8 May 1985, Senator Jack Evans asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Question No. 269, as follows: (1) Can the Minister for Communications advise what is the maximum time any single Telecom interception of subscribers' phone services for maintenance purposes (i.e. to locate faults), as distinct from security purposes, has been made: (a) in Western Australia; and (b) nationally. (2) Were the monitored subscribers, referred to in (1) above, in advance or during the monitoring, notified and aware that their services were being monitored. (3) Is the Minister aware that monitoring of a subscriber's service may occur over as long a period as 26 days and that such monitoring may take the form of broadcasting the subscribers' telephone conversations through a loudspeaker system. (4) If Telecom operates with no published guidelines or set procedures for the monitoring of subscribers' services, will the Minister advise on whose authority such monitoring occurs. (5) Does the Minister plan to establish a set of guidelines for the use of Telecom when carrying out maintenance monitoring of subscribers' services; if so, would such guidelines include the prerequisite of Ministerial authorisation for any monitoring of a sustained nature. The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the question, based on advice provided by the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) to (5) Statistical information of the type sought is not maintained by Telecom. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act is the relevant law in relation to the interception of telecommunications. The Act provides that interception does not apply for any act done by an officer of the Australian Telecommunications Commission in the course of his duties for or in connection with the installation of any line, apparatus or equipment used in the operation or maintenance of a telecommunications system. With over 6 million telephone subscribers and a vast network to permit the interchange of national and international communications, Telecom staff need to have access to telephone circuits to ensure proper maintenance and operation of the service. Monitoring is normally only for a short duration and it would not be practicable to inform the subscriber concerned every time Telecom staff needed to check a line. A subscriber would also not be informed in cases where more lengthy monitoring is necessary, and it is essential to observe the performance of the service under typical conditions. It would be operationally impracticable to develop guidelines and instructions that would cover the variety of cases which could arise where Telecom officers need to go across a line on which conversations may be proceeding. It should be noted that appropriate penalty clauses are contained in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act should there by any disclosure of information obtained in the performance of an officer's duties. (Question No. 318) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1985: (1) What is the role of the Association/Management Committee Council which is being set up within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (2) Is permanent office accommodation being made available for the union representative within the Department, and has the union representative or the Council been empowered to make decisions which can cut across the direction of the departmental head or section head. (3) Can a direction of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs be countered or refused by the Council or the union representative. (4) Are councils, similar to the one referred to in (1) above, being set up within other Federal departments. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The objectives of the Department's Consultative Council are as follows: (a) to promote good industrial relations in the Department; (b) to improve mutual understanding of management and union issues; (c) to provide a forum for consultation and open discussion between management and union representatives and to aim to resolve any differences in a mutually acceptable manner; (d) to facilitate the mutual exchange of information. Without limiting the scope of issues which, by agreement with the parties, might be considered by the Consultative Council, the primary matters for consideration by Council will be national departmental matters including: Departmental objectives and their implementation in relation to particular programs; Departmental systems and procedures; Departmental personnel and staffing policies and practices. (2) Permanent accommodation has been made available within the Department for union representatives. Neither union representatives nor the Council have been empowered to make decisions which `cut across the direction of the Departmental Secretary or Section Heads'. (3) A direction from me cannot be countered or refused by the Council or the union representatives. (4) I understand that this is so. (Question No. 321) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 28 May 1985: (1) Can the Minister for Science advise the number and names of urgent high priority capital projects on the Bureau of Meteorology program. (2) Where is the Weipa radar situated on the program referred to in (1) above. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Bureau of Meteorology's program of high priority capital projects is frequently reviewed in the light of Government policy, service requirements, and the availability of staff and funds. Such a review is currently under way as part of the Budget process. However, significant high priority projects now in hand, or which will probably start in the next few years, are: automation of Regional Forecasting Centre operations (AROS) electrolytic hydrogen generation at Antarctic and remote stations replacement of obsolescent air temperature and dew point telemetry equipment at airports and Regional Forecasting Centres replacement of obsolescent upper air radiosonde receivers upgrade of automatic weather stations on islands in the tropical cyclone regions replacement of 1960s vintage wind finding radars drifting ocean telemetry buoys automatic relay of aircraft in flight meteorological data to weather offices more extensive relay of radar weather data to Weather Service Offices and Regional Forecasting Centres a Darwin receiving station for data from the Japanese meteorological satellite modernisation of the main communication system a new ground station to receive high resolution data from US weather satellites replacement of the Cairns weather watch radar a weather watch radar station at Weipa man-computer interactive data access system (McIDAS) for satellite data processing upgrading of the Bureau's main geostationary satellite receiving station to accomodate transmission changes scheduled for 1987 relocation of Brisbane Airport meteorological office upgraded recorded telephone service at Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres replacement of ageing satellite picture recorders in Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres replacement of mercury barometers (on safety grounds) equipping the new Regional Office premises in Perth computerisation of the Bureau's supply system to improve efficiency and save staff The projects on this schedule are not listed in relative priority order. (2) An unstaffed remote controlled weather watch (cyclone tracking) radar will be installed at Weipa by November 1986. It will be controlled over a Telecom link from the meteorological office in Townsville where the data will be read out for onforwarding to the Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre in Brisbane. Senator Grimes —On 13 May 1985 (Hansard, page 1797), I undertook to obtain further information for Senator Giles in answer to a question about payment of pensions directly to the bank accounts of beneficiaries. The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer: The payment of pensions directly to accounts held with banks, building societies and credit unions has been generally well accepted by the clients of the Department. At present 83 per cent of all pensioners are being paid by direct deposit as are 85 per cent of all family allowances. Invitations have been forwarded to unemployment and sickness beneficiaries requesting details of an account into which they would like their benefit payments to be