Friday, 13 September 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. DouglasMcClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pensions: Assets Test To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 12 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 concern 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 Senator Haines (from 184 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 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 Colston (from 4,638 citizens) and Jones (from 699 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in parliament assembled should close the ``joint Australian-U.S.'' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her MajestyElizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to The Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 14 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 fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from 2,424 citizens), Colston (from 1,016 citizens) and Jones (from 937 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: ``The richest 2,000 people own as much as the poorest 2 1/2 million. It is a travesty in these circumstances that 2 million people are living in poverty in this country.'' (Bob Hawke Sydney Morning Herald 11/7/81) The present provision of Social Security Benefits are absolutely inadequate, locking recipients into poverty (including 8,000 children of those on Social Welfare). To enable all Australian citizens to share in the wealth of their country we call on the Australian Government in the forthcoming tax reform to: 1. Raise the tax threshold to $10,000 2. Double the permissible income of $30 to $60 per week with the cut out point for fringe benefits $90. 3. All pensions and benefits to be raised to 30% of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to the CPI. 4. All pensions to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Furthermore, we strongly oppose the introduction of a broad based indirect tax thereby shifting the tax burden on to those dependent on Social Welfare and low income earners, further increasing their poverty, while allowing the continuation of high income earners and tax avoiders to pay little or no tax. And we, your humble petitioners will, in duty bound, forever pray. by Senator Robertson (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: (a) 1985 marks the 40th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference (February 4th-11th, 1945) between US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, at which plans were finalised for the post-World War II division of Europe into ``spheres of influence''; (b) As a consequence of decisions taken at Yalta, several nations of Central and Eastern Europe were abandoned by the West to Soviet domination; (c) The divisions of Soviet tanks kept in Eastern Europe since World War II have not been there to fulfill defence commitments under the Warsaw Pact, as British and American forces are present in West Germany under NATO obligations. For the only occasions on which Soviet forces have ever been in action in Europe since the last war have been when they crushed spontaneous uprisings of populations under their occupation, such as in East Berlin (1953), in Poland and Hungary (1956), and in Czechoslovakia (1968). Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in the Parliament assembled, should: 1. Reject any interpretation of the Yalta agreements suggesting Western consent to the division ofEurope into spheres of influence; 2. Call for the immediate withdrawal of Soviet-backed forces from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as from the Baltic States and all non-Russian provinces and territories; 3. Assist, by all available means, the Captive Nations in their struggle to regain full political independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Hill (from 12 citizens). Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the failure of the Government to take any positive steps to resolve the industrial dispute with the Transport Workers Union which is causing grave inconvenience to the people of the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) calls on the Government to use its so-called solidarity with the trade union movement to achieve an immediate settlement. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, will be absent from the chamber for Question Time. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes in relation to his portfolio, or those he represents, should be directed to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Is it true that the staff of the National Library of Australia walked out because of claimed asbestos danger arising from work being carried out on the fire-damaged section of the Library? Is it also true that on both occasions the special particle monitors installed showed no discernible particle levels in the Library's atmosphere? If this is true, will the Minister indicate whether the staff concerned will have the time involved deducted from their wages? Senator RYAN —All I know about the matter that Senator Collard has raised in his question is the brief report in the Canberra Times. As I cannot confirm or deny what the Canberra Times chooses to print, I have sought information from the Minister's office. I hope that it will arrive before Question Time is finished, in which case I will present it to the Senate. Otherwise I will get it to Senator Collard as soon as possible. Senator COONEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment: Has a request been made to the Government by the Ranger mining company for permission to release contaminated water from the restricted release zone into the Magela catchment area of the Kakadu National Park? If so, what action is the Government taking on that request? If so, has the Government consulted the local Aboriginal community about the request? If so, what has the community said? Senator RYAN —I have some information on the matter raised by Senator Cooney. The Government is awaiting a report from Ranger on the water management problem at the mine and its implications. A further report is anticipated on the best practicable technology for water management. The Government's position will be decided once this information is to hand. Meanwhile, the Government expects that there will be no release of water from within the mine's restricted release zone. Senator Cooney also sought information on whether the local Aboriginal community has been consulted about this problem. My brief does not inform me about this matter. It is very important that the people living in that area are being consulted and informed. I will seek further information from the Minister's office about the question of Aboriginal consultation. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I hope that the Minister representing the Minister for Health has some information about my question which was addressed originally to Senator Grimes. If she has not had a chance at this stage to consult the brief, may I defer the question since I have been waiting a long time to ask it? The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator MISSEN —I will ask the question and hope that the Minister can answer it now or later. I ask the Minister: Why has the Government allowed Australia to slip to being 23rd out of the 24 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in terms of the proportion of the health dollar-one per cent-allocated to medical research? Why has the Government shown absolutely no concern about the fact that, as a result of this situation, young scientists are not going into medical research, experienced researchers are being forced overseas or into other fields, in 1985, out of 452 research projects highly recommended for funding, only 285 could be funded with available moneys, and projects which are essential for preventing serious and expensive health care problems in Australia have had to be shelved? Does the Government agree that if the current funding situation continues it will inevitably result in an irretrievable decline in our medical research capacity, technological skill, innovative capacity and ability to respond to urgent unexpected public health problems such as the acquired immune deficiency syndrome? Does the Government also agree that in the long term this would be disastrous for the health of Australians? