Tuesday, 17 September 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Human Embryo Experimentation Legislation 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 Boswell (from 12 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 741 citizens), Collard (from 963 citizens), Colston (from 1,145 citizens), MacGibbon (from 1,138 citizens) and Messner (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the 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 Senator Jones (from 540 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the Federal Government's petrol price increase will have a widespread and adverse effect on the people of the Northern Territory and other outback areas of Australia; That the Territory's mining and pastoral industries will suffer as a result of the price increase; That the Territory's tourism industry will suffer as a consequence of increased air fares flowing on from the petrol price rise; That the already high cost of freight to Territory residents, business and industry will increase even further because of the fuel factor of freight charges; That the price increase will generally disadvantage the people of the outback, to whom petrol powered vehicles and equipment are a necessity. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Federal Government to give further consideration to the people of the Northern Territory and other outback and isolated regions of Australia in the matter of this petrol price rise. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 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 U.S. 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 of Europe 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 Messner (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens of the shire of Isis respectfully showeth that: Our region's survival largely depends on the maintenance of a viable sugar industry and your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate, the Prime Minister and the Government of Australia take immediate action to ensure the survival and continued viability of our shire by- immediately recognising the severe economic hardship of an increasing number of people in our community caused by the deepening crisis in the canegrowing and sugar milling industries. providing immediate and meaningful across-the-board financial assistance to canegrowers in our region to ensure the industry's survival and the survival of jobs, small businesses and industries dependent on canegrowing and sugar milling. taking urgent steps in the international arena to ensure that exports by Australia's vital sugar industry are able to remain competitive on world markets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that: As the Australian nation owes a debt of gratitude to its war veterans because of their sacrifices, no changes be contemplated to veterans' legislation which would alter in any way their entitlement to repatriation benefits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in the Parliament assembled should reject any attack on veterans' entitlements. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 367 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire, or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; or the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity including touching genitalia, erect penis. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 276 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the World in their efforts to achieve a Nuclear Free South Pacific, and such Decision being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled Stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on Nuclear Vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its Policy to promote the development of Zones of Peace and Nuclear Free Zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and 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 be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from two citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The petition of certain undersigned citizens of Australia shows that the proposed private member's Bill introduced by Senator Harradine-An Act to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation-disadvantages infertile members of the community seeking treatment through the current medical procedure known as in vitro fertilisation because the inadequate definition of terminology relating to the proposals in the said Bill will prevent any further development and improvement in the relevant medical research anywhere in Australia and, hence, lead to the cessation of the freeze/thaw technique currently associated with the preservation of excess embryos created and intended specifically for the purpose of later implementation into the uterus of an infertile woman seeking treatment. We strongly believe that research should be allowed to continue under the strict guidelines already laid down by the National Health and Medical Research Council and Victoria's `Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984'. Since the proposed Bill infringes on the personal rights and liberties of infertile couples to have children, your petitioners as in duty bound therefore humbly pray that the Senate will view with sympathy our opposition to the afore-mentioned Bill and not support its passage through the Senate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to: (1) Reject a user pays system of education and hence, tuition fees; (2) Abolish the overseas students charge for all categories of overseas students; (3) Publicly reaffirm its commitment to a free post-school education system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 1,634 citizens). Petitions received. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate take note of the 1984-85 annual report of the Institute of Family Studies tabled on 16 September 1985. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Does he recall hearing the Prime Minister say at the Sydney Opera House on 16 February 1983: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it; and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax. Does the Minister agree that the Government went to the Australian people on the clear undertaking not to impose a new capital gains tax? Is the Government still bound by that undertaking? Senator BUTTON —I recall words of that genre being used by the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, at a meeting at the Opera House on 16 February 1983. I remind Senator Chaney that since then there has been a wide-ranging debate about taxation issues, including the taxation summit, the publication of a White Paper on taxation issues, and a whole range of matters which put the whole tax debate in a new perspective. If Senator Chaney seeks particular mileage out of this question, I can revisit history for him for a little while about previous Liberal governments and, of course, I can talk about the present Opposition which, insofar as it has any identifiable position on anything, has changed it on a number of occasions and I suspect is about to change it again on such fundamental issues as the assets test. The people of Australia wait with bated breath as the Opposition tries to formulate a policy on a wide range of issues which, I say with the utmost certainty, must, if Mr Howard is to be said to be a leader with any degree of economic rationality, abandon policies adopted in the last 12 months. The Opposition must abandon them if there is to be any rational approach to the needs of this economy. So, yes, I recall the words. I think they must be seen in the sort of context that I have mentioned; that is, in the context of the first Hawke Government. Members of the Opposition are now confronted with the second Hawke Government and, in two or three years time, they will be confronted with the third Hawke Government. That is the great difficulty that they have to get over. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It concerns the National Health and Medical Research Council's Medical Research Ethics Committee. Is the Minister aware of recent criticism of the Committee in that it does not have adequate community representation and lacks the broader expertise found in ethics committees appointed by the State governments? Given this criticism and given that the Council is the major medical research funding body, whose role is also to provide national ethical guidelines on highly sensitive social issues in medical research, is the Minister able to say whether the Government is satisfied to leave the Council's Ethics Committee in its present form? Senator GRIMES —I am informed by my colleague the Minister for Health that the NHMRC Medical Research Ethics Committee is, in fact, a broadly based committee which is not composed primarily of medical experts, nor does it lack community representation. It comprises representation from the fields of law, philosophy, science, medicine and the community. Of the membership of eight, three are medical and, of the two co-opted members, only one is medical. The Order in Council under which the NHMRC operates limits it to an advisory role on matters of public health legislation and administration. Council has acted to provide leadership in ethical monitoring of research on the expert advice of its Medical Research Ethics Committee. It is interesting to note that most other grant-giving bodies insist on compliance with National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines prior to granting awards. The composition of the Medical Research Ethics Committee, along with other National Health and Medical Research Council committees, is subject to review from time to time. The Minister considers that the present membership of the MREC, determined in 1984, is appropriate to fulfil its current functions, and does fulfil the requirements suggested by Senator Elstob in that it is a broad-based committee and it has community representation. Senator ARCHER —I remind the Minister representing the Prime Minister that the criterion of broad community support-the Prime Minister's ninth principle on tax reform-was used to excuse the backdown on the shift to a broad-based consumption tax. Is the Minister aware of a survey of 5,000 businesses conducted by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, which found 92 per cent opposition to capital gains tax and 89 per cent opposition to fringe benefits taxation? On the basis of the ninth principle, how can the Government possibly justify proceeding with taxes which obviously have so little community support? Senator BUTTON —I suppose that if the same people had been asked whether they wanted a reduction in marginal tax rates, more than 92 per cent of them would have agreed. I suspect that the answer from 100 per cent of them would have been yes. If a number of other questions had been asked about the proposed tax changes which have been mooted in the Press-they are sort of marginally accurate-there would have been totally different responses. People can jump up and down on pogo sticks on the basis that a capital gains tax is reprehensible in all circumstances and something which should not be tolerated. They do not know what the proposed capital gains tax will be. I suggest they-- Senator MacGibbon —Try a fresh Budget, Senator. You could not do any worse. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore the interjection. Senator BUTTON —I could not hear Senator MacGibbon's interjection, Mr President. As a matter of fact, I would not have regarded it as important anyway. In regard to the material to which Senator Archer refers, the Government is not unaware of various attitudes held by particular groups in the community. A number of groups in the community will be offended by any change in the taxation regime. A number will be offended if they can no longer have free lunches. Many people will be upset. If honourable senators opposite want to represent those people and go into the next election advocating greater and longer free lunches, they may do so and we shall see how they get on politically. As I have said, many people will be offended and I do not regard the question, which is cleverly put together in some ways by uniting two totally different concepts-- Senator Chaney —Does principle 9 apply? Senator BUTTON —I am asked whether principle 9 applies. Senator Chaney —What does it apply to? Senator BUTTON —Principle 9 refers to community support and it does not refer to `community' in the narrow sense which Senator Archer is seeking to put together; namely, a sort of ratbag constituency of a wide range of disparate groups that the Opposition hopes to appeal to. We are concerned about the wider community. If the word `community' is used in a very narrow sense, communities all over Australia can be picked up which will be dissatisfied with any tax change. Above all, honourable senators opposite ought to remember that there is a wider community in Australia which is completely disenchanted with the present taxation regime in this country and it has been complaining about it for years. It has been complaining about high marginal rates and certain aspects of business taxes for years. If we change those areas of taxation, we will be doing something that honourable senators opposite did not have the guts to do in eight years in government. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I ask: Now that the Women's Information Service has been operating for several months, can the Minister provide any information on the success of the Service established by the Federal Government in Hobart earlier this year? Has the Service been well received and effective in providing a shop-front community service for Tasmanian women, given the State Government's refusal to recognise the particular needs of women in Tasmania? Senator RYAN —In the absence of any intention by the present Government in Tasmania to provide any special counselling or advice services for women, our Government did decide in April of this year to open a Women's Information Service office in Hobart. I am pleased to report to Senator Coates that it has been very successful. Nearly 2,000 women have used the centre and 25 women's groups meet there regularly. Officers from the centre have travelled all over the State and have met with more than 40 women's organisations. In July the Women's Information Service organised a women's forum to mark the end of the Decade for Women. This was attended by more than 400 women from all over the State. The Service also acts as a referral centre and the most frequently raised questions relate to discrimination, housing, legal matters, financial problems and health issues. In summary, the Women's Information Service has been very well received by the women of Tasmania and is meeting an area of need which the Gray Government unfortunately has persistently refused to acknowledge. Senator Peter Baume —I ask the Minister to table the document from which she quoted so extensively in answer to that dorothy dixer. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator RYAN —I table the document. Senator VIGOR —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware that on 1 May the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation learned that the Department of Communications was requesting it to cut its estimates by $9m? Is the Minister further aware that the Board thereupon resolved that any suggestion of additional cost savings would involve Board reassessment of its use of the satellite? Was that resolution conveyed accurately and fully in person to the Minister and colleagues on the Expenditure Review Committee in Canberra the following day, 2 May? If so, what was the Government's response to the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at that point? Senator WALSH —I wonder whether this question is a joke, quite frankly. There were four questions altogether, the last two of which asked me about what may or may not have happened at the Expenditure Review Committee and what the Government decided to do about a particular proposition which may or may not have been put to the ERC. The answer to that is: I will not answer such questions. Anyone who had the slightest idea of the normal operation of the parliamentary system would have more sense than to ask that question. However, I have been asked by Mr Duffy to provide this answer on his behalf: The question relates to matters concerning the Government's budget process and I have no intention of commenting on that process, save only to say that the Minister for Communications advised me that at all times the ABC management strongly and competently conveyed to the Government the implications of its decisions on this matter. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the results of a survey commissioned by the New South Wales Opposition Leader, Mr Greiner, into the comparative economic performances of the States? Do the results show that Queensland is the worst performing State in most areas? In view of the statistics so kindly collated by Mr Greiner, can the Minister provide the Senate with details of how badly Queensland, under the Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen Government, is slowing down the otherwise fast Australian recovery rate being brought about by the policies of the Hawke Australian Labor Party Federal Government? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the report to which Senator Jones refers. Evidently the New South Wales Opposition Leader does not listen to Question Time, does not listen to the questions relevant to this matter that are asked by Senator Jones, and does not read the excellent statistical analyses that have been sent around from time to time by Senator Maguire or the answers to questions in the Senate. Mr Greiner was under the very false impression that if he did a comparative economic statistical study of Queensland and New South Wales he would discover that the New South Wales economy looked very sick and Queensland looked quite healthy. However, what emerged from the study was quite the opposite. Mr Greiner has fallen on his face. I will give just a few of the details regarding the comparisons between Queensland and the rest of Australia. The major facts are that Queensland has the highest rate of unemployment of any State. It has the largest number of working days lost per thousand employees through industrial disputes and, in that respect, it has almost double the national average of working days lost. It has the smallest growth in new dwelling comments for the 12 months ended March 1985-an improvement in Queensland of only one half of one per cent. In the rest of Australia the average was almost 14 per cent. Queensland has the second slowest rate of inflation decline, beaten in that respect only by the other non-Labor State of Tasmania. In the March quarter of 1985 fixed private capital investment in Queensland declined by 3.4 per cent while in the rest of Australia it increased by 11.1 per cent. Perhaps most importantly of all, in the financial year 1983-84, which is the latest year for which statistics are available, there was a 24 per cent increase in the number of bankruptcies in Queensland when the number of bankruptcies in Australia on average fell by almost 5 per cent. I have not even gone into the enormous public debt that has been accumulated by the Queensland Government or the deficits on its income as against its expenditure which it has been running up in recent years, let alone its single parent birth rate which Senator Grimes mentioned which is by far the highest in Australia, along with its unemployment rate, its inflation rate and a few other things like that. In short, what emerges from any examination of leading economic indices is that the Queenland economy is the sick economy of Australia. Queensland is the sick State. It is dragging down the national average and it is dragging down the rest of the country. Senator PETER RAE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Finance, is