Friday, 11 October 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Petition for closing the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Chipp (from 90 citizens) and Cooney (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective menthod of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud: (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:- The unrelenting ever expanding money extortion to which home purchasers are being subjected has exceeded the bounds of all logical reason. It is neither linear or progressive. It becomes transparently clear that the constant edging up of interest rates for investors by banks, lending institutions, and banking consortiums are collectively responsible for the monetary explosion, lack of employment and all that that entails and is causing grave social disruption to hundreds of thousands. Behind it all, the absence of control that is now politically essential in the interest of justice and fair distribution of burden. No government, recent or future should tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the existence of family life, together with all the well known disastrous repercussions that follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to reduce interest rates across the board and that:- This country needs a five year period to reduce this unwarranted absurdity by tackling it at its source, as follows: firstly a 2 per cent annual interest reduction on home loans, until it is down to 6 per cent. This to come into force immediately subject to the urgent necessary legislation. This would, or should curtail union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures. It would also certainly ease the burden on social securities. Your petitioners as in duty bond will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 211 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 158 and made under the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 25 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Meat (Amendment) Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 26 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 27 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Telecommunications (General) By-laws (Amendment), as contained in Telecommunications (General) By-laws No. 42 and made under the Telecommunications Act 1975, be disallowed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-An exceptionally large volume of delegated legislation was made during the last parliamentary recess from the end of May to August and was tabled in the Senate on 20 August 1985. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, having considered a series of reports from its legal adviser on this legislation, has written to relevant Ministers about provisions of the legislation which may be at variance with the Committee's principles. In one case, a ministerial reply has not yet been received. In other cases, the Committee is not satisfied that the replies received fully meet its concerns and is seeking further comments from Ministers. The time within which I can give notice of motion of disallowance of this legislation expires today. I have given notice of motion of disallowance to preserve the Committee's freedom of action, pending receipt of satisfactory responses from Ministers. In regard to the extradition matter, the Committee is concerned about a discretion given to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). In the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985, not all legislation being repealed by that Ordinance is actually cited, so there is concern about the possibility of loss of rights in some cases. The Meat (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 involves the description of an identity card for inspectors. Regarding the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985, there is a query about people's rights to damages. Concerning Telecom Australia by-laws, no review is provided for certain discretionary decisions. The sixth matter, of which I gave notice yesterday, also relates to the identity of inspectors under the Electricity (Amendment) Ordinance 1985. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That section 3 of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 25 of 1985 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate commends the Hawke Government on its recent tax package, which in the interests of taxation justice and economic growth contains both bold and imaginative changes, in particular, changes will result in- (a) a stop to the unsavoury growth over recent years of tax evasion by the payment of untaxed perks instead of taxable income; (b) an effective capital gains tax which is necessary to discourage the conversion of what would be taxed income into untaxed capital gains; and (c) an effective capital gains tax component in the taxation armoury which will discourage unproductive over-investment in speculative areas such as domestic housing and rural land which to date has resulted in home buyers paying a market price fuelled by speculation, and primary producers failing to obtain a decent return on investment because of overpriced farming land. Motion (by Senator Siddons) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to encourage the introduction of employee participation in Australian enterprises through reductions in company tax for enterprises classified as employee participation enterprises. Bill presented by Senator Siddons, and read a first time. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.08) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. During the first week of this Budget session I introduced the Industrial Democracy Bill 1985. I called it my Industrial Democracy Bill, because it was similar in approach to an Industrial Democracy Bill I introduced into the Senate in 1980. I have since learned, however, that Industrial Democracy is the name being given by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, to initiatives within his Department which involve the trade unions in power sharing arrangements within industry and other features that will result in inevitable misrepresentations of my own Bill. It has therefore become essential to change the name of my Bill to the Employee Participation Bill. This name reflects the changes that were recently incorporated into the Bill and better describes the essential thrust of the Bill. My Bill is not concerned with power sharing-in fact the reverse is the case. It is concerned with restoring a measure of power to the individual. It is concerned with creating an environment in the eight hour working day that allows the individual greater opportunity to use his or her abilities, expertise, initiative and to contribute ideas for the general improvement of the organisations in which they work. I neither criticise nor endorse Mr Willis's work under his industrial democracy banner. I will wait until I see the legislation before commenting. But I stress that the worker participation I advocate requires a co-operative, voluntary enviroment to be created in the workplace free of duress. One can encourage people to co-operate and contribute. One cannot force them to do so. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the remainder of my second reading speech. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- What is the secret of the Japanese success? They have a different approach to the management of their companies. They have embraced wholeheartedly for many years now the principle of employee participation. They have developed organisational structures that provide for the total involvement of all employees, and an ability to take notice of the individual. As a practising industrialist, and one who has led for some 30 years an industry that has achieved considerable success in improving the principles of employee participation, I now introduce this re-structured Bill which takes account of continuing and up-to-the-minute experience in this area. Employee participation has long been at the very base of a number of the world's modern industrial economies. The two most spectacular examples are Sweden and Japan. After the war, starting from a pile of rubble, the Japanese commenced the task of building an industrial machine that has become the envy of the world. Employee participation was the driving force which allowed this mammoth feat to be achieved. Worker participation has produced in Japan a totally different relationship between managent and workers in stark contrast to what we find here in Australia. As any business men or women who have been to Japan will testify, the co-operation at every level of the Japanese industrial complex make them a formidable commercial opponent. They lead the world in almost every aspect of industrial endeavour to which they have turned their attention. Now they dominate world production of cars, motor cycles, machine tools and watches, and are challenging for world leadership in computers, typewriters, videos, sewing machines, industrial robots, micro-processors and so on. The list is endless. I can say from practical experience that these principles work. I have seen them work in my own and other industries in Australia, and I have seen them work in Japan. Do we want our industries to be internationally competitive? This can be achieved only through co-operation between worker and management. The Government has a responsibility to encourage this to happen. The Bill contains five criteria which define what is meant by employee participation. An enterprise that can convince a seven-member employee participation board that it has substantially complied with at least four of the five criteria will be eligible to apply for a Government incentive in the form of an 8 per cent reduction in Company tax. The five criteria are: (1) At least 8 per cent employee share holding to give employees a stake in the enterprise in which they work. (2) A cellular organisation with autonomous working groups based on performance centres throughout the enterprise. This is important because such groups have the ability to meet change quickly, and to engender innovation. (3) A profit sharing scheme to reward people for their efforts and to ensure open communication on such things as sales performance and profits. (4) A consultative council to discuss small internal problems before they become major matters requiring the attention of trade unions, and (5) Small group activity. This is a very important provision of the Bill and requires that an enterprise establish small groups of about 10 people throughout the entire organisation. These groups are to be led by carefully selected and trained group leaders and are required to discuss, during working hours, such things as quality, efficiency, innovation and new equipment and to make recommendations on these to management. The question may well be asked-if employee participation is so good for business, then why does it not adopt it anyway, without government assistance? The first answer is that most Australians, including Australian executives, have only a very hazy idea about what is meant by employee