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to inform Senator Missen that I have been provided with information to answer his question. In reply to the series of questions he has asked, I make it clear that the Government firmly believes that strong medical research is vital. That is why our Government has increased funding to the National Health and Medical Research Council by 72 per cent since it took office. I am unaware of information suggesting that young scientists are not going into medical research or that experienced researchers are going overseas. Obviously, not every application can be funded, particularly as the number of applications has increased from 746 in 1980 to 920 in 1985. As a result of this Goverment's increased funding of medical research, however, the number of grants supported by the NHMRC over the last five years has increased from 509 in 1980 to 734 in 1985. It is clear that our Government has considerably increased funding for medical research. Senator Missen will be aware that in the 1985 Budget the NHMRC received $50.781m for medical research, an increase of 14.9 per cent over the previous financial year. In addition, the Government has provided $750,000 specifically for research into AIDS. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is she able to say whether the Government has made any progress in addressing and resolving poverty traps within the social security system? Is the Government still likely to attack the problem of poverty traps within its proposed taxation reform? Senator RYAN —I will answer the last part of Senator Elstob's question first. The Government certainly has under active consideration measures to alleviate poverty traps. I expect that when the Prime Minister or the Treasurer is in a position to announce the new taxation reform package that announcement will contain some constructive measures in relation to poverty traps. It is certainly the view of our Government that it is necessary to take steps to deal with the fact that the interaction of tax and social security measures creates a poverty trap for low income people. We are determined to help ease the poverty trap situation to assist people to move from welfare to work. I remind Senator Elstob that in this year's Budget the Government raised the allowable income for the unemployed by 50 per cent; that is, from $20 to $30. This placed the unemployed on a more equal footing with pensioners. The Government is finalising its review of taxation arising out of the draft White Paper and the tax summit. Poverty traps have received close attention. The Government will be taking steps to address further the problem of poverty traps in the Treasurer's statement later this month. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Government noted the well-authenticated criticism of the General Dynamics Corporation in the United States of America for the very high overpricing of its products that are supplied to the United States Government? Has the Australian Government taken any steps to ensure that spare parts supplied to Australia for our F111 aircraft and any other General Dynamics contracts that might exist are not being grossly overpriced in the same way? Has the Government investigated this matter? If not, will it do so now and inform the Senate of the results? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted the criticism of General Dynamics along the lines mentioned by Senator Mason. The Minister for Defence has informed me that two avenues are open to Australia in purchasing from General Dynamics; doing it by way of direct purchase or, alternatively, by way of purchase through the United States Government foreign military sales arrangements. In direct purchasing, Australian interests are protected through a process of competition with the lowest priced technically acceptable offer being selected. If no competition is possible we run a number of checks which might include some or all of the following: Previous price paid, price paid by other customers and audit of costs. Concerning purchasing through the United States Government, its procurement agencies perform the same function that we perform for a direct purchase. If overcharging were to arise under the United States Government arrangements, and it was proved, the price quoted to Australia would be amended. If any such cases arise, I can arrange on behalf of the Minister for Defence for the Senate to be so informed. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question. I take it that, in the contingency the Minister has mentioned, the Government will actively follow up that matter and see that, where there may have been overcharging in purchases made through the United States Government, that has not resulted in overcharging in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a reasonable assumption but I will make sure that the Minister for Defence is informed of the honourable senator's concern. Senator CHILDS —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask whether he is aware of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, on the Four Corners program on 5 September that the biggest reason so many young people are out of work is that it is too expensive to employ them. What is the Minister's view on this issue? Senator BUTTON —As I have said on a number of occasions in answering questions of this kind, the issues are very complex. Very simplistic solutions have been propounded to the complex problems. Being an astute politician, Mr Howard seems to have walked down that road. The Government has had this question of youth unemployment examined by a number of bodies. The Government has had the benefit of a number of reports in relation to the matter, in particular, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners and the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs from which the Government's traineeship proposals for young people stemmed. There was, of course, some sort of academic debate about it in which the Flinders University Institute of Labour Studies has been a prominent participant. I think it is correct to say that all those studies have not in any sense identified themselves with the view expressed by Mr Howard; that is to say, it is too expensive to employ young people. They have adverted to a wide range of other complex issues which undoubtedly contribute to youth unemployment. Senator Lewis —But surely you agree that it is one of the factors? Senator BUTTON —Of course, Senator, I would agree. I happen to take the view that if we paid wages of 10 shillings a week to everybody in Australia we would probably have more employment than we have now. Senator Lewis —That is ridiculous. Senator BUTTON —Of course it is ridiculous. I made that point to indicate the absurdity of the honourable senator's interjection. The fact is that there is a far wider range of much more complex issues involved. I might just point to the experience of other countries for example- Senator Chaney —But your Budget Speech said that the cost of employing labour is too high. Mr Keating said that in his Budget Speech. Senator BUTTON —I do not think that that is quite a fair statement of what was said, Senator. If we look at the experience of other countries we find that those countries that have relatively high youth wages have no worse performance than countries such as the United States of America which has had a dramatic reduction of wages amongst young people. I think that neither the experience of other countries nor the views expressed by numerous expert bodies which have examined the question in Australia suggest that it is capable of the sort of simplistic rhetoric which Mr Howard indulged in and which I was asked about in the context of Senator Childs's question. Senator LEWIS —My question, which is also directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is about the wildcat strike action currently being conducted by the Transport Workers Union in the Australian Capital Territory. Is the Minister aware of the bullying tactics taken today against the children of Canberra by the TWU in an endeavour to overturn the umpire's decision in this dispute? Is the Minister aware that today bans have been imposed on a number of school bus routes causing serious inconvenience to the children and their parents and, because of the wet weather today, exposing the children of Canberra to grave danger on the roads? Does the Minister agree that this wildcat strike action is totally unjustified? When will this Government take some action to afford the children of Canberra some protection from the bullying tactics of the TWU? The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator addressed his question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I feel it should rather have been addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations or the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Having said that, I call on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to respond. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis, having survived on the new Howard front bench, is now desperate to get the children's vote in Canberra. That seems to me to be all that he will get. He will get the children's vote and the senile vote with that sort of question. If I may say so it was a very silly question. The Government does not agree with the strike of the Transport Workers Union. It has not approved of the strike and the Transport Workers Union has been told that. We do not believe in exacerbating the matter by silly rhetoric such as that displayed by Senator Lewis in his question. We will see that the matter is resolved as soon as possible. Senator AULICH —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: What steps have been taken by the Government recently to improve the operation of the Australian National railways in Tasmania? Senator GIETZELT —I think the Senate will be aware that for some years now the Commonwealth has accepted responsibility for assisting the Australian National rail line in Tasmania. Over a considerable period the Government has made yearly allocations to subsidise that operation. I think the steps taken by the Minister for Transport and endorsed by the Government in recent times have seen a vast improvement in the funding arrangements for AN in Tasmania. I remind Senator Aulich that on 13 August the Government announced a $60m three-year agreement under which a pre-determined revenue supplement will be paid to underwrite the losses of AN in Tasmania. That will be made up by $18.4m in the current financial year, $17.8m in 1986-87 and $16.2m in 1987-88. The agreement also provides a further $7m in interest-bearing loans for the completion of AN's track upgrading program in Tasmania over the same period. The Government finds it very strange that the Tasmanian Premier should attack the scheme when the Government is making available in a three-year program the sorts of funds which, it is the Government's hope, will stabilise the position and give the railway system in that State an opportunity to plan its work and to function properly on a long term basis. We fail to understand why the Tasmanian Premier has not been happy with the arrangements, which represent an improvement over the last decade in the way in which the line is subsidised. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the role of the Foreign Investment Review Board changed given the Government's soft attitude towards the admission of certain foreign enterprises into Australia free of Australian equity participation? Could the current guidelines be a hindrance to the furtherance of the accord with China? Does the Government intend to continue to implement the guidelines in an arbitrary manner? If so, should not the FIRB be abolished and replaced by a more creditable body? Senator WALSH —As far as I know there has been no change in Government policy towards the FIRB. I will refer the question to the Treasurer to see whether he has any comments to add. Senator REYNOLDS —Did the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women read in the Australian earlier this week that Senator Chaney has advocated cutbacks in single parent benefits because the coalition believes that individual responsibility should be encouraged? Can the Minister comment on how single parent families, headed predominantly by women, would be affected by such a reactionary policy? Can she suggest how individual responsibility as advocated by the coalition could be utilised to pay the bills for families already living in poverty? Senator RYAN —I am not sure whether it was Senator Chaney or Mr Howard who was advocating this reactionary- Senator Chaney —No; Mr Howe was advocating it. Senator RYAN —I am getting a lot of assistance from the Opposition here. Attacks on the welfare budget and on the poor are to be expected now that the Opposition has taken such a turn to the right. I certainly have heard criticisms from some Opposition members from time to time about the amount of money spent on single parent benefits. Certainly, we are all concerned that the number of single parents is growing and that the amount of public money required to support them is increasing. The solution is certainly not to reduce their income and thus force them into worse poverty. The solution is to find ways for them to move out of poverty into a secure and decent standard of living. The suggestion in an earlier question from Senator Elstob concerning poverty traps is the constructive way to approach this matter. It is the case that the poorest people in Australia are single parent families and, of course, 90 per cent of single parent families are headed by women. The solution is not to reduce their benefits further or to fail to increase their benefits to keep up with inflation and other increases in the cost of living; rather, it is to pursue constructive policies which will enable them to move, on a part time basis or perhaps ultimately a full time basis, out of the welfare sector into secure employment. That objective requires a lot of effort by government. It involves training opportunities, which have been expanding under our Government. It requires increased educational opportunities for women or people in those circumstances; these opportunities have also been increased under our Government. It requires changes to the taxation system to attack the poverty traps which I spoke about in answer to Senator Elstob's question earlier. Certainly, our Government is intent on doing all of those things and in this way constructively assisting the poorest people in our community and their families. Senator CHANEY —My question is also addressed to Senator Ryan in the same capacity in which she has just answered the last question. Is she familiar with the decisions which have apparently been taken by her Government to amend the Family Law Act to require the Family Court of Australia to ignore social security benefits in determining maintenance? Is that report correct? Has the Minister for Social Security signalled that move in a speech to the Australian Council of Social Service? I further ask the Minister: Is it the policy of her Government to strengthen the maintenance collection arrangements, a policy which was advocated by it in 1983? Can she explain to the Senate in what way what is being put forward by the Government in this field is different from what I have been arguing, namely, that a strengthening of maintenance collection and changes to the Family Law Act would in fact improve disposable income and shift some of the burden from taxpayers to the private citizens who probably should bear those burdens? Senator RYAN —I would be very concerned if I thought that Senator Chaney and I were at one on this matter, but in terms of the last part of his question it sounds as though we may be. It is the case that the Government has under review the question of maintenance collection. Senator Walters —What about Senator Durack's private member's Bill? Senator RYAN —Well, Mr President- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ryan, will you answer Senator Chaney. Senator RYAN —I will answer Senator Chaney when Senator Walters stops shouting and screaming so that I can be heard. It is the case that the Government has this matter under review, I think