credited. As not all responses have been received, statistics on acceptances cannot be provided at this stage. However, it is expected that the acceptance level will be similar to that for pension and family allowance payments. Those unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries who have requested payment directly to a financial institution have received payments in that manner from 17 June 1985. The co-operation of approximately 600 financial institutions has been vital in the changeover to direct deposit payments for pensions and family allowances. These institutions have again assisted the Department by participating in a trial of the processing required for direct deposit of unemployment benefits. Senator Walsh —On 14 May 1985 (Hansard, page 1880), Senator Foreman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning proposed youth traineeships. In my reply, I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government has already endorsed, in principle, the concept of youth traineeships and has undertaken wide ranging consultations with State Governments, unions and employers to gauge the level of support for the concept and its practical implementation. Those consultations have resulted in widespread in-principle support for traineeships and for their practical development including from the Tripartite National Labour Consultative Council and Commonwealth and State Ministers for Labour, Youth and Education. The Government will soon be considering a detailed action plan for implementing a substantial initial program of traineeships in 1985-86. Senator Button —On 20 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2129) Senator Jack Evans asked me whether the Government would initiate an inquiry into secret donations to State branches of national political parties by companies which are granted government contracts, to determine whether decisions made by State governments are unjustly influenced by such donations. The Acting Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth Electoral Act now requires State branches of political parties to provide the Australian Electoral Commission, within 20 weeks after an election, details of all gifts exceeding $1,000 received since the previous election. The Electoral Commission is currently examining the returns made after the 1984 federal elections to make sure that they comply with the legislation, and has the power to institute prosecutions in the light of the evidence available. Furthermore the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the new electoral laws at last year's election. The new provisions on election funding and financial disclosure constitute a significant deterrent to the type of incident referred to by the honourable senator. (Question No. 329) Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) With respect to Exercise KANGAROO 83: (a) what was the total cost to Australia and what were the main elements of that cost: (b) what units of the Australian Defence Force were deployed away from their home bases, where were they deployed and for how long; (c) what units of the Australian Defence Force participated operating from their normal home bases; (d) what were the daily maintenance tonnages to the exercise area on each day of the exercise and of that daily maintance how many tons were- (1) food, (2) ammunition, (3) bridging, (4) mine warfare equipment, (5) other defence stores, and (6) petrol, oil and lubricants; (e) from where were the daily maintenance tonnages referred to in (d) above provided; and (f) how many casualties were there and what was the evacuation plan- (1) for personnel, and (2) for materiel. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Much of the detailed information sought is not readily available. If the honourable senator would care to indicate more precisely the interests behind his question, I shall be happy to consider the matter further, and to see whether more research would be justified. (a) The reported exercise direct cost for Exercise KANGAROO 83 was $27.068m. Details of individual items are at Table 1. (b) The deployment and redeployment details provided at Table 2 are given in terms of blue (friendly), orange (enemy) and neutral (umpires and control) forces. (c) No. 1 and No. 6 Squadron RAAF (F111) operated from their home base Amberley, Queensland and No. 33 Squadron RAAF (B707) participated in the deployment and redeployment but operated from Richmond, New South Wales. (d) No assessment has been made of the daily maintenance tonnages used by exercise participants and it would take considerable time and effort to extract from archival files even a close appromimation of the figures required if indeed they are available at all, which is unlikely. The Australian Defence Force did not consider the keeping of such exercise records would be useful or relevant to any future operation or exercise. (e) Most daily maintenance was transported to the area from home bases on initial deployment and some was purchased from the civil infrastructure in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, particularly in the area of the land exercise. (f) (1) It is presumed that the question refers to real casualties to men and materiel. No serious casualties resulted during the exercise during which 11 Field Ambulance treated 23 patients (maximum of three on any one day) and the 1 Field Hospital Detachment treated 47, including some RAAF personnel. No RAN casualties resulted. Details of the medical aspects included in the Joint Exercise Instructions are given at Table 3. (2) It would take much effort and considerable time to assess the real casualties to equipment during Exercise KANGAROO 83. Details of repair and recovery, and exercise equipment casualties included in the Joint Exercise Instructions are given at Table 4. Table 1: KANGAROO 83-EXERCISE DIRECT COSTS Item Reported Expenditure ($m) Reserve Forces... .025 Civilian Salaries/overtime... .075 Travelling and Subsistence... 2.318 Office requisites... .065 Postage, telegrams, telephones... .240 Fuel, light, power, water, sanitation... .077 Freight and cartage... 2.281 Medical and dental... .041 Personal injury/damage to property... .011 Port handling, licences... .062 Incidentals... .004 Rations... .910 Liquid fuels and lubricants... 8.295 Other replacement equipment/stores... 5.214 Repair and overhaul of equipment... 7.297 Rent... .152 Minor New Works... .001 27.068 * Exercise Direct Costs-All costs which can be readily attributable to the exercise other than manpower costs. Table 2: KANGAROO 83-DEPLOYMENT Deployment Redeployment Unit Start Complete Start Complete BLUE FORCE 92 Wing (P3C)... 9 Sept. 14 Sept. 12 Oct. 20 Oct. 77 Sqn (Mirage)... 16 Sept. 23 Sept. 12 Oct. 27 Oct. URW 9 Sqn (Helo)... 18 Sept. 27 Sept. 16 Oct 3 Nov. MLH 12 Sqn (Chinook)... 22 Sept. 1 Oct. 16 Oct. 3 Nov. SRT 38 Sqn (Caribou)... 22 Sept. 1 Oct 17 Oct. 3 Nov. MRT (C130)... 23 Sept. 4 Oct. 18 Oct. 3 Nov. HQ LMO (Learmonth)... 14 Sept. 23 Oct. 1 OSU (Op Spt Unit)... 9 Sept. 30 Sept. 19 Oct 4 Nov. AC HQ (Army Corp HQ)... 11 Sept. 18 Sept. 20 Oct. 23 Oct. HQ ROE (Roeburn)... 20 Sept. 26 Sept. 18 Oct. 18 Oct. 2 AFDA (Airfield Def. Sqn)... 11 Sept. 24 Sept. 28 Oct. 3 Nov. TACC (Tac Air Con Centre)... 18 Sept. 21 Oct. 4 Nov. NC HQ (Navy Corp HQ)... 11 Sept. 22 Sept. 20 Oct. 23 Oct. CDT 1 (Clearance Diving Team)... 22 Sept. 26 Sept. 21 Oct. 2 Nov. HMAS Jervis Bay... 13 Sept. 5 Oct. 19 Oct. 14 Nov. HMAS Tobruk... 29 Aug. 15 Nov. HMAS Wewak... 8 Aug. 15 Nov. HMAS Balikpapan... 29 Aug. 15 Nov. HMAS Tarakan... 29 Aug. 15 Nov. JF HQ (Joint Force)... 29 Aug. 8 Sept. 19 Oct. 21 Oct. 2 Sig. Regt... 29 Aug. 18 Sept. 19 Oct. 3 Nov. 1 Sig. Regt... 21 Sept. 1 Oct. 29 Oct. 4 Nov. 1MP Coy... 21 Sept. 1 Oct. 29 Oct. 4 Nov. 11 FD AMB... 21 Sept. 1 Oct. 29 Oct. 4 Nov. 139 Sig. Sqn... 21 Sept. 29 Sept. 19 Oct. 3 Nov. 130 Sig. Sqn... 13 Sept. 4 Oct. 17 Oct. 4 Nov. 10 Tml Regt (Terminal)... 29 Aug. 20 Sept. 21 Oct. 4 Nov. 3 Bde (ODF)... 8 Sept. 3 Oct. 16 Oct. 4 Nov. 11MC GP... 1 Sept. 26 Sept. 27 Oct. 4 Nov. 1ATSR (Air Transport Spt Regt)... 19 Sept. 28 Sept. 22 Oct. 4 Nov. 139 Air Eqpt... 23 Sept. 14 Oct. 18 Oct. 9 Pet Pl... 19 Sept. 29 Sept. 16 Oct. 18 Oct. 1 Div Cash Office... 19 Sept. 29 Sept. 15 Oct. 17 Oct. 173 Gl Spt Sqn (Ground Liaison)... 24 Sept. 1 Oct. 14 Oct. 17 Oct. 1 Div Int... 24 Sept. 15 Oct. 17 Oct. AJWE... 10 Sept. 10 Sept. 23 Oct. 23 Oct. SASR... Classified Norforce... 