participation. It means different things to different people, and like motherhood is generally perceived to be a good thing. Australians have talked about employee participation for many years, but very few companies have applied even its rudimentary principles. This is because there is an ingrained conservatism in Australian management along the lines that workers are there to do what they are told, and amongst workers that they are not employed to tell the boss how to do his job. It needs a Government initiative to break down these ingraned attitudes in Australia. Once the change of attitude gets under way, and people see that companies applying the principles set out in this Bill are successful, and once the Employee Participation Board starts disseminating through our tertiary institutions information on how to successfully apply the principles, then employee participation in Australia will become self-perpetuating and the Government, if it wishes could progressively withdraw from the scene. This Bill requires the Government to make $20m available each year for the first five years, and then to reassess the situation. If it is to overcome its critical balance of trade problem, it must turn to the manufacturing sector to improve its export performance. Our industries can be, and should be, as efficient as any in the world. If the Government co-operates, we can do it. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Discharge from Notice Paper Motion (by Senator Siddons)-by leave-agreed to: That General Business Order of the Day No. 138 (Industrial Democracy Bill 1985) be discharged from the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —Is it desired to postpone or re-arrange the business? Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —In relation to the placing of business, the order on the red Order of Business sheet under item 7 lists the first three Bills down to the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985, which is in accordance with the Notice Paper. Then it diverts from the Notice Paper to two Bills which are much further down. This matter came to our notice only at 8.50 a.m. today and at this stage we do not agree to the business proceeding in that order. The Bills in accordance with the Notice Paper would then proceed to the broadcasting and television legislation. It may well be that we will not get to that stage, but at this stage of the day we do not agree to the placement of business as on the red. This is a matter we have not had an opportunity to consider. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I am afraid that Senator Reid is looking at yesterday's Notice Paper and not today's. If she looks at today's Notice Paper she will find that the order is as we say. I do understand that there has been some difference of opinion among the Whips and others about the placement of business. I am sorry if there has been a mix-up and I am willing to discuss it but, as Senator Reid said, we are not likely to get anywhere near the offending legislation by the look of today's Notice Paper. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —The order was changed on the Notice Paper without any advice or consultation. We only found out about it at 8.50 this morning. That is the point that I am making. The PRESIDENT —I have asked the Manager of Government Business whether it is desired to postpone or re-arrange the business and he has advised me that he has no desire to do so. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1985-86 and expenditure under the advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1985-86 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1985-86 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1985-86 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings and documents tabled or provided to the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1985-86 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I present the report from Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1985-86 and expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.17) —Mr President-- Senator Chipp —Do you identify yourself as a northern prawn? Senator BOSWELL —Not by any standards. Last night before the adjournment debate we were discussing three fishing Bills cognately. The $5m self-help program which the fishing industry asked for has been granted under this legislation and, of course, the industry is very thankful for that. The main problem, as I was telling the Senate last night, is that 38 per cent of this $5m is to go towards administration costs. This is causing the industry a lot of concern. The industry wants to be able to run its own organisation as do most other rural industries in Australia. The Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Wool Corporation and all the other rural industry boards manage their own affairs and the fishing industry wants to do so also. It believes that the best people to run their own organisations know the problems of their industry and know how to solve those problems are the fishermen themselves. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is moving towards that objective by organising an advisory policy council of fishermen which will advise him on the needs of the fishing industry. I hope that we will then be only a step away from organising a council to run the industry. I believe that it will be coalition policy on return to government to give the industry its own operation, its own organisation, with statutory powers to control its own affairs. The industry is very happy with the negotiations entered into by the Department of Primary Industry on the Japanese long line operations. Of course, that has resulted in a reduction of tonnage quotas and the area where foreign boats can work is now restricted. At the same time the fishing industry is concerned about the Thai joint venture being conducted out of Darwin. The industry recognises that the Thai joint venture has to compete in the international market place and find markets for the Australian product. Most of the other fishing industries in the world-probably all of them-get some government assistance, but the Australian fishing industry, being made up of rugged individuals, is prepared to stand on its own feet. Those in the industry are prepared to contribute support levies such as those in these Bills, but it should be noted by the Minister that every other fishing industry gets some help by way of subsidised fuel and subsidised wharfage. All the great fishing industries in the world, including the Japanese fishing fleet, get government assistance, which has not been forthcoming from this Government. I support the Bills. They are what the fishing industry has been wanting for the last 10 years. I think that the Government could have been a little more generous with terms of interest in view of the fact that it is receiving $40m from the excise on fuel that the fishing industry needs. I think that to make the fishing industry go to commercial rates of interest is unreasonable. There should be a subsidised rate of interest. However, as I said before, the fishermen wanted the legislation. They are prepared to accept it and stand on their own feet. I support the Bills. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.22) —I thank honour- able senators for their support of these pieces of legislation. In particular I thank Senator Boswell. It is not often that we hear Senator Boswell praise the Government. I know that he had to reach out for something to hit us over the head with at one stage. I think it is interesting that, as a member of the National Party, he should pick that particular thing to hit us over the head with. As Senator Boswell said, the prawn fishermen involved in this legislation are independent people and free enterprise people; they want to be free enterprise people. Senator Boswell says: `You know, what you really should have done is given them a subsidy'. Senator Haines —That is called agrarian socialism. Senator GRIMES —That is called agrarian socialism. What Senator Boswell and his colleagues are about is that they come here and say- Senator Boswell —I don't know why I ever try to be nice to you people. I'm going in boots and all from now on. Senator GRIMES —I am speaking in a whimsical sort of way. They come in here and say: `We believe in free enterprise and in keeping the Government out'. Here we have a situation where the fishermen say: `We want a plan, we want to buy our plan and we want to run our own industry and the Government says we can do so'. Senator Boswell agrees with that. I must admit that it makes a great change from the sort of nonsense he talks about the sugar industry, which is also supposed to comprise free enterprise people and into which he wants big buckets of money poured, and about every other rural industry he represents. But I thank him for his praise. I understand the difficulties he has in completely praising us at all times. I suppose we have to be thankful for small mercies. Senator Haines, in a very thoughtful contribution to this debate-it is early in the morning; that is why I am in such a pleasant mood-asked a couple of questions about the problems which were raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's Alert Digest about this legislation. I will promptly regurgitate for her the notes I have been given on the subject. Senator Haines —What a nice note the people on the other side of the barrier have written for you. Senator GRIMES —She asked basically two things. She asked, as did the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, whether parliamentary scrutiny is without the power to disallow the most appropriate method for reviewing a decision of the Minister that levy is not payable in respect of a licensed foreign boat operated under Australian management. What happens is we get bits of paper which say `suggested response'. My advice is that the purpose of the proposed new sub-section 4 (4) is to permit the Government to exempt the licensed foreign boat from levy payment without the need to enter into the type of agreement mentioned in section 9C of the Fisheries Act 1952 and then using the power in that section to exempt the boat from levy. That is the way we go about it. The Government has approved exemptions from levy only in cases such as those mentioned in the second reading speech-for instance, where no suitable Australian boat is available to undertake the operation. There must be some benefit to Australia before we waive the levy under section 9C of the Fisheries Act and the foreign boats must be under Australian management. Senator Haines —But nobody knows what it is. Senator GRIMES —Even I can understand this. Section 16A provides for a review of certain decisions made under the Act. A decision under section 9C-for instance, to waive levy-is not included in the reviewable decisions. A decision to review a licence is subject to review. If the licence is granted, there would be no reason to waive the levy. If the licence is refused, the question of waiving the levy does not arise. It is all logical. It is all quite clear. Senator Haines —To