Thursday, 19 September 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any systems such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers, parents and students working in and for the interests of government schools and TAFE colleges showeth that: 1. We oppose the proposed cuts of 75 teaching and 40 ancillary positions in ACT government schools and 28 teaching positions in ACT TAFE colleges. 2. We deplore the cuts to public education and the harm caused to the opportunities of thousands of Canberra's youth. 3. We call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its primary obligation to public education and its commitments to increase participation and equity in education by not implementing staffing custs in ACT government schools and TAFE colleges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention of Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: (1) Imports of frozen peas from New Zealand and elsewhere have increased from 4.8% of the Australian market in 1979-80 to an estimated 20% in 1984-85-from 2.2 million kgs. to 8.0 million kgs. (2) As a result of these escalating imports, in 1985: Growers are faced with cuts of up to 30% both in contract tonnages and prices, Hundreds of jobs in the processing industry will be lost, with many hundreds more under threat in downstream industries, Millions of dollars will be lost from sensitive regional and State economies. Your petitioners therefore request that: the Australian government: (1) Reject the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Frozen peas that no assistance be provided to the industry. (2) Support the proposals made by grower organisations and Trade Unions for import restrictions and other measures of support for the Australian Frozen Pea Industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 121 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The ACT Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 665 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 Bjelke-Petersen (from 2,300 citizens), Collard (from 1,522 citizens), Jessop (from 24 citizens) and Sibraa (from 2,345 citizens). Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-I present the following petition from 370 citizens which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders. To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners urgently request The Honourable Senator Grimes, Minister of Community Services, to include Communication Aids on the equipment list funded through the `Provision of Aids for Disabled People' program. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) censures the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, for warning the Australian Mining Industry Council that it will be penalised by the Government if it proceeds with a national campaign against land rights for Aborigines; (b) alerts all Australians to the inherent threat to one of the priceless, fundamental rights of the people of true democracies, that of freedom to express a political view; and (c) calls upon the Prime Minister to explain why one of his Ministers has been allowed, without reprimand or caution, to publicly declare that the Hawke Government is willing to employ police state tactics in order to crush dissent from Government policy. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1947 to ensure that payments made under the Federal Restitution Act of the Federal Republic of Germany as compensation, restitution or reparation for persecution inflicted by the Nazi regime do not affect social security entitlements. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In relation to the payment of $240,000 to Dr Armstrong, which is described as being compensation for restraints and releases, what are the restraints and releases for which Dr Armstrong has had to be compensated almost one quarter of a million dollars? Is the purpose of this payment related in any way to fear on the part of the Government that Dr Armstrong may have confirmed the criticisms and accusations made by Mr Ranald Macdonald about the extravagant waste and improper expenditure by the Australian Bicentennial Authority? What guarantee is the Government prepared to give, if Mr Reid is removed from his position as in some way being responsible for this fiasco, that the public purse will not be ripped off once again in order to blackmail or purchase him into silence? Senator BUTTON —The issue of Dr Armstrong's termination payments has been discussed at some length on the relevant Estimates committee. In the course of that Estimates committee I tabled a letter, at the request of Mr Reid, from the firm of solicitors, Allen Allen and Hemsley, which set out the substance of the negotiations between Allen Allen and Hemsley, acting for Mr Reid as Chairman of the Authority, and the solicitors for Dr Armstrong. At this moment I am unable to go further into the details of that transaction which was conducted entirely by solicitors, other than to refer to the contents of that letter which I think is reasonably explicit. I remind honourable senators in the context of this whole matter that the Chairman was in the position of negotiating with Dr Armstrong or any senior employees of the Authority whose position was terminated. That was established by the legislation set up by the Fraser Government; it was not a matter in which the Government was directly involved. I am unable to comment, without examining the legislation, on guarantees in respect of the chairmanship of Mr Reid and the hypothetical situation which Senator Puplick addresses in his question about the possibility of Mr Reid's function as Chairman being terminated at some stage. Senator PUPLICK —I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from Senator Button's response that the actual arrangement of the payment of $240,000 to Dr Armstrong as compensation for restraints and releases was not a matter which required the approval of the Prime Minister or was done with his knowledge? Senator BUTTON —I think the answer to that question is simply that the details were negotiated by solicitors acting for Mr Reid. The Prime Minister was advised of the total settlement and I think made some comment about it but he was not involved in the negotiations as such. Senator COATES —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the continuing debate on tax reform in this country and the need to restructure the tax system to provide a greater measure of fairness and equity. Can the Minister say how the tax changes to be announced by the Treasurer redress the growing inequity of the income tax scales and the increasing incidence of fringe benefits for high income earners? Senator BUTTON —As I have said in this chamber on a number of occasions in the last few days, I am quite unable to discuss in detail the contents of the tax package to be announced this afternoon. I repeat that. Nonetheless, on the basis of the White Paper which was published prior to the taxation summit, there has been much speculation about proposed tax changes, much of that speculation inaccurate and some of it close to the truth perhaps. I can say that the tax package will represent a major reform of the tax system in this country designed to inject a much greater measure of equity and fairness. Honourable senators will recall that that was one of the aims of the Government prior to the publication of the White Paper. It is one of the expressed aims of proposed tax changes set out at the beginning of the White Paper. I repeat, as I have said in this chamber before, that this Government has taken on the issue of tax reform-something the Opposition failed to do in seven years of government, during which there was an increased distortion in the taxation system, growing every year. Senator Michael Baume —You rejected our attempts to introduce tax reform. Senator BUTTON —I will tell the Opposition about its attempts. First of all, in 1977 it promised people a fistful of dollars in terms of taxation and it took it away four months later. The Opposition's second attempt was to introduce tax indexation, which it abandoned a year later. That was the sort of performance the Opposition put on when it was in government in terms of taxation reform. The point is very simple. The suggestion I made earlier in the answer to this question is true-nothing of any significance at all was done about the taxation structure in that seven years of government. I will illustrate the point I have just made with some hard data, which is always unpalatable to the Opposition. The present tax structure has been allowed to grow with increasing inequities at marginal tax levels for 15 years or more. The top marginal rate of 60 per cent now cuts in at 1.6 times average weekly earnings, whereas in the mid-1950s the top tax rate cut in at income levels approximately 18 times average weekly earnings. Income tax assessed to individuals earning more than 1.6 times average weekly earnings, that is, now about $35,000 a year, accounted for half of total tax for individuals in the mid-1950s, whereas the comparable upper income ranges now account for only 20 per cent. That is a fact which has led to the debate about the desirability of tax reform in this country over a number of years. In the fringe benefits area there has been an escalating loss of revenue, possibly now around $700m a year. Those Opposition senators who look at the White Paper will see a graphic graph showing the escalation of fringe benefits in the Australian community in the last two or three years-something like a 25 per cent increase in that period. These perks are concentrated on higher income groups and reinforce the belief in the community at large that the tax system is unfair. One has only to look at the long lunch syndrome, which has been increasing in this society over the last few years, to understand the sorts of inequities which are apparent to people on lower incomes. Mr Valder, the President of the Liberal Party, in July this year referred to fringe benefits as a disease. He went on to say that it was a disease which had developed over the last 10 years. He might have said a pestilence, when one looks at the increasing level of tax evasion which developed in that period. Mr Valder went on to say that it was a fair and just thing in this country if moves were made to reverse the trend towards fringe benefits. The Government agrees with that. As I said at the beginning of this answer, it is not possible for me to give details of the tax package at the moment, but the rumour that there will be some limitation on fringe benefits installed into the tax system is, of course, correct. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I remind her that some degree students, particularly those at the Australian Film and Television School, receive living allowances of $7,000 a year without a means test, whereas all other degree students in Australia-those at the universities and colleges-if they receive any living support at all, receive allowances of $2,500 to $3,500 a year. Does the higher level paid to the Film and Television School students conform to Government policy? Which is the appropriate level of support? Are tertiarty education assistance scheme students receiving too little support or are those at the Film and Television School receiving too much? Senator RYAN —It is not necessary that either of those suggestions made by Senator Peter Baume at the conclusion of his question is right or wrong. I certainly would not wish to say that TEAS students are receiving too much. As Senator Baume will be aware, our Government has increased the level of TEAS every year that we have been in office and we have committed ourselves to increasing it over the next three-year period. I hope that the increases will continue after that. Senator Baume will also be aware of the position in regard to students at the Film and Television School because the same situation prevails now as prevailed under the Fraser Government. Those students are regarded as trainees rather than regular undergraduate students. In many cases they are not undergraduates; many already have degrees or have had years of work in the industry before being selected through a highly selective procedure to be students at the Film and Television School. The fact that they are paid a training allowance of about $7,000 a year indicates that they are similar to the category of trainees who receive training allowances in excess of TEAS through various programs run by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I would not like to say whether they receive too much or too little, but I would suggest that our Government, presumably like the Government that we followed, was prepared to make a distinction between regular undergraduates, many of them coming straight from school, and industry trainees, which is what they are at the Film and Television School, many of whom have had substantial work experience and already have tertiary qualifications. