Thursday, 12 September 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Veterans' Entitlements Legislation 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 benefits to veterans and war widows and which seek to change the onus of proof and the assessment of T.P.I. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 130 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: A concern for the continuing spread of pornographic material, especially video tapes, within the Australian community. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to have re-enacted the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hardcore pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 157 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 as a direct result of the adverse economic position in which members of the Sugar Industry find themselves, they request that a meeting be convened with representatives of the major sugar exporting countries of the world (Australia, Brazil, Cuba and the E.E.C.) to initiate meaningful negotiations to reach agreement on world sugar on policy and price. Further, that both the State and Commonwealth Governments be requested to provide across the board assistance measures for Cane Growers by way of a guaranteed minimum average price as previously requested for Raw Sugar Production within Mill Peak in the 1985-86 Season. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to have urgent talks commenced at international levels to formulate a new International Sugar Agreement to be based on the existing production levels of the exporting countries adjusted by whatever percentage necessary to reduce the difference in World Sugar Stocks between supply and demand to within 25 per cent. Your petitioners most humbly pray that further the direct assistance to Cane Growers should be on a per ton of cane basis so as to bridge the difference between the price of cane actually paid and the price which Cane Growers would receive at the Sugar Price of $240.00 per ton 94NT. And further that unless financial assistance is provided in the short term the long term viability of many efficient producers will be sacrificed. If this happens the very fabric of communities along the northern-eastern coast will be destroyed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 23 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 Crowley (from 164 citizens), Maguire (from 116 citizens), Messner (from 181 citizens) and Teague (from 106 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for preschool 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 reserve the proposed cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: The necessity to restore the preschool block grant of 33 million and to reinstate the Child care subsidies which have been reduced by 30 million-without which there will be adverse affect on young families, women's employment prospects and children's Development in their most formative years. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable Senate will restore the preschool block grant and reinstate the Child care subsidies for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 18 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 have great concern for the future development and research of the IVF programme and express that we are against `Senator Harradine's Bill' Human Embryo Experimental Bill 1985. The Bill threatens the provisions as a treatment for infertility because it defines as `prohibited experimentation': 1. Any manipulation of a relevant human embryo; 2. Any procedure undertaken on or involving the use of a relevant human embryo; 3. The creating of a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted or of using the embryo, or of having the embryo available for use, in any experimenting by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act. 4. Wilfully destroy a relevant human embryo; 5. Wilfully allow a relevant human embryo to die. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 1,123 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 Britian, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change by 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 Messner (from 79 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 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 21 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 75 citizens), Black (from 1,025 citizens), Gietzelt (from 63 citizens), Parer (from 2,112 citizens) and Sheil (from 1,289 citizens). To the Honourable, the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of us, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully shows that we do most vigorously protest and deplore the introduction and availability of `X' rated pornography, including `X' rated video cassettes in Australia. We also most strongly oppose all forms of `R' rated pornography. In addition, we dispute the statement attributed to the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, that the great majority of adult Australians do not object to hardcore, erotic pornography, and we reject his claim that it is the direct responsibility of parents to control their children's access to it. We, the electors, respectfully beseech you, our elected representatives, to protect our society, especially children, and beg that adequate laws be enacted and enforced to make illegal any importation, production, possession or distribution of both hard-core and soft-core pornography in any form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth and in concern for peace support: 1. a move towards unity, co-operation and peaceful co-existence amongst all peoples of the earth. We pledge our agreement to an immediate bilateral FREEZE of the development and deployment of all nuclear weapons and to speed negotiations to dismantle all such weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of a neutral peace-keeping force. 2. the establishment of a Ministry for Peace to focus our energies towards non-violent resolution of world conflicts, encouraging our government to pursue its own independent policies in foreign affairs, non-aligned to any polarity, with the aim of bringing about lasting and peaceful co-existence worldwide 3. the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to examine and debate all submissions by way of petitions and proposals and to assist in the creation of the Ministry for Peace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 87 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. 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 percent 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 Senators Childs (from 17,193 citizens), Jones (from 1,017 citizens) and Reynolds (from 5,712 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses represents the Nation's historic origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honour- able House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 2,110 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the $30 per landing fee (minimum business guarantee) charged to Northern Territory outback property owners under the Federal Government's Remote Air Services Subsidy Scheme is grossly discriminatory to these people; That many outback residents endure poor or non-existent telephonic services and are, consequently, wholly reliant on Australia Post for communication; That it is unjust that people who live in isolated areas should have to pay more than those in urban areas to receive and send mail for what most Australians consider a right. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to ensure that remote area residents of the Northern Territory should have equality of access to mail services and that the $30 per delivery landing fee should be terminated. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 87 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Customs Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 71 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, in view of the ever-increasing cost of the receiving dishes necessary to receive Aussat transmissions, now estimated at between $2,000 and $2,700, and the fact that sales tax on the components of this equipment is levied at between 20 per cent and 32.5 per cent, calls upon the Government to investigate means of reducing the financial burden upon both individuals and organisations living and operating in the outback, for example, the Isolated Parents and Children's Association, who would greatly benefit from the receipt of the radio and television transmissions which Australians in the more populous eastern States take for granted. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the move by South African President Botha to grant dual citizenship to black South Africans in the 4 so called ``homelands''; (b) that this move is only a cosmetic gesture designed to placate the increasing world abhorrence of the apartheid system; (c) that even the Reagan administration in the United States has seen fit to declare that the Botha statement does not go far enough; and (d) that the grave situation in South Africa can only be resolved when the entire national community, regardless of colour, race or creed, is given the franchise and full and free equal citizenship rights. The PRESIDENT —Before I call on questions without notice, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the presidential gallery of members of the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association led by Sir Kenneth Lewis, a member of the House of Commons. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to our friends from the United Kingdom a warm welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Walsh will be absent from the chamber for Question Time. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Walsh in relation to his portfolio or those he represents in the chamber should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by extending the best wishes of the Opposition to Senator Walsh who has obviously been overcome by the extreme nervousness he showed yesterday in fielding questions on interest rates. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I refer the Leader to yesterday's Federal Court decision to fine the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union $100,000 for contempt over its defiance of the Court's orders concerning a picket line at the Mudginberri abattoir. I remind the Minister that Mr Justice Lockhart pointed out that what had been done by the union was as plain an example of criminal contempt as there can be. He pointed out that society simply cannot function if individuals, corporations or unions take this approach. Finally, he pointed out that if they got away with it, inevitably people would think there is one law for a trade union and another law for anybody else and the result unchecked would be anarchy. I ask the Minister whether this Government accepts that trade unions must abide by the law and accept the rulings of the courts? If it does, will the Government make its view clear to the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is that I will convey the gist of what was asked to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I am sure that he will make the appropriate representations. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports that a certain French newspaper has remarked that the visit to Mururoa by the President of France, Mr Mitterrand, is a `message to Australia and New Zealand to mind their own business'. Is it not so that nuclear testing anywhere, and especially in the Pacific, is the business of Australia and New Zealand? Also, if newspapers such as the one referred to, and the French Government, do not see anything wrong with testing nuclear devices in the Pacific, will the Australian Government urge them to carry out their testing in France? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course the question of French testing in the Pacific is Australia's and New Zealand's business, of course it is the business of the other Pacific nations, and of course it is the business of the whole world, which stands continually appalled at the behaviour of the French in continuing, in utter disregard of world opinion and certainly regional opinion, to conduct these test series. It is the case, as Senator Colston and the Senate will be well aware, that this Government has repeatedly stated its strong opposition to and, indeed, condemnation of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. That opposition is shared by all members of the South Pacific Forum and was reiterated at the recent Raratonga meeting, which, of course, resulted in the adoption and signing of a South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty which expresses the deep and abiding wish of all members that no nuclear tests be conducted anywhere in the region. It is the Government's position that if France is as genuine as it claims to be in its assertions that no damage in terms of radioactive pollution will follow from the carrying out of those tests, it ought to put its money where its mouth is and conduct those tests on metropolitan French soil. So to that extent I do endorse the comment made by Senator Colston in the last part of his question. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind Senator Button that on Tuesday he said that he would seek information about the effect of the agreement between Mudginberri abattoir workers and management on production costs, wage levels and productivity. Can he now confirm that the Mudginberri agreement has resulted in higher wages, lower costs and an improved competitive position? If so, is he now prepared to give more whole-hearted support to the suggestion that other Australian enterprises should be encouraged to enter similar constructive employer-employee agreements? Senator BUTTON —I regret that I am not yet in a position to confirm or deny the facts alleged in the question, but of course that is not the real point of the question. The point of the question is what one would want to do in a broader context. I simply make the point the Government has made on a number of occasions-that in pursuit of an appropriate industrial relations policy for this country the Government has reached an historic agreement-- Senator Lewis —Hysteric agreement! Senator BUTTON —With the trade union movement about the wage levels which should appropriately apply in Australia in the current economic circumstances. That agreement-in wage terms, in economic terms and in industrial relations terms-has produced very good results. That does not mean, of course, that one would reject the notion that it is desirable, as far as possible, that the sorts of conditions to which Senator Kilgariff referred-that is, the capacity to reach amicable agreements about particular issues-are not important in the overall industrial relations context. That is as far as I am prepared to go. Senator Lewis interjected in the course of my giving this answer. If I might say so, in a reflective moment this morning I happened to be listening to the Canberra radio and I heard Senator Lewis talking about the transport workers strike in the Australian Capital Territory. It was very interesting because Senator Lewis talked about sanctions and consequences and what should be done. He was then asked this question: `Senator Lewis, if that course of action was embarked on, would not a series of other unions come out in support of the Transport Workers Union and would not the industrial unrest spread?' Senator Lewis's answer was: `Yes, that may happen'. He thought for a moment and he said: `But I don't think it would'. That answer carries the implications of the industrial relations policy of the Opposition and how well thought out it is. Senator Lewis gave a classic example of that this morning in that particular answer. Senator CROWLEY —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Recently the Minister for Health announced the establishment of two major new bodies to advise on nursing issues, the National Nursing Consultative Committee and the Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on Nursing Issues. Can the Minister say whether these bodies are now appointed and whether they have started their work? In particular, what issues are they addressing and under what criteria will they be operating? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Crowley said, Dr Blewett announced recently the establishment of two high level nursing committees, the National Nursing Consultative Committee and the Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on Nursing Issues. The first Committee was established in response to representations to Dr Blewett from the nursing unions and from others in the profession. He invited peak association and professional organisations with a national perspective to nominate members to that Committee. Even though nursing is primarily a State responsibility, the Committee is to provide Dr Blewett with high level advice on nursing issues which have a national perspective which will enable the Government to keep the nursing profession informed of developments at a national level. The associations represented on the National Nursing Consultative Committee include the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, the College of Nursing of Australia, the National Council of Health Organisations and the Australian Congress of Mental Health Nurses. They will be joined by officers of the Commonwealth Department of Health. From time to time, the Committee also can call experts in various fields of nursing to advise on specific issues. The Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on Nursing Issues was an initiative of the Australian Health Ministers' Conference which met, I think, in May this year. Its formation also recognises the need for the nursing profession to have input at the highest levels of government. In particular, the Committee will advise the Council of Health Ministers on many issues, with particular emphasis on the nursing labour force in Australia, which, of course, is of great concern to us all. Industrial issues, nurses' education and the place of nursing in modern health care delivery also will be considered by the Committee. The Committee is made up of the senior nursing advisers to the State and territorial governments. They will be joined by leading State and Commonwealth Health Ministers. Both committees will have their first meetings in early October. Initially, they will both be chaired by the Deputy Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health, Ms Ann Kern. The actual working relationships between the committees will be discussed at the initial meeting of each committee in order to achieve a co-operative approach in matters which are largely State responsibilities but which have implications for the health care of us all and particular implications for Federal health funding. Working groups on specific subjects of nursing, such as education and work force, will support the committees as they require such assistance. Senator VIGOR —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Territories whether his attention has been drawn to a transcript of an item on the 7 p.m. Australian Broadcasting Corporation New South Wales State radio news of 10 June which indicated that the Minister for Defence considered Jervis Bay to be among New South Wales ports which nuclear-powered ships could enter. Is this possible role for Jervis Bay the reason why the Australian Capital Territory has not been declared a nuclear-free zone despite the passage by the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly on 17 April 1984-more than 16 months ago-of the Nuclear Activities (Prohibition) Ordinance? Does the Minister intend to continue to ignore the concern of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly? Will the Minister give an assurance that neither nuclear-powered nor nuclear-armed ships will be allowed into Jervis Bay? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Vigor will be aware of the fact that I represent several Ministers in this place. I am not aware of the program to which he referred. The appropriate Minister may have a view that he would like to express to Senator Vigor, so I will take the opportunity of referring the question to him to get a suitable answer. Senator HARRADINE — My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Does the Minister recall my asking him a question in the autumn session which revealed that, whereas in 1966 youth constituted 22.6 per cent of the Australian Public Service staff, this figure has now fallen to less than 7 per cent? Does the Minister recall stating on that occasion that the Government had under consideration youth employment policies which would go to that question? How will the policies which were announced in the Budget give youth their fair share of Public Service jobs? Can the Minister put a figure on the percentage of jobs that youth will have as a proportion of total Public Service jobs at the end of this financial year? Will the figure be less than 7 per cent or will it be 9 or 10 per cent? Senator BUTTON —I do not recall saying the things that I allegedly said on the previous occasion. Senator Withers —Shame! Why don't you resign? Senator BUTTON —Just listen for a minute, Senator Withers; do not get excited. I was about to make the point that Senator Walsh may have said them and not me. I am only acting for Senator Walsh today. Senator Harradine —I am sorry, it was you. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walsh is the Minister responsible. As I recall it, there has been some discussion of this matter in the context of the introduction of the Government's youth traineeship program which was announced last month. It is thought by the Government that that program will improve prospects for youth in employment in both the private sector and the public sector, and that, of course, includes the Commonwealth public sector-the Australian Public Service. All public employers will participate fully in that program of youth traineeships. As I recall it, one of the early areas of take-up in respect of traineeships was expected to be the Commonwealth Public Service. Insofar as the facts adverted to by Senator Harradine are concerned, I am advised that juniors comprised 6.8 per cent of permanent officers in 1981; 6.6 per cent in 1982; 6.7 per cent in 1983; and 6.3 per cent in 1984. I think that Senator Harradine suggested in his question a figure of 7 per cent or upwards as being the desirable figure. Senator Harradine —No, that is not so. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps I misunderstood that aspect of the question. As I understand it, that was referred to. I can, if the honourable senator wants me to do so, make some comments about those figures. For example, it is said that there has been a decline in youth employment in the Australian Public Service, but a report by the Bureau of Labor Market Research noted that the proportion of permanent officers in the Australian Public Service aged under 21 years fell from 22.2 per cent in 1966 to 6.7 per cent in 1983-that is, over a 20-year period. It is said that there are very complex reasons for the decline. Part of it is due to the removal, almost 20 years ago, of the marriage bar; part to a substantial increase in the number of adults, both men and women, applying for base grade Public Service jobs; and part to changes in the growth rate of the Public Service and then the effect of staff ceilings and new technology on the availability of new jobs traditionally occupied by young people. What I have just said is in some way a comment on the problem to which Senator Harradine has adverted. By way of answer to his question, I repeat that the Government believes the youth traineeship program will be beneficial in encouraging youth employment in the Australian Public Service. Insofar as there are some other factual matters in his question, I will seek an early answer and provide it as soon as I can. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to the acknowledgement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, when confronted with the fact that in one State a 16-year-old bricky's labourer has to be paid up to $400 a week, that there is a case for a junior rate in all awards. Is the Minister aware that during the same interview on the Carleton-Walsh Report on Tuesday night, when Mr Willis was asked what the Government was doing to achieve that result, he said: `At this stage nothing'? In light of this damning admission of inaction, when will the Government do something to change a situation which is pricing thousands of young Australians out of jobs? Senator BUTTON —I thought that Senator Walters generally took the view ideologically that these matters are best left to the private sector. The Government is not normally a party to awards in the building industry. The Government is a party to certain awards in the building industry, but the major party to awards in the building industry and in most other industries, of course, because 80 per cent of activity is in the private sector, is the private employers. I do not know whether Senator Walters has been on to a number of building companies suggesting to them that they make application for a junior rate in their awards. I would have thought that if they were concerned about that issue they would have done that. But I just find it surprising, if that is regarded by them as important, as it is by Senator Walters, that they have not made the appropriate application. Mr Willis is alleged to have said-I have no knowledge of the discussion to which Senator Walters referred-that there is a case for a junior rate in all awards. I have no information about how many awards have junior rates in them. I think the vast majority of awards have junior rates in them. If there are not junior rates in other awards, consistent with the view expressed by the Minister, if it were felt appropriate in a particular industry one would have thought that the parties to the award would have applied. Senator DEVLIN —Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs know that changes to arrangements for the delivery of domiciliary nursing services to eligible Department of Veterans' Affairs clients in Tasmania are causing concern to both clients and providers? Can he please explain the proposed changes and their implications? Senator GIETZELT —There are a number of problems in Tasmania in respect of domiciliary nursing. An internal audit conducted by my Department revealed a number of problems in respect of domiciliary nursing. The main concern shown as a result of that survey was that there is an excessive cost problem. Whereas Tasmania accounts for 4 per cent of those who are eligible for domiciliary nursing care by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the costs exceeded 11 per cent of the national expenditure. On the basis of that, of course, we carried out further investigations. That has caused some minor problems in the determination of the Department to rectify an obvious problem of overservicing. This is a clear case where privatisation was in fact costing taxpayers an amount in excess of that for which the service could be provided. So the Department decided to provide the service on a temporary basis, pending negotiations with those providing the nursing services and with the Tasmanian Government. The Tasmanian Government has made certain proposals to me which suggest that it can provide the service at a rate comparable to that for which the private nursing arrangements are provided. Consequently, I have an inclination to vary the existing proposal so that the State proposition can receive some consideration. It is pretty clear, of course, that if we provide home nursing and other aids to aged clients, which my Department has an obligation to provide, that is a far more preferable arrangement than placing people in institutions. However, it needs to be cost effective. We have taken steps to provide those arrangements on a permanent basis. I have a preference for the option of coming to an agreement with the State Government. Consequently, discussions have been held with my Department in recent times with a view to reaching an accommodation with the State, which already provides the service for community groups generally in Tasmania. I am hopeful that we will reach an agreement with the State Government to provide a service for which we will furnish the funds and it will provide the service on a much more preferable basis than has existed in the past. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —My question is directed to Senator Button, who today is representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the survey conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, published today, which differs markedly from the Government's economic forecasts, most notably perhaps in its expectation of a growth rate of only 2.3 per cent this financial year compared with the Budget prediction of 4.5 per cent. Does the Minister agree with the Institute's assumption of a continuing tight monetary policy as a counter to inflation and in support of the exchange rate? If so, does he further agree with the conclusion of the survey that in year average terms a substantial rise in interest rates is in prospect? Will the Minister now concede that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer misled the Australian people with their pre-election and post-election predictions of a drop in interest rates? Senator BUTTON —Dealing with the last part of the question first, it is, of course, true that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer indicated certain anticipations about interest rates. In the 10 or 12 years in which I have been in this place I have seen that happen on a number of occasions. I do not want to remind the honourable senator of that because it would become a very long answer if I did so. The launching pad of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question concerned, of course, the forecasts of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. Let me say with regard to that body that it has a history of extreme pessimism in terms of forecasting. To illustrate that point, at this time last year the forecasts of that body were for only 3.1 per cent growth in gross domestic product and 4.2 per cent growth in non-farm GDP. The outcomes respectively were 4.6 per cent growth in GDP and 5 per cent growth in non-farm GDP. Its forecast of only 2.5 per cent growth in non-farm product in 1985-86 implies a fall during the year from the June 1985 seasonally adjusted level. In terms of the forecasts of that body, I have seen a summary of forecasts-I do not have them available to me now-by various organisations. None of those forecasts, as I recall, was nearly as pessimistic as the forecasts of this organisation. Of course, I remind Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that since this Government was elected the Budget forecasts in terms of growth have been on target each year. The Budget forecast, again, is for a 5 per cent non-farm growth rate and the Government believes that it will be sustained. A number of other things follow from that point which I do not think I have to answer, because the whole question was predicated on the assumption that the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research forecasts were accurate. Senator ROBERT RAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister fund the Filipino child care centre? Have any promises been made with regard to this proposition? Senator GRIMES —Promises have been made to the Filipino child care centre and I intend to keep those promises, despite the efforts of people in another place and people in the area in which the child care centre will be built. The case is an excellent example of how a small group can be frustrated by people in the community who believe they can dictate to them how to conduct their affairs. This organisation has worked very hard and long to raise money for a child care centre. It was approved by my Department in October 1983. The organisation took its case to its local council in New South Wales, where an application to conduct a child care centre was rejected. It then appealed to the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. It won its appeal but as a result of the delay it could not build where it wanted to. The organisation went back to the council with a second proposition, which was again rejected. It again went to the Land and Environment Court and again won, at that stage having paid $24,000 in legal costs. At the moment the council is negotiating with the organisation for another site. Now a committee of the House of Representatives, the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, has decided that it should get into the act. I have received a letter from the Chairman of that Committee, Mr Peter Milton, asking me not to fund this organisation because the Committee believes that the organisation does not know what it wants to do and should not spend its money the way it wants to spend it. At the moment the organisation is negotiating with its local council about where the centre should be. If those negotiations do not result in a change of site I will immediately fund the organisation. I do not intend to have funding of this type vetted by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise or any other committee of the House of Representatives. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Notwithstanding the response he gave to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question, I refer to the prediction in the survey by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research that, contrary to the Budget forecast of a reduced current account deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product, the deficit is likely to increase from 4.9 to 5.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Does the Minister agree that while yesterday's August balance of payments figures show improvement on the disastrous July result, they still indicate that in seasonally adjusted terms imports rose by 3 per cent? Does he further agree that if this trend continues the Institute's prediction of the current account deficit is likely to be realised? Senator BUTTON —I am not in the business of economic forecasting. I would not be here if I were; I would be out making a quid in the private sector. Of course the current account deficit is a matter of enormous concern to this Government; it ought to be to all Australians. I am not in a position to interpret yesterday's figures in terms of their trend effect. I will obtain an answer from the Treasurer and provide it to Senator Parer as soon as possible. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security have up to date information on the number of persons receiving unemployment benefits in Australia? If so, has the number of beneficiaries in South Australia now fallen below the 50,000 level? How does the latest figure for my State compare with that for the same time last year? Senator GRIMES —By chance I do have with me today both the Australia-wide figures and the figures for South Australia which Senator Maguire has requested. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits at 30 August this year was 541,022, which is a drop of 2.3 per cent from 26 July, or a drop of 12,000 in that month. If we compare the figures of 30 August this year with those of 30 August 1984 we find that there has been a drop in the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit from 570,000 to 29,500, or 5.2 per cent. South Australia has the second best record of all the States. The best record for a drop in unemployment is, of course, in another Labor State, Victoria. In South Australia, the figures at 30 August 1985 compared with those of 31 August 1984 show a drop of 4,809, or 8.9 per cent. In Victoria, the drop has been 12.4 per cent. The only two increases in that time, of course, have been in Queensland with 2.8 per cent and the Northern Territory with 18.8 per cent. That increase will continue with the policies of the governments in that State and Territory. South Australia has a very good record as has Victoria. It certainly gives the lie to statements that I have seen in the newspapers in the last couple of days that the South Austalian economy is in some difficulty. In fact, the South Australian economy is doing very well as is most of the rest of the Australian economy, the only difficulties being in Queensland, the Northern Territory and, to a lesser extent, in my State of Tasmania. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Acting Attorney-General, if he is still the Acting Attorney-General, or the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to a report in a newspaper headed `18 tappers get Bowen's blessing'. That puts it more succinctly than I may be able to do. It refers to the fact that the Attorney-General has granted indemnities to at least 18 present and former members of the New South Wales Police Force who may give evidence to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which is investigating the New South Wales police tapes. How many indemnities have been recommended by the Royal Commissioner to date? How many have been approved by the Attorney-General? Does he still have under consideration further indemnities in this matter? Has the New South Wales Attorney-General taken similar action to indemnify these witnesses from prosecution under State law? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think that I am the Acting Attorney-General. Lionel Bowen has probably arrived back in the country, so I have turned back into a pumpkin. I do not have the information to hand. I will seek it from either the Department or the Attorney-General and will advise the honourable senator accordingly. Senator COOK —I ask the Minister for Education whether she has seen the Press report in yesterday's Canberra Times where a spokesperson for tertiary students is reported to have said: From pre-school to higher education, the Federal government has initiated cuts and Senator Ryan refused to speak to us. Has the Minister refused to see these tertiary students? If the Minister has met with them can she inform the Senate of the result of that meeting? Senator RYAN —I met with quite a large delegation of students yesterday who represented students who had gathered to campaign for various improvements in student allowances. They had a very lengthy discussion with me. They raised a number of issues. They were particularly concerned to discuss the effect of our new overseas students policy to charge overseas students. We had a lengthy discussion about that. I was also able to explain to them that they were under some misapprehension if they thought that there had been any cuts in tertiary education. They were very pleased to learn of the significant increases we have been able to make in tertiary funding in each of our three Budgets, and of the consequences-over 25,000 extra places will be created in higher education institutions over the next triennium. They were also able to learn accurately the effect of the Budget on student allowances-all of which will increase. We did not go into the area of schools funding but I was able to provide them with a package of information indicating that schools funding in all areas has increased overall despite the fact that some programs will proceed at a slower rate than before. What I said to them I will say again to the Senate. It is perfectly understandable and right that student organisations should campaign for improvements in student circumstances, but their campaigns are much more likely to be effective if they are based on a factual understanding of the budgetary decisions that have been made by our Government. I think it is unfortunate that some people like to have campaigns based on misinformation. That, of course, misleads the students and causes them to waste their time. However, I think that after the exchange of information and views we had yesterday we will see a much more realistic campaign by students. I was pleased to wish them well. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. In the Government's 1984 Budget changes were made to the Companies Act that allowed losses from particular companies to be offset against profits from the total group of companies. This has opened the door for corporate raiders to write off interest charges on money they have borrowed, mainly from overseas, against profits in both their own company and the target company. Such a technique was recently used in the Bond raid on Castlemaine-Tooheys. Does the Minister agree that these techniques now used by corporate raiders are essentially negative gearing, a practice which the Government recently outlawed for individuals? Is the Government aware that the present company law makes all companies, which wish to expand through increasing productive capacity and efficiency and by developing new markets and products, vulnerable to raiders who seek to expand through the easy, non-productive method of swallowing their competitors? Will the Government give consideration to legislation that discourages rather than encourages massive manipulation of the ownership of companies on Australian stock exchanges and the making overnight of massive multi-million dollar tax-free profits by individuals? Senator BUTTON —Senator Siddons's question, if I might say so without being patronising, is a very important one. In saying that, I am distinguishing it from a number of others I have been asked this morning from the Opposition side of the chamber. It is a matter about which I have expressed some concern. I do not know that the changes made to group taxation in the 1984 Budget provide the only, most favoured and most available vehicle for corporate raiders, as suggested in the question. I am not sufficiently across the taxation regime to say whether that is so. I am also not able to answer the technical question as to whether these arrangements are the same thing as negative gearing. I have expressed concern publicly about activities in the Australian market-place which have not amounted, in my view, to wealth creation but to wealth accretion in other ways-by company takeovers and so on. The best that I can say is that I will alert my ministerial colleagues who are more responsible for the taxation regime to the contents of the question and obtain an answer as quickly as possible. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. How many times in the past four years have air facilities been used on Cocos (Keeling) Islands by American surveillance aircraft? Under what agreement have these visits been made? What has been their mission? What types of aircraft have been involved? Can the Government say whether these aircraft carry nuclear weapons? What other facilities does the United States of America have on Cocos (Keeling) Islands? Are the Cocos (Keeling) Islands being used for any other military activities? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am afraid that I do not have any information at all in front of me as to the use of Cocos (Keeling) Islands by United States military personnel or equipment. Accordingly, I will obtain the information from the Minister for Defence. It would be a help if Senator Vallentine would give me some advance notice of such questions in future so that I can help her. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Given the continuing concern of successive governments, and this Government in particular, to control fraud and overservicing, what is the Government going to do about the alleged grand larceny now taking place in the health service? Senator GRIMES —As Senator MacGibbon said, this Government and previous governments have been concerned about fraud and overservicing in our health system. We have been inhibited in the past, as have other governments, by the lack of a capacity to determine the level of such fraud and to detect where it is going on. This is now being overcome as one of the side effects of the introduction of a universal health insurance scheme, which for the first time gives us the statistical information to enable us to home in on fraudulent behaviour. Only a very small number of doctors are involved, but those who do it do so in a big way, if the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts presented yesterday is to be relied upon. As I heard Senator Peter Baume saying in a speech yesterday, if we have a situation in which an insurance system is provided-public in the case of Medicare or private in the case of other health insurance schemes-whereby the fee paid to the doctor is paid partly by another organisation, there is always the potential for fraud. There always has been, particularly in the pathology area, where larceny, as Senator MacGibbon has said, seems to have been going on on a grand scale. The difference between Medicare and a purely private system, as was demonstrated by the Nimmo report many years ago, and the concerns of even the Gorton Government in this area, is that under Medicare we have a statistical and data base on which we can investigate. It is this that upsets doctors such as Dr Bruce Shepherd and Dr Michael Aroney in New South Wales. It is this information base that they are attacking and want to get rid of because they know it is the means whereby governments can detect fraud of this type. The fraud and overservicing detection division of the Department of Health, as the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, and the Public Accounts Committee have said, has not been as effective in the past as it should have been. It will be more effective in the future. Dr Blewett has announced changes made in the fraud and over- servicing detection division of this Department and the Health Insurance Commission. I will obtain details of those changes for Senator MacGibbon and honourable senators generally. The Government is concerned about what Senator MacGibbon calls grand larceny. We will continue to attack that grand larceny, as he has put it. We will ensure that the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee and the concerns of the whole Parliament as demonstrated by that Committee will be followed up so that individuals and groups of the type spoken about in the report of that Committee will be brought to justice. Senator MacGIBBON —I have a supplementary question. It concerns a point of amplification of what the Minister said. I understood him to say that the present situation was a continuation of a series of practices that had been in existence for years. Surely one of the interpretations of the Public Accounts Committee report is that a new class of fraud is coming in. Senator GRIMES —I am sure that is so. That new class of fraud has come in as the result of the development of what my colleagues in the medical profession like to call the entrepreneurial doctors, some of whom seem to have been getting a bit of a run in the Press today. Certainly, this practice is occurring on a new scale but it has always been there to a certain extent, and it always will be a temptation for those in the diagnostic services such as pathology and some of the others who can see a means of making a quick quid. There will always be the temptation there for them to do so. I must point out, though, as did Senator Peter Baume yesterday, that the vast majority of doctors and, indeed, the vast majority of pathologists, will not take part in such activities. Many of the people who are doing the ripping off in the pathology area-the entrepreneurial doctors-are not themselves pathologists. There is a suggestion that some of them are entrepreneurial general practitioners who set up pathology companies. We have had descriptions of fee splitting, et cetera. So, certainly, on the scale that has been demonstrated by the Public Accounts Committee, it is new, but, unfortunately, it is not a new practice. I believe that what we have now is the capacity that we have not had in the past to do something about it. We have the desire to do something about it in the medical profession, by people on this side of the Parliament and, I believe, by most people on the other side of the Parliament, with a few exceptions like Mr Porter and Mr Carlton who have always defended vigorously the attempts of people like Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney to destroy the Medicare system, to destroy the very basis on which we can detect such illegal activities. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the action of the South African President, Mr Botha, in announcing to a meeting of his own Party his so-called liberalisation of that country's racial laws to grant dual citizenship to black South Africans previously banished to the four so-called `homelands'? What will be the Australian Government's response to what appears to be a cosmetic political exercise forced on the Botha Government by mounting international pressure? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the economic sanctions recently announced by the Australian Government against the white minority Government to continue until all South Africans, whatever racial label is pinned on them, are given equal voting and citizenship rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, according to reports to hand, that the South African President has announced, first, that blacks who lost their citizenship because of the independence of Bophuthatswana, Transkei, Venda and Ciskei and who are resident in South Africa will have their South African citizenship restored as soon as necessary legislative steps have been completed and, secondly, that the South African Government is prepared to negotiate with the four so-called independent homelands about the restoration of citizenship of people living within their borders with some form of dual citizenship being expected to be negotiated. According to the announcement South Africa is prepared to offer South African citizenship as a second citizenship to those homeland residents who wish to take it. The third element of the announcement is that citizenship, as well as ethnic identification, would in future be expressly stated on uniform identity documents to be issued to all races. The Government's initial reaction to all this is that the South African Government has taken a significant step towards providing common citizenship to all South Africans, and this is to be welcomed. We do note, however, that citizenship will not in the case of blacks carry any political rights whatsoever. That means, of course, that when measured against what really is necessary to confer full civil and political rights upon black South Africans, Senator Jones's description of this measure as being cosmetic may well have some appropriate application. The economic sanctions announced by the Government on 19 August are designed to underscore our position that the South African Government ought to introduce universal adult suffrage. We hope that fundamental reform towards this objective could be made in negotiations with representatives of the black community and lead to peaceful change in that country. We also continue to hope, as Mr Hayden said yesterday, that bipartisan support will be maintained for the very strong position that Australia has adopted over the last decade in relation to South Africa. We continue to wait with bated breath for that simple and forthright declaration from Mr Howard to that effect which Mr Hayden asked for in the House of Representatives yesterday. Senator KNOWLES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to please explain under what conditions emergency relief can be obtained from the Department of Social Security regional offices and, in particular, can emergency relief be obtained for the payment of fines and court costs? Senator GRIMES —Unless something has changed in very recent days, emergency relief cannot be obtained from any office of the Department of Social Security. We distribute emergency relief through the Department of Community Services to non-government welfare organisations throughout Australia such as the Salvation Army and the Smith Family. They distribute the emergency relief which we provide. We have not provided, and do not provide, emergency relief directly from offices of the Department of Social Security, first of all because the relief cannot be distributed widely enough; secondly, because the offices do not operate a sufficient number of hours to enable them to distribute relief efficiently; and, thirdly, because we believe and have always believed that it is far better that those organisations which have always delivered emergency relief should continue to do so. In some States the State equivalent of the Department of Social Security, such as some State departments of community welfare, provides emergency relief. I do not know whether they provide emergency relief for the sorts of cases referred to by Senator Knowles. I will ask the Minister for Social Security or my Department whether we have any information on this. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I refer the Minister to an article in the Australian of 11 September by Dr Smart and Professor Scott wherein the Government's record in the field of education and particularly its commitment to widening access to education was criticised. Can the Minister indicate whether the article is accurate and, if so, what action will the Government take to respond to the criticisms of these two people? Senator RYAN —I welcome the fact that academics are taking an interest in government policy in writing articles about the effects of government funding policies and other policies in education. However, it is unfortunate when academics embark on exercises such as this that they involve themselves in quite serious inaccuracies and misinterpretations of funding. There are a number of errors in that article as it was reported, one of which attempted to perpetuate the myth that somehow the schools' funding increases which were legislated for last year for a 4-year period were at the expense of higher education. I have heard this criticism from several quarters and, of course, it is quite wrong. The effect of the schools' funding increases, which were legislated for last year, in this year's Budget will be an increase of about $29m going to government and non-government schools. We have been very pleased to have been able to make this increase which will be distributed on the basis of need and which will assist in our objective of raising all schools in Australia to the community standard over the funding period. At the same time, I have announced guidelines in this year's Budget which will involve much greater increases than that for the tertiary sector. For example, there will be an increase in recurrent funding of over $39m. Of course, in excess of 25,000 places will be created over the triennium by our Government's funding policies. So, it is a misinterpretation to look at schools' funding as if it were undermining our efforts in higher education. Any reasonably careful examination of Budget documents would reveal to the authors of that article that this was the case. Another general criticism that apparently was made in that article is that our policies of improving access to higher education by the disadvantaged have not been realised. Again, if the authors of that article were to look at the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission annual reports they would see that not only have we greatly increased the numbers in post-secondary education overall-in fact, I think there are now 57,000 more students in full time post-secondary education than there were when we came into government-but also the location of those increases is very clearly in those areas which had been neglected previously. For example, there has been a great increase in higher education places in institutions serving the outer western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, areas which were quite grossly neglected during the period of the Fraser Administration. There have been more than proportionate increases in the State of Queensland. As I have said many times in the Senate, Queensland had been very badly neglected, first of all by Queensland governments and then during the period of the Fraser Government. If one looks at the participation rates of women in higher education, and there has been some media coverage given this week to a statement I released on that subject, one will find that there have been increases in the number of women students enrolled in all areas of higher education. This is a most satisfactory development. In terms of Aboriginal students who have, of course, the lowest participation rates, over 600 Aboriginal students are now involved in higher education courses. I think when we came to office there were little more than 200. All these things have come about not simply, naturally or by coincidence but because the Government has been seeking to achieve these improvements and increases through the negotiations of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission with individual institutions and with higher education co-ordinating authorities in the States. The overall picture, although far from the ideal that we intend to achieve after a few more years in office, is certainly one where our policies of increased participation and equity must be fairly and objectively assessed if they are to be very substantially realised. I hope that the authors of that article pay attention to the corrections that I will certainly make to them. I think it would be encouraging if future publications from academics on this subject paid closer regard to the actual facts of government funding and the effects of government policy. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the invitation from the United States Defence Secretary for Australia to participate in the strategic defence initiative research program. Is the Government concerned about the level of our research and development in the high technology area? Would the American offer enable us to improve our performance in this crucial economic area? Has the Government agreed to accept the American invitation? If not, why not? Senator BUTTON —The program to which Senator Hamer refers is already being questioned by people involved in research work in the United States of America. It is being increasingly questioned, particularly because so many United States programs now fall under the umbrella of this program about which there are extreme doubts in sections of the scientific community in that country. Yes, the Government has continually expressed concern about the level of research and development in Australia, although I must say that the research community in Australia has generally produced outstanding results for the size of the population which we have in this country. Comparatively, in world terms, Australia puts in a very good research effort. The problem has not been, however, the quality or extent of that research effort but the relationship between that effort and industry. That is the gap that has to be bridged in the Australian context. The Government is very hopeful that the tax concession-the 150 per cent tax incentive announced recently to operate from 1 July 1985-will be instrumental or helpful in building that bridge. I do not believe that in terms of the needs of Australian industry, the Australian participation in the star wars program that Senator Hamer referred to would be particularly beneficial in the context which I have just outlined. In answer to the question `have we?', the answer is, no. In answer to the question `why not?', that answer I have already given in terms of the priorities of Australian research and industry needs. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator McIntosh asked me a question about East Timor on 22 August. I undertook to provide any supplementary information provided to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That information is as follows: The Australian Government hopes that a just and lasting solution to the problems of East Timor will be found which will reflect the wishes of at least the majority of the people of East Timor. It is to be hoped that a peaceful way will be found to enable those people actively opposing the Indonesian Government to join the majority of the population of East Timor in working creatively and constructively for the further development of their province. As I stated in my reply here to Senator McIntosh on 22 August, the Australian Government supports the activities of the United Nations Secretary-General in seeking a peaceful solution to the residual problems of East Timor. The Government's primary concern remains to ensure that Australia does all that it properly and reasonably can to help the East Timorese. Australia has supported the continued access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to the people of East Timor and has provided aid worth $9m since 1975 in food and humanitarian relief. Further, the Australian Ambassador, Mr Morrison has recently raised again at ministerial level the question of human rights in East Timor and Australia will continue to monitor closely the human rights situation in that province. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Sir John Carrick yesterday asked me some questions about the defence budget. I think it is appropriate to put this answer on the record now before we go into Estimates committees. I give this further information on the basis of what was supplied to me by the Minister for Defence. The statements made by Senator Sir John Carrick about figures in the Budget statements being illusory are incorrect. The calculation of the underlying real growth in defence expenditure of 3.1 per cent as quoted in Budget Paper No. 1 at page 83 requires both 1984-85 actual outlays and the 1985-86 Budget provision to be adjusted to a consistent price and exchange basis, as well as for the effect of rescheduled payments under the United States foreign military sales systems. The basis for the calculation of real growth has been well established over the years. Both the methodology and the actual calculation are agreed between the Departments of Defence and Finance. Moreover, the basis for calculating the 3.1 per cent real growth figure remains exactly the same as that used by the Opposition when it was in government. I further add that it is not simply a matter of applying an estimated full year effect, as done by the honourabe senator. That approach ignores, for example, the fact that a significant part year effect of the devaluation is already reflected in the 1984-85 outlay of $5,941m. I further correct Senator Sir John Carrick's statement that the Department of Defence officer actually advised the Senate Estimates Committee that the then estimated full year effect of changes in the exchange rate was approximately $400m. What he in fact said was that it would be of the order of $350m to $400m. That reference appears at page 214 of the Hansard of 18 April. Finally, I make the point that the Department of Defence can seek adjustments at the Additional Estimates for the effects of price and exchange movements occurring subsequent to the formulation of the Budget. Senator GIETZELT —In an earlier part of Question Time today Senator Vigor asked me a question in respect of Jervis Bay. The Minister for Defence has advised me that Jervis Bay has been assessed as suitable on environmental and safety grounds for visits by nuclear-powered warships. It has had two such nuclear-powered warship visits in 1976 and 1983. Conventional powered nuclear weapons capable foreign vessels can visit any port in Australia subject to navigational controls and berth availability. No such vessels have visited Jervis Bay in recent years. The frequency of foreign warship visits to Jervis Bay is determined primarily upon operational grounds and no increase in the frequency of visits is currently anticipated. In relation to the other parts of the question, the answer is no. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the reports relating to the construction of a submarine escape training facility at HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia, the laboratory development of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Floriet Park Laboratories, Perth, construction of State head office building for Telecom Australia, Sydney and refurbishment of Commonwealth centre and associated major fitout works, Melbourne. Ordered that the reports be printed. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in Committee Room No. 6, Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2. Prior to the sitting of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 11.14 a.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 273) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (a) when will the Government introduce comprehensive legislation governing the testing, use, storage and disposal of chemicals; (b) when will the Government legislate to make chemical manufacturers and importers legally liable for human and environmental injury caused by inadequately tested chemicals; (c) has the Government considered adopting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Text Guidelines for chemicals or the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice; if not, why not; if so, what conclusions were reached; (d) does the Government support the concept of an internationally funded chemical testing laboratory, and what action, if any, has it taken in this regard; (e) does the Government regard chemical testing facilities in Australia as adequate; (f) in light of the fact that 4 scientists from a respected United States (US) chemical testing laboratory face fraud charges for declaring 200 dangerous chemicals as safe, what degree of reliance does the Australian Government place on US chemical test data; (g) when will the Government honour its 1983 election pledge to create an Environmental Contaminants Authority; (h) in light of recent allegations that no information existed about the storage of hazardous chemicals in Victoria, the potential catastrophe of the recent fire in a chemical warehouse in Melbourne and the running sore of hazardous waste disposal, what measures does the Government intend to take in order to alleviate these problems in the short and long term; (i) when will the Government legislate to control persistent organochlorine pesticides as well as organophos and carbamate pesticides; and (j) will the Government introduce incentives for pesticide manufacturers to market pesticides which are completely degraded into inocuous compounds after one growing season. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The Government is committed to introducing a national chemicals notification and assessment scheme. The development of drafting instructions for this legislation is well advanced. The States, industry, the union movement and other interested parties are being consulted in this process. Under the scheme, recommendations will be formulated on all aspects of the production, storage, handling, use and disposal of chemicals; however, application of control measures will continue to be primarily the responsibility of State and Territory Governments. (b) Through the chemicals notification and assessment legislation, manufacturers and importers will be required to provide sufficient information on all new chemicals and upon selected existing chemicals to allow adequate assessment of the health and environmental hazards which these chemicals may present. Manufacturers and importers will continue to bear responsibility for the safety of chemicals which they produce and market. (c) Yes; wherever appropriate OECD chemicals test guidelines, OECD principles of good laboratory practice and other OECD-developed procedures will be incorporated so that the Australian chemicals notification and assessment scheme is harmonised with those operating in other OECD member countries. (d) The Government has not considered the concept of an internationally-funded chemical testing laboratory, and is unaware of any such proposal. Consistent with the practice of other OECD countries, the Australian chemicals notification and assessment scheme will assign to manufacturers and importers the responsibility for and costs of generating and providing chemicals testing data. Producers and traders of chemicals have a responsibility to be aware of the potential hazards of commodities in which they deal. (e) It is anticipated that much of the chemicals testing required to generate data to meet chemicals notification requirements in Australia (and in other OECD countries) will continue to be performed in the major chemical producing countries. However, the Government will be monitoring the availability of testing facilities in Australia and will take appropriate steps in response to identified needs. (f) Australian authorities have monitored the discovery of fraudulent practices in the laboratory testing of chemicals in the United States. Steps have been taken to remedy the deficiencies. Data provided under the Australian chemicals notification and assessment scheme will be required to meet the quality standards of the OECD good laboratory practice principles. (g) An Environment contaminants Division has been established within the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment to carry out the function of the proposed Environmental Contaminants Authority. Funding in this area has been significantly increased by the Government. (h) The regulation of storage of hazardous chemicals and of disposal of hazardous wastes are principally the responsibility of State and Territory Governments. Commonwealth and State environment authorities are developing a national strategy on hazardous wastes. The Australian Environment Council is initiating a national consultative process on management and disposal of hazardous wastes to facilitate the introduction of appropriate measures for hazardous waste management. (i) Regulation of the availability, labelling and approved uses of all pesticides, including organochlorine, organophosphorus and carbamate types, is effected through State legislation. Clearance of pesticides is co-ordinated nationally through the Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. (j) The Government does not plan to introduce an incentive arrangement relating to degradability of pesticides. Degradability is taken into account in the clearance of pesticides. Most modern-day pesticides have a short residual life in the environment. Some pesticides because of their end-use need to be stable in the environment. (Question No. 298) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 17 July 1984, in which the Queensland Premier is quoted as saying he was not sorry he tried to get the State Government to back an oilseed venture in Queensland proposed by Paraguayan business entrepreneur, Dr Shiran Oskar. (2) Is the Attorney-General aware of a claim by a British television company that Dr Oskar's business activities in several countries had, as at the middle of 1984, incurred accumulated debts of $15 million and losses of $13.5 million. (3) Is Australia included in the several countries referred to in (2) above; if not, what are the countries referred to. (4) Is the present legal and financial position regarding Dr Oskar known, particularly in relation to any Australian trading. (5) Has the Premier of Queensland or any other Government or semi-government authority entered into any financial negotiations or agreements with Dr Oskar since January 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have seen the report. (2) I am aware of the claim only insofar as it is reported in the article in the Brisbane Courier Mail of 17 July 1984. (3) In 1979 a loan of $1.6 million was provided under the now discontinued Commonwealth Regional Development Program to Bunbury Foods Pty Ltd (a company incorporated in Western Australia of which Dr Oskar was a director and has been said to be the principal promoter). The purpose of the loan was to assist in the establishment of an edible oil refinery and extraction plant venture at Bunbury, Western Australia. Other significant lenders to the company were the National Bank of Australasia Ltd (as it then was) and the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia. Following default on the loan in 1982 the above-mentioned banks appointed receivers to the company, the assets of which have now been sold and substantially distributed. In 1983 the Commonwealth successfully sued Dr Oskar under his personal guarantee of its loan and obtained a judgment for $1,910,520.80 plus costs. The Western Australia Supreme Court made a sequestration order against Dr Oskar on 3 September 1984 on the Commonwealth's petition. Dr Oskar is believed to have left Australia in May 1983 during the hearing of the proceedings relating to the guarantee. The amount owing by him to the Commonwealth is still outstanding. I have no direct knowledge as to any other amounts Dr Oskar may owe in Australia. I have no information as to Dr Oskar's financial liabilities in any other country. (4) I have no information concerning any current Australian trading by Dr Oskar. (5) I do not know. (Question No. 305) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the closure of at least one abattoir in the Northern Territory, at Mudginberri, and the prospect of closures at other Territory abattoirs, as a result of the ongoing meat workers' dispute. (2) Given that the Minister has said that he will instruct his meat inspectors to cross picket lines where protection is provided, will the Minister honour that undertaking in view of the Northern Territory's willingness to provide such police protection. (3) Will the Minister take immediate steps to bring the dispute referred to in (1) above to a close, as the action which is being taken by unionists in picketing abattoirs is outside the law and threatens the livelihood of meat workers who have accepted the arbitration award made some weeks ago, and who wish to continue to work. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In fact the prospects of the dispute at Mudginberri widening was one of the reasons why my Department decided not to appoint other than Departmental meat inspectors to perform export inspection duties at Mudginberri. Those meat inspectors who are members of the Meat Inspector's Association (MIA) refused, on the instructions of their Association, to cross the ACTU endorsed picket line established by the AMIEU near the abattoir. The Department's decision led to the abattoir management, supported by the NFF and MATFA, seeking in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act a review of my Department's decision. That action was unsuccessful. (2) Meat Inspectors employed in my Department were instructed to cross the picket line but refused on the instructions of the MIA. My Department considered that even with the provision of police protection the risk of physical injury to its staff either at Mudginberri or at other abattoirs where those staff may subsequently be employed was real and that use of such protection had the potential to widen the dispute. (3) In an endeavour to assist the resolution of the dispute between the Meat and Allied Trades Federation (MATFA) and the National Farmers Federation (NFF) on the one hand and the AMIEU on the other I met separately with representatives of AMIEU and NFF. At the former meeting a representative of the MIA was also present. In addition to those meetings my Department also had meetings with NFF and MIA, and was involved in two Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings on this matter. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I also endeavoured to bring all the parties together for discussion but this was unsuccessful as the employers declined to attend. It must be realised that these endeavours have been made in an atmosphere of deteriorating relationships between the parties to the dispute and while the employers were taking action through the Federal Court, under Section 45 of the Trade Practices Act against the AMIEU and MIA as well as the action mentioned in (1) above. The Government's efforts have, however, resulted in the AMIEU lodging an application with the Commission on 27 August, 1985. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has stated that before the Commission considers the matter the picket line will need to be lifted. (Question No. 312) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 21 May 1985: (1) What are the advantages and disadvantages to people seeking to embark on `time-sharing' holiday schemes, in view of the proliferation of `time-sharing' advertising offering holiday benefits to pensioners and others. (2) Do `time-sharing' schemes have specific taxation disadvantages and, if so, what are they. (3) Have high pressure sales promotions and spectacular bankruptcies, as suggested by the `US News and World Report', left thousands of people in financial trouble in USA and have claims been made that the same sales pressure is being used on the Gold Coast in Queensland to promote sales. (4) Under what conditions are the `time-sharing' projects being sold. (5) Are any `time-sharing' projects being sold in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) The advantage of time sharing schemes is that they can provide holiday makers with access to resort ownership which they may not otherwise be able to afford. It is also possible to exchange entitlements for equivalent time at other resorts within and outside Australia. Disadvantages include a relatively high initial capital outlay, the possibility of difficulties with resale and the likelihood of increasing maintenance costs as the building ages. (2) The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that there are no specific taxation disadvantages associated with `time-sharing' holiday schemes. Where a person enters into a `time-sharing' arrangement for the purpose of securing for himself or herself holiday accommodation, any expenditure so incurred does not qualify for income tax deduction. That is no different, however, from any other situation where a person incurs expenditure on holidays. The income tax law regards expenditure on holidays as expenditure of a domestic or private nature which is specifically precluded from income tax deduction. (3) My Department is not aware of the details of the financial difficulties caused by timeshare in the USA, however, in Australia, the Gold Coast City Council has received a number of complaints about aggressive marketing practices. Consequently it has taken action, under its authority to grant itinerant vendor's licences, to remove offending persons from public areas of the Gold Coast. (4) Timesharing is a general expression which refers to a variety of arrangements whereby the incidents of occupation of property are divided among a number of persons by reference to certain periods of time during which each of those persons obtains the right to occupy or use that property, or an identifiable part of that property, on a recurring basis. Property time-sharing schemes fall into two broad categories: (a) title-based schemes where the purchaser receives a document of title evidencing ownership; (b) right-to-use schemes where the purchaser occupies the premises pursuant to a lease, licence, or the holding of redeemable preference shares. Timesharing operations are regulated by the State Corporate Affairs Commissions and the National Companies and Securities Commission. 5. Not to my knowledge. (Question No. 346) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) What is the effect on a given rate of protection over a 12-month period of: (a) a 5 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar; (b) a 10 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar; (c) a 15 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar; (d) a 20 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. (2) What is the likely effect on the average effective rate of protection for manufacturing with the Australian dollar remaining at $US0.70. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) While it is true that any devaluation is statistically equivalent to an increase in the average tariff rate for import competing industries, the actual ``effect'' of any particular percentage devaluation on a given level of protection over a 12 month period is extremely difficult to estimate and will depend on a number of factors, many of which act to offset the effect of increased protection. For example: the protection afforded Australian industries would be reduced as the cost of imported inputs would also increase following the devaluation; overseas suppliers may adjust their prices downwards in terms of foreign currency following a devaluation as a means of maintaining market share in which case the effect on protection would be less than would otherwise be the case; there is a time dimension which is difficult to incorporate into the assessment, since a floating exchange rate will result in daily variations in the value of the $A and hence the effect on import-competing industries will continue to change; in this context, the extent to which labour costs are discounted for price increases following a devaluation will also influence the overall effect on protection. (2) The likely effect on the average effective rate of protection for manufacturing with an Australian dollar rate of $US0.70 will depend on the factors noted in (1) above as well as the period over which the change is calculated and the dollar value at the start of the period chosen. (Question No. 408) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What is the role of the Controller of Enemy Property. (2) Does the Commonwealth hold any enemy property; if so, could the Minister for Finance list the Commonwealth's holdings of enemy property. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) The Office of Controller of Enemy Property was created under the National Security (Enemy Property) Regulations on 26 September 1939 to deal with all debts or other property held for or due to `enemy subjects' as defined in the Regulations and the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939, as amended. The office has been formally kept in existence only to fulfil the residual role of responding to inquiries still received fron time to time from persons seeking to trace particular interests in the property of former enemy subjects. (2) No enemy property from World War II is now held or administered by the Commonwealth. Such property or the proceeds from its realisation has long since been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the relevant International Agreements and Treaties of Peace. (Question No. 411) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Social Security aware of a report in the Courier-Mail of 17 July 1985 which stated that the Queensland Employment and Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Lester, had sent a list of about 100 names to the Social Security Department with a covering letter asking whether sacked South East Queensland Electricity Board workers were receiving favourable treatment in receiving social security payments. (2) Did Mr Lester send such a letter; if so, what is the text of Mr Lester's letter and the list of names which were attached. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; I did see that report. (2) A list of names under a covering unsigned note was received by my Department in Brisbane. I am not prepared to provide details of the list of names supplied since these are protected by the confidentiality provisions of the Social Security Act. Suffice to say that the allegations were thoroughly investigated-48 of those named were found not to be in receipt of social security payments. The others had not received income from the Electrical Trades Union. Some of those named had received emergency relief from funds administered by a Committee of sacked workers. Emergency relief does not constitute income for social security purposes and its receipt in no way precludes or even reduces any entitlement to unemployment benefit. (Question No. 417) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What discussions, if any, have taken place with the New South Wales Government for the listing of the Wollemi Wilderness of the World Heritage list as the largest wilderness area near a major urban conurbation in Australia. (2) If such discussions referred to in (1) above have taken place, will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment ensure that the New South Wales Government renounces plans by any of its government departments for construction of major dams within that wilderness area. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The process for the nomination of places in Australia for possible inclusion on the World Heritage List was discussed and agreed upon at the July 1984 Meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM). In accordance with this agreement the Minister invited State and Territory Ministers to submit suggestions of places to be examined with a view to possible future nomination to the World Heritage List. It was under these arrangements that New South Wales proposed, and the Commonwealth endorsed, the New South Wales rainforests for nomination to the World Heritage List. In addition New South Wales advised that there are a number of places within New South Wales which may warrant investigation as to whether they are of world heritage status. The Blue Mountains/Kanangra/Wollemi National Park complex is one of these areas. However no formal discussions have taken place with the New South Wales Government on this matter. (2) In view of the answer to (1) above it is inappropriate to comment. Senator Walsh —On 8 May 1985 (Hansard, page 1518) Senator Jones asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: I refer to the composition of the Board of the television company Queensland Television Ltd, which runs Channel 9 in Brisbane. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is Alan Bond the Chairman? Is P. R. Gallagher a member of that Board as well as B. E. Orr and P. G. Beckwith? Who are the other members of the Board? Secondly, was Sir Edward Lyons, who resigned last week as Chairman of the Queensland Totalisator Administration Board and as Vice-Chairman of Queensland Television Ltd, elevated to both those positions through the influence of the Queensland Premier? Thirdly, are there any known connections between Rothwells Ltd, the merchant bank of which Sir Edward Lyons is still chairman, the Queensland TAB, of which Sir Edward Lyons is a former Chairman, Queensland Television Ltd of which Sir Edward is a former Vice-Chairman, and the Queensland branch of the National Party, of which he is still a trustee? Fourthly, has the Queensland TAB invested some $28m in Rothwell's merchant bank? Fifthly, has the Reserve Bank of Australia refused to underwrite the investment? The Minister for Communications has provided an answer, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, to those parts of the question relating to his area of responsibility: Mr Alan Bond is Chairman of Queensland Television Limited (QTL). Messrs Gallagher, Orr and Beckwith are Directors of QTL. Mr Beckwith is currently Deputy Chairman of the Board, but has indicated that he will resign this position when a suitably qualified Queensland resident is found to take his place. The other members of the QTL Board of Directors are: Mr Warren Jones Mr David Aspinall (Executive Director) Mr Tony Oates. Mr Peter Mitchell Mr Geoffrey Liddicoat Mr Peter Laurance Mr Harry Lodge On 1 May 1985, the Tribunal commenced a public inquiry into the acquisition by Fairlanes WA Pty Ltd of all the issued capital of Queensland Television Ltd, the company which holds the licence for commercial television station QTQ-9, Brisbane. The inquiry concluded on 24 July 1985. One of the issues investigated was the manner in which new Directors have been appointed to QTL and the background and experience of these Directors in relation to the operation of the station. This includes whether there was any, and if so what, Government or political involvement in the appointment of the Directors. The Tribunal is yet to release its report on the inquiry. (Question No. 185) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: Has the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board reduced the time available for the censoring of overseas programs from 10 hours a week for each network to a mere 5 hours; if so: (a) why has this occurred; (b) what impact will this cut-back have on the quality of programs available for screening on television; and (c) will this force the long-suffering public to endure even more frequent repeats of programs. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The Commonwealth Censorship Board has not reduced the time of 10 hours per week which is currently available to each commercial television network for the screening and classification of imported television programs although the matter had been under preliminary consideration earlier in the year. At the request of the Government, the Film Censorship Board reconsidered the matter to allow discussion of alternative methods of performing this role. The background to the proposal was an examination of the most appropriate deployment of the resources of the Film Censorship Board, given the increased demand placed on the Board by the compulsory classification of video tapes. In addition, the Board has been performing a non-statutory role of examining certain television programs for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal since 1957. Against this background, the role of the Board has been and continues to be the subject of review. (b) If an alternative method were adopted, this would not entail any cutback in the quality of programs resulting from the review. (c) The matter should not have any effect on television programming policy. (Question No. 324) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) What is the timetable for the introduction of new uniforms for the Army. (2) Has the date for the introduction of new uniforms been altered; if so, what was the original date. (3) Are the `old' uniforms no longer available for sale, new, to soldiers, and are the `new' uniforms, as yet, unavailable also; if so, will the Minister for Defence issue an order that soldiers who are unavoidably out of uniform because they cannot buy replacement uniforms for those which they wear out, are not to be punished for that reason. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no current timetable for the introduction of new uniforms for the Army. The Male Uniform Development project which was for the replacement of the existing range of male non-combat uniforms was suspended in late 1984 as it was considered that the purchase of operational and combat related equipment should take priority over a new range of uniforms. (2) Yes. The range of new uniforms was to be introduced over the period 1989-1992. (3) All current, non-combat uniforms are available for sale, new, to serving soldiers of the Australian Regular Army. A uniform maintenance allowance is provided for this purpose. In the case of serving Army Reserve soldiers, clothing no longer suitable for wear is exchanged free for serviceable clothing. Combat clothing is issued free to all soldiers and can be exchanged when necessary. (Question No. 340) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) What measures does the Department of Terri- tories employ to ensure that the trees of Westbourne Woods, Yarralumla, are maintained and protected. (2) What does the Department consider to be the historic and scientific worth of trees of the original arboretum and later plantings. (3) Are measures planned to protect trees, especially the older trees of the arboretum, from possible future housing development and developments within the Royal Canberra Golf Club. (4) Will the Minister for Territories ensure that any developer is required to publicly identify any trees intended for destruction before they are removed. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(4) The area commonly known as Westbourne Woods contains two distinct sections: the Arboretum, a collection of native and exotic trees and the Pine Plantation, a large block of radiata pines. These areas are entered on the Interim List of the National Estate as `Westbourne Woods'. An adjoining area of the Yarralumla Nursery and public parkland has been referred to as Westbourne Woods in the past. The bulk of the area listed as Westbourne Woods is held under lease by the Royal Canberra Golf Club. An area on the eastern side of Westbourne Woods contains the buildings of the CSIRO Division of Forest Research and a small medium density housing development under residential lease. The Department of Territories places high value on the need to maintain and protect trees and on the historic and scientific worth of all plantings in Westbourne Woods. The lease conditions of the Golf Club and development conditions of housing developers require that no tree is to be removed or damaged without prior consent of the Commonwealth. Proposals for the removal of trees likely to have a significant impact on the area also must be referred to the Australian Heritage Commission for comment. These conditions are strictly enforced. An inventory has been taken of all trees in the Arboretum and the health and conservation status of each species has been evaluated as a guide to management and protection. Thinning and tree surgery is carried out regularly to improve the health and safety of the older trees. Replacement and planting of additional species has been undertaken in recent years. The Golf Club has been required to produce an approved development plan for any further course alteration. This will enable the Department to minimise conflict between the needs of the Club and future management of the Woods. The Arboretum has proved to be an invaluable aid in predicting the performance of a wide range of plant species which might be used in the region. In addition, it is recognised as a valuable resource for the scientific study of trees and is widely used by organisations such as CSIRO and the Australian National University. There are two areas within Westbourne Woods where approval has been given for the future removal of trees. These are: The Arboretum, to enable the final stage of housing development to be undertaken; and the Pine Plantation, for the construction of a further nine fairways for the Golf Club. Developers must submit to the National Capital Development Commission detailed plans showing the numbers and location of trees intended for removal as part of any proposed development in Westbourne Woods. These plans are made available to my Department and the Australian Heritage Commission for comment. In general it is not the practice of the National Capital Development Commission or the Department to make public, details of development proposals by lessees of Commonwealth land without prior approval by the lessee. However, because of the particular interests of the Canberra and South-East Region Environment Centre and the Westbourne Woods Action Association in this matter the Department has agreed to discuss the development proposals and draft Management Plan for Westbourne Woods with these groups. (Question No. 380) Senator Parer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: Is the Attorney-General aware of a complaint lodged by Carricks Ltd with the National Companies and Securities Commission in respect of alleged irregularities related to the efforts to take over control of Carricks by Asiatic Pacific Industries Ltd and of certain share dealings in the company; if so, will the Attorney-General ensure that the Commission has the necessary resources to investigate this complaint with expedition. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of a complaint lodged in May 1985 with the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) by Carricks Ltd (Carricks) alleging that Asiatic Pacific Industries (Asiatic) had breached section 11 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Queensland) Code in relation to Carricks' shares. Asiatic had acquired 19.9 per cent of Carricks' shares in March 1985 and it was alleged that Asiatic was associated with Carricks' shareholders so that its entitlement to Carricks' shares exceeded 20 per cent. The NCSC investigated the complaint but was not able to find evidence of breaches of section 11 of the Code. The NCSC enquiry was terminated subject to any new information becoming available. In late June 1985 Carricks made further representations to the NCSC. Carricks alleged that a further 5 per cent of its shares had been acquired by a person who may have been associated with Asiatic. The NCSC has not been able to substantiate this allegation but is continuing to monitor acquisitions of shares in Carricks. (Question No. 395) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Does Victoria receive approximately $10 per head less than New South Wales in terms of per capita allocation of funds for health; if so, why does Victoria receive less in per capita Commonwealth Grants than New South Wales. (2) Will the Commonwealth Government increase its allocation of funds to Victoria in the 1985-86 Budget. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The Commonwealth, during 1984-85 made payments to the Victorian Government for health services of $344.2m via the identified health grant arrangements and a further $249.2m under the Medicare compensation payments. This represents a per capita allocation of $146.40. This compares with New South Wales which received $521.4m (identified health grant) and $368.5m for Medicare which provides a per capita allocation of $165.46, i.e. Victoria received $19.06 less per capita than New South Wales. The reason that funding levels vary from State to State relates to individual State costs and charging practices. The identified health grants have, as their genesis, the Medibank hospital cost sharing arrangements, community health grants and the school dental program which ceased in 1981-82. The base levels of identified health grants were the payments made in 1980-81 for those programs, adjusted in the case of hospital cost sharing for additional revenue raising capacity of States. The grants have been increased each year since 1981-82 to reflect increases in costs. Different States have different cost structures and mixes of services and charging policies within their hospital systems which have led to differences in the allocation of Commonwealth funds when compared on a per capita basis. Under Medicare States are reimbursed on the basis of revenue lost and increased costs associated with the introduction of Medicare. The introduction of Medicare has also affected States in different ways leading to differing levels of per capita allocation to States under the arrangements. (2) No. The level of identified health grants for 1985-86 was discussed at the 1985 Premiers' Conference in the context of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's `Report on Tax Sharing Relativities 1985'. At the Conference it was agreed that the identified health grant arrangements would continue as separate payments from general revenue financial assistance grants for the 1985-86-1987-88 triennium. The levels of grants would be the 1984-85 payments adjusted by an appropriate index to hold them at the same real levels as in 1984-85. At the Premiers' Conference it was also agreed that the Medicare compensation arrangements would continue until 1987-88. It should be noted that the identified health grant payments and the Medicare grants are untied funding and, with the general tax revenue grants to States, are available to States to spend in accordance with their own priorities. (Question No. 413) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Who is the current Director-General of the National Library. (2) When was he appointed. (3) What are the superannuation arrangements for this person. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Mr Warren M. Horton, formerly the State Librarian of Victoria, was appointed as the new Director-General of the National Library of Australia for a period of seven years commencing on 28 July 1985. (3) Mr Warren Horton will remain a member of the State Superannuation Fund, administered by the State Superannuation Board of Victoria, during his term as Director-General, National Library of Australia. The Commonwealth meets his employer contribution to the fund. (Question No. 419) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, 20 August 1985: (1) What contingent plans exist for dealing with any environmental damage to the Georges River from either accidental fuel spillages or aircraft accidents at Bankstown airport. (2) What environmental monitoring is done of water run-off from Bankstown airport to ensure that no fuel or other environmental contaminants escape from storages at the airport into the Georges River. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Housing and Construction's Report on Water Pollution at Bankstown Airport (1979) advises `the (aircraft) fuelling process is similar to domestic car filling and therefore may involve small spills which could be expected to evaporate before entering any drainage system.' Procedures for the handling of fuel spillage following an aircraft accident are defined in the department's Airways Operations Instructions. If spilled fuel is unavoidably washed into surface drains, the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board (MWS&B) is immediately notified and any further action taken is by them. Additionally, given the relatively small volume of fuel storage, and its siting, coupled with the long retention periods of any spills entering the `flat' drainage system, entry of fuel spillages to the Georges River would be highly unlikely. (2) The State Pollution Control Commission does not conduct regular environmental monitoring of water run-off from Bankstown Airport, but will do so in the event of specific instances of pollution occurring. Action taken by the Department of Aviation to minimise the likelihood and severity of any pollutants entering the Georges River from Bankstown Airport are: effluent from the airport is directly connected to the MWS&B's sewerage system. construction of a special vehicle wash and mechanical parts cleaning area designed to eliminate pollution from this source. negotiation with Oil Fuel Recovery Systems Pty Ltd for the construction of a centralised waste oil storage tank to be used by all airport tenants. This facility is now nearing completion. correspondence with all Airport tenants seeking their co-operation to minimise pollution. The Hawker de Havilland Aircraft Factory which operates within the airport boundaries installed, in 1978, a comprehensive trade waste system whereby effluent flows directly into the MWS&B's sewerage system. (Question No. 495) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) What was the total dollar value of research work commissioned by the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) from outside agencies in 1983-84 and 1984-85. (2) Which outside agencies conducted research work for EPAC in 1983-84 and 1984-85, and what amount was paid to each agency. (3) Does EPAC plan to commission and research work from either Adelaide University or Flinders University in 1985-86. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total dollar value of research work commissioned by the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) from outside agencies in 1983-84 and 1984-85 was: 1983-84-Nil 1984-85-$135,973 (2) The following outside agencies conducted research work for EPAC in 1983-84 and 1984-85. 1983-84-None 1984-85- (a) Centre for Policy Studies, Monash University $60,450 (three separate projects) (b) Australia/Japan Foundation, ANU $29,523 (c) Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, Melbourne University $46,000 (two separate projects) (3) The Office of EPAC has had discussions with the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University concerning the possibility of that organisation contributing to the Office's 1985-86 work program. There are no plans at present to commission research work from the University of Adelaide. (Question No. 388) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Will the Federal Government introduce legislation in the 1985 Budget session to control the spread of Aboriginal land claims in Northern Territory pastoral areas (see The Bulletin, dated 4 June 1985); if so: (a) what measures will the legislation include to protect public areas such as National Parks, and also stock routes and reserves; (b) will such legislation include provisions for a deadline by which all claims should be lodged; and (c) what is the attitude of the Government towards the provision of community living areas on pastoral leases. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government will maintain its commitment to introduce legislation into the Parliament which will amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 following reviews of the Act by His Honour Mr Justice Toohey and by Dr Jon Altman. Such amendments will be consistent with the Government's overall position on national land rights. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has stated that there will be continued consultation with relevant parties to refine and develop acceptable amendments. The extent of these consultations may preclude such amendments. Being considered by Parliament during these sittings. (a) The proposed amendments to the Act will overcome anomalies which presently allow claims to Aboriginal owned pastoral properties, stock routes, stock reserves and public purpose lands; (b) Such legislation will be consistent with the principles encompassed in the national approach on land rights, which currently provides for a ten year deadline on applications for land grants; (c) The Government is committed to the provision of secure title to Aborigines on community living areas excised from pastoral leases. By conferring an appropriate form of secure title the Government may provide essential services, including capital works, to these Aboriginal communities. The Government is encouraged by the initiative of the Northern Territory Government in taking its own action to provide these community living areas. It is my intention to review the progress made for excisions by the Northern Territory Government in October of this year, when the Territory procedural arrangements will have been in operation for six months. (Question No. 400) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What allowance was made in the 1984-85 Budget for maintenance and repair of the nuclear reactor at the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories in New South Wales. (2) How much of the allowance referred to in (1) above has been used for maintenance, and how much for repairs. (3) Are more funds needed to carry out routine maintenance at the facility; if so could the current state of the reactor constitute a public hazard. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 1984-85 expenditure on routine repair and maintenance for the reactor HIFAR was $681,814. Apart from the expenditure on routine repairs and maintenance of HIFAR, the Government has committed special allocations over the financial years 1980-81 to 1987-88 totalling $4.7m for capital works and services for a program of refurbishment of the reactor. This program, scheduled to be completed in 1987, will ensure the continued safe operation of HIFAR into the 1990's. (2) Repairs $208,786; maintenance $473,028. (3) No.