somebody, it probably is. Senator GRIMES —Senator Haines also asked, as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did, whether it was appropriate for the Parliament to delegate to the Minister the power to set the amount of the foreign fishing boat levy in certain cases, thus, it could be said, delegating its taxing powers without retaining control over how those powers are exercised. That is certainly a question worth raising. Senator Haines —What is the suggested response? Senator GRIMES —The suggested response is that the relevant agreement between the Minister and the foreign interests concerned is in fact tabled in the Parliament. The amount of the access fee is specified. The present Act imposes a prescribed amount of levy on every licence. The number of boats that eventually apply for licences may be different from that envisaged in the agreement. The amendment proposes that the agreed amount of the levy be paid regardless of the number of boats. Parliament has the power to disallow a provision of any regulation under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1984 prescribing the amount of levy payable, but a dis- allowance of this type prescribing the amount of levy payable would give rise to difficulties in giving effect to the agreement. Since 1979 the Government has entered into an agreement as an exercise of its executive authority. It advises the Parliament of its action and the agreement provides the legal authority for the collection of access fees. This, it is asserted, is a satisfactory basis for exercising the power of the Executive in respect of off-shore sovereignty and sovereign rights for entering into contractual agreements and collecting revenue. Senator Haines —But we still cannot do anything about it if we do not like it. Senator GRIMES —Yes, the Parliament can. The Parliament can disallow a provision of any of those regulations but not the agreement itself. Senator Haines can come in here and hit us over the head, disallow all the regulations and the agreement is worthless. Senator Haines —That is the traditional nut and sledgehammer approach. Senator GRIMES —It may be traditional. I realise that Senator Haines and I do not necessarily take much of a view of tradition, but that is the way things are done and have been done. Senator Haines —That makes it all right. Senator GRIMES —That probably makes it all right. It does not seem to worry our colleagues opposite. As I said earlier, I thank honourable senators for their support for these important pieces of legislation. The fishing industry is being developed with the co-operation of the fishermen themselves, as Senator Boswell said. I am glad it is continuing to be developed in co-operation with both sides of this Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or requests, or debate. Consideration resumed from 16 September, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests, or debate. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.33) —I note that seven Bills are listed on the business paper for debate today. All seven are mine for the Opposition. I thought that they were rather inconsequential pieces of legislation that we handle through the year, but I notice that eight or nine speakers including the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), are listed to speak on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985. I was wondering whether I had missed something. Senator Haines —They are all very patriotic. Senator Grimes —I ask that all speakers be very careful, because I am flying on Qantas tomorrow and I do not want any rude comments. Senator COLLARD —I shall do my best. Senator Haines admitted, with her hand across her heart, that everybody feels passionately for our national flag carrier. So we should. It is one of the world's great airlines. As I intimated, this is a routine piece of legislation. Senator Haines —The food is not bad on board either. Senator COLLARD —No, it is not. This is a routine piece of legislation whereby the Government, without any financial commitment, guarantees loans to allow Qantas to purchase aircraft. In the last few years Qantas has purchased its aircraft from the Boeing Corporation in Seattle. The Government guaranteeing those loans allows Qantas Airways to borrow money at probably more reasonable rates than it could otherwise expect. Thus, that gives Qantas an advantage. We do the same for our domestic airlines-Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. In the House of Representatives debate expanded beyond the subject of the Bill. We provide Qantas with what is really a benefit in enabling it to borrow its money at a better rate and we do expect good service from it. At the time the legislation went through the House of Representatives there was an industrial dispute. The Transport Workers Union was refusing to load chilled meat for export from Australia. We in the Opposition thought that Qantas should be accepting its responsibilities better than it was. In the case of something as vital to Australia as the meat industry-vital not only to those who produce the meat but also to this country with its balance of payments deficit-Qantas should have acted a lot quicker than it did. We in the Opposition found it very hard to accept that with these privileges, Qantas seemed to be doing nothing and that chilled meat was piling up and spoiling and export markets were being lost because of the dispute. Qantas seemed to be sitting on its hands and just watching it happen. The Opposition put on notice in the debate in the House of Representatives