quite serious and, I think, sufficiently simple to enable a straightforward answer. Does the Minister accept that the maintenance of high interest rates is, in the foreseeable future, central to the Government's current economic policy? I ask that question following the Minister's non-answer of a similar question asked yesterday by Senator Collard. Senator WALSH —The Government does not have a high interest rate policy. With the limited exception of housing loan interest rates, the Government does not have a policy of controlling interest rates at all. The financial system has been almost entirely deregulated over the previous 18 months or so and the Government does not attempt to set interest rates. The Government has a general economic policy which does have an effect on interest rates. It has other important effects. The incomes accord, which, as we all know, the Liberal Party of Australia would blow up the moment it came into government, should it ever do so, is the lynch pin of the Government's economic policy. It has produced the highest year-on-year growth rates that Australia has seen since the 1950s. It has already generated 430,000 additional jobs in less than 2 1/2 years. It has halved the rate of inflation and so on. It is true that recently interest rates have increased compared with what they were in the immediate past. However, they are still very substantially lower than the record interest rates which prevailed in April 1982 when Mr Howard was the Treasurer. At the end of 4 1/2 years of Mr Howard's reign as Treasurer, 90-day commercial bills hit an all-time record interest rate of 22 1/2 per cent. Interest on Commonwealth Government short term and long term loans was at 16 1/2 per cent in June of that year. Interest rates are higher now than they have been throughout most of Australia's history, including the last 10 years. However, they are appreciably lower now than they were during the 4 1/2 years Mr Howard was Treasurer and primarily responsible for economic policy. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Will he answer the question instead of giving us the lecture he has given us day in and day out which is erroneous in so many parts it does not matter? Will he answer the simple question: Is it central to the Government's policy, as claimed by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, that high interest rates are necessary for the forseeable future? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of the Prime Minister having said that high interest rates were essential or a central part of the Government's economic policy, or something like that. If the Prime Minister said something like that, I would be obliged if Senator Rae would show me the evidence. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Is it a fact that women are still under-represented in the upper levels of the work force and over-represented among the unemployed? What measures is the Government taking to improve the position of women in the work force and, in particular, to widen women's employment options? Senator RYAN —It is a fact, as Senator Zakharov's question suggests, that, despite the improvements in women's employment opportunities made by the Hawke Government, women are still under-represented in the upper areas of the work force and over-represented in the more fragile and less well-paid areas. In response to this situation the Government is taking a number of measures. Senator Zakharov may be particularly interested in a publication released yesterday by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations which outlines measures in the 1985-86 Budget aimed at improving the position of women in the work force and announcing the development in his portfolio of a national strategy on women in the labour force. The strategy will draw together a number of policies and programs currently in operation or being developed in the Department as well as initiatives taken in State or Territory offices and individual offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Government's concern to increase employment choices and opportunity for women and to remove discriminatory employment practices is reflected in the special efforts being made to increase women's participation in labour market programs and open up employment in jobs which traditionally have been male. For example, in the community employment program the Government's major job creation project, a target of 50 per cent of jobs for women has been set. Considerable progress towards achieving that target has been made. The implementation of some of the major recommendations of the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry Into Labour Market Programs will also help to improve the participation rates of women in all areas of the labour market. There will be special efforts, for example, to ensure that the new traineeships are as accessible to young women as they are to young men. The newly integrated adult training program will certainly provide major support for women re-entering the work force. Under the special trade training program, 500 places for trade-based pre-employment courses have been approved specifically for women. The women's research and employment initiatives program was established to provide funding and specialist research, small scale research and community initiatives in relation to women's employment. Two major projects on maternity leave usage in the public and private sectors have been funded, as has a major project on industry policy. A number of CES offices have specifically initiated activities aimed at unemployed women in their regions. These activities include an affirmative action program for female job seekers introduced in the Brunswick CES office in Victoria in 1984-85. In summary, a number of initiatives have already been taken through the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. These initiatives will now be co-ordinated and upgraded and, together with other legislative and policy measures being taken by the Government, should ensure that the pattern of structural discrimination against women referred to in Senator Zakharov's question will be adequately addressed during the rest of the term of this Government. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I note from the 1984 review of the Remuneration Tribunal that many senior public servants receive an expense of office allowance of $3,800 per annum. Does the Minister believe that an allowance of this order is appropriate for such office bearers? Has there been any proposal to protect allowances to that level from a fringe benefits tax and, if so, what was the origin of any such proposal? Senator WALSH —I did not think that we would have two people trying to pull on something like this in one day. I will not respond in specific terms to a question like that; I expect Senator Sheil will get the answer in about 27 hours time. I will say that what the Government has attempted to do in relation to cash or non-cash fringe benefits is to apply the same principles to the public sector as have been applied to the private sector. Senator BOLKUS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports today of further incursions by South African troops into Angola? If so, could he advise the Senate of the Government's attitude towards these further acts of aggression by this apartheid regime? Senator GARETH EVANS —We have seen news reports that South African troops have invaded Angola in pursuit of forces of the South West African People's Organisation. If these reports are correct, the incursion is the second to take place since South Africa announced the final withdrawal of its troops from southern Angola in April 1985. The Australian Government unreservedly condemns such actions. We have never accepted that South African forces had a right to be in southern Angola, and welcomed their reported withdrawal. We certainly do not accept that South Africa has a right to dispatch or station forces anywhere on Angolan territory without the consent of the Angolan Government. Incursions into Angola by South African troops do nothing to contribute to the climate of regional relations or to a climate of confidence in which the negotiations for the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia could proceed. Such actions do call into question South Africa's bona fides in proclaiming its readiness to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Namibian issue. The Australian Government continues to support the early independence of Namibia on the basis of Security Council Resolution No. 435, which endorses proposals for a ceasefire and a political settlement under United Nations auspices. We favour the early resumption of negotiations to this end and deplore events such as South African incursions into Angola which do serve to frustrate and delay this process. Senator KNOWLES —I refer the Minister for Finance to the September issue of Lloyds Economic Report, a publication of Lloyds International Ltd, in which the result of the Government's deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on wage discounting is said to be a further inclination by the Reserve Bank of Australia to maintain tight monetary policies. The report states: In other words, higher wages point to higher inflation which requires tight monetary policies and a continuation of high, if not higher, interest rates. Does the Minister accept this analysis and the inevitability of even higher interest rates in the wake of the Government's backdown to the unions? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the publication in question but the analysis that higher wages will lead to higher inflation and higher interest rates is theoretically sound and has been empirically verified. I can give Senator Knowles an excellent example of empirical verification. In the last two disastrous years of the Fraser Government wages increased by 13 per cent and 14 per cent respectively, and inflation rose over those two years from about 8 1/2 per cent, from memory, to 11 1/2 per cent. Interest rates hit the all time record high levels in the middle of 1982 to which I have referred previously. Ninety-day commercial bank bills hit 22 1/2 per cent. Long and short term Commonwealth bonds hit 16 1/2 per cent in June of 1982. That explosion of wages, inflation and interest rates was triggered off by the Fraser Government's abandonment in mid-1981 of centralised wage fixing. The Fraser Government decided that it would experiment; it allowed the ideologues in the Liberal Party of Australia to experiment with a deregulated wages policy and let the market sort out wages. By the standards of the Fraser Government, economic growth at that time was at quite high levels. It was at lower levels than have prevailed since this Government came to office but, by the standards of the Fraser Government, economic growth was at quite high levels. The result of that cave-in to the ideologues of the Liberal Party which wanted to experiment with its dogmas about market forces determining wage levels was, as I have said before, a wages explosion, followed by an inflation explosion, followed by an interest rate explosion, followed, of course, by the first period of negative economic growth that we had had since the early 1960s and the worst recession that Australia had had since the 1930s. One would have thought that even the Bourbons of the Liberal Party would have learned something from that experience but, regrettably, we find that they have not. Having tried that disastrous policy in 1981, the Liberal Party is firmly committed to having a re-run of it and its economic consequences, should it ever be returned to government. Senator KNOWLES —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Senator Walsh has consistently refused to answer questions put to him- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question? Senator KNOWLES —I would be delighted to. In fact, I will repeat my question to which I have not received an answer. Does the Minister accept the analysis of the Lloyds Economic Report and the inevitability of even higher interest rates in the wake of the Government's backdown to the unions? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether `the Government's back down to the unions' purports to be a quotation from the Lloyds report. I suspect that it is more a manifestation of the spleen of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. However, if any report were couched in that sort of language, its analysis would have to be highly suspect. Senator SIBRAA —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will no doubt be aware of a statement by the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Fischer, reported in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial of 16 September condemning the Government for cutting out the pensions of 13,272 veterans as a result of the assets test. Does this statement contradict public announcements by Mr Howard who was in favour of the assets test as a way of rationalising welfare benefits to the community? Senator GIETZELT —A question was asked on Senate Estimates Committee F last Thursday and the Secretary of my Department, Mr Volker, informed the Committee that just over 7,000 veterans had in fact lost their service pension as a result of the assets test. Several days later Mr Fischer, my shadow in the other House, seized upon that statement to attack the Government's decision to establish the assets test and suggested that we were heartless and ungenerous in our approach to veterans. However, he never sought to establish how many veterans were in receipt of the service pension. That number is close to 400,000; so, in a sense, the highlighting of 7,000 withdrawals would not escape the notice of those who would expect to find that, out of that large number of recipients, at least 7,000 veterans and good Australian citizens would have accumulated considerable assets in the post-war years. Of course, that figure represents only about 2 per cent of those who are in receipt of a pension. Senator Sibraa asked me about the attitude of the Opposition parties on this matter. It is pretty clear that they have not got their act together because Mr Howard is on the record as supporting an assets test concept, as indeed was Senator Messner when he was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and as were many other Opposition spokesmen when they were in government. It is pretty clear that they are not too sure exactly where they are going now that the dries have had some sort of a coup and taken over the Liberal Party. We are not sure exactly where they are heading in this area when they talk about economic rationality. We have seen a spate of right wing think- tanks emerging in recent times, although I suppose that is a contradiction in terms. One such publication was put out by a Mr Brian Buckley, whose claim to fame is that he was once on the staff of Sir Phillip Lynch, a former Treasurer in a Liberal government. He has suggested that another $120m should come off my Budget and has suggested in fact imposing taxes and assets tests on disability pensions, war widows' pensions and such like to reach that objective. That sort of think-tank these days includes people such as Mr Stone, Katherine West and many others who are all giving the Government advice, and it seems that Mr Fischer is trying to climb on the band-wagon. We hope that in the future he will look at the figures more carefully before he goes off and makes the sorts of public statements that he has in recent times. Senator SANDERS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the 30-year agreement between Euratom and the Australian Government concerning the transport of nuclear material is due for review in November this year? Will the Minister state the Government's position on this review? Is the nuclear fuel and material agreement signed by France and Australia in Paris on 7 January 1981 still in force? If so, can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government is prepared to break this agreement in the light of France's refusal to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as French militarism in the Pacific? If not, does this indicate that the Government is willing to condone French military activities in the Pacifice in order to sell uranium? Senator GARETH EVANS —The agreement between Australia and Euratom concerning nuclear transfers provides in article XIII for consultations between the parties. Discussions have been held between- Senator Chaney —Why don't you incorporate it in Hansard? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think Senator Sanders would appreciate the incorporation of an answer to what is an important question, even if Senator Chaney's side of politics does not regard it as such. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Minister answer Senator Sanders and ignore the interjection? Senator GARETH EVANS —Discussions have been held between Australia and Euratom officials on the timing of the next consultations under the agreement. Dates in November or December this year are being considered. Provisions for such consultations are a feature of all our nuclear safeguards agreements. These consultations provide valuable opportunities for the Treaty partners to discuss aspects of the operation of the Treaty and ancillary arrangements covering nuclear co-operation and to promote Australian views on co-operation and safeguards and non-proliferation questions generally. The consultations with Euratom should not be seen as a review of the Treaty as such; rather, they will involve a review of the manner in which the Treaty is operating and exchanges on broad nuclear policy questions within the competence of Euratom. The second question concerned the 1981 agreement. The short answer to that is yes, the bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement is in force. The third question sought an assurance about breaking the agreement. The Government's position is that neither the nuclear safeguards agreement between Australia and Euratom nor that between Australia and France requires Australia to supply uranium to France. The suspension of uranium exports for end use in France continues in view of French testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. The international safeguards system and the provisions of our bilateral treaty network provide assurance that Australian uranium is not being diverted for use in nuclear weapons by France or any other state. As a matter of policy, as Senator Sanders would know, Australia is prepared to conclude safeguards agreements only with countries which are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Non-nuclear weapons states party to the NPT have undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. France is already a nuclear weapons state and is the only exception to that general principle in Australian policy; the basis of the exception being that although France is not a party to the NPT, France has undertaken to act as if it were an NPT party and it has upheld that undertaking. As to the question of our condonation of French military activities in the Pacific, I say simply that the Government's condemnation of France's nuclear testing in the Pacific is a matter of ample record. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister will recall reports of the gunning-down of Tasmanian-born journalist Neil Davis in Bangkok on 9 September. Has the Australian Government undertaken its own inquiries, through its consular offices or otherwise, into the circumstances of the death of this intrepid reporter? Further, is the Government insisting that the Thai Government bring the murderers of Neil Davis to justice? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government deeply regrets the tragic death of the highly respected Australian journalist Neil Davis and his American colleague when caught in fighting during the coup attempt on 9 September. I mention for the record that the Australian Embassy in Bangkok has been asked to pass on personal messages from their majesties the King and Queen of Thailand and the Thai Prime Minister to the family of Mr Davis. The Thai Foreign Minister, Air Chief Marshal Siddhi Savetsila, also has expressed publicly his personal grief and condolences. The Thai authorities are carrying out an investigation into the circumstances of Mr Davis's death. The Thai Government has also announced that there will be a police investigation into the circumstances of the attempted coup to determine, among other things, those responsible. On instructions from Mr Hayden, the Department of Foreign Affairs has already raised with the Thai Government matters concerned with Neil Davis's death. The Australian Government hopes that those found responsible for his death will be brought to account. However, as I am sure Senator Tate will appreciate, it would be inappropriate for us to attempt to pre-empt the findings of Thai investigations and any legal action which might follow. Senator REID —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Territories aware that the transport workers dispute in Canberra is still unresolved? How long does the Government intend to allow this dispute to continue without taking action to alleviate the hardship of Canberra residents and to prevent the revenue loss to ACTION buses and consequential fare increases? Why does the Government continue to refuse to reinstate the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act when it is clear that this legislation is necessary to protect the community of bus users? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware, as indeed are all Canberra residents, including those of us who are here on occasions, of the problems associated with the transport industry in Canberra and the effect that the Transport Workers Union bans have had on the movement of passengers. However, the information that has been provided to me has suggested that even though there have been statements by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that the Government has no intention of entering into any deal for pay increases and has called upon members to accept the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, this is a matter which should be directed to the Minister who represents that particular portfolio. I suggest that that Minister be required to answer Senator Reid's question, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of Mr Willis and seek an early response for Senator Reid. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to proposals, supported yesterday by the Queensland Premier and by former Treasury Secretary, Mr John Stone, for a flat rate income tax system? Can the Minister provide the Senate with any information on those likely to benefit and those likely to be disadvantaged by a flat rate tax? Senator WALSH —I have seen reports, including one in the Age this morning which was headed `Stone slams new tax plan before seeing it'. Perhaps to be fair, I should say that I do not believe that headline was entirely compatible with the substance of the story, but when I saw it the thought ran through my head, `What is new?'. For a long time Mr Stone has not been averse to stating conclusions without knowledge of the evidence and even sometimes in conflict with the evidence or, at least, selectively culling out all evidence which does not support his predetermined conclusion. I did see a report in the Canberra Times that Mr Stone was advocating a 25 per cent flat tax. This is further sad evidence of Mr Stone's progressive cerebral decay. The fact that he now shares a platform with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who also believes that cars can be made to run on water, leads one to suspect that before long Mr Stone might be reported as asserting that cars will run on water. However, Mr Stone has not entirely lost contact with the disciplined approach to mathematical questions which he once adopted and he appears to concede that a flat tax system which raised an equivalent amount of revenue would leave taxpayers in the $17,000 to $23,000 income range worse off. In fact, on average weekly earnings, which is about mid-point in that range, they would be $3 a week worse off. But what has either not been acknowledged or not reported is that a 25 per cent flat tax would make every taxpayer earning less than $23,000 a year worse off. That would be about 83 per cent of taxpayers. The Canberra Times report went on to state: At a news conference later he- that is, Mr Stone- could not define the proportion of taxpayers who would be worse off at the outset of change. That proportion is about 85 per cent. Nor does he appear to have pointed out that a taxpayer with a $13,000 income would be $22 a week worse off, that someone on $17,000 a year would pay $18 a week extra tax, that someone on $20,000 a year would pay $13.30 a week extra tax and that some five million taxpayers-I said about 85 per cent-would be worse off. Included among that 85 per cent would be the great majority of Australian farmers on their present income levels. As my colleague John Kerin pointed out in the House yesterday, the adoption of a flat tax proposal as advocated by the Federal National Party as well as the Queensland National Party would mean a tax increase of around $2,000 for a farmer on average levels of farm income, as reported by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. That is what would happen initially-that is 85 per cent of the population would pay more tax of the amounts I have stipulated-if a 25 per cent flat tax was introduced. Mr Stone was also reported as saying that with government restraint that 25 per cent rate could ultimately be brought down to 20 per cent. Assuming that the deficit would be of the same size, a 20 per cent flat tax rate applied now would require a cut in government outlays of the order of $12 billion or $13 billion. I cannot get any response from Senator Messner, Mr Howard or anybody else in the Opposition- Senator Messner —You have not asked me. Senator WALSH —I asked the honourable senator here last week. The letter is in the mail-not with a cheque, though. I cannot get any answers from any of those worthy members of the Opposition as to where they would suggest cutting government outlays by $12 billion or $13 billion, but I would welcome Mr Stone's suggestion as to where they could be cut. I guarantee to make those comments available to the public. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to comments made by the Prime Minister last Thursday in an interview on the Carleton-Walsh Report about his views on the Australian flag, when he said: You wouldn't change that flag flippantly or easily. I think it's one of those things that the Australian community should think about, talk about in a relaxed and gradual fashion and if out of that process it was clear that there was a great majority of feeling that we wanted some different sort of identification then that's appropriate. In the light of the Prime Minister's expressed attitude and the fact that the Government did not oppose my Bill in the Senate to amend the Flags Act to ensure that the flag would not be changed except by the support of the people, will the Government repudiate the statement made in the Senate last Friday by the Minister for Resources and Energy that my Bill: `has died a well deserved death in the other House'? Secondly, will the Government co-operate with the Opposition in the House of Representatives to facilitate the passage of that Bill into law? Senator BUTTON —I interpreted Senator Gareth Evans's remark only as giving due weight to the importance of the honourable senator's Bill. Senator Evans, as a member of the Cabinet, is conscious of the very significant and important legislative program which the Government has. When we discuss the sitting hours of the Senate, I think we all become aware of that. The Government does have a heavy legislative program and in saying that I think Senator Evans was probably giving appropriate weight to the honourable senator's Bill. I would not in those circumstances, in any sense, repudiate Senator Gareth Evans. I agree with the approach adopted by the Prime Minister in the Carleton-Walsh program to which the honourable senator referred. It is a matter which should be widely discussed in the community and I see every reason for supporting that attitude. So, I do not see any reason to repudiate Senator Gareth Evans. We all have different views about this matter; I think it is appropriate, and we should discuss them as much as possible. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Leader of the Government did not answer my further question. Will the Government-in the light of the attitude that Senator Button has now expressed as well as the Prime Minister-co-operate with the Opposition in the House of Representatives to facilitate the passage of that Bill, which is now in the House of Representatives, into law? Senator BUTTON —I think that is a matter which I should appropriately put to the Government, and not give an answer myself. When the Government dealt with the matter, my answer would be no. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With regard to the proposed further nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll, is the Minister aware of reports that Mururoa is holed like a Swiss cheese and, therefore, likely to leak radioactive materials into the Pacific Ocean in the future? Does the Minister consider that there is any danger of prevailing winds and currents bringing radioactive materials into the Australian fishing grounds or coast? What monitoring facilities exist to check for radioactive materials in our waters? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted with concern reports that Mururoa Atoll is crumbling under the strain of repeated French underground nuclear tests, but it has to be said that these reports are not supported by evidence now available to the Government, as was stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Government's opposition to the tests is well known, and, particularly in light of the South Pacific nuclear-free zone agreement recently signed at Rarotonga, we, of course, continue to deplore France's demonstration of its nuclear capability in the Pacific region. The Government's concern about the potential environmental effects of the French testing program was the reason it agreed in 1983 to a French invitation to South Pacific Forum countries to send a scientific team to visit Mururoa. This enabled a group of scientists from Australia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand to inspect the French nuclear testing site at the atoll in October-November 1983. In releasing the group's report, as Mr Hayden did publicly on 9 July 1984, he noted with concern the report's conclusion that leakage could occur from the detonation chambers in the long term, and that the structural integrity of the coral limestones on the upper section of Mururoa Atoll had already been impaired. While the environmental and health effects of nuclear testing are important, the Government's dominant concern is that nuclear testing should not take place by any state in any environment. As to the specific question about winds and currents, Mr Hayden advises me that he would need technical advice before being able to state whether winds and currents would bring any radioactive leakage into Australian fishing grounds. But there is nothing in the report from which I have just quoted to suggest that this is so, although it is not conclusive on that point and further research may well be justified. Regarding monitoring facilities for checking radioactive material in our sea water, I have not, as yet, had time to check this out thoroughly, but I am confident that such bodies as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council could meet such a requirement. The net result of all that is that although there are grounds for continuing concern about the environmental impact of the French tests on Mururoa Atoll, it has to be acknowledged that some of the more extravagant concerns that have been expressed are not well based in fact. But that does not alter the legitimacy of a continuing concern by us, in common with all countries in the region, about what continues to take place there. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Further to an earlier question asked by Senator Jones comparing figures for Queensland and New South Wales, I ask: Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Labor Treasurer, Mr Booth, dismissed the figures given by the Leader of the New South Wales Opposition for `being arranged inconsistently'? Is he aware that Queensland is the only State in Australia to create jobs in the month of August? Is he also aware that 58 per cent of jobs created in Australia since February have been created, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, in Queensland? Does he disagree with the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether Mr Booth criticised the figures for being inconsistently arranged, but I do know what Mr Greiner's analysis showed. It was not a biased analysis; it was prepared by the Liberal Party of Australia and it showed that Queensland had the highest rate of unemployment of any State. It lost, per thousand workers, almost twice as much time through industrial disputes as did any other State. It had the smallest growth in new dwelling commencements for the year ended March 1985. It had the second slowest breakdown in inflation, being second only to Tasmania in that negative respect. Its rate of private fixed capital investment was one-third of the national average, and so on. Those figures relate to the month of August. The monthly ABS survey of employment which, I suppose, Senator Bjelke-Petersen is referring to, is noted for swinging quite wildly from month to month, even on a national basis and on a State basis it would be likely to swing even more irrationally. Despite all the apologetics- Senator Boswell —Don't the figures suit you? Senator WALSH —I say to Senator Boswell that the figures suit me excellently. If I wanted evidence or a political platform from which to support the fact that over recent years Labor State governments in comparison with non-Labor State governments have had a vastly better economic record, the figures would suit me excellently. They show that the State of Queensland is the sick State in Australia. In spite of being dragged down in almost every economic indicator of any consequence whatsoever, the national performance is still extremely good. This is because we are fortunate enough, apart from the State of Queensland, to have only the small State of Tasmania governed by a non-Labor government. We have four Labor States and a Labor Federal government. Therefore, in spite of the burden in reducing the average that Queensland imposes on the rest of Australia, the national performance is extremely good. Senator MAGUIRE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, follows that of Senator Bjelke-Petersen. Does the Minister have the latest information on the level of bankruptcies in Australia? If so, will he advise us of the trends in the various States? Is the level of bankruptcies an indicator of general economic conditions in the country? Senator GARETH EVANS —Knowing Senator Maguire's uncanny perception in these matters, the Attorney-General has kept me well supplied with statistics on bankruptcies for 1984-85. To get the context clear at the outset, I shall give the national tally. In 1983-84, there were 4,909 bankruptcies but in 1984-85, there were 4,727. That is a decline around the country of 3.7 per cent. There is no doubt, as Senator Maguire intimated, that the level of bankruptcies is a useful indicator of economic performance. Senator Messner —What a load of rubbish! They are lagged and you know it. Senator GARETH EVANS —When an economy is strong, companies and individuals can trade their way out of difficulties or get credit, as even Senator Messner might recall, to tide them over tough times. But when an economy is not basically sound, as was the case during the Fraser years, business confidence falls and the level of bankruptcies tends to rise. So the significant fall in the level in 1984-85 is a further indication of the way the Australian economy has recovered under the Hawke Government's management and its policies. As to the situation in the States, Senator Maguire can be properly proud of the fact that in South Australia over that period there has been a drop in bankruptcies of 14.6 per cent. They fell from 775 in 1983-84 to 662 in 1984-85. Increases were recorded in three bankruptcy districts. There was a very slight increase of 1.8 per cent in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In Tasmania there was an increase of 5.5 per cent and, rather fascinatingly, in light of some of the discussions we have heard today, in Queensland, there was an increase of 15.6 per cent. So South Australia had a drop of around 15 per cent and Queensland had an increase of more than 15 per cent. Nationally there was an overall drop of 3.7 per cent, but in Tasmania, there was a 5.5 per cent increase and in Queensland, an increase of 15.6 per cent. For the record, so that the real enormity of the failure of economic performance in Queensland can be appreciated, this is how the remaining States and the Northern Territory performed in those two years: In Victoria bankruptcies were down 11.5 per cent under the Cain Labor Government; in the Northern Territory they were down 7.5 per cent for reasons that remain obscure; and in Westen Australia under the Burke Labor Government bankruptcies were down 15.3 per cent. There has been no attempt to hide the total picture. There it is and there is the lesson the Opposition and Senator Bjelke-Petersen and her husband ought particularly to be contemplating. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-My brief statement concerns an answer to a challenge from Senator Walsh earlier to give a reference to a quotation of a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In an interview with Max Walsh on the Today show of 10 April 1985, Max Walsh asked: Is this due, in part, to official intervention in the interest rate . . . After the Prime Minister had gone on with one of the sentences which give him the title of giving longer sentences than Judge Jeffreys, it eventually got to the stage where Max Walsh said: First is of course that you have alleged to have lost control of monetary policy. Now . . . that is not the case as demonstrated by the way in which interest rates have moved. And in fact interest rates have moved up in Australia quite severely and substantially of late. The Prime Minister said: There has been a move upwards, yes. Max Walsh asked: Which one would infer came from Reserve Bank action in the market place. The Prime Minister said: There has obviously been a degree of action there in the market place, yes. A little later in the interview he said that he and Paul Keating have been in charge of the Government's economic policy and accept the responsibility for it. That statement supports what I said earlier in Question Time-that the Prime Minister has accepted the Government's responsibility for the movement in interest rates in Australia. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I have been adversely affected by the actions of Hansard in its report of 16 September on page 543, which attributes words to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) which were not, in fact, said by him and which are not necessarily implied by what he actually did say. I have the agreement of Mr Shearwood of Hansard that words were added that were not spoken and I have heard the tape. The consequence of Hansard altering what Senator Walsh did say to make it grammatically acceptable has, therefore, changed the meaning of what he said to the extent that it removes the possibility of another meaning that was, in my view, deliberately left open by the Minister's words. No matter what Hansard's obligations to provide a record that is consistent with acceptable English usage, the prime responsibility surely must be to ensure that meanings are not changed by any improvement so undertaken. A reading of the offending section of the Hansard as it was actually said by Senator Walsh, and excluding your intervention, Mr President, reveals that his words have the very clear effect of claiming that I was insolvent. The words are as follows: Interest rates of that magnitude could even cause stockbroking firms to become insolvent, as one did in Sydney a few years ago. Senator Ryan interjected: Which one was that? Senator Walsh replied: Patrick Partners. Indeed, we have a Patrick Partner with us-a former Patrick Partner has joined us in the Senate. There was a pause for your intervention, Mr President. The next words were: insolvent, leaving many depositors and clients screaming for their money. The last mention of a name to which the word `insolvent` could relate was my own as a former Patrick Partner. In fact, I did not go insolvent. An official New South Wales inquiry into the failure of that partnership even exonerated me and specifically exempted me from the criticism that it did make of the remaining partners because, among other reasons, I had physically removed myself from the partnership activities after a dispute five months before the events took place that triggered the firm's collapse. That was why I took a point of order that Senator Walsh's statement, as actually made in the chamber, was false and offensive to me. My objection is, of course, rendered incorrect and misleading of the Senate if the change Hansard has made, for cosmetic reasons, to the record is allowed to stand. By interpolating the two words `it went' Hansard has ensured that the only possible construction from Senator Walsh's remarks is that they did not refer to me but to the partnership from which I had physically removed myself five months previously, whether or not I was still held legally to be a partner. I find it unfortunate that I am put in a position of appearing to mislead the Senate solely because a statement is altered by Hansard, despite my objections, to exclude a meaning that it was capable of having in its original form. Mr President, in these circumstances, I ask that you request Hansard to reconsider its decision to alter the actual events of the Senate chamber-which was done simply to put the words into a stylistic pattern-in a way which had a capacity to distort the meaning of words used to my considerable disadvantage. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I did not request Hansard to make any changes and I am assured by my staff that nor did any member of my staff. In regard to the other matters that Senator Michael Baume has raised, I refer anyone who is interested to a quotation from the Masterman report, which I think was the report to which Senator Baume referred. Page 131 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 10 May 1977 has quite an extensive quotation from the Masterman report to which Senator Baume referred which is somewhat at variance with the statement he has just made. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation in that what has just been said is totally at variance with reality and the Masterman report. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Masterman report specifically, in brackets, excludes me from its criticism of the rest of the partners. Senator Walsh has referred to a report in Hansard presented by the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, which disgracefully exempted those words that were specifically in brackets in the report. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a brief comment on the issue raised with respect to the Hansard. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —This is the second occasion on which concern has been expressed in the Senate by the senators on this side of the chamber about the alteration of the Senate Hansard record as it affects the words used by a Minister in this place. The first occasion involved Senator Gareth Evans and, in the view of the Opposition, there was a clear distortion of meaning in that case. In the case of Senator Walsh I have examined the transcript and, certainly, if the words which are said by Senator Michael Baume to have been added were added, in my view there is an alteration of the clear meaning of the words. I rise at this time to ask you, Mr President, to examine this case. I think the Hansard officers perform a difficult task and they do undertake the alteration of the transcript from time to time. Senator Walsh has told us that no alteration was requested by him or by his office. If that is what he has said presumably that is true. If that is so, it seems to me that it goes beyond the province of Hansard to make an alteration which can alter the sense. On the occasion that this matter was raised in the past I made inquiries and found out that, on occasions, my own staff had requested alterations to Hansard when I was a Minister. I found out that their requests, according to Hansard, had been to restore the original words used which, no doubt, were often less grammatical and less elegant than those which had been inserted by Hansard. But when there is an issue such as this which goes to the standing of a senator and on which he thinks it necessary to seek leave to make a personal explanation, I think it is highly undesirable that there should be any alteration to the record. Mr President, I ask you to examine the matter and to report to the Senate on the rules which govern alterations. I am not satisfied. I certainly do not impugn the motives of Hansard officers-I think they do a very difficult task well-but I believe that, if there is to be any error, it should be in favour of maintaining the errors which we make in our language and not in correcting them. If, in correcting them, there is any alteration of the sense of what is said, if potentially injustice is done to honourable senators, the position of either the Government or the Opposition can be distorted. The PRESIDENT —I take it that Senator Michael Baume, in making the personal explanation he has, has taken the opportunity to state his position clearly and to put that position on the record. I accept the statement of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that neither he nor his staff sought to make or did make any alterations to Hansard. I have taken cognisance of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). I shall discuss the matter with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and, if necessary, with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and Senator Michael Baume. If my recollection is correct, the debate that took place and the words that were used at that time were in relation to a ruling I gave that certain remarks were offensive. To that extent I suppose that the Chair, too, is involved. I shall discuss the matter, certainly with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and, if necessary, with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and Senator Michael Baume, and report to the Senate. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-Further to my statement yesterday, I inform the Senate that the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts met today to discuss the request from Dr Geoffrey Edelsten that, first, he be given an opportunity to appear before the Committee and, secondly, that he be provided with information from working papers of the Committee's medical fraud and overservicing pathology inquiry. The Committee has agreed to Dr Edelsten appearing before it, but insists upon a written submission in advance. In connection with Dr Edelsten's request for certain information, the Committee has agreed to speak to Dr Edelsten to determine exactly what information he has requested and whether that information can be provided under the relevant Acts. The Committee has yet to determine the dates when meetings will be held. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes be extended to 26 November 1985. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. 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 sittings of the committees the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 3.19 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices- No. 141A-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 141-Restrictions relating to the use of fish traps in proclaimed waters adjacent to Shark Bay, Western Australia, dated 27 August 1985. No. 148-Prohibition relating to the taking of scallops from proclaimed waters in Bass Strait, dated 2 September 1985. Navigation Act-Marine Orders 1985-No. 2-Part 90 (Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from ships-1954 Convention)). Quarantine Act-Determination-Notice under section 86E, dated 31 July 1985. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 11 September 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 93) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What has been the percentage of Government tax revenue derived from (a) `pay as you earn' tax; and (b) company tax, in each budget since 1970-71, inclusive of the estimated 1985-86 Budget. (2) If the corporate tax contribution to revenue was still at its 1975-76 level, how much more money would have been paid by this sector in each year since 1975-76, inclusive of the estimated 1985-86 financial year? Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Net PAYE collections and company income tax collections as percentages of total taxation revenue for financial years 1970-71 to 1984-85 are set out below: Financial year Net PAYE Company Tax % % 1970-71... 34.0 19.5 1971-72... 36.8 18.8 1972-73... 37.4 18.5 1973-74... 39.0 18.0 1974-75... 43.1 16.7 1975-76... 