in the form of an interdepartmental committee which is looking at the effect on families of present family law provisions and maintenance collection provisions and at the kinds of decisions that are made in the Family Court. Of course, it is a matter of concern to us that the public burden for the support of single parents is so large, although, having said that, I should like to qualify it by saying that our Government would not take any steps which would reduce the income of needy single parents. Senator Chaney —No one is advocating that. Senator RYAN —Good. I am pleased to hear that no one is advocating it; we may get to a bipartisan position on this matter. What would be a requirement of our Government-I do not know whether it would also be a bipartisan matter between Senator Chaney and me-is that, if we were able to develop new ways of collecting maintenance payments from people well able to pay them for their spouses and their children, the burden of that collection would not fall on the individual dependent spouse, which it can do under present arrangements. For example, in Israel it is the case that the state takes on the responsibility of pursuing the maintenance paying spouse. Senator Gareth Evans —And in South Australia and Western Australia. Senator RYAN —I thank Senator Evans. An arrangement of that kind would be acceptable. It is certainly not our Government's view that people who are well able to support their families should be allowed to abandon that responsibility. On the other hand, nor is it our view that a burden of legal action and pursuit of a spouse in these matters should fall to the individual woman-it mainly is a woman, but in some cases a man-thus creating further difficulties for that individual. I hope that, as a result of the review that the Government is undertaking, we will be able to develop a fairer system. When that happens, I am pleased to realise that it will have the support of the Opposition. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I welcome that indication of a change of stance by the Government. I simply remind the Minister that when Senator Durack and I advocated that sort of change to the Family Law Act a couple of years ago, she and her colleagues voted against it. Can the Minister just confirm that the Government is reconsidering the attitude it took at that time? Senator RYAN —The Government is considering the implementation of national maintenance enforcement measures, but such measures-which the Government has not yet determined-would have to comply with the various criteria I have set out in reply to Senator Chaney's question. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer the Minister to his answer to a question from Senator Cook during Question Time on Tuesday in which the Minister said that a cut in Budget outlays of four percentage points of gross domestic product-a cut apparently supported by the Leader of the Opposition-would require government spending to be cut by more than $8 billion on last year's outlays figure. Can the Minister advise the Senate what effect the abolition of the assets test would have on that figure? Senator WALSH —On this year's estimates, the abolition of the assets test would add about $136m to government expenditure. I note that although the Opposition habitually calls for welfare payments to be targeted on the needy, it then contradicts that policy by promising to repeal the assets test. Mr Howard, in particular, habitually calls for welfare to be provided on a needs basis. We know, of course, that Mr Valder does not believe that, but unfortunately Mr Valder has been less successful up to date in changing Liberal Party policy than he has been in changing Liberal Party leadership. It is fair to note that the present Leader of the Opposition has equivocated about the assets test. In a television interview last week he was asked about that particular policy- Senator Messner —Mr Kerin thinks it is unfair and unjust. Senator WALSH —Which has been enthusiastically and irresponsibly endorsed by Senator Messner, of course. Asked about the Liberal Party promise to abolish the assets test, Mr Howard equivocated by saying that that was a policy which he had inherited. He did not say that he endorsed it. I welcome the equivocation, but what I would really like to see is a rush of honesty to the head by Mr Howard and a prompt repudiation of the irresponsible promises by the former Leader of the Opposition, and Senator Messner, among others, to abolish the assets test. That policy is absolutely incompatible with the other line the Opposition tries to run simultaneously; that is, that welfare spending should be needs based. By way of a trade-off on the effect on government outlays, the savings from the assets test in this year have provided sufficient money to fund the Government's welfare package in this year's Budget. That welfare package included an increase of $2 a week in the additional benefit for dependent children of pensioners and beneficiaries; a $2 a week increase in family income supplement-that is for the very low income unemployed families; a $10 a week increase in the income test free area for unemployment and sickness beneficiaries; and a $3 a week increase in the single adult unemployment benefit rate. Instead of doing those things, it is quite apparent that, up to date, the Opposition would abolish the assets test and not target any additional assistance at all to those very needy groups I have identified. I trust that Mr Valder and the other faceless men of the Liberal Party will ultimately be as successful at changing Liberal Party policy as they have been at changing Liberal Party leadership. Senator BROWNHILL —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to an article in this morning's Australian Financial Review which says that sugar cane farm prices have dropped by over half in the last five years; that they are still falling and, not surprisingly, there are few buyers? When will the Federal Government announce its assistance for this industry, or is it waiting until the time when there is no one left to be helped? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the report in the Australian Financial Review which has been referred to, but I am familiar with the Commonwealth Government's policy on this question. Not having seen the report, I am not sure of the basis for the assertion that the price of sugar has dropped to half the level of a few years ago. Senator Brownhill —The price paid for the cane farms. Senator WALSH —That may well be so; certainly it does not surprise me. One of the causes of the problems that individual cane growers now have is the fact that they paid far too much for assigned land in 1980 and 1981. One of the reasons they paid far too much for assigned land was the expectation of tax free capital gain on that land. In other words, the absence of a capital gains tax is a contributory factor to the insolvency not only of the cane growers but also of a number of other Australian primary producers. To return to the sugar industry, the Commonwealth has made an offer to the State Government. Given that the sugar industry is almost entirely a Queensland industry only-it is not a national industry as most agriculture is- Senator Kilgariff —What about the Ord River? Senator WALSH —What about the Ord River? The pork barrelling Liberal Party Government in 1967, doubtful whether it could win the third Senate seat which it needed to win in Western Australia, committed at present values $150m of taxpayers' money to that white elephant on which not only has no dividend been paid since but also on which the Western Australian Government has incurred an operating loss ever since. Senator Button —Shameful. Senator WALSH —Absolutely shameful. I do not know why Senator Kilgariff would raise the Ord River- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to return to Senator Brownhill's question. Senator WALSH —Certainly. The Commonwealth Government has made an offer to Queensland for an underwriting scheme which would guarantee specific prices to Queensland growers, conditional upon two things: Firstly, that there be a restructuring and a deregulation of the industry. I would expect the Liberal Party