31 Aug. 11 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. HMAS Hobart... 13 Sept. 18 Oct. HMAS Canberra... 13 Sept. 18 Oct. HMAS Supply... 13 Sept. 31 Oct. HMAS Cessnock... 29 Aug. 19 Nov. HMAS Bendigo... 14 Sept. 15 Oct. HMAS Townsville... 5 Sept. 17 Oct. HMAS Warnambool... 12 Sept. 24 Oct. ORANGE FORCE HMAS Torrens... 19 Sept. 16 Oct. HMAS Swan... 19 Sept. 16 Oct. HMAS Oxley... 9 Sept. 16 Oct. HMAS Adroit... 19 Sept. 16 Oct. HMAS Barbette... 2 Sept. 24 Oct. CDT (Clearance Diving Team)... 23 Sept. 16 Oct. 4 x S2 (Tracker)... 18 Sept. 18 Sept. 14 Oct. 14 Oct. 1 RAR... 8 Sept. 15 Sept. 16 Oct. 21 Oct. Det 1 Div Sig Regt... 24 Sept. 24 Sept. 15 Oct. 21 Oct. Det 104 Sign Sqn... 24 Sept. 24 Sept. 16 Oct. 21 Oct. Det 139 Sig Sqn... 24 Sept. 24 Sept. 16 Oct. 21 Oct. 72 EW Sqn (-)... 24 Aug. 15 Sept. 16 Oct. 21 Oct. 2 SAS Sqn... 18 Sept. 21 Oct. Avn Tp... 21 Sept. 24 Sept. 21 Oct. 4 Nov. Det 1 ATSR... 19 Sept. 28 Sept. 22 Oct. 4 Nov. Evac Sect... 21 Sept. 1 Oct. 29 Oct. 4 Nov. 1 Sqn (F111)... 14 Sept. 20 Oct. 92 Wing (P3C)... 24 Sept. 20 Oct. NEUTRAL FORCE HS748 (EW acft)... 18 Sept. 14 Oct. 4 Fd Regt (-)... 8 Sept. 3 Oct. 16 Oct. 4 Nov. 111 AD Bty Lt (Redeye)... 8 Sept. 3 Oct. 16 Oct. 4 Nov. Det Army Fire Svce... 24 Sept. 4 Nov. Elm 1 Div Sig Regt... 24 Sept. 24 Sept. 15 Oct. 21 Oct. Det Fd Sup Coy... 8 Sept. 3 Oct. 16 Oct. 4 Nov. MP Sect... 8 Sept. 3 Oct. 16 Oct. 4 Nov. MC Det... 8 Sept. 24 Sept. 15 Oct. 4 Nov. Postal Det... 19 Sept. 24 Sept. 15 Oct. 4 Nov. MLH 12 Sqn... 22 Sept. 1 Oct. 16 Oct. 3 Nov. 9 Sqn (UHIH)... 18 Sept. 27 Sept. 16 Oct. 3 Nov. 38 Sqn (Caribou)... 22 Sept. 1 Oct. 17 Oct. 3 Nov. ATTU... 1 Sept. 10 Sept. 15 Oct. 4 Nov. 1. Some of the `start' and `complete' dates may vary according to interpretation of whether (a) the unit was considered to have commenced deployment or to be complete on the ground when the first element, main body, or last element moved or arrived respectively; and (b) an `element' was considered to be men, materiel, or both. TABLE 3: EXTRACTS FROM KANGAROO 83 JOINT EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS-MEDICAL EXTRACT 1 CHAPTER 3-MEDICAL General 5.0301 This chapter details the medical support to be provided for all elements participating in the exercise. All participants should be aware that initial medical support is to be provided by their normal servicing medical facility, usually the unit/HQ RAP. 5.0302 Casualties during the exercise are defined as: a. real casualties-personnel who are actually ill or injured; and b. exercise casualties-personnel identified by umpires as casualties. 5.0303 Real and exercise casualties will be processed in a similar manner, in accordance with single Service procedures (eg paragraphs 411-416 of MLW Vol 1 Pam 6). Detailed procedures for the handling of exercise casualties are contained in Chapter 9 to this part. The casualty holding policy is: a. Real casualties-10 days; and b. Exercise casualties-48 hours. Local Health Hazards 5.0304 A brief, describing the possible local health hazards is given at Annex A. Where appropriate, treatment is included as part of the brief, and the treatment for snake bite is detailed at Appendix 1 to Annex A. Senior Medical Officer 5.0305 A Senior Medical Officer (SMO) is to be appointed by Comd FF Med Svc and will be located at Dampier under commander of DEXDIR. Technical control of the SMO will be exercised by Comd FF Med Svc, through DMS 5MD. The SMO is responsible for: a. regulation of evacuation and hospitalisation of all real casualties to civilian and Service medical facilities outside the AO, b. regulation of evacuation of Control Organisation real casualties from their support medical facility to Det 1 Fd Hosp, Nickol Bay, Karratha or other medical facility within the AO, c. liaision with and submission of requests for aeromedical evacuation to the Aeromedical Evacuation Co-ordinating Officer (AECOO), and d. post exercise clearance and evacuation of patients from the AO to other medical facilities in the ASA. Medical Support 5.0306 Blue Force. The medical plan for BLUE Force will be prepared and promulgated by the BLUE Force Mounting Authority. 5.0307 Orange Force. Medical treatment and hospitalisation of personnel serving with ORANGE Force will be the responsibility of the RMO, ORANGE Force. Real casualties requiring hospital treatment are to be evacuated to the Neutral Det at Nickol Bay, Karratha, wherever practicable. 5.0308 Neutral Exercise Control Organisation. Medical treatment of personnel serving with these organisations will be the responsibility of the SMO. Regimental Aid Posts (RAP) are to be established at Port Hedland and Dampier with C3O arrangements. In other areas, eg Derby and when RAP support is not available locally, personnel are to seek treatment from the local Area Medical Officer (AMO), as listed in Annex B. Real casualties requiring hospital treatment are to be evacuated to the Det at Nickol Bay Hospital, Karratha, or to other local hospitals, whichever is determined most appropriate by the SMO. Casualty Evacuation 5.0309 The normal means of evacuation will be by air. The details of casualty evacuation within BLUE Force, ORANGE Force and Neutral/Control Organisation will be determined and promulgated by the staff of the respective HQ. In general, evacuation of land casualties will be in accordance with single Service procedures eg MLW Vol 1 Pam 6. 5.0310 Urgent real casualties (priority 1 and 2 vide paragraph 1334 of MLW Vol 1 Pam No. 3) should be evacuated by air direct to the Det at Nickol Bay Hospital, Karratha, unless medical authority determines that evacuation to a local civilian facility is more appropriate. Aircraft involved in aeromedical evacuation are classed as neutral for the duration of the operation. Exercise aeromedical evacuation will remain BLUE for the duration of the operation. 5.0311 Patients requiring evacuation from Nickol Bay Hospital Karratha or local civil medical facility will be moved on and `as required and available' basis under arrangements made by the SMO through the Aeromedical Evacuation Co-ordinating Officer (AECOO). Administration and Logistics 5.0312 Medical Documentation. Unit medical records are not to be taken to the exercise area. Field medical cards are to be used for all casualties (real and exercise) until they are admitted to a medical facility. 5.0313 Spectacles. All persons attending the exercise who wear spectacles and have been issued with two pairs should take both pairs to the exercise area. Units should ensure that the current prescription for spectacles is available for those persons who have only one pair. 5.0314 Medical Stores. All units are to deploy with their normal scaling of medical stores. Local pharmacy stocks are not in high levels, particularly antivenenes, burns dressings and intravenous fluids. Medical facilities are to ensure sufficient stocks are held to treat all likely real casualties. 5.0315 Microbiological Screening. Western Australia has a virtual quarantine policy in action to prevent the occurence of large outbreaks of methicillin resistant staphyloccus aureus in its hospitals. Accordingly all medical and paramedical staff from interstate using the Nickol Bay Hospital, will need to be in possession of a recent negative throat swab prior to being allowed to work in wards. Patients who have been in interstate hospitals since 1 Sept 1982 will also need a throat swab-otherwise they are quarantined until a swab is done in the hospital in WA. Command 5.0316 The SMO for the exercise is to be appointed by Comd FF Med Svcs and will be medical adviser to DEXDIR. The SMO responsibilities are outlined in paragraph 5.0305 of this chapter. 5.0317 BLUE and ORANGE Force commanders are to appoint a SMO within their force, who is under technical control of the Exercise SMO. EXTRACT 2 Medical 4.0365 Medical Evacuation-Real Casualties a. Minor Real Casualties. The normal means of evacuation will be by road. b. `URGENT' Real Casualties. `URGENT' real casualties (priority 1 and 2 vide paragraph 1334 of MLW Volume 1 Pam Number 3) will be evacuated by air. 4.0366 Procedures. As far as possible real and exercise casualties (less `URGENT' real casualties) will be evacuated by normal means (road). In a situation where normal resources are inadequate to deal with `URGENT' real casualties, unit/formation headquarters are to bid to HQ CLU for additional support via the umpire net. 4.0367 Notification. All real casualties notifiable in terms of the Manual of Personal Administration, are to be subject of a NOTICAS signal in the normal manner. 