that we would delay this Bill. As I understand it now, the dispute is settled. Chilled meat and all cargo is now flowing and so we will not do that at this stage. However, Qantas did stand condemned in our eyes and indeed in the eyes of the rural sector of Australia for its inactivity at that time. As I understand it, Qantas did not even notify the industry that there was a dispute. As I said, chilled meat was piling up and, indeed, spoiling and some markets were lost. In the little aside I made when I started this debate, I mentioned Senator Haines's comments about everybody feeling passionately towards Qantas as our national flag carrier, and indeed they should. Senator Grimes has indicated that he is travelling on Qantas tomorrow. Qantas is one of the world's great airlines, and it has not got there easily. I find it rather disheartening at times that a lot of Australians go for every cheap flight they can get overseas. I guess one cannot blame them for that, but they should not be critical of the high Qantas air fares. I think a few things should be said. Qantas stands on its own. Its gearing ratio is now pretty good. No government money goes into it like there is with other airlines with which Qantas competes, money which enables other airlines to do under the cover deals with fare paying passengers. It has, if not the best, certainly one of the best safety records in the world, and that safety does not come cheaply. The engineering associated with Qantas and, indeed, with our domestic airlines, is second to none in the world. Senator Sanders —That is mostly because the weather is so good. Senator COLLARD —I do not know what the weather has to do with engineering. The engineering for our airlines-domestic and international-is second to none. That is not only reflected by the safety record but is also the opinion of the aircraft manufacturers who, in their own interests, keep a very close watch on airline operators around the world. I have been privileged to go to the major aircraft manufacturers in the world and found that to be their opinion. Indeed, a lot of their executives, if they have a choice, choose to fly Qantas when travelling internationally because of that engineering. That engineering is renowned world wide. It is not only reflected in Qantas's safety record; it is reflected in the dollars that Qantas earns for this country. A lot of the international airlines bring their engineering to Qantas, particularly engine overhauls, from as far away as the Middle East. Some millions of dollars are earned every year because of the expertise that is exhibited by Qantas and in particular by its engineers. Just in reply to Senator Sanders's remarks about the good weather, Qantas flies in the same weather as every other international airline right around the world. It does have that tremendous safety record. Crew training and cockpit discipline is also a part of that great safety record. Qantas is a flag carrier for Australia. Unfortunately a lot of people do not see that. International airlines are also an arm of our foreign affairs. Other countries realise that and that is one reason why other airlines reduce their fares. They want to get hard currency into their countries regardless of the cost of operating their aircraft. That is reflected in the deals other airlines do, whereas we do not allow Qantas to do that. Qantas has a good name wherever it flies in the world. It has a good reputation. It does these things for Australia. As I indicated, when I talk to engineers and aircraft designers around the world I find that they hold our airlines, particularly Qantas, in very high regard. There has been talk in the newspapers recently, some of it loose, about privatisation. I reiterate that the policy on which the Opposition went to the last election certainly incorporated privatisation. We recognise that Qantas is Australia's flag carrier, but we would like to see a percentage of it sold to Australians and a minority percentage sold to the employees of Qantas. As I said, we still recognise that it is the Australian flag carrier. Such a sale could be easily achieved because of the way in which Qantas is incorporated at this time. It is a company. The sale would give Australians, who are proud of their airline, a chance to be more involved in it than they are at the moment. I do not see why that could not happen. As I understand it Qantas and its employees would be very interested, because of the pride of the employees in their airline, in being part of it. As I said, this is a routine piece of legislation. The Opposition certainly will not hold it up. Indeed, we support it and wish it a speedy passage. Senator JONES(Queensland)(9.42) —I take the opportunity in the second reading debate on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 to raise a point that I have already raised with Qantas Airways Ltd. I say at the outset that I support the Bill. Its purpose, as stated by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), is to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft. The acquisition of these aircraft by Qantas certainly will increase its fleet and bring it into a more competitive position within the international area in which it operates. However, I point out that Qantas, through its management and board of directors appointed by the Government, has a considerable obligation to support industry within Australia. I feel it is necessary to say that recent history shows that in some aspects the airline's operations have fallen short of that obligation. I admired-as everyone