to be entirely supportive of a deregulation of the sugar industry since it purports to be in favour of deregulation in general, although to date it almost invariably votes against deregulation; for example, the Kerin dairy industry plan. The offer is conditional also on the Queensland Government matching the Commonwealth's contribution to the underwriting price. Given that it is virtually only a Queensland industry, it is particularly important that the State Government makes a contribution. The Queensland Government has a couple of hundred million dollars stuffed away in hollow logs of various sorts. A good deal of that money comes from Commonwealth Government loans to the State Government for rural adjustment, which have been repaid by farmers but not repaid to the Commonwealth Government. The money has been stuffed instead into some hollow logs, or the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, or whatever it is. We are not quite sure where it is, but we know that a couple of hundred million dollars is stuffed in hollow logs somewhere in Queensland. So the State Government cannot legitimately claim that it does not have the funds to match the Commonwealth contribution. As I understand, the current position is that the Commonwealth Government's very generous offer has been rejected by Queensland. The Queensland Government has refused to make the matching contribution which is required. That was the position the last time I had information on the matter. I will ask Mr Kerin whether there is any more recent information. Senator TATE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister for Communications whether the Government is aware of the privatisation mania which has gripped the current leadership of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party and which is directed to the dismantling of Telecom Australia and Australia Post, amongst other great public enterprises? In particular, is the Minister aware of statements by Mr Howard to the effect that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, owned by all Australians, should be sold off to a number of investors, including overseas interests? Will the Government withstand this attack? Senator WALSH —The short answer to Senator Tate's last question is, yes, of course the Commonwealth Government will withstand that. For as long as I have had knowledge of the Commonwealth Bank it has paid very respect- able dividends to the taxpayers who are its owners. Of course, as Senator Tate said, the Liberal Party proposes to flog it off to some foreigner thereby denying taxpayers those healthy dividends. On the broader question of privatisation-Senator Tate mentioned Australia Post and Telecom-it has penetrated into the consciousness of some of the brighter members of the Liberal Party that it is not possible to recover fully the cost of providing postal and telephone services to the sparsely populated areas of Australia or, probably, anywhere outside the capital cities. Therefore, if privatisation, so called, is to be fully implemented there will be no telephones and no mail deliveries anywhere outside the capital cities. Of course, some members of the Liberal Party are smart enough to know that. Senator Button —But not Senator Messner. Senator WALSH —Senator Messner is not one of the smarter members of the Liberal Party. The smarter members of the Liberal Party say that the problem can be addressed by a direct payment from the Budget to whoever privatises these organisations and that will maintain services in those areas. That would cost something like $500m for Telecom alone. More importantly, it would, of course, destroy the rationale for the privatisation policy. If a private firm knew that the Commonwealth Government was underwriting its losses quite obviously there would be no incentive to minimise costs. Indeed, there would be an incentive to maximise costs. Finally, I do not have any rigid ideological views about privatisation. I think that is fairly well known. Certainly, it has been said publicly before. However, organisations such as Australia Post and Telecom, by their very nature, cannot be privatised without withdrawing services from a very large section of the Australian population. Also the Commonwealth Bank pays very healthy dividends. There is one Commonwealth Government business undertaking which I, as Minister for Finance, would be delighted to privatise. I refer to the Tasmanian railways which cost taxpayers almost $20m in operating losses last year. I look forward to Senator Walters standing up in Hobart, Launceston, Burnie, Smithton and all those other places and promising-in accordance with her new Leader's policy-to privatise the Tasmanian railways. I will be delighted if she can get a bidder to take over the Tasmanian railways thereby relieving Commonwealth taxpayers of the burden of underwriting the losses of that railway system which last year amounted to almost $20m. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General which follows the questions raised earlier by Senator Reynolds and Senator Chaney. I ask Senator Gareth Evans whether he is aware of the statement of the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, that the Family Law Act should be amended to require the Family Court of Australia to ignore social security benefits in determining maintenance. If he is aware of that statement, does he not agree that the point of it is that the Government has in prospect the setting of maintenance, rather than the collection of maintenance, which was the matter being discussed in the other answers this morning? If the Government proposes the amendment of the Family Law Act and the setting of maintenance by the Court, will the Government allow its members a free vote on any provisions in the Family Law Act, as was the case when that provision was inserted in the Murphy Bill? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the latter part of the question, I am sure there is a very big difference between the substantive provisions of the Family Law Act which govern the basic ground rules for marriage and divorce and those provisions in the Act which concern the administration and enforcement of payments made under it. I doubt very much whether the latter would ever be construed as an appropriate subject matter for a conscience vote. That is something that the Party room will have to have a look at. On the question of maintenance collection and enforcement, when I was Attorney-General I initiated a major inquiry which looked comprehensively at the best systems of maintenance enforcement, both in Australia and overseas. That inquiry produced a substantial report which was released last year for public comment. It recommended a new national enforcement agency with major improvements in enforcement methods. It also recommended that the systems which presently exist in South Australia and Western Australia, and which have achieved substantial success in those jurisdictions, be absorbed into rather than superseded by the operations of any such national body. As Senator Ryan has said, the Government is presently considering, through an interdepartmental committee, a range of options to improve enforcement of support obligations, including the possibility of a new agency of this kind. The Government will form a view and reach a decision on that in due course. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I ask a supplementary question to clarify the matter. Is the point of Mr Howe's statement to affect the part of the Act which says that the Family Court shall take into account the eligibility for social security payments when setting maintenance? I am not discussing the collection of maintenance or a maintenance collection agency; I am discussing the section which refers the Court to the eligibility for social security payments when setting maintenance. Senator GARETH EVANS —The interrelationship between private maintenance component collection and the treatment of the social security benefit is one of the questions that are addressed in the particular report to which I referred and it is one of the questions which are being addressed by the interdepartmental committee. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —And on which you will not give a free vote. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to make any announcement about that but I would not have thought that that was appropriate when one is dealing with enforcement and administration provisions of this kind. I conclude by saying that I am not familiar with the terms of whatever it was that Mr Howe said on this subject-- Senator Durack —It was on the front page of the Age. Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe very few things that I read on the front page of the Age or any other page of that paper, unless I get substantive, independent verification of it. That is what I will seek in this particular instance and I will advise the Senate further if there is anything I can usefully add. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Finance seen the employment figures that were released yesterday? Is he confident that the Government can reach its target of half a million new jobs in its first three years of office? What is the significance of the fall of 1.2 per cent to 21.6 per cent in teenage joblessness? Is the prediction of Mr Neil Brown that the employment position in Australia will worsen because of the forthcoming wage and productivity cases well based, or is it simply another boring case of Opposition Jeremiahs knocking the economy? Senator WALSH —In response to that part of the question about Neil Brown, the answer is yes, it is just another case of Opposition knocking. I have seen the employment figures for August, which are welcomed by the Government because they show that there has been an increase in total employment in that one month of another 20,000, bringing to 430,000 the number of jobs created since April 1983 and the National Economic Summit. On a pro rata basis this is well ahead of the target of 500,000 jobs within three years which the Government had set for itself on assuming office. That target was greeted with almost universal cynicism and disbelief and, of course, outright ridicule by members of the Opposition, such as Mr Brown. Since this Government has been in office it has created jobs at four times the rate of its predecessor, taken over its full term. As I have said, 430,000 additional jobs have appeared in the 28 months since April 1983, which exceeds in absolute numbers the 340,000 additional jobs which appeared in the seven years and four months that the discredited former Government was in office. I think it should be noted for the record that for five of those years the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer and, therefore, had primary responsibility for economic performance. In the last year of the previous Government almost 200,000 jobs were lost. Not only did employment cease to grow but also it actually fell in absolute terms by almost 200,000. In summary, although there are month by month fluctuations in the employment level due to statistical imperfections which, in my view, nobody seems able to explain, the trend is very clear. The trend is that employment is growing at a rate probably without precedent. It is growing at a rate four times as fast as that which existed when our predecessors were in office. The Government is well ahead on a pro rata basis of the target of achieving 500,000 new jobs in its first three years in office. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his welcome and very clear answer to my question yesterday when I asked him whether the Government accepted that trade unions must abide by the law and accept the rulings of the courts. He gave a very straightforward answer to that question, saying `Yes'. I remind the Senate that there is a clear contrast between that answer and the failure of the Prime Minister to condemn the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which was acting in contempt of court with the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Yesterday the Prime Minister said: I make no apology for the solidarity of political and industrial labour. It is a historic partnership that is now better than ever working for the good of Australia. Given that statement by the Prime Minister, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Will he assure the Senate that the Government will not extend its solidarity to the support of breaches of the law and that it will act in a positive way to ensure that trade unions, like other bodies, are required to obey the law? Senator BUTTON —I answered that question yesterday. I repeat that the application of the law to the particular question which Senator Chaney addressed to me yesterday is in the hands of the courts and the Government will not interfere with that. We do not happen to particularly like the law-we have indicated that on a number of occasions-but it is there and it will be enforced. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to go beyond the proposition that the Government will not interfere with the administration of the law. I ask: Will the Government support and uphold the law when its partners in the ACTU and the trade union movement are setting out to break the law and have clearly indicated their intention to do that? Senator BUTTON —If rhetoric is necessary, I suppose it will be uttered with the appropriate flavour at the time. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted calls by Opposition front benchers for an Australian wage setting system based more on collective bargaining and less on arbitration processes? Would such a wage system involving collective bargaining make it difficult to discount wage rises for specific factors, such as the inflationary effects of a devaluation of the dollar? Senator WALSH —Not only would it be difficult, without a centralised wage fixing system, to discount wages because of the effect on the consumer price index of the devaluation of the dollar; I think it would be impossible to do so. If that is not correct, if any of the smarter members of the Opposition have developed a mechanism for a general discounting of wages in a deregulated labour market, I would welcome an explanation as to how it is done, because it seems to me that the two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have across the board discounting in a deregulated labour market. We can have discounting through the prices and incomes accord or a similar policy-which this Government has achieved-or no discounting at all. I do not believe there is any third choice. This draws attention to yet another fundamental contradiction in the muddled economic policies which the Opposition has produced in recent months. There is the fundamental contradiction between a policy position in general that welfare payments should be based on need and the simultaneous promise to repeal the assets test; the contradiction between the so-called privatisation argument and the failure to address matters such as Tasmanian railways. I mentioned that earlier because although I do not believe that the Commonwealth Bank, which pays very healthy dividends to the taxpayers, should be flogged off to foreigners-which Mr Howard wants to do-I would welcome any bid for the Tasmanian railways to relieve Commonwealth taxpayers of the responsibility of funding the losses there. But I have yet to hear from Mr Howard, or even Senator Walters, any commitment to a Liberal government withdrawing from the Tasmanian railway system. I would certainly welcome such a commitment from Mr Howard or even Senator Walters that a Liberal government would privatise it. In summary, this illustrates that the Opposition has a very muddled view of the economy and of economic policy, riddled with contradictions and mutually exclusive policies and propositions. Senator KILGARIFF —I address my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, who is also the Leader of the House in the other place. I ask: What has happened to the progress of the Bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Peter Durack and titled the Flags Amendment Bill 1984 [1985], which ensures that any changes to the Australian flag must be approved by the people of Australia through referendum and which was passed by the Senate on 28 February this year? As more than six months has passed since then and there has been no sign of this Bill, is it the Government's intention not to process it and so not allow the Australian community to have a say in the matter? If the Government does intend to process the Bill, when will this take place? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no brief on this matter, but it is my understanding that the Bill has died a well deserved death in the other House. Senator Durack —Why did you not oppose it here? Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply make the point that, as the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, the Government has no proposal before it to change the design of the national flag, so the neurosis demonstrated by Senator Kilgariff, Senator Walters and so many on the other side has no foundation in fact. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is the Department of Veterans' Affairs on target with savings arising out of the 14 May statement? Senator GIETZELT —Ministers of all departments were required to make savings of approximately 5 per cent in relation to the current Budget. According to the 14 May statement those projected savings would start on 1 July. Although my Department is not precisely on target, I understand we are about $1m out of a projected saving of $60m-as close as that. I remind Senator Ray that despite the savings that were effected by the 14 May statement, the Government increased expenditure to my Department in the current financial year by $260m-odd and has committed itself to a program of spending $100m on upgrading the repatriation hospitals over the next three years. Whilst it is true there have been some savings within the Department, there has also been additional expenditure. So there has been a redirection of financial resources within the Department. I am please to say that, generally speaking, according to what I have been advised this week, we are substantially on target. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister noted the release of the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicating that manufacturing costs rose by 12.8 per cent in the year ended 30 June 1985, more than double the consumer price index rate? Has he further noted the ominous increase of 19.3 per cent in the cost of imported materials which represents a significant proportion of input costs for manufacturing, no doubt due now and in the future to the continuing collapse of the Australian dollar since February? Is the Government concerned at the resumption of the fall of the Australian dollar which presages a continuance of inflationary pressures on manufacturing costs and consequently leads to loss of jobs? In light of the Government's cave-in to the Australian Council of Trade Unions on wage discounting last week, what measures does the Government have in mind to minimise the compounding effect of these disastrous foreshadowed cost increases for manufacturing? Senator WALSH —I had not noted the specific ABS figure to which Senator Messner referred. I am willing-possibly recklessly-to accept that what he said is, in fact, correct and that the ABS has reported those sorts of figures, stating principally that manufacturing costs rose by 12 per cent in the year ended June 1985. Of course, a major contributor to any such rise would have been the increase in inputs to manufacturing which are imported and, therefore, directly associated with the devaluation of the dollar. I understand that the same survey stated that the manufacturing cost increases are presently slowing. As to the 12 per cent, I draw Senator Messner's attention to the fact that in the last two years of the Fraser Government wages costs were increasing by 13 and 14 per cent because we had a wages explosion triggered off by the Fraser Government's first disastrous experiment with deregulating the labour market in May 1981. One would have thought that the Bourbons of the Liberal Party, as has been observed before-even given that they are Bourbons-would have learnt something from the 1981 and 1982 wages explosion which was triggered off by their first flirtation with a deregulated labour market. What Senator Messner calls the cave-in to the ACTU is, in fact, an agreement between the Government and the ACTU which cements for another two years the wages accord which has reduced the growth of money wages by 50 per cent from the rates which prevailed in the halcyon days of regulation of the former Governments. I note also that Senator Messner and the other economic quislings in the Opposition persist in attempting to sabotage the Australian economy by saying that the value of the dollar will continue to fall. That is one of the fashions set by the former Liberal Party Government during the 1983 election campaign which, one would have hoped, the Liberal Party would now have abandoned under its new leadership. The Liberal Party should cease its persistent attempts to undermine our growth rate and to sabotage the Australian economy by continually foreasting that interest rates will go up and the value of the dollar will go down. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that, in fact, this means of controlling the rising costs to manufacturing because of the falling value of the dollar will be again to approach the trade union movement to seek to have wages further discounted for the effect of devaluation, perhaps during the latter part of next year? Senator WALSH —I do find this sort of question from people like Senator Messner and the other economic quislings rather tiresome. The fact is that real unit labour costs are lower now than they have been at any time since 1970-71. I point out to Senator Messner that this is contained in the Budget Papers, if he would like to look it up. I cannot give him the exact page, but if he telephones my office, it probably can. Real unit labour costs are lower than they have been at any time since the discredited former Fraser Government was in office and Mr Howard was Treasurer. The figure varies compared with the figure in any particular year during the five years when Mr Howard was Treasurer. But it varies between, from memory, something like 5 per cent and 7 per cent. Real labour unit costs are between 5 per cent and 7 per cent lower under the policies of this Government, thanks to the wages accord, than they were at any time when Mr Howard was Treasurer. Senator RYAN —Earlier today in Question Time Senator Collard asked me a question about evacuations caused by suspected asbestos leaks at the National Library. Independent scientific tests have shown that the asbestos fibres which triggered high readings and caused recent evacuations from the National Library building were not of the type of asbestos being removed. Guards have been placed on the 12 monitors to prevent physical tampering during working hours. Part time contract staff are employed to guard the monitors until readings are taken each day. We acknowledge that evacuations seriously inconvenience readers and staff and are costly to the taxpayer. The Library management maintains contact with the contractors removing the asbestos and the engineers, architects and unions involved, in an effort to eliminate any risk to health, inconvenience to readers and an unnecessary waste of staff time. Senator RYAN —When replying earlier in Question Time to Senator Cooney on the question of monitoring of contamination of waters in the Ranger uranium mine area, I said at that stage that I was not able to confirm whether there had been consultation with the Aboriginal communities. I am now able to confirm that the local Aboriginal community has been consulted and is in constant contact with the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment on this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Vallentine asked me a question, in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, on the use of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by United States military aircraft. The answer supplied to me by the Minister for Defence is as follows: Our records indicate that since January 1981, 32 United States surveillance aircraft have used facilities on the Cocos Islands. As with visits by foreign military aircraft to any part of Australia, each visit must be requested