41.7 15.0 1976-77... 43.4 14.4 1977-78... 45.2 14.5 1978-79... 44.6 13.0 1979-80... 44.5 12.5 1980-81... 43.5 14.5 1981-82... 46.1 13.4 1982-83... 46.1 11.7 1983-84... 44.1 9.8 1984-85*... 42.7 10.3 * As estimated in 1984-85 budget. (2) Company tax collected during the 1975-76 financial year represented 15 per cent of total taxation revenue. If this percentage had been maintained in later years the extra revenue collected would have been as follows: Financial Year Amount $M 1976-77... 121.8 1977-78... 106.6 1978-79... 456.7 1979-80... 689.3 1980-81... 175.3 1981-82... 614.6 1982-83... 1,357.1 1983-84... 2,291.6 1984-85*... 2,489.0 * Estimated. Estimated collections for the 1985-86 financial year are not yet available. (Question No. 96) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Will the Treasurer provide an answer to question on notice No. 1073 (Notice given 23 August 1984) concerning the incidence of repetition strain injury in the Department of the Treasury. (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As of 1 September 1984: Department of the Treasury-(1) 91. (2) 14. Royal Australian Mint-(1) 4. (2). Australian Bureau of Statistics-(1) 122. (2) 83. Australian Taxation Office-(1) 569. (2) 87. Prices Surveillance Authority-(1) 5. (2). (Question No. 252) Senator Chaney asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) What has been the percentage share of gross domestic product supplied by manufacturing industry for each decade of this century. (2) What share of total employment has been supplied by manufacturing for each decade of this century. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following table sets out the percentage share of gross domestic product originating in, and employment in, manufacturing industry in each decade of this century. There are no official statistics of either gross domestic product by industry, or employment, for periods earlier than 1948-49 and 1961-62 respectively. The table shows figures derived by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from the non-official sources quoted, but the Bureau is not in a position to estimate the extent to which these figures are consistent with those from official sources for later periods. PERCENTAGE SHARE OF AUSTRALIAN GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) AND EMPLOYMENT: MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (a) Percentage share of GDP at factor cost(b) Percentage share of employment(c) 1900-01 to 1909-10... 12 (d) 1910-11 to 1919-20... 13 14 1920-21 to 1929-30... 15 16 1930-31 to 1939-40... 17 17 1940-41 to 1949-50... 23 24 1950-51 to 1959-60... 25 24 1960-61 to 1969-70... 26 23 1970-71 to 1979-80... 22 23 (a) As defined in `Australian Standard Industry Classification' (1978 edition). (b) Sources: 1900--01 to 1938-39: `Australian Domestic Product, Investment and Foreign Borrowing 1861 to 1938-39' (N.G. Butlin, Cambridge University Press, 1962). 1939-40 to 1947-48: estimated by interpolation. ABS figures are available from 1948-49 onwards but there are no known estimates for the years 1939-40 to 1947-48. (c) Sources: 1910-11 to 1960-61: `Growth and Composition of the Australian Workforce, 1910-11 to 1960-61'. (doctoral thesis by M. Keating, Australian National University, June 1967). 1961-62 to 1979-80: official ABS statistics supplemented by Department of Defence statistics on defence personnel. (d) Not available. Notes: Percentages shown are calculated from arithmetic averages of the relevant underlying GDP or employment estimates. The horizontal line across columns indicates discontinuity in the series. (Question No. 263) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) How many public servants within the Department of the Treasury and any other department have access to the quarterly figures compiled by the Joint Economic Forecasting Group. (2) What are the positions of such people within the Public Service. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Joint Economic Forecasting Group (JEFG) comprises officers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Department of Finance, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and the Treasurer's economic consultant. Distribution of the report and associated figures compiled by JEFG is confined to those officers directly involved in the work of the Group and to senior officers of the participating institutions. Within the Australian Bureau of Statistics four senior officers within the Economic Accounts Division and Statistical and User Services Division have access to JEFG reports. A further three persons in these areas have partial access to the reports on a need-to-know basis. Within the Reserve Bank, the Governor, Deputy Governor and three senior members of the Research Department have access to the JEFG report. Other members of the Research Department involved in the work of the Group have partial access to the report and associated figuring on a need-to-know basis. Within the Department of Finance, the Secretary, Deputy Secretaries and five senior officers in the General Expenditure Division have access to the JEFG report. Two other officers have access to associated figures on a need-to-know basis. Within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and three senior officers and two other staff in the Economic and Social Policy Division have access to the JEFG report. Two other senior officers have partial access on a need to know basis. Within the Department of Treasury, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, First Assistant Secretaries and ten other senior officers have access to the JEFG report. The staff of the Forecasting Unit, presently numbering eight persons, also have access to the report and associated figures. (Question No. 377) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: (1) What Australian owned or based companies have holdings in South Africa of $A1m or more. (2) What South African owned or based companies have holdings in Australia of $A1m or more. (3) What South African companies have invested in Australia in the last 5 years. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) For legal and commercial confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to respond to these questions in terms of the particular companies involved. In the course of the administration of the Government's foreign investment policy, the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) has access to information relating to proposed investments in Australia by South African companies but that information is provided in confidence and it has been longstanding Government practice not to disclose details of proposals or of the parties to proposals, except in special circumstances and where the parties' consent is first obtained. In these special cases, the Treasurer issues a press release on the particular proposal. Companies directly owned by South African interests which proposed to invest in Australia in the past five years and in respect of which press releases have been issued are: Anglo American Group RUC Mining Contracting Pty Ltd Freight Services Holdings Ltd Pick'n Pay Ltd The Australian Bureau of Statistics also collects information on investment flows to and from South Africa. The secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act prevent release by the ABS of information identifying particular companies. (Question No. 420) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics currently conducting a survey into household energy use; if so: (a) what matters are involved in the survey; (b) what facts have as yet been made known, in relation to its survey findings; and (c) what factors led to the decision to undertake the enquiry. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. Notice of the proposal by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a Household Energy Survey during 1985-86 was tabled in the Senate on 28 March 1985 (Proposal No. 2), and collection of relevant information commenced in mid-June 1985. (a) The survey seeks data from 18,000 households throughout Australia on the use of energy-using domestic appliances, consumption of electricity and reticulated gas, sources of energy, insulation of dwellings, size of household and family structure, household income (in broad ranges), seasonality in energy consumption and fuel substitution. (b) No statistical information has yet been released from the survey. It is expected that the ABS will commence publishing results in June 1987. (c) The survey has been designed to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Department of Resources and Energy and State energy authorities and utilities for information to assist in policy formulation and evaluation, with specific reference to forecasting of energy demand and assessment of fuel substitution programs. Senator Walsh —On 26 February 1985 (Hansard, Page 181) Senator Jack Evans asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the collection of information on foreign ownership and control of major assets in Australia. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A range of information concerning foreign ownership and control in the Australian economy is already being collected and published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Bureau has published estimates of foreign ownership and control in the mining and resource processing industries and in manufacturing. In addition, it plans to produce estimates of foreign ownership and control of rural land and of foreign participation in financial corporations. The information already collected and published and that in prospect should provide comprehensive and comparative data on the foreign ownership and control of industries in Australia. Information regarding the ownership and control of banks by foreign interests has been published. Any proposals, directly or indirectly, by such banks to extend foreign ownership and control of Australian assets will be examined in the usual way under Australian foreign investment policy.