would have-the turnaround in the economic position of Qantas and the way in which its financial position has improved. Looking at the profit levels presented to me by Mr James Leslie, the Chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd, it is gratifying to notice that Qantas is clearly indicating very sound economic management. We need to look at the operating profits. Qantas lifted its profits from $58.5m in 1983-84 to $147.9m in the last financial year. Most honourable senators would have to congratulate Qantas on a very fine record of economic management. But we also have to look at the performance of Qantas in other areas, with a perspective greater than purely financial management. A successful national operation such as Qantas should be in a suitable economic position to help industries run by Australians and support those industries. I believe that Qantas has failed notably in one area at least, that is, Australia's design and fashion industry. I raise this point in view of my statement in relation to the decision of Qantas to employ people overseas to design a uniform for Australia's international carrier. I think it is necessary to set out some of the details relating to the decisions made by Qantas. This factual information was given to me by the Chairman of Qantas and was listed in chronological order as the decisions taken by Qantas on the design or proposed design to be taken up by the airline. In February 1984 Qantas took a decision to have a new uniform developed by Australian designers. This, according to the company, was to contribute towards a new corporate identity program being developed. That was clearly the position at Qantas. During the following month, in March 1984, Qantas advised through the clothing industry newspaper Ragtrader that it was looking for Australian designers to participate or to develop a design for the Qantas company `to give us a whole new look', I believe was the phrase used by Qantas management. It was time, Qantas said, to show the rest of the world what Australia had to offer. In April of the same year 43 expressions of interest were received from Australian designers. A questionnaire was forwarded by the airline company to those people or companies. From that expression of interest 27 replies were received by Qantas-27 companies or individual designers wanted a chance, an opportunity, to design new uniforms for the in-flight and on-ground staff. A short list of eight designers was prepared after receiving the notice of interest from the 27 designers and, in the words of Qantas: Assistance in the preparation of the questionnaire and assessment of replies was provided by Vogue Australia, and a Sydney couturier Mr Chris Jacovides. The short list of the Australian designers was Weiss, Trent Nathan, Country Road, Sportscraft, Linda Jackson, Carla Zampatti, Eric Saikovski and a consortium named Qantas Fashion Team, whose designers included Covers, Robert Burton, George Cross and Jenny Kee. All eight designers, companies or consortiums were invited by Qantas to develop formal design proposals, and all eight accepted the challenge. In August 1984 the eight designers gave their presentations to a selection panel. This body, appointed by Qantas, was known as the Wardrobe Selection Panel and consisted of the following experts: Emilio Pucci, described by Qantas as `one of the world's leading fashion designers', designer of the 1974 Qantas female flight attendants uniform, which I believe is still in use; John Truscott, who Qantas admits was responsible for the costumes for Paint Your Wagon, The Great Gatsby and Lady Sings the Blues; Tony Lunn, design director responsible for identifying the new Qantas corporate identity; Norman Elsworth, an employee of the American company that designed the interiors for some of Qantas's aircraft; Eve Harmon, a secretary with Vogue Australia who became its editor; June McCallum, another Vogue connection and one-time editor of that illustrious magazine in London; and Nancy Pilcher, the senior fashion and beauty editor of that no doubt noble and certainly well regarded magazine, Vogue Australia. In no sense would I seek to denigrate these people. They have a wealth of international talent and certainly have multinational experience in design and preparation of designs. In July 1984 they confirmed that they had no financial or other interest, either direct or indirect, in any of the eight Australian designer businesses involved in the application to create a new uniform for Qantas. After the designers made their presentations to the panel, chairman Emilio Pucci, the designer of Qantas's present uniforms on our international flag carrier, said that all submissions had been very disappointing and that none had been acceptable in their present form. Trent Nathan accepted an invitation from Qantas to develop a new design concept. It was mutually agreed that Nathan should be given some six months to prepare his new proposals. At the same time the company commissioned Mr Ken Cato, an Australian designer, to develop a print concept to be featured in the dress and in the blouse. Then, in February 1985, Trent Nathan, a world acknowledged Australian designer, gave the panel a dress rehearsal. The panel gave Trent Nathan's proposals the thumbs down and Qantas expressed concern to Trent Nathan. Quite candidly, that was its prerogative. Nathan advised Qantas that he then required further time, that he was not prepared to accept the Cato print as the basis for his new design but, nevertheless, was continuing with his work to create a design for