and approved in accordance with standard arrangements for diplomatic clearance of visiting military aircraft. The mission of the United States aircraft making these visits was long-range maritime surveillance. The aircraft involved were United States Navy P3 Orion long-range maritime patrol aircraft, similar to those used by the Royal Australian Air Force for the same type of mission. As a matter of policy the United States does not confirm or deny whether its aircraft carry nuclear weapons. The Australian Government would not consider, however, that its firm policy that nuclear weapons should not be stored on or involved in the staging of operations from Australian territory is likely to be offended by the activities of these aircraft. There are no United States facilities on the Cocos Islands. United States aircraft staging through the Cocos Islands make use of the civil airfield and associated facilities, as do RAAF aircraft. Senator GIETZELT —On Wednesday, 11 September, Senator Townley asked whether the Government had had any reaction as a result of the experience of the ill-fated Japan Air Lines flight which crashed en route from Tokyo to Osaka and whether the Department of Aviation had taken any steps to learn from that experience. I am advised by the Minister for Aviation that air traffic controllers in this country follow procedures recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. In circumstances where an aircraft has diverted from its agreed course or altitude, or otherwise shown signs of abnormal performance, a controller's first action would be to try to contact the pilot to determine the nature and extent of the problem, so that a judgment could be made as to the need to invoke emergency measures. Once the pilot has communicated his difficulties and/or his requirements, the controller would be conscious of the need to keep further contact to a minimum in order to avoid distracting the pilot. I think that answers the question raised by Senator Townley. The PRESIDENT —On Tuesday, 20 August 1985, I presented to the Senate the conditions, determined by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, for granting access to proceedings of the two Houses of the Parliament for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts. During debate on the statement Senator Peter Rae referred to condition No. 8, which states: `Qualified privilege only shall apply to broadcasters in the use of excerpts.'. Senator Rae requested elaboration of this condition and noted: There are differences in relation to State defamation law and the meaning of `qualified privilege' does differ. Condition No. 8 is not really a condition properly so called, but expresses the Committee's opinion as to the state of the law. The Committee cannot declare or change the law in relation to the privilege attaching to the broadcasting or televising of excerpts; nor can either House by itself declare or change the law. The condition was included by the Committee to indicate to broadcasters making use of excerpts the state of the law. It is clear that absolute privilege attaches to senators making speeches in the Senate, by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution. Absolute privilege also attaches, under the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, to the broadcasting or rebroadcasting of any portion of the proceedings which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is required to make under that Act. The publication of Hansard by the Government Printer also attracts absolute privilege. The publication of extracts from debates, however, attracts only qualified privilege, and in this regard, in the view of the Committee, broadcasters using excerpts will be in exactly the same position as newspapers. The Committee considers that this is appropriate, and that the protection of qualified privilege is sufficient for the broadcasting of excerpts. It is to be noted that the corresponding committee of the British Parliament came to the same conclusion. The Committee considered that absolute privilege is appropriate only where a broadcaster is required to broadcast proceedings, as is the case with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The conditions which I presented on 20 August were determined by the Committee after discussions with representatives of the media following the presentation of proposed conditions on 27 May 1985. It is true, as Senator Rae states, that the law relating to qualified privilege differs from State to State, in the absence of uniform defamation laws. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that legislation be enacted to provide, amongst other things, uniform qualified privilege for the reporting of parliamentary proceedings throughout Australia. The Broadcasting Committee was aware of this problem of the lack of uniformity in the law, and took this matter into consideration when determining the conditions. The PRESIDENT —There have been some delays in the publication of the daily Hansards of the Senate and Estimates committees this week. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter has informed me that between Tuesday night and yesterday morning the Government Printing Office again experienced serious problems in the use of the new typesetting equipment installed during the winter months. All the Hansard copy was processed by the Hansard staff, forwarded to the Printing Office on schedule and typeset; but because of a major equipment problem that occurred on Tuesday night it was not possible to transfer the Hansard material from the typesetting process to the printing process. That problem was overcome yesterday morning. Tuesday's Senate Hansard was printed and delivered yesterday morning. Wednesday's and yesterday's Senate Hansards were printed last night and will be delivered early this morning. Tuesday's Estimates committees Hansard is being printed this morning and will be delivered later this morning. Yesterday's Estimates committees Hansard will not be available until Monday. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2, and Estimates Committee C will meet in Committee Room No. 6. Prior to the sitting of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 10.50 a.m. The following paper was tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 376) Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) Is it still the Government's considered view, as stated by the Attorney-General in April 1985, that in the event of the extradition of Baltic Nazi war criminal Konrads Kalejas from the United States to Australia, Australia could not try him for his crimes against humanity because they were committed in Europe. (2) Does this country carry any responsibility for having employed from 1950 to 1953 as an officer of the Commonwealth Immigration Department a man who, according to the US Justice Department, was the Latvian SS Commander responsible for mass executions of Jewry numbering many thousands. (3) If the US Justice Department is correct, will the Government act on the basis that Kalejas made false declarations in order to gain employment with the Commonwealth in 1950, and therefore move to expedite his extradition here, or does it accept that it was the policy of the Menzies Liberal-Country Party coalition to admit to this country and then employ Nazi murderers. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) If Konrad Kalejas were deported from the United States of America to Australia he could not be tried in Australia for alleged war crimes committed in Europe. (2) A Mr K. Kalejas was employed by the Department of Immigration, probably at the Bonegilla Migrant Reception Centre. His file has however been destroyed by Commonwealth Archives in accordance with normal procedures whereby the files of ex-employees are destroyed when they reach the age of 67 years. Mr Kalejas is now 72. (3) Since Mr Kalejas' file has been destroyed it cannot be said whether he made false declarations to gain employment. There is nothing to suggest that it was the policy of the Menzies Liberal-Country Party coalition, nor the policy of any Australian Government, to admit to Australia and then employ persons who are alleged to have committed war crimes.