4.0368 Health Hazards. A brief describing the fauna and flora found in the Exercise Area which constitute a possible hazard is at Annex F. The appropriate treatment for snake bite, heat exhaustion and heat stroke are attached as Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the brief. A description of health hazards which may be encountered during the exercise is contained in Part 5 Chapter 2. 4.0369 Reserved. Wearing of Rings 4.0370 All formations/units are to warn members of the dangers of wearing rings. Note: 1. Annexes are routine and have not been included. TABLE 4: EXTRACTS FROM KANGAROO 83 JOINT EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS-REPAIR AND RECOVERY AND EQUIPMENT CASUALTIES EXTRACT 1 5.0202 Recovery of Defence Stores. During the post exercise restoration period, BLUE and ORANGE Land Force Commanders are responsible for recovering all defence stores to the LSC and CSU Dampier respectively. BLUE Land Force Commander and OC CSU Dampier are then responsible for their subsequent return to depot stocks. 5.0203 Repair and Recovery a. Service responsibility for repair and recovery will be in accordance with JSP(AS)2(A). b. The civilian infrastructure is to be used for repair and recovery exceeding the organic capacity of the Forces. c. Vehicles and equipment that cannot be repaired prior to the end of the exercise should not be committed to local civilian contractors. d. Casualties that cannot be repaired prior to the end of the exercise are to be backloaded as directed by single Service functional commands. e. Repair of civilian hire vehicles will be the responsibility of the hiring contractor, however, requests for Service assistance will be considered on an individual basis, depending on the circumstances, and availability of Service repair facilities. EXTRACT 2 CHAPTER 9-PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING EXERCISE CASUALTIES AND PRISONERS OF WAR AND REINFORCEMENTS 5.0901 Introduction. This chapter outlines procedures for handling exercise, as opposed to real, personal casualties, equipment casualties, and prisoners of war (PW) awarded by umpires to the BLUE and ORANGE Forces and for the handling of reinforcements. 5.0902 Exercise Personnel Casualties-Dead a. BLUE Force. BLUE force is to be exercised in the procedures for the handling of dead casualties both of their own force and of the ORANGE Force. The handling of BLUE Force dead and enemy dead is to be in accordance with current SOP's. Notwithstanding, dead casualties will not be evacuated from the exercise area. The casualty will be processed by BLUE Force but handed over to the Control Organisation at the location of the mortuary (field or established), point of local internment or of evacuation, whichever is most appropriate. Exercise BLUE dead casualties will be held by the Control Organisation until passed back to BLUE Force in satisfaction of a personnel reinforcement demand. b. ORANGE Force. ORANGE Force dead, not in the hands of BLUE Force are to remain with their unit. Subsequent participation in the exercise will be regulated by the Control Organisation to ensure exercise realism. ORANGE Force dead in BLUE Force hands are to be handled by BLUE Force in accordance with its SOPs, and subsequently handed over to the Control Organisation in a similar manner to BLUE casualties. The Control Organisation will return the casualty to ORANGE Force when appropriate, mindful of exercise realism and a reasonable Kamarian reinforcement capability. 5.0903 Exercise Personnel Casualties-Wounded a. BLUE Force. BLUE Force is to be exercised in the handling of wounded and the evacuation of casualties. Casualties will not, however, be evacuated from the exercise area. BLUE Force casualties are to be evacuated in accordance with BLUE SOP to the appropriate medical facility determined by the umpire awarded medical condition of the casualty. Casualties, whose treatment can be effected by medical facilities organic to the force, should be held for the appropriate period and then returned to duty. Casualties determined as requiring hospitalisation are to be moved by the appropriate means to the Nickol Bay Hospital, Karratha. Casualties evacuted to this hospital will not be retained after admission procedures are complete but passed to the Control Organisation. The casualty will then be held by the Control Organisation until passed back to the BLUE Force in satisfaction of a reinforcement demand or in simulation of a patient discharged from hospital and returned to duty. b. ORANGE Force. Orange Force wounded, not in the hands of BLUE Force, are to remain with their unit. Subsequent participation may require regulation by the Control Organisation in the interests of exercise realism. Wounded Orange Force PW should be handled in accordance with para 5.0905 but appropriate action must be taken by BLUE Force for the treatment of wounds. Orange PW wounded requiring hospitalisation are to be released to the Control Organisation at the Nickol Bay Hospital, Karratha after admission procedures are complete. 5.0904 Exercise Equipment Casualties a. BLUE Force Casualties. Exercise equipment casualties will be awarded by umpires to BLUE Force to test equipment repair, recovery and replacement procedures. All casualties imposed by umpires are to incur action by BLUE to repair/replace the equipment as though the casualty were real. Where appropriate, time delay penalties will be imposed by umpires to simulate repair time. Equipment casualties requiring recovery are to be recovered to the appropriate point of repair and held there for the designated repair time. Where an equipment is `destroyed' and subsequently umpired as `beyond repair' it is to be handed over to the Control Organisation. Such equipment will be held by the Control Organisation until handed back to BLUE in satisfaction of a replacement demand. Exercise equipment casualties will not be evacuated from the exercise area. b. ORANGE Force. Orange Force exercise equipment casualties are to remain in their unit. They are not to be used operationally however, until an umpire designated time period elapses. c. Accounting Restrictions. Because of peacetime accounting restrictions, equipment casualties passing outside unit control are to be accompanied by an operator/unit representative. d. Concept of Interface with BLUE Force. The Control Organisation is to provide as much realism as possible to BLUE Force in its evacuation/backloading of exercise casualties from the area of operations and the receipt of reinforcements and equipment replacements into the AO. To this end, ORANGE resources taken by BLUE Force will remain held by BLUE Force until such time as they would reasonably pass from the control of elements organic to the ODF ie. departure airfield or civilian hospital. Similarly, BLUE resources being returned to BLUE Force from the Control Organisation will be returned at a realistic location, ie. a personnel reinforcement may well be delivered to the nearest commercial airport coincident with the arrival of a domestic air service ex Perth, for the collection by BLUE Force. 5.0905 PW a. BLUE Force Procedures. All Orange Force PW captured by the Blue Force are to be handled in accordance with BLUE Force SOP, including interrogation, recording and if necessary medical treatment. At the time when the backloading of the PW from the exercise area is appropriate, the PW is to be handed over to the Control Organisation who will arrange his return to the Orange Force. Released PW's are not to be held by the BLUE Force. b. Orange Force Procedures. Orange Force PW procedures are not being exercised and it is not intended that prisoners be taken. If for any reason ORANGE Force becomes the custodian of BLUE Force personnel, such personnel will be returned to the BLUE LSC by the control organisation. 