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to examples where the new definition of `day patient' has caused severe hardship and much inconvenience to families meeting costs of private hospital day care? Is it a fact that the new day benefit of $80 does not cover genuine instances of greater cost and has led to changed procedures such as patients, even children, being discharged immediately after midnight to avoid payments for higher gap expenses or patients being admitted the evening before the procedures are planned? Is it also a fact that if very sick patients are admitted at, say, 10 a.m. and die by 10 p.m. or 11 p.m., the total basic table benefit is still $80 which goes nowhere near meeting the cost of the intensive care provided? Will the Minister for Health review the `day' definition and reconsider an eight-hour or 12-hour stay being sufficient to allow higher reimbursement from the funds and the payment of a patient bed subsidy, now avoided by the Commonwealth, so as to relieve out-of-pocket expenditure of $100 or more? Senator GRIMES —I have had submissions concerning problems with the new definition for the payment of day benefits. I know that the Minister for Health is having this matter looked at, although I have not spoken to him about it recently. Senator Harradine will realise that the new definition was introduced to cope with people who were rorting the system under the old definition and, as often happens, in this area, one group of doctors and sometimes hospital proprietors cause difficulties for others when they engage in that sort of activity. I think there may well be a case for change in certain circumstances. I know that the Minister for Health is looking at that. I will contact the Minister and get a detailed answer for Senator Harradine as soon as possible, I hope today. Senator SIDDONS —I ask the Minister for Finance a general question. Do both he and the Government believe that a greater degree of employee share ownership would be a good thing in the interests of better industrial relations and would act as an incentive to all concerned to improve the efficiency of Australian industry? If the answer to that question is yes in general terms, will the Government give consideration to reviewing sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act that are a disincentive to employees purchasing shares, and particularly to the problem that any appreciation of shares over the period of, say, five years over which the employees are purchasing those shares is considered by the Commissioner of Taxation as income, even though the employees do not in fact own the shares during that period? Senator WALSH —I think the implications of such a question are far too wide ranging and profound for me to give an off the top of the head response now. As far as employee share ownership is concerned, for listed public companies there is nothing at the moment to prevent employees buying shares if they choose to do so. I will refer that part of Senator Siddons's question relating to the effects of the present taxation law to the Treasurer for reply. Senator SIDDONS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The essential thrust of my question was not answered. Because the present Income Tax Assessment Act is a disincentive, will the Government give consideration to removing any disincentives in that area? Senator WALSH —I suppose the Government will consider anything. I do not want anyone to read into that response any indication at all that it would be considered favourably. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Has he any information about how funds are to be distributed to Australian Vietnam veterans from the Agent Orange settlement in the United States of America? Senator GIETZELT —The democratic process in the United States permits groups or classes of people to take action through the judicial process in respect of any grievance they may have-otherwise known as a class action. The American veterans commenced that process several years ago, and some Australian veterans, assisted by legal representatives in Australia, were permitted to join that action as a result of some evidence placed before the American courts. A sum of $180m was awarded to the Vietnam veterans, of which $1.8m was made available to Australian veterans. The difficulty the American judge had was that submissions were then placed before him by the Returned Services League of Australia as well as by the Vietnam Veterans' Association, and he was naturally perplexed as to how he would distribute that sum, which will shortly reach, because of interest, approximately $2m. It was of some concern to me that he was in an indecisive state of mind as to what steps he could take to have the matter placed properly in the Australian system so that Australian veterans could profit from his decision. It was an out of court settlement and no liabilities were accepted by the American drug companies. Finally, I was able to prevail upon the RSL and the VVA to come together in a trust arrangement. Arising out of those negotiations representatives from those organisations, plus Legacy and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, were invited to participate in the establishment of that trust, with the Minister of the day appointing a neutral chairman. I then selected Mr Justice Meares, himself a veteran, and that trust has now been registered in the Australian Capital Territory. I understand that the American judge, Judge Weinstein, has agreed to distribute the funds to that organisation. The terms of reference will be a matter that will be discussed by the trust, on the understanding that it will not distribute the funds on a strictly welfare basis-because that is the responsibility of government-but will come up with recommendations upon which the funds may be equitably distributed to those veterans needing assistance beyond the compensation and welfare systems in Australia. Senator TOWNLEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that in the United States of America there are now public telephones with which a long distance call can be made, the cost of that call can be charged to a credit card and the account of that credit card shows the cost of the call, the date and the phone number called? Has Telecom Australia any plans to introduce such telephones into Australia in the near future? If such details can so easily be shown on, say, a Visa account, how is it that Telecom intends to charge its customers for such a service? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether Telecom has ever considered such a proposal or has any plans to introduce it. I shall refer the question to the Minister, Mr Duffy, for an answer. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. It relates to the expenditure of government moneys by non-government authorities. Is it a fact that the Managing Director of the Australian Opera company, Mr Patrick Veitch, has negotiated a superannuation and salary package which gives him an excessive superannuation pay-out after a short period as well as excessive non-salary benefits? In view of the fact that the Federal Government allocated $4m to the company this financial year, does the Minister think that this sort of arrangement is an unacceptable use of government moneys? Accordingly, will the Minister investigate the matter with a view to ascertaining whether the company has made an acceptable level of provision for such contingent liabilities as this one and any other that may apply? Further, will the Minister inquire into the matter to ascertain whether, in view of such arrangements and the company's financial difficulties, as well as in the interests of efficiency, the company should be allowed to trade? Senator WALSH —The Government has received some information regarding Mr Veitch's superannuation package, but it has been supplied on a confidential basis, and the opera company is an incorporated company. So, subject to further consideration by Mr Cohen, the Minister who is primarily relevant, I do not feel inclined to disclose the details of that-or at least not without consulting Mr Cohen. However, as Finance Minister, I see and approve of a number of superannuation arrangements for temporary employees of the Commonwealth in the Special Executive Service, among others, some of which entail a lump sum payment, and I know that none of those arrangements, expressed as a percentage of the salary, is nearly as generous as the package which is being provided for Mr Veitch, although Mr Veitch's package is not as widely extravagant as suggested in some rumours which have circulated and which I have heard in the last 12 months. Whether the company should be allowed to trade in view of its contingent liabilities in this and other areas is a question that I do not think I can even attempt to answer. I will refer that to Mr Cohen for consideration. Senator WATSON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. With the Government's abandonment of money supply targeting, will the Minister advise the Senate of the performance within the past six months of the main money indicators? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether I heard the last part of the question properly but I think Senator Watson asked: `Will the Government supply to the Senate the main money indicators?'. Senator Watson —The performance of the main money indicators within the last six months. Senator WALSH —I think that they are normally published by the Reserve Bank of Australia. I have just been slipped a note which states that percentage growth in monetary aggregates for M3 to the year ended June 1985 was 15.9 per cent, broad money was 15.4 per cent and the money base was 14.9 per cent. I think that as a matter of course all such figures are published sooner or later by the Reserve Bank. I know that the dominant ideas in the Liberal Party are normally far behind the events which have generated them. Nowhere, I suppose, is that more apparent than in the policies that the Liberal Party is now advocating in general. Money supply figures, whether for M3, M6, M1 or any other measurement of money supply, were always imperfect measurements of what was actually happening. The simplistic notion which originated in Chicago in the late 1960s that price movements were directly determined by changes in the volume of money was always theoretically suspect. It was always logically unsound and has now been empirically discredited, to the point where hardly any serious or respected economist, with the possible exception of people such as the former Secretary to the Treasury, who floats around somewhere in the political spectrum between that range occupied by the far Right and the lunatic fringe, any longer takes the Friedman monetary theory seriously. That was always the case. Since the financial system has been deregulated within the last 12 months the changes in the monetary aggregates have been even less reliable than they have ever been in the past and, in particular, should not be compared with changes in the same money aggregates before the system was deregulated. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a report in the Press on 16 September 1985 in which it was claimed that South African churchman, Dr Alan Boesak, detained by the white South African Government for the past three weeks, is now expected to be charged with subversion? Is not this just another of a long series of attacks against the United Democratic Front, of which Dr Boesak is a patron? How does the detention and probable trial of Dr Boesak conform with the statements emanating from the Pretoria Government and its diplomats abroad, that liberation for blacks and coloureds is in the air in that beleaguered country? Will the Australian Government protest against the detention of Dr Boesak, which is clearly yet another blow against well-minded South Africans who require nothing more than equality of opportunity and equal voting rights for all citizens of their country regardless of race, colour or creed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of a report in the Age of 16 September that Dr Boesak, who is the President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and a very prominent anti-apartheid leader in South Africa, is now expected to be charged with supervision. I note that in the report the Age itself was unable to confirm the report of the particular charge. As of the date of my brief, which is three days ago, the Australian Government had received no such actual confirmation. Reaction to reports of the detention and charging of Dr Boesak in any respect is as follows: As Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs I, on 28 August, strongly condemned the arrest of Dr Boesak and of 26 other black leaders. It is apparent that the intention of the South African authorities is to remove these opponents from political life and from peaceful political opposition. This is to be unambiguously condemned. We see the detention of Dr Boesak as representing just another example of the South African Government's continuing intolerance of legitimate political expression and its continuing failure to take concrete action to open negotiations with representative black leaders. The South African Government's repressive actions do not, and could not, contribute to an easing of tension, nor could they help in any way to achieve a peaceful resolution of South Africa's problems. The Government has recently expressed its continuing concern over the South African Government's failure to enter into negotiations with the black community. On 3 September, it will be recalled, we did call on the South African Government to release political prisoners as an essential step towards dialogue and easing tension. The South African Government's actions demonstrate its continuing intolerance, as I have already said, of legitimate political opposition and, by means of detention over an extended period, its determination to stifle and to intimidate extra-parliamentary opposition and to stifle public constitutional reforms. I believe and this Government believes that its actions serve only to highlight the inadequacy of constitutional changes to date and they really do quite seriously undermine the South African Government's claims of a commitment to genuine reform. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 11 September this year in which a Mr Richard Coonan, a St John Ambulance officer and inventor of a mobile blood pressure monitor, criticised the Federal Government for discouraging home grown inventors and forcing them to sell their ideas overseas. I ask the Minister: Firstly, does he accept Mr Coonan's criticisms that the Government's assistance to the inventors scheme is inadequate in that it may help fund the development of a prototype, but fails to assist with the protection of the prototype so developed? Secondly, is there a need for a greater co-ordination and simplification of government support measures for inventors? Thirdly, is it not a matter for concern that Mr Coonan's invention, with its possible invaluable paramedical application, may be sent overseas to gain effective prototype protection and development? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the publicity surrounding this matter in the Adelaide Advertiser and also in some other papers. It is true that Mr Coonan applied for support under the assistance to inventors scheme in July 1984. The application was assessed by the South Australian inventions advisory panel and the panel recommended to the Department in April 1985 that $12,400 be made available for prototype development. In 1984-85 a substantial backlog had developed in relation to inventions recommended by State panels for support under the assistance to inventors scheme. In May 1985 I declared a moratorium on the acceptance of any further applications under the scheme and approved payments for speeding up the processing of the backlog within an additional 1984-85 allocation of $500,000 and a further $250,000 in 1985-86. In other words, we halted the new applications and tried to get rid of the backlog by an additional allocation of money. The arrangements for processing the backlog involved the commissioning of a commercial feasibility analysis for each recommended invention with available funds to be allocated to assist those inventions which the respective analyses showed had the highest commercial prospects. The Department has advised that currently there are on hand a considerable number of inventions considered to have high commercial prospects relative to the remaining funds which have been allocated. There has been some doubt about the value of Mr Coonan's invention relative to other inventions which have been competing for support. The situation has now been clarified and the Department will shortly be seeking Mr Coonan's agreement to proceed to commission a commercial feasibility analysis for his invention. It is considered that preparation of such an analysis would have benefits in identifying the value of pursuing development of the invention with or without Federal Government assistance. In concluding, I also note that the future of the assistance to the inventors scheme is subject to a decision which will be made in the context of the proposed national industry extension services initiative. Nonetheless, whatever happens in respect of the future of that scheme, Mr Coonan's position is as I have described it in my answer. Senator GILES —Has the Minister for Community Services given approval for projects in Western Australia under the home and community care program? Has an agreement to participate in the program been signed with Western Australia? Senator GRIMES —In co-operation with the States we have designed a home and community care program so that, in a new spirit of co-operation with the States and the community, particularly the non-government organisations in the community, we can provide much needed domiciliary care services for aged and disabled people living in the community. In Western Australia an unforseen enthusiasm for co-operative planning seems to have been demonstrated. I understand that last week a joint statement was issued in Western Australia by the State Minister and me announcing a series of projects under the scheme. Unfortunately, something must have happened to the system because I did not know about the joint statement being released. I assume that it was just enthusiasm by the local State Government. I am sure that there would not have been any attempt by members of the Western Australian State Government to get an early release of the statement for any political benefit of their own. Last year an unmatched grant of $10m was provided under the home and community care program. Some of that money was not spent in the year so we enabled it to flow over into this financial year. In this case, as in other States, the Western Australian Government has had the projects which it approved last year funded this year from that money. It is that money that the State Government was referring to in regard to the projects it announced last week. It is unfortunate that the enthusiasm of the Western Australians has got in the way of our agreed planning processes and prevented us from making a joint announcement in the time-honoured way, particularly as I am going to Western Australia this evening so that we can sign the HACC agreement with the Western Australian Government tomorrow. However, I am sure that when I get to Western Australia the Western Australian Government will be sufficiently contrite about the terrible mistake it has made and will explain to me that it was just a mistake and a matter of over-enthusiasm and, of course, was not an attempt to jump the gun on the Commonwealth in these circumstances. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade aware that on 9 September and 13 September Boeing 747 freighter consignments of 280 grain-fed beef steers consigned to Japan were cancelled because of the refusal by Transport Workers Union workers at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to load the cattle? Is the Minister further aware that another two 747s are due to depart Melbourne on 23 September for Japan and that to date the shippers have had no indication of whether the TWU will load the cattle? As Australia has gained access to this valuable Japanese market for grain-fed beef only in the last 12 months, what explanation can the Minister give to the beef producers of Australia if such hard-won markets are lost due to the petulance of the TWU, the irresponsible actions of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the lack of action by the Federal Government? Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry that these disputes are directly related to the Mudginberri dispute? Senator BUTTON —All these things can be attributed to governments. I remind honourable senators that sometimes it is very difficult to get things out of Queensland because of industrial disputes and sometimes those things are attributed to governments. I am not aware of the precise details which Senator Bjelke-Petersen indicated in her question and about which she has asked me. I agree that, if those details are correct, it is a very serious situation. I will convey the contents of the question to the Minister for Trade and seek an early answer to a very important matter. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of allegations contained in the Age of 18 September concerning a Soviet spy network operating in Australia? Is there any truth in the story? Are there any direct implications for Australia in the recent expulsion of Soviet personnel from Britain and the retaliatory expulsion of British diplomatic staff from the Soviet Union? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, the Attorney-General has advised me that information relating to these allegations which have now been linked by the Age with the defection of Colonel Gordievsky, was passed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in late 1983. That information was then fully investigated and found to have no basis. Beyond that it will be appreciated that I intend to adhere to the usual practice of Australian governments and not comment on security and intelligence matters. As to the second part of the question-the events in recent days in Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-the Minister for Foreign Affairs has advised me that the Government is following closely the developments surrounding the expulsion of 25 Soviet personnel from Britain and the retaliatory expulsion announced last Saturday of 25 British nationals from the USSR. The retaliatory expulsion is much larger than had been expected. Because the United Kingdom has far fewer staff in Moscow than the USSR has in London it is disproportionately damaging to British interests. It will be recalled that the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, described the action of the Soviet Union as `totally unjustified' and bound to set back moves towards better relations. The British decision then to expel a further six Soviet personnel who allegedly were also involved in intelligence gathering is an indication of the United Kingdom Government's anger-we believe legitimate anger-over the Soviet response. Despite the Soviet Union's retaliatory action in then expelling a further six British personnel, it is clear now that the British Government wishes this to be the end of the matter and it has stated that it will continue to work to improve United Kingdom-USSR relations. the Australian Government hopes that this incident will not have any lasting adverse effect on initiatives to improve the climate of East-West relations. At present, there do not seem to be any direct implications for Australia in any of these events. Senator SANDERS —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, refers to the Prime Minister's statement last night that the Australian intelligence community had no prior knowledge of, or involvement in, the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. Did the Australian intelligence community know that some form of activity was being organised against the Greenpeace organisation in New Zealand? Did the Australian Government refuse to pass this information on to the New Zealand Government because of an agreement with the American Government not to pass certain information on to New Zealand as a result of the ANZUS dispute between the United States and New Zealand? Senator BUTTON —I am unaware of what the Prime Minister said about this matter last night. I will convey the substance of Senator Sanders's question to the Prime Minister-even those parts of the question which seem to me to be hypothetical, if I can put it that way. Senator Sanders —Reprehensible if in fact they took place. Senator BUTTON —I will endeavour to get answers to the facts. I will endeavour to get facts. Senator Chaney —Get the facts and get answers to the questions. Senator BUTTON —That is right. Senator Chaney has helped me a lot this morning. I will endeavour to get facts in answer to the question insofar as that is possible. As I said, there is a fair bit of hypothesis in the honourable senator's question and I will endeavour to get an answer to that too. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I understand that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has recently written to repatriation pensioners advising them that, in future, all repatriation pensions will be paid by direct deposit into an account with a bank, a building society or a credit union, and requesting details of the account into which pensioners want that money paid. What were the reasons for this decision? Must all pensioners have their pensions paid by direct deposit? Senator GIETZELT —On 1 February this year the Department of Social Security took steps, where possible, to convert all its payments to direct credit. The success of that exercise persuaded the Government to apply the same principle to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, as announced in its statement of 14 May. Letters were sent to all beneficiaries of my Department, about 600,000, and at the end of August all but 10 per cent, about 59,000, had accepted the direct credit system. This is beneficial not only from the point of view of beneficiaries but also it is cost-effective from the point of view of the Department. It overcomes a lot of the difficulties with mail, stolen cheques and so on. However, a special exemption provision applies both to the Department of Social Security and to the Department of Veterans' Affairs where clients may be granted exemption from direct deposits if they live in remote areas, are frail or disabled, or they can show that they would have significant or long term problems if they converted from cheques to direct deposits. Of course, that process provides those who come within those categories with the option of not having direct credit applied to their regular payments. This has effected a projected saving of $1m in my Department in the current financial year. I remind honourable senators that these options for reducing public sector spending were available to the previous Fraser-Howard Government but it did not take them up. It is interesting to hear honourable senators opposite talking about reducing public sector spending when these options were available to the former Government in its period of office from 1975 to 1983. My information is that the social security and veterans' affairs beneficiaries are finding this system very satisfactory. Senator DURACK —Has the Minister for Finance or his Department been consulted or involved in any discussions about the proposed payment to the former head of the Australian Bicentennial Authority? If so, what attitude has the Minister adopted to this matter? If the Minister or his Department have not been consulted does the Minister expect that, in the ordinary course of the administration, he and his Department will be consulted about that payment? Generally, what is the Department's or the Minister's views on payments which are not required by the provisions of a contract of employment, such as in the case of the payment to Dr Armstrong of $240,000, which is alleged to have been paid under the category of restraints and releases and is certainly outside the provisions of his contract of employment? Senator WALSH —I have not been involved in any discussions or consultations regarding Dr Armstrong's termination package. I do not know-I have not asked-whether officials of my Department have been involved. I will find out. As to whether I am likely to be involved in the future, the answer would have to be yes, to some extent, unless an existing appropriation has made allowance for that amount. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Minister for Community Services seen the report in yesterday's Courier-Mail that the Queensland Welfare Minister, in a radio interview, described single parents as `deviants'? Can he comment on this perception by the Queensland Minister and say whether he shares his view? Senator GRIMES —I did see the report of Mr Muntz's remark in which he described single parents in the community as deviants. I do not share his views. I think it is unfortunate that someone who is the Minister for Welfare Services in Queensland should make such remarks because I believe that, even in a government like the Queensland Government, one would hope that the Minister for Welfare Services would be a little more tolerant and show a little more compassion for these unfortunate victims of our inequitable society. Senator Chipp —You wouldn't expect that from a moron, would you? Senator GRIMES —I do not know whether one can even call him that. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Chipp to withdraw that remark under standing order 418, bearing in mind that the person referred to is a member of another parliament. Senator Chipp —On a point of order, Mr President; This man, under parliamentary privilege, has denigrated a great number of decent citizens in the community who have no defence against such an attack. The PRESIDENT —Order! Standing order 418 is quite clear and I ask Senator Chipp to withdraw his interjection. Senator Chipp —In deference to your ruling, Mr President, I withdraw. Senator GRIMES —One reason we need not take Mr Muntz's remarks very seriously, and I think Senator Chipp should know this, is that `deviant' is one of his favourite words. Almost everyone south of the Queensland border, but particularly politicians, is a deviant. At various times he has said that members of the Queensland Liberal Party are deviants. He has certainly said that the unemployed are deviants. He has a real obsession about those people who he thinks are deviant. He treats them in a way to back up those words. For instance, in Queensland Mr Muntz has introduced an assets test on those who are to receive emergency relief or assistance with aids for the disabled, which means that anyone who has more than $5,000 in assets misses out. Of course, at the same time he complains about our very generous assets test on pensions. As Senator Colston mentioned in a question to me recently, Mr Muntz has failed to provide the sort of assistance for the unemployed in Queensland which is provided in other States, in the belief, I think, that people in this unfortunate situation should not receive government assistance. However, of course, he and his colleagues are quite happy to provide government assistance for the sons of Premiers who need water for their farms. They have no problem with the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing providing a Totalizator Administration Board licence for members of his family. It is a strange attitude by Mr Muntz-an attitude which comes out in his description of people as deviants. This morning I heard him admitting that certainly he did call them deviants but that he did not mean to. He got upset about the Press describing it as that. If we were all in our political utopia, we would all be reported on what we meant to say and not what we did say. Unfortunately, Mr Muntz uses terms like this frequently. He obviously has no compassion for the disadvantaged in the community. He has no compassion not only for single parents but also for the unemployed, of which Queensland has a higher percentage than any other State. I am afraid that Mr Muntz is just another clone of the Queensland National Party in that Party of clones. I am afraid that, until the Government in Queensland changes, people such as single parents will cop the sort of abuse they have copped from this gentleman recently. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the Minister's announcement on 12 August that a special review authority would be established to provide independent advice on the administration of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. When will the authority commence its final task, which the Minister said would be to examine the claims for a separate category of assistance for the Tasmanian apple and pear growers? Has the Minister set a time limit for the examination and will the results be made public? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister's briefing notes advise me that the authority that is carrying out the review of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme includes Mr Justice Evatt, Mr John Harris, who was nominated by the Tasmanian Chamber of Industry, and Mr Ian Grigor of the Department of Transport. The proceedings of the review authority are expected to be conducted on an informal basis, They will meet as and when it is considered necessary to carry out their function. However, as the honourable senator has asked me about matters not readily available to me, I will refer them to the Minister for Transport and get an early response for her. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister able to say whether organs used in transplant operations carried out in Australia can be guaranteed to be free from acquired immune deficiency syndrome? If so, for what period has this been the case? Senator GRIMES —No one can guarantee that any organ is absolutely AIDS-free, but the precautions that have been taken in Australia have been such with transplantations, and particularly with blood transfusions, that we probably have by far the best record in the world in this regard. Quite clearly, when a surgeon is to use an organ for transplantation, he will make every effort to ensure that the donor does not suffer from AIDS or any other transmissible disease of that type. This can be done by knowing the family history of the person and whether the person is in one of the high risk groups, et cetera. I dare say that occasionally situations will arise, as I think happened recently in Britain, in which the choice is between someone dying and someone having something like a heart transplant. Then, in consultation with the patient, some risk may be taken in that regard. I assure Senator Elstob that the state of the game in Australia is such that anyone having an organ transplant or a blood transfusion can be guaranteed that absolutely every care is taken and that the chance of transmission of the disease AIDS in such circumstances is extremely low indeed. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Firstly, was not protection of the Daintree area part of the Government's 1984 election platform? Secondly, did the Government in that year request the Australian Heritage Commission to prepare a report on the Daintree and to determine its world heritage status? On 12 September 1984, did the Hon. Barry Cohen announce that the study had recommended world heritage listing? Thirdly, contrary to these facts, was it reported in May 1985 that a briefing paper prepared for the Prime Minister stated, inter alia, that nowhere in the platform was there a requirement that the Government must automatically seek world heritage listing? Fourthly, does the Government agree that it has indeed a clear obligation to the electorate to take every possible measure to protect the Daintree? Fifthly, why is the Government now looking for excuses not to honour this obligation? Sixthly, is it not reasonable to believe that the Government now regards the Daintree as expendable, given Mr Cohen's statement to the effect that application for listing will be made only with the co-operation of the Queensland Government, when Queensland has made it clear that such co-operation will not be forthcoming? Finally, what was the point of the Government's requesting the aforementioned study if the Government had no intention of acting on its recommendations? Senator RYAN —Senator Missen has asked a number of detailed questions concerning Government action regarding protection of the Daintree. I will have to refer those to the Minister for an answer. I remind Senator Missen that our Government has taken a number of steps to seek the co-operation of the Queensland Government in preserving this very important area. The importance of the area has always been acknowledged by our Government and I know that Mr Cohen has spent a great deal of time in discussions with the Queensland authorities, endeavouring to find a way in which this could happen. However, I will refer the very detailed questions asked by Senator Missen to Mr Cohen for a reply. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Has not the Minister had two days in which to obtain this information from the Minister? Why has she not obtained it? Senator RYAN —I have had no prior notice of Senator Missen's interest in this matter. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer him to the question I asked last Friday concerning the ability or otherwise of a deregulated wages system based on free collective bargaining to discount wage rises in the national interest for specific factors such as the devaluation of the dollar. Was the existence of a centralised wage fixing system operated through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission essential for the introduction of the 1982 wage pause, or wage freeze, by the Fraser- Howard Government? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, the answer is unequivocally yes; a wages freeze policy cannot be implemented without a centralised wage fixing authority. Indeed, the notion of collective bargaining and a wage freeze is a contradiction in terms, although that is a fact apparently not yet grasped by the present crop of ideologues leading the Liberal Party, who are so unaware of the meaning of words, the realities of life or whatever that they simultaneously advocate the discounting of wages and free collective bargaining, when it ought to be self-evident that the two cannot co-exist. To discount wages effectively there has to be a centralised wage fixing body with some authority. The Liberal Party, during its last term of government, particularly in its last two disastrous years in government, swung from one end of the spectrum to the other on wages policy. It announced its policy of free collective bargaining in the middle of 1981 which touched off a wages explosion of 13 per cent in one year and 14 per cent in another. It generated the highest unemployment that we had seen since the 1930s, the worst economic slump since the 1930s and the highest interest rates of all time and it destroyed a quarter of a million jobs in just 12 months. Then, 18 months later, observing the results of that handiwork, the Liberal Party had sufficient sense to abandon the free collective bargaining idea and institute a wages freeze, which was at the opposite end of the wages policy spectrum from that which it had followed previously. Unfortunately, that is a lesson which the Liberal Party, under its present leadership, appears not to have learnt. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday, Senator Chipp asked me a series of questions about the Rainbow Warrior affair which I am now able to answer on the basis of information supplied by the Special Minister of State. Senator Chipp's first two questions related to whether the Australian Government had inquired how French agents managed to `escape' from Norfolk Island. There is little I can add to the answer I gave on Monday, 16 September, that the alleged French agents did not escape from Norfolk Island. They were questioned on the Island by New Zealand police and no charges were laid against them. The next question from Senator Chipp was whether police have questioned the Frenchman who met Maninguet, a possible French agent, at a Sydney cinema, as reported twice in the National Times. The answer to that is no, there has been no request from the New Zealand authorities to question the person named. The remaining question was whether, in the light of these various alleged Australian connections and the new story in Le Monde, the Government is now willing to conduct a thorough inquiry into all of these possible connections. The answer to that is that the Australian Federal Police has co-operated fully with New Zealand authorities in their inquiries into this matter. The honourable senator should appreciate that the AFP would have no basis for making inquiries in Australia except in relation to breaches of Commonwealth law or in reponse to requests for assistance from overseas agencies. I might add, in the light of Senator Sanders's question to Senator Button today, that the Prime Minister last night made a statement on the role of the Australian intelligence community in the Greenpeace affair, which was accurately reported in the Age newspaper this morning to the following effect: . . . Mr Hawke last night said he had sought and obtained an assurance that no member of the Australian intelligence and security community had any foreknowledge of, or involvement in, the sinking of the Greenpeace boat. Mr Hawke said: `I reiterate the Australian Government's condemnation of that cold-blooded, premeditated act of international terrorism and our support for the New Zealand Government's efforts to have the perpetrators identified and brought to justice'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.08) —I seek leave to make a statement about an amended pattern of sittings for the remainder of the Budget sittings. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —Honourable senators will be aware that even at this stage of the Budget sittings less than satisfactory progress has been made in the Government's legislation program. Bills from the autumn sittings have yet to pass the Senate. At the current rate of progress additional sitting days will be required to permit the essential legislation on the Government's program to come before the Senate. Honourable senators will recall also that during the first week of the Budget sittings I undertook to have early discussions with Senators Chaney and Chipp to work out how the Senate could avoid sitting for a prolonged and concentrated period at the end of the year. I met with Senators Chaney and Chipp, and parties represented in the Senate have had an opportunity to look at options for extending the sittings. It has been agreed to amend the original sitting pattern as follows: Instead of rising for three weeks following the sitting period in October, the Senate will rise for only two weeks, meeting again on 5 November and sitting until 14 November. The Senate will then adjourn for one week, returning on 26 November for another two-week sitting period. Some additional sitting days may be required should progress on the Government's essential legislation be unsatisfactory. The sittings for the House of Representatives remain unchanged. I must say that there have been some expressions of view from various sources about this changed pattern of sittings. In terms of the statement I have just read, the Senate would be expected to rise on Friday, 6 December. At that point the Senate will have been sitting for one week after the rising of the House of Representatives. It is quite frequent, if not normal, that the Senate has to sit for two weeks after the rising of the House of Representatives. I alert honourable senators to the fact that it may be advisable to pencil into diaries the week commencing 9 December as being a week in which the Senate may have to sit. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a calendar indicating the revised sitting pattern. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PATTERN OF SITTINGS FOR REMAINDER OF THE SESSION Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri OCT 7 14 21 28 1 8 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 30 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 1 NOV 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 8 15 22 29 DEC 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I agree with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) that there have been discussions about this matter. I would quibble with the point that there has been agreement about the change, but certainly there was agreement that some change was required. The Opposition put the view, which Senator Button was unable to accommodate, that we should seek to keep the Senate and House of Representatives sittings in tandem as much as possible. We would have preferred that the House of Representatives sit also in the week commencing 4 November. Senator Button told me that it was not the Government's intention to re-arrange the sittings of the House of Representatives. There was agreement that it was highly undesirable that the Senate should sit for four weeks in row. We did that during the last period of sittings and I believe that it was a good illustration of why we should not do it. I believe that the strain on senators was excessive and, therefore, I am strongly opposed to sitting four weeks in a row. I would prefer the pattern which the Government is putting forward to any suggestion that we should sit for four weeks in a row. To that extent, there is agreement. The difficulty the Opposition sees in what is now being laid down by the Government is that for Government Ministers, Opposition shadow Ministers and many other senators it will be necessary to be in Canberra for the week shown as an up week, otherwise we will miss respectively our Caucus and Party meetings and meetings of the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet. Therefore, effectively, for most of us it will mean five continuous weeks in Canberra. To anyone who is not a part of this Parliament, it sounds a particularly weak objection. Why should people object to being five weeks in Canberra? It is a very pleasant place. The reality of the periods of sittings that we have now undertaken is that there is a very considerable personal strain and I believe that it is extremely unhealthy, both for the operations of this place and for the operations of the bodies of senators and members. My other point is that there are mixed feelings within the Opposition about the two weeks on and two weeks off pattern. Personally I have always supported that as being a pattern which is in the interests of the Government, rather than those of the Opposition. As we plan to be in government more than in opposition, I therefore believe that although we are in opposition we should support the pattern. My concern is that while we retain significant breaks in both the winter and the summer, the two weeks on and two weeks off pattern does not work to full advantage. I wish to put on the record-not as an Opposition suggestion, but as one senator's suggestion-that if the two weeks on and two weeks off pattern is to work and if we are to avoid the sorts of extensions that we have seen since the Government instituted the pattern, we really need to sit more continuously through the year with relatively short breaks both at Christmas and in the middle of the year. I commend that for the Government's attention. For my part, I will support sittings which may be in the interests of the Government in the sense that they give an opportunity for the more orderly use of time by Ministers and by the Cabinet-and I believe we should be ready to acknowledge the needs of the Cabinet and its Ministers-although I do believe that the Parliament itself is not getting a full advantage from the change because of the rush of legislation at the end of sessions, which is unsatisfactory to us all. I am sorry to take the time of the Senate when we wish to adjourn, but I wish to put those views on the record as matters which need consideration from the Government side as well as from the Opposition. I regret that we will be sitting without the House of Representatives. I think that it reduces the effectiveness of this Parliament. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) for his courtesy in putting this matter down at this stage. Being a Party that is represented in only one House, the Australian Democrats have sympathy with the point of view that Senator Chaney has put forward. We see that there are very good reasons why the Liberal Party would want the Senate to meet when the House of Representatives meets. However, the arrangement proposed is far better than that which obtained last year, provided that we get through the business. I want to sound a note of warning: I do not think we have a bolter's chance of getting the business through, even with this schedule. We have passed virtually only one Bill plus some rural Bills so far. The progress we have made is minimal, in view of the Government's legislative schedule. That is nobody's fault. The problems arise from debates on matters of public importance and papers. I do not begrudge the Opposition the opportunity to bring up matters of public importance. It is the Opposition's duty to do so and I am 100 per cent in favour of that. However, I have taken particular notice of the matters of public importance that have been brought forward on non- broadcast days. For example, on the first day we came back Senator Messner brought forward a matter of public importance-I cannot remember what it was about; I could not really understand it anyway- Senator Kilgariff —It was about interest rates. Senator CHIPP —Yes. I got my staff to check afterwards and it did not get one line in any newspaper in the country. That is a very important point. I suggest that there might be a gentleperson's agreement between all parties in this chamber that we have two matters of public importance on a Wednesday, on broadcast day, or on the other broadcast day that we get sometimes. This would at least ensure that proceedings of the Senate are being heard by somebody. The gentleperson's agreement would be not to call matters of public importance on other days. At the moment the way in which the Opposition or the Australian Democrats can call matters of public importance on non-broadcast days means that there are only eight hours a week in four days in which government business can be dealt with. We have six sitting weeks left, so that means we have 48 hours of government business left before 6 December. It is crazy to think that we can get through the legislative program that was put forward by Senator Button earlier in the session, even if the Government knocks a few things off the list, which it always does near the end of a session. I see a recurrence of the situation in which intolerable strain is put on members of this Parliament by sitting for perhaps four or more weeks straight before Christmas. That is a situation to which we should not subject people. I do not have a cut and dried answer to the problem, but at least I have put forward one suggestion which I would ask honourable senators to consider. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make three points briefly. First, I hope that the Government has considered the effect that this sitting pattern will have on the staff of the Parliament, particularly if the House of Representatives does not change its sitting pattern. As I see it, this would mean that the catering staff and others would be here for quite an extended period-say seven or eight weeks. That is my guess. Secondly, I agree with the need for an extended sitting of Parliament, not only to deal with government business, but also to deal with private members' business. For example, I have not pressed any claim for private members' time for perhaps a year or more, although on the Notice Paper there are matters that I have put forward for debate in this Parliament and there is a significant Bill dealing with a matter of major public policy to be determined by the Federal Parliament. My third point is about the date on which we return-5 November. We have not been told what time we are to sit on that date. It would be most interesting to hear that because there is an event in Melbourne on 5 November. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to comment briefly on Senator Harradine's remarks. First, in relation to the staff, we inquired about the staff and we were told that, as long as adequate notice was given, that is a quite satisfactory arrangement. I am absolutely appalled by Senator Harradine's suggestion about the Melbourne Cup. Senators such as Sir John Carrick and I have been here for a long time and we are very concerned about the decline in public morality and the work ethic in this community. We sat here year in and year out while the Melbourne Cup was on. If one wanted to hear it one had to vacate one's seat and go out and listen in the passage. There was hardly a senator in the place, but we did not stop work in all those years. Now that Senator Harradine is suggesting it, he puts himself at the spearhead of the decline of the work ethic and we will have things to say to him about that in the next few months. I am sure that an appropriate arrangement can be made for those honourable senators who are desperate about that question. Apart from that, I have had three suggestions this morning from honourable senators who have spoken on this issue. Senator Chaney suggested that we should sit for longer periods in the year. What he is seeking to attack with that suggestion is the tradition we have in sitting patterns in the Australian Parliament which were laid down in the early part of this century when members came by steamer from Fremantle to Sydney and then by train from Sydney to Canberra if that was appropriate. That pattern of sittings has remained. I agree with the radical proposition which Senator Chaney has put forward; I do not know whether anyone else does. I think we should look at sitting a little longer in the middle of the year and having less rushed sittings at other times. I will seek to have that suggestion examined by the Government. Senator Chipp made a number of useful suggestions in the same category about rearranging matters of public importance and things of that kind in order to try to get rid of some of the clutter we have in our program and give more time to government business, private members' business and so on. If I might reveal the contents of a private conversation that I had with Senator Harradine when discussing this matter, he said that he would prefer not to sit at all. That may be a position which has some appeal. I commend the proposition to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I present a letter dated 4 September 1985 from the Secretary to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, requesting that certain evidence taken by the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge be made available to the Commission. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the letter. We are told in a letter, signed by the Secretary to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, that senior counsel assisting the Commission has asked for the transcript of evidence taken in camera by the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge to be made available on a confidential basis. I say at the outset that I would be reluctant to take such a step other than in response to a request from the Royal Commissioner himself. I regard it as inappropriate that the Senate should consider the release of such material except where the Royal Commissioner himself attests to the necessity. Putting that to one side, as one reads the letter it becomes apparent that senior counsel assisting the Commission is seeking the transcript of examination of a member of the Australian Federal Police to see whether any discrepancy or omission may be found between what that witness told the Senate Committee and what he has told, or indicated he intends to tell, the Commission. This is to establish whether he is being fully truthful and withholding nothing of relevance in his evidence before the Commission. It seems obvious that it may be intended to test that matter by comparison with the prior statement given before the Senate Select Committee. It will be apparent to honourable senators that this immediately gives rise to the sorts of considerations that you, Mr President, outlined in your statement to the Senate on the use of parliamentary committee evidence in court proceedings. It seems to me that it would be a dereliction of duty towards witnesses and of regard for itself for the Senate to forward evidence given before any one of its committees to this Royal Commission when the Senate cannot be sure of the interpretation and scope which the Commission might attach to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. No one in this chamber can be sure what interpretation would commend itself to the Royal Commission, whether that of the President, as submitted by amicus curiae to certain criminal trials in New South Wales recently, or that of the trial judges in those trials. Honourable senators will be aware that Mr Justice Murphy has submitted certain grounds of appeal, including matters very relevant to the sorts of considerations that you raised in your statement to the chamber, Mr President. Until a final judicial interpretation of the application of article 9 emerges from that appeal process, and until the Senate and the Parliament have had an opportunity to consider that judicial interpretation, I believe prudence dictates that we refrain from responding to the request. I have moved, therefore, that the Senate take note of the request, emphasising that the Senate should neither deny nor grant the request but merely note it. I think it should be emphasised that the Senate should not thereby be considered to be setting itself against co-operating with the Stewart Royal Commission. Indeed, the speedy passage of legislation with perhaps too little debate to strengthen its operations is testimony to this chamber's desire that the Commission be effective. At the moment I believe we should abstain from responding to this request and simply pause to allow a more settled and assured interpretation of article 9 of the Bill of Rights to emerge out of the tension which inevitably exists between the Parliament and the courts. Should the Royal Commissioner himself, when that point is reached, want to press the request upon us, we should consider it at that time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.29) —Mr President, I agree with the remarks made by Senator Tate in relation to this request that has been received and which you have reported to the Senate. It is clear that for the Senate to accede to that request immediately would be completely contrary to the stance that the Senate has taken in relation to the ambit of the Bill of Rights and its application in these situations. Although that may be found by the courts of law to be a wrong interpretation as far as law is concerned, until that is resolved I think we should refrain from taking any steps in this matter. It may well be that before this whole matter is resolved through the court system some further urgency may be created about this request. The Parliament itself may move forward with its own consideration of these matters. But at this stage it is certainly premature to accede to the request and therefore I agree with the approach that has been proposed by Senator Tate in this matter. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.30) —Mr President, I support the comments that Senators Tate and Durack have made with regard to the request that we have received. Like them, at the moment I am not at all happy about agreeing to the request that was made, given that we still have an unresolved judgment quite recently put down by Mr Justice Cantor and given the comments too that honourable senators have made in this place pursuant to your statement on Mr Justice Cantor's decision. I, like Senator Tate, am concerned, as I think we all are in this place, about the need to protect witnesses. Until we sort out the problems that we perceive as having arisen from Mr Justice Cantor's judgment and the unresolved matter of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, to say nothing of section 49 of the Constitution, we will have to tread very carefully. I think matters are not helped by the fact that I found the request made to us rather open-ended, not to say somewhat vague, about just how far the Royal Commission of Inquiry into alleged telephone interceptions intended to proceed in gleaning and using information from what was, in effect, an in camera series of hearings by the first Senate Select Committee on Allegations concerning a Judge. Like my two colleagues, I would hesitate for a very long time before agreeing to any resolution of the Senate to make available the material that was asked for in that letter. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 9B (2) of the Public Service Act, I present a report on the operation of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the year ended 30 June 1985. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I present the 237th report of the Joint Committe of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I seek leave to make a short statement about this report. Leave granted. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — In view of the time restraints, I also seek leave to have that statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The report which I am presenting to-day contains the Government's response in the form of the Department of Finance Minute, to the Committee's first report on Stratplan No. 225. It reports considerable progress by the Department of Social Security in the installation of computer equipment and in the provision of initial services to Departmental staff through this computer network. However, there are several matters dealt with in the Committee's first report where satisfactory responses have not been provided in the Department of Finance Minute. Since it is almost 12 months since the Committee last reported to Parliament on Stratplan's progress, the Committee is not proposing to defer tabling of the Finance Minute pending further and more satisfactory advice from the responsible departments and agencies. Instead the Committee has decided to proceed with the tabling of the Department of Finance Minute while noting these unsatisfactory responses and indicating the action the Committee is taking on them. Some of the principal matters which remain of concern to the Committee are: Project Costs and Benefits During the first phase of its inquiry the Committee was unable to obtain clear and confident information about Stratplan's current projected total cost, including all attributable staff costs. The latter would appear to be a substantial component of total project costs and one area where unanticipated system development and support needs have resulted in considerable cost escalation. The Committee recommended in its report that a review of total project costs be undertaken and requested a submission on this matter as soon as the review was completed. The Committee is still awaiting that submission. The Committee was also presented with mutable information about the benefits asserted to result from Stratplan and in particular the cost savings resulting from staff savings. The Committee does not refute that considerable benefits should flow from Stratplan in the form of improved client service, greater system reliability and more rapid implementation of Government initiatives. However the Committee was concerned that the cost effectiveness of Stratplan should be comprehensively reviewed so that cost savings in the form of staff savings, reductions in overpayments, and any other asserted efficiency improvements are fully characterised and quantified. The Committee is still awaiting advice on the results of the review of the project's cost effectiveness which it requested in its report. Project Financial Management The Committee was informed during its public hearings that an on-line, computer-based financial management system for Stratplan was under development. The Committee considered that the completion of this system was vital to satisfactory budgetary control and the cost effective implementation of Stratplan. The response from the Department of Social Security does not state that the financial management system has been completed. In addition the Department of Social Security has indicated considerable difficulties in providing the Committee with current information on the precise costs incurred to date for Stratplan. The Committee is seeking prompt advice from the Department of Social Security as to why the system has not been completed and when it will be. Implementation Strategy and Contingency Planning The Committee made several recommendations in Report 225 which presumed a phased introduction of Stratplan products whereby they would be tested andproven in New South Wales before being introduced elsewhere on a State by State basis. The response from the Department of Social Security indicated that this original implementation strategy has been changed, and that Stratplan products will now be implemented concurrently in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. No reasons have as yet been given for this change. The Committee is seeking advice on the reasons for this alteration. It is also requesting further advice from the Department of Social Security on the progress of the contingency plans currently being developed by the Department of Social Security, but which the Committee recommended to be completed before implementation proceeded beyond New South Wales. Use of Contract Analyst/Programmers The Department of Social Security has made extensive use of contract staff in the development and implementation of Stratplan systems. This has been justified in terms of providing access to specialised expertise not otherwise available, greater project management flexibility and a reduction in development times. However the use of contract staff has involved a considerable labour cost premium and may unduly compromise the development of the internal expertise necessary to support the long term maintenance of Stratplan systems. The Committee will be reviewing the overall cost effectiveness of employing contract analysts and programmers in Stratplan's continued implementation. The Committee will be pursuing these and other outstanding matters through further submissions and hearings during the next phase of its monitoring and report on Stratplan. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —by leave-I present the fifth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate requesting changes in the membership of Estimates Committee A and Estimates Committee D. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, from and including 23 September 1985, Senator Robert Ray be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee A and that Senator Sibraa, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, be appointed a member of the Committee. (2) That, from and including 23 September 1985, Senator Reynolds be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee D and that Senator Coates, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, be appointed a member of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.35) —I want to raise briefly a matter that I have raised previously in the Senate, and I shall not take very long to do it. It concerns a project that has been developed by Mr Andrew Helps, in Victoria, dealing with disaster management systems and his project, in particular, called CADMAS. He had sought funding for this project under section 39 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, and this matter was raised only this week on the program Four Corners, highlighting the importance of the project. As we know, section 39 is a public interest section of the Act, and disaster management, whether it deals with bushfires such as we experienced a year or so ago in South Australia and Victoria or with floods, or anything else, is a very important subject. I have the advantage of having in my possession a minute paper which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, dated 22 February 1985, between the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Technology and one of the first assistance secretaries, in which it was stated that the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, had asked the Australian Industries Research and Development Incentives Advisory Council to reconsider financial assistance to Mr Helps. That minute stated: . . . eventually it was agreed that the project should be funded. Mr Barry Jones made it very clear that he had, as a result of this, made a firm commitment to Mr Helps that the finance would be forthcoming and that any delays could prove risky, in that: . . . the issue could become a political one in the Victorian election campaign. I hope that the Minister at the table, Senator Grimes, will draw the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, to this matter and ask him to examine it urgently, because this project is five years ahead of the rest of the world in this form of technology. I am anxious that this project, because of lack of government support with respect to continuing research funding, will disappear overseas. I know that an American company is interested in it. It recognises that the technology is leading the world. I ask the Government to consider urgently providing a grant under that section of the Act. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.38) —I do not want to hold up the Senate, Mr President, knowing that it has other work to do, in a different form. Last Thursday, Mr President, you advised the Senate that it was hoped that the Hansards of Senate Estimates Committees would be available on Monday. The Hansard for the Senate Estimates Committee relating to defence has not yet become available. This morning I could get no indication of when it may become available. This is, of course, of some significance, because there were some remarkably interesting responses to Opposition questioning in that Committee, the details of which it is important to me to have available. This seems to be an unreasonable delay, and as I understand it, Mr President, it relates to the introduction of new equipment at the Government Printing Office which is causing trouble. This new equipment is also incompatible with existing equipment that enabled speedy retrieval of Hansard references if any honourable senator wanted to pursue a subject and to see the occasions on which it had been raised during debates here. As this new equipment is incompatible, that facility is not available this session, and it seems a significant withdrawal of a very useful service. On all these matters, Mr President, I think it appropriate that some kind of protest be made. I should be most grateful for anything that you could do, not necessarily to make the computer work, but to encourage perhaps a more energetic attempt by the authorities involved to make the computer work. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(11.40) —I have no knowledge of the matters raised by Senator Jessop. I will refer them to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, for urgent reply. I dare say, Mr President, that you will wish to reply to Senator Michael Baume. I just say that whether or not the computers are working, for as long as I have been a member of the Senate there have been complaints that Estimates Committee Hansards do not come out on time. The PRESIDENT —In response to the matter that has been raised by Senator Michael Baume, I can say that I have had a number of complaints this week from honourable senators about the late arrival of daily Hansards as well as Senate Estimates Committees' Hansard. As I told the Senate one day this week, the problem relates to the introduction of new equipment in the Government Printing Office, as has been mentioned by Senator Michael Baume. I can inform the Senate that yesterday I wrote a letter to the Minister in charge of the Government Printer expressing concern on behalf of the Senate at the delays and asking that all steps possible be taken to rectify the problem so that the difficulties will be overcome at an early point in time. I also understand that the Government Printer himself, Mr Thompson, was admitted to hospital last weekend to undergo a number of tests. The information given to me this morning was that he would be off work for some time. While I respond to Senator Michael Baume, I also take this opportunity, on behalf of all honourable senators, to wish Mr Thompson a complete and speedy recovery to good health. 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 6. Prior to the sitting of the Committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. I also inform honourable senators that if Estimates Committees A and B complete examinations early, Estimates Committees D and E may then meet. Estimates Committee C will also meet in the chamber tomorrow at 9 a.m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.42 a.m. until Tuesday, 8 October, at 2 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 455) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What are the guidelines that are to be followed by Service Music Directors when using Military Bands for commercial non-military work. (2) When musicians in Defence Force bands play in the commercial sector, are they paid: (a) industrial award wages; or (b) normal forces rates of pay. (3) Can the Minister for Defence justify that serving members of the Defence Force who perform at non-military events, if paid as in 2 (a), are usurping the conditions of employment of civilian musicians; and, if paid as in 2 (b) are presumably being paid from the Defence Force allocation for doing non-military work. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The guidelines for the employment of Service bands provide that their primary role is to meet internal Service requirements. However, subject to discharging this primary role secondary roles are also recognised. These comprise meeting State Government and Territory ceremonial requirements, activities which directly assist the public relations and recruiting interests of the Defence Force and the support of charitable and other worthy public organisations. Before secondary role activity is permitted the effect on full-time employment of professional musicians is taken into consideration. As appropriate Service band participation may be subject to the organisers undertaking to obtain clearance from the Musicians Union. (2) Normal forces rates of pay, which have recently been determined by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal apply. (3) External performances by Service bands are only authorised in the circumstances indicated in the answer to question (1). Given the Public Relations and recruiting interests which are furthered by such performances I do not consider they can be classified as non-military. (Question No. 461) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) Can the Department of Defence detail the cost of training and maintaining military bands throughout Australia. (2) Can the Department indicate on what basis these professional musicians are posted to serve in the different defence establishment areas. (3) When will Townsville, a city hosting two major defence establishments, be accorded equality with other defence bases and be recognises as entitled to a fulltime professional military band. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) To detail the cost of training and maintaining Service bands throughout Australia would be a significant task, requiring additional capacity, as the present resources management system does not separately identify all the actual resources utilised in specific functions. However, the annual cost for the actual salaries paid to personnel on the posted strength of full time Service bands is estimated to be $11.08m. (2) Musicians are posted to serve in different establishment areas in accordance with Service requirements. In certain instances postings may occur in response to individual needs arising from compassionate grounds, personal preference or location for discharge. These requests are considered on their merit, and in conjunction with Service requirements. (3) At Townsville, there are two battalion bands and one, the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment Band, has recently been supplemented to provide an enhanced capability. There are no plans for an increase in the number of Service bands, nor for the relocation of any band. The location of a band in a specific area is not dependent upon the number of Defence Force personnel in that area. The bands are located where they are best able to meet their primary role. A couple of things arise from that. I would be keen to see the Trade Practices Act when it is brought forward into revised from increase penalties and toughen up these kinds of breaches because they are, literally, rip-offs. There is no doubt about it and I am sure members of this House have heard of them occurring in their own electorates. These schemes are ripping off people in the Australian community who quite innocently are being caught by these purported journals. Interestingly, when we checked with the circulation ofAustralian Engineering Review we found that it circulates to about 35 people. All they do is send it to advertising agencies. It is not a journal-unlike the Bulletin, or whatever-that circulates widely through the community. It is just a rip-off. The other point I would like to make too, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that I believe that we, as a community, must now start to look seriously at prohibiting telephone selling. It would be impossible to stop people picking up telephones and seeking to sell things but I believe it would be quite possible, within the context of the Companies Act in particular and the Trade Practices Act as well, to suggest thatany purported contract entered into in such way would in fact be null and void; that if a contract is not entered into in the presence of the parties to that contract that contract would have no validity. That is the sort of situation we aregoing to have to fact because clearly an increasing numberof these crooks areseeking totake advantage of good people who are going about theirnormal business. In this case we have got the clear evidence and in this case fortunately Mr Gifford and Mrs Gifford have no particular debt. But I can imagine many people who perhaps might be less aware, who are very busy and who might just get caught out.It is a matter that we are going to have to take up; it is serious matter and I would hope that we, as a community, can begin to address it urgently. The Government has decided tht from 1 July 1986 the tax-free threshold will apply only on a prorata basis in the case of those taxpayers joining the Australian work force on a full time basis for the first time and to those leaving Australia permanently. The full threshold will continue to apply to other taxpayers. This measure is expected to yield around $90m per annum from 1986-88. PRESCRIBED PAYMENTS SYSTEM Contrary to the alarmist claims made at the time of its introduction in 1983, the prescribed payments system has proved extremely successful in combatingtax evasion by contractors and sub-contractors in the building, transport, motor vehicle repair and cleaning and other industries. On the scheme's introduction, the 10 per cent deduction rate that currently applies to payments by the relevant industries was set on a conservative basis in order to facilitate its implementation. Having reviewed the arrangements, the Government has decided to increase the deduction rate from 10 per cent to 15 per cent from 1 July 1986. As at present, those with a responsible tax record may apply to have this rate lowered where appropriate. Also from 1 July 1986, owner-builders are to comply with full prescribed payments system requirements by making deductions from payments in connection with construction projects in excess of $10,000 that begin after that date. The Government proposes to review further the operation of the prescribed payments system, including the desirability of extension to other industries. The net revenue gain from these changes is estimated at $105m in 1986-87 and $45m in subsequent years. QUARTERLEY PROVISIONAL TAX The existing system for the collection of provisional tax places stress on the money markets due to the substantial seasonal withdrawal of liquidity from the financial system in each June quarter. To overcome this problem the Government has decided to introduce an instalment system for the payment of provisional tax by individuals, to commence in 1987-88. When fully implemented four instalments will be payable. I emphasise that taxpayers will not be called upon to pay, in any financial year, a greater amount of tax than under the current system. Self-assessment procedures will continue to ensure that taxpayers will not be required to pay an amount which exceeds their estimated net tax payable for the year. The new system will not apply to taxpayers whose provisional tax liability does not exceed $2,000. Such taxpayers will continue to pay provisional tax on an annual basis, This will exclude about three quarters of a million provisional taxypers, about half of the total. An alternative pattern of instalment payments with later due dates will be available to taxpayers, such as some primary producers, whose income flow is concentrated in thesecond half of the financial year. The reduction insales of government securities that will result from this measure is estimated to generate interest savings of the order of $55m annually from 1987-88. QUARANTINING OF FARM LOSSES One of the most heavily used tax shelters set out in the draft White Paper is the write-off of farm losses against income from another source. The manner in which the tax system is currently structured allows other than genuine farmers to generate significant tax gains by directing investment to what otherwise would often be considered unprofitable ventures. The proposed measure is along the lines of that canvassed in the draft White Paper, but with significantly more generous treatment ofnon-farm income. The new rules will commence in the 1986-87 income year. There will be two approaches. The first will allow farm losses to be fully written off against non-farm incomes between $15,000 and $30,000. These thresholds will be subject to indexation.