5.0906 Control Organisation a. EX(A) CON. Unless specifically advised to the contrary by HQ EXCON (FWD), EX(A) CON will represent to BLUE Force all military and civilian establishments and organisations outside the exercise area for the purpose of BLUE administration related to exercise (as opposed to real) personnel and equipment casualties and PW. This includes: (1) NOTICAS, (2) reinforcement demands, (3) PW reporting, (4) equipment replacement demands, and (5) demands for repair parts. (Question No. 385) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: Has landscaping (including tree planting) been carried out in and around the carpark area of the Australian Defence Force Academy; if so: (a) at what cost; (b) when was the work carried out; and (c) are all the works carried out still in place, if not, why not, and by whose authority has any alteration or removal taken place. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Landscaping has been carried out to five (5) carpark areas at the Australian Defence Force Academy. This work formed part of a contract for perimeter landscaping of the site and included the planting of native trees and shrubs, the installation of an irrigation system, drainage, retaining walls, etc. (a) Total cost of this perimeter landscaping package, including the carpark areas, was $117,481. (b) The landscaped areas were completed and handed over to the Department of Defence in November 1983, who in turn handed them over to the Australian Defence Force Academy. (c) No. As a result of experience on site during construction it was decided for traffic management reasons that some selective culling and some pruning should be undertaken to protect sight lines. This is not unusual where, as in this case, plantings are done early in order to provide a reasonably mature landscape on occupation. Culling at one of the carparks was carried out by the Academy in April/May 1985 and arrangements have been made to replant the area with lower growing species at an approximate cost of $3,000. Senator Button —On 27 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2493) Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question, without notice: Does the Government see the United States farm export plan due to be introduced from 1 June 1985, which is aimed at being a retaliatory move to recapture markets taken by the European Economic Community, as producing a situation likely to present a real threat to Australia's rural exports? The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: While understanding the frustrations which led to this Program, the Government is concerned about the effect which the US Export Enhancement Program may have on Australia's exports of particular agricultural commodities. These concerns have been transmitted to the President of the United States and taken up during Ministerial discussions with the US Secretaries for Agriculture and State. We have received assurances from the US Administration that the Program is targeted only against subsidised exporters and that Australia's interests will be taken into account in implementing the Program. Although the Program is to be carefully targeted at markets lost by the United States as a result of unfair subsidised competition, it will be difficult to contain the effects of the Program to the targeted markets. It would appear inevitable that the price of targeted commodities will be depressed and that competition will intensify when subsidised exporters are displaced from markets. The Government will be monitoring implementation of the Program and will be maintaining close contact with the United States Government on the implications of the Program for Australia and our interest in particular markets. One of the objectives of the Program is to pressure subsidising exporters to engage in negotiations for greater discipline on agricultural trading practices. Should the Program succeed in achieving this, it will have served a useful purpose. (Question No. 106) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: Is there no provision in the Social Security Act 1947 enabling the payment of costs to applicants before either the Social Security Appeals Tribunal or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the Government conceded before a hearing on a matter; if so, what steps are being taken to redress this inequity. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Costs incurred by applicants to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) are met in large part by my Department. Such costs in most cases relate to securing medical opinions and travelling to and from the Tribunal. Where my Department, or the SSAT, requests a medical report the Department will pay for the consultation and the preparation of the report. These, and necessary travel costs, are paid as part of the general administration of the Act under section seven. It does not pay the costs associated with the provision of medical reports commissioned independently by an applicant or the applicant's representatives as these are not incurred at the Department's request. Applicants to the SSAT are seldom legally represented. Thus the question of legal costs seldom arises. These principles are not affected if the Department concedes an appeal. Where a department client appeals to the Administrative Tribunal (AAT) the client is more likely to incur legal expenses. In addition it may be necessary to spend some money to travel to the hearing. My Department pays all expenses associated with an applicant's consultation with a medical specialist nominated by the Department. If the matter goes to a hearing the Department will, where the applicant is unable to afford to do so, pay necessary travel and accommodation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, in section 69, provides that legal and financial assistance may be granted by the Attorney-General in respect of an appeal. When he considers applications, section 69 requires that it would involve hardship to an applicant to refuse the application and that, in the circumstances, it is reasonable that assistance be granted. The Attorney-General's Department, I am informed, considers each case on its merits but uses, as a starting point in assessing hardship, the guidelines of the Australian Legal Aid Office for the grant of legal aid. It will, however, depart from these in an appropriate case. In considering the reasonableness of any grant of assistance regard is had primarily to the benefit which the applicant would gain by the grant, the degree of detriment which might flow from a refusal, and the merits of the applicant's case. The legal or financial assistance granted will apply to an applicant's legal costs and reasonable disbursements. Such disbursements include necessary medical and travel expenses. These may be covered in full but, where it appears that an applicant can afford it, a contribution may be required. The consession of a case does not affect the operation of this system. Section 67 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 also provides that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal may order that the fees and expenses of a witness summoned to appear before it are to be paid by the Commonwealth. This does not, of course, assist an applicant whose case is conceded prior to a hearing. Reference should also be made to section 66 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 which applies to social security clients appealing in a Freedom of Information matter. That provision enables the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to make a recommendation to the Attorney-General that an applicant's costs be paid by the Commonwealth where the applicant is successful, or substantially successful, in his application. In a number of recent Freedom of Information cases the AAT has recommended that an applicant's costs be paid where the department or authority has conceded and supplied documents. In all the circumstances there are no firm plans for change, although I understand that the Administrative Review Council is considering a reference on applicant's costs before administrative tribunals. The Government will, of course, consider any recommendations which the Administrative Review Council might make following its review. (Question No. 389) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a report in the newspaper, the Australian, on 28 May 1985, concerning the dozens of commercial fishing companies which are facing bankruptcy as a result of the high cost of fuel, in remote areas of Australia; if so: (a) does the Minister believe that it is reasonable to expect these operators, many of whom run small businesses, to bear the recent increases in the cost of fuel, firstly as a result of a general increase in petrol prices, and more recently as a result of the Government's decision to reduce the petrol freight subsidy to remote areas; and (b) does the Minister believe that action is warranted to ensure that the fishing industry, in areas like the Gulf of Carpentaria, is not disadvantaged as a result of the Government's fuel pricing policies, given the claim of the report that one of the biggest fishing companies in the country has begun feasibility studies into moving its operations to South Korea, where its costs can be kept down; if so, what action would the Minister propose to ensure the continuing viability of the fishing industry in Australia's northern waters. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Minister for Primary Industry has been unable to identify the particular report in question. Nonetheless, he is aware of fishing industry concern over the impact of fuel price increases. (a) The fishing industry is recognised as one which is particularly vulnerable to the effects of fuel price increases because of the significance of fuel in its cost structure. Nonetheless, it is not possible for the Government to seek to fully protect industries from the effects of the Government's import parity pricing policy, which is an economically sound policy. Similarly, it is not unreasonable that all industries should share to some degree the burden of Government cut-backs, such as the recent change to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, which was necessitated by the need to achieve our broader economic objectives. Notwithstanding that change, however, assistance of around $800,000 is still expected to be provided to the fishing industry under the Scheme, of which about $700,000 is expected to go to the Northern Prawn Fishery. (b) The Government recognises that recent fuel price increases have had a disproportionate effect on the fishing industry, particularly the Northern Prawn Fishery. The Government has therefore agreed to provide up to $9m over the next three years to facilitate adjustment and to improve the profitability of Australia's northern prawn fisheries. This undertaking is an initial response to the report of the government/industry working group established to examine the impact of fuel price increases on the fishing industry. The Government is in the process of developing management plans for a number of our fisheries and, as part of this process, will keep industry conditions under close review. (Question No. 391) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Education aware that the Queensland Teachers' Union has prepared its pre-budget submission advising the State Government that it needs an extra $210m to bring Queensland into line with education spending in other States; if so, does the Minister agree with this assessment. (2) How does the Federal Government assist Queensland to lift its education standards. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Assessment of particular needs in Queensland education is a matter for determination by the Queensland Government. (2) The Commonwealth has established a national per capita funding scheme for general operating grants to government schools and has provided funding increases for eight years to 1992, with the first four years in legislation. Under this arrangement, Commonwealth grants will increase by at least 50 per cent in real terms over the period from 1984 to 1992. Queensland will share in these increases. In 1985 the Commonwealth is providing the following grants for government schools in Queensland: (est. Dec. 1984 prices) $m General Recurrent... *60.3 Primary Basic Learning... 0.9 Participation and Equity... 7.0 Computer Education... 0.7 English as a Second Language... 2.6 Disadvantaged Schools... 3.2 Special Education... 3.4 Early Special Education... 0.3 Capital... 27.0 Total... 105.4 * Subject to actual enrolments. This represents an increase of 7 per cent in real terms over 1984. In addition, government schools in Queensland also share in a range of Joint Programs such as Multicultural Education, Country Areas, Severely Handicapped and Professional Development of Teachers. Funds of over $6m are being provided in 1985 for these programs. (Question No. 392) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: When will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism be bringing forward proposals to increase direct assistance to the tourist industry, given that the Ferris Report recommended that tourism no longer be considered eligible for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme because of the difficulty of applying the export performance test to the industry, and that the tourist industry ceased to receive this subsidy on 20 May 1985. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government announced on 19 June, details of a new scheme, the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme (TOPS), designed to encourage the Australian tourism industry to promote its product in overseas markets. The new Scheme, which came into effect on 20 May 1985, will provide assistance to the tourism industry to replace the tourism provisions formerly incorporated in the Export Market Development Grants Scheme (EMDG). The main new features of TOPS include the introduction of a Validity Test to ensure the Scheme is cost effective and the requirement to obtain prior approval for any overseas promotional activity that is to attract funding under the Scheme. The Validity Test will take into account other major promotional activities, such as those by the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) and conditions in the overseas markets involved. In this regard the scheme will have the advantages of producing a more co-ordinated and efficient promotion effort and will enable specialist advice to be given to prospective promoters. The Scheme will be administered by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism in consultation with the Australian Tourist Commission. Transitional arrangements will be made to cope with claims by firms which committed themselves, in good faith, to promotional activities under the former EMDG Scheme prior to its cessation. (Question No. 393) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: Was the Commonwealth Government, as a party to the World Heritage Convention, asked in December 1983 to provide the World Heritage Committee with a tentative list of cultural and national properties to form the basis of future nominations to the World Heritage List; if so, has the Commonwealth Government provided this tentative list and thereby fulfilled its obligations to identify and protect properties that it recognises are of world heritage value; if not, why not. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The first part of this question was answered on 29 May 1984 in response to question No. 643 which the honourable senator asked, upon notice, on 16 December 1983. During the May 1985 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) I invited State and Territory Ministers once again, in accordance with agreed CONCOM procedures, to submit suggestions of places to be examined with a view to possible future nomination to the World Heritage List. Under these arrangements New South Wales has proposed, and the Commonwealth has endorsed, the New South Wales rainforests for nomination to the World Heritage List. When responses have been received from all the States and the Northern Territory the Commonwealth will be in a position to thoroughly assess each proposal to ensure that the stringent criteria of `outstanding universal value' required for world heritage listing is maintained. With due regard to its obligations to ensure that any nominations have been properly researched, Australia will require adequate time to be devoted to this exercise. It is this important obligation, as well as the agreed CONCOM process, which precludes the submission of any tentative list at this time. (Question No. 401) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 June 1985: Is it the Government's intention that the National Library of Australia play a major role in the provision of science and technology literature; if not, if the National Library is to be basically humanities and social science oriented, will the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization assume the task of being the major provider of science and technology literature. If neither institution is to play a major role in the provision of science and technology literature, is the Government prepared to look at the possibility of creating a science and technology library service along the lines of the British Library Lending Division at Boston Spa (United Kingdom) or the Technical Information Library at Hanover (Federal Republic of Germany) incorporating an Australian National Technical Information Service. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: The Government is concerned to see that an adequate and effective science and technology literature (STL) service is available to cater for the needs of the Australian research community. The provision of STL falls mainly within the portfolios of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, and the Minister for Science who have responsibility for the National Library of Australia (NLA) and CSIRO respectively. I am advised that the NLA is not becoming oriented to the humanities and social sciences at the expense of the physical sciences. The Library has a very substantial STL holding and over a third of its annual expenditure on acquisitions is in the science and technology area. I understand that this proportion will be maintained in the future. CSIRO's extensive library network holds major collections of S& information and is the largest supplier of specialised services in Australia. Its primary function is to serve the needs of CSIRO researchers although its services are also available to the general public. CSIRO co-operates with NLA in the provision of services. Between them, CSIRO and NLA supply the most comprehensive range of S& literature and information services available in the country. In deciding the future of Australia's STL services, the Government will, of course, take into account relevant overseas models such as the centralised systems of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. (Question No. 45) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) What is the legal status of children born in the Australian Capital Territory by: (a) artificial insemination donor procedures; (b) in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures using sperm donated by a person other than the husband of the woman concerned; and (c) IVF procedures using an ovum produced by another woman and fertilized by sperm produced by the husband of the woman who gives birth to the child. (2) In what way, if any, does the status in law of such children in the ACT differ from their status in either New South Wales or Victoria. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are no statutory provisions regulating these matters in the Australian Capital Territory. The House of Assembly currently has before it a draft Ordinance prepared in my Department which deals with the status of children born as a result of AID or IVF procedures. In the absence of statute, the basic position at common law is that a child born of a married woman is presumed to be a legitimate child of the marriage, but that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. Pending the making of the Ordinance the position in the Australian Capital Territory is as follows: (a) and (b) Child born to a married woman as a result of AID procedures: Child born to a married woman as a result of IVF with donated sperm: Although there is no express authority on the point, it is considered that the child would be presumed to be the child of the husband and legitimate unless the presumption is rebutted by evidence sufficient to displace the presumption. (c) Child born to a married woman as a result of IVF with her husband's sperm and donor ovum: Whether the child would be regarded as the legitimate child of the marriage would seem to depend on whether the courts would treat the child as the child of the ``genetic'' mother or the ``gestational'' mother. There is no authority on this point in Australian or English law. In the absence of proof that the child was born as a result of the use of IVF procedures involving donor ovum, it would seem that the child would be presumed to be the legitimate child of the marriage. (2)-(a) and (b) Child born as a result of AID or IVF with donated sperm: In New South Wales, in the case of a child of a married woman, the status of the child is regulated by the Artificial Conception Act 1984 which provides, among other things, that if the husband consents to the procedure he is irrebuttably presumed to be the father. In that case, the child is legitimate. The position in Victoria is similar, under the Status of Children Act 1974 as amended by the Status of Children (Amendment) Act 1984. (c) Child born to a married woman as a result of IVF with her husband's sperm and donor ovum: The New South Wales Artificial Conception Act 1984 does not deal with this situation. The position is presumably the same as in the Australian Capital Territory. In Victoria, the Status of Children Act 1974 as amended by the Status of Children (Amendment) Act 1984 provides that the married woman is irrebuttably presumed to be the mother of the child and the husband is irrebuttably presumed to be the father of the child, provided that the husband has consented to the procedure. The child is legitimate. (Question No. 66) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Can an Australian Vietnam veteran, who has commenced a common law case against the Commonwealth in respect of consequences of his service in Vietnam, apply for legal aid. (2) Would the common law case referred to in (1) above be allowed to proceed at the same time as the Royal Commission into the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, or would it be declared sub-judicial; if the case was allowed to proceed, why should an application for legal aid be denied on the grounds that the matter was sub-judicial. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) There is no legal prohibition against an Australian Vietnam veteran's common law case proceeding in a court at the same time as the Royal Commission is conducting its enquiries. It would, however, be possible for the parties to the court proceedings to agree to defer those proceedings pending the results of the Royal Commission. If one of the parties to the court proceedings sought deferral of those proceedings pending the outcome of the Royal Commission but the other party wished to proceed, the court's decision on deferral would be influenced on the one hand by the reason for the requested deferral and on the other hand by the prejudice which deferral would cause to the other party. An application to the Australian Legal Aid Office (ALAO) for legal aid would be considered in the usual way having regard to the guidelines of the ALAO. The fact that the matter for which the aid was sought was under investigation by a Royal Commission would be a factor that would need to be considered in deciding whether it was reasonable, in all the circumstances, to approve or refuse aid. Where assistance has been sought not from the ALAO but from the Government on the basis that the proceedings raise a matter of public interest or are a `test' case, and the proceedings seek to establish liability for exposure to chemical agents in Vietnam, the Government has suspended assistance (if it had been approved) or deferred consideration of the application. It did so following the establishment of the Royal Commission referred to in the question because the matters which that Commission is required to inquire into clearly have an all important bearing on, inter alia, claims such as are made in such proceedings. As indicated by the Government when announcing its establishment, the Commission's terms of reference were purposefully made wide and general, so that as many matters as possible relevant to the effects of exposure to chemical agents in Vietnam could be canvassed by the Commission. (Question No. 266) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce frequently referred to the number of jobs created `by this Government' since March 1983. (2) Do several State and Local Governments have at least one job creation scheme. (3) Since March 1983, what has been the total number of jobs created, and what number have been created by: (a) the Federal Government; (b) State Governments; and (c) Local Governments. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) I have referred on many occasions to the Government's achievements in creating the environment for economic recovery and the creation of new jobs. (2) While the Federal Government cannot provide authoritiative advice on the broader question of State and Local Government-run job creation schemes, it can provide advice on the number of Community Employment Program (CEP) Projects. From the inception of the Program to 26 June 1985 a total of 13,581 CEP projects have been formally approved creating 77,681 jobs. This includes: 20,456 jobs on 3,465 projects sponsored by State Government Departments and Authorities; 33,195 jobs on 5,519 projects sponsored by Local Government Authorities including; 11,196 jobs on 1,818 projects under the Jobs on Local Roads (JOLOR) component; 1,609 jobs on 179 projects under the Country Towns Water Supply Improvement Program (COWSIP) component; 891 jobs on 186 projects under the Local Government Youth Employment Training Scheme component in Victoria; 16,069 jobs on 3,882 projects sponsored by community groups; and 7,961 jobs on 715 projects sponsored under the Commonwealth element of CEP. (3) The Federal Government, in recognition that unemployment is currently the most serious social and economic problem facing the Australian community, is committed to the restoration of full employment as its major policy goal. In the context of the Prices and Incomes Accord, the Government has pursued expansionary economic policies to stimulate economic growth and boost employment opportunities throughout the country. In the period from March 1983 to July 1985 an estimated 410,400 new jobs (seasonally adjusted) were created. This figure is based upon the Labour Force Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The private sector is increasingly becoming the mainspring of job growth and economic recovery. Eighty-eight per cent of job growth over the year to May 1985 was generated in industries operating predominantly in the private sector of the economy. Data for public sector employment is only available for the period to March 1985, from the employer-based Survey of Employment and Earnings conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Although data obtained from the employer-based Survey differs in definition and source from that obtained from the Labour Force Survey, the estimates of public sector employment are broadly comparable with the total employment data from the Labour Force Survey. Over the period April 1983 to March 1985, public sector employment increased as follows: (a) Commonwealth Government 22,900 (b) State Government 29,500 (c) Local Government 11,000 (Question No. 319) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 28 May 1985: Is the Minister for Aviation aware that the deferral of the re-development of the Darwin International Airport is conservatively estimated, by the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of the Northern Territory, to have cost each tenderer involved in the project in the order of $20,000; if so, is the Minister prepared to undertake to reimburse the tendering costs to each tenderer, provided all such costs can be justified. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I recognise the cost of tendering is substantial and the Department of Housing and Construction avoids inviting tenders for works that it does not expect to proceed or inviting fresh tenders unless special circumstances apply. The decision to incur tendering costs with view to winning a contract however is a commercial judgment taken in the knowledge that circumstances may change and that the conditions of tendering make clear no tender will necessarily be accepted. (Question No. 130) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 March 1985: Has the Minister for Health appointed a departmental committee to report to him on procedures for hastening the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on Drug Problems in Australia (tabled on 25 October 1977), agreed upon in 1980 but not yet implemented; if so: (a) has the committee already reported, and, if so, what procedures has it put forward to hasten the implementation of the recommendations of the Senate Committee; and (b) if the Committee has not reported, when will it report. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) and (b) No. The response in 1980 to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on Drug Problems in Australia was the response of the previous Government. My Government has announced its own response to the drug problems in Australia-the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. The recommendations contained in the 1977 Report are being considered in the context of the National Campaign. Senator Walsh —On 21 March 1985 (Hansard, page 571) Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to reports in this week's Press which suggest that the Federal Government's decision to favour a transmission technology known as B-MAC is causing alarm amongst the industry and future rural recipients as well. Will the Minister please comment upon claims that remote and isolated outback inhabitants will have to pay thousands of dollars for expensive receiver equipment which will pick up, in the early stages, only the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and, in the later stages, only one commercial television service? Can the Minister also clarify the suggestion that the high costs and limited receiver potential could lead to a thriving black market in decoders which have the capacity to pick up more than one station? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The B-MAC transmission system was chosen because it has several significant advantages: high quality television, six sound channels, teletext and a data channel. It is the most advanced and efficient transmission system available. I am not aware there is in the industry or in remote areas any alarm which derives from this decision. The Government has a commitment to make basic television and radio services available to all Australians. The satellite system is designed to make possible ABC television and radio services and similar commercial services. It is the first step in the progressive equalisation of services to all Australians. The Federal Government decided last year to grant licences to provide one commercial television signal to remote areas in each of four zones: Western Australia; South Australia and the Northern Territory; Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales; and Queensland. The signals will be encoded so that they cannot be picked up outside the remote areas. The scheme, known as the Remote Commercial Television Service (RCTS), will allow for a regionally oriented services and is designed to enable reception through the less costly dishes planned for The Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS). The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal reported in May on the first RCTS licence in Western Australia. The Minister has endorsed the Tribunal's recommendation that Golden West Network should be the licensee. In regard to the first part of Senator Bjelke-Peterson's question, the Government's first priority is to provide basic services to the outback as soon as possible. The vehicles for this are the HACBSS and RCTS services. It should be noted that, according to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's estimates, a national beam solution would cost consumers up to $106 million more than the spot beam solution which will be used for HACBSS and RCTS. Senator Walsh —On 23 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2429) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications the following question without notice: I referred to certain recent evidence by United States sources which I made available to the Minister for Finance and to the Minister for Communications. What the Minister has told us is what is normally understood but what I am asking is: Is this affecting the present decision of the Tribunal? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Minister for Communications was not previously aware of the findings of the United States Task Force on Violence. In any case as I previously indicated it is the responsibility of the Tribunal to set program standards. The Tribunal monitors overseas developments and the Minister has drawn its attention to the Task Force findings.