Qantas. Before Nathan made his final presentation to the wardrobe selection panel on 13 March 1985-I ask honourable senators to remember that date-Qantas started exploratory discussions with American and European fashion houses. I repeat that that was one month before Mr Nathan made his final presentation which, I imagine honourable senators would have guessed, was eventually rejected and found wanting. So Qantas actually started to make inquiries of American and European fashion houses one month before Nathan had put his proposed design before Qantas. Then with a haste that I believe can be described only as indecent, the management of Qantas made a recommendation to the board of directors in these terms: We quickly commissioned- these are words taken from a report that I received from Mr Leslie, the Chairman of Qantas- an international designer to develop the new Qantas uniform, the final choice being subject to further evaluations and cost, timing, and Australian manfacturing conditions. Then came the final blow, the great patriotic step taken by Australia's airline; I suppose one could say it was the stabbing in the back of the Australian design industry, which includes some of the world's outstanding performers in that field. The final great Australian choice was Yves St Laurent of France! I have a great deal of admiration for Australian designers. I believe that Australian designers and Australian companies should be given an opportunity to perform a task within their industry. I believe that there is a real need for Australians to feel that they can match anything in the world. The other point that I make is this: If our international carrier is flying throughout the world, surely it is reasonable to expect that the uniforms that are being worn by the hostesses and stewards be Australian designed. As far as I know and as far as the fashion industry knows, as yet there is no guarantee at all that Yves St Laurent will even use an Australian company to manufacture his design. I must say in fairness that Qantas has said to me that the uniforms will be manufactured in Australia, but I think that is only half the story. I think the uniforms should not only be manufactured but also designed in Australia. We are looking at a 4,000-strong Qantas crew staff. We will have 4,000 people working for Qantas moving about in French-designed uniforms which will cost something like $2m. We are talking about spending money raised by Australia's international carrier. That money should be spent in Australia. There have been claims in the fashion world that when Yves St Laurent has his uniforms manufactured he will probably use one of the countries in this region where he can have them manufactured at a rate much cheaper than he can in Australia. Again, in all fairness to Qantas, I must say that Qantas has guaranteed that this will not be the case. But time will tell whether that is correct. Is it any wonder that several of our top designers were never given a chance after the Trent Nathan fiasco? One could also add-as the fashion world has said-that the action taken by Qantas has been somewhat unpatriotic but I think that is taking the point too far. What should be said is that clearly we should accept an Australian designer and an Australian design to be worn on our international flights. The actions of Qantas can be contrasted with the decision by Sun State Airlines to engage a small company in Noosa to design its new uniforms. This minor transport company within the Australian scene has taken the step of using local Queensland designers to produce a uniform which, according to photos and the comments of its passengers, is very reasonably designed and well produced. In conclusion, let me say that I raised this matter in the Press because I had read or heard that Qantas was moving towards using an overseas designer rather than an Australian designer. I might say that quite a number of people from Qantas were very critical of my belief that an Australian designer should design the uniforms. I believe that I had the right to express that view. In my view Australian industry should be supported. I only hope that Qantas will reconsider its decision to seek an overseas designer for its uniforms. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.57) —I stand in support of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985. This Bill is similar to many of the Bills that come before the Senate which seek to raise loans for statutory authorities. The question which should be in the basis for discussion and debate on this Bill is Qantas operations-whether the purchase of a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft has been properly evaluated and assessed from the point of view of the best plane at the cheapest price for the job and whether Qantas itself is operating at maximum benefit to the Australian taxpayer. These are the criteria on which any rational discussion on this topic should be based. The debate should not be reduced to a miserable attempt by the Opposition to grandstand on its privatisation policy, nor should Qantas and its perfectly normal loan arrangements with the Government be made the focal point of the Opposition's confrontationist industrial relations line. Senator Watson —Do you want to pass it over to the Executive? Senator SANDERS —The honourable senator can bring in any issues he wants but I think that I should stick to the subject. One would really have to look hard to find a more irrelevant and inappropriate exercise than the one the Opposition has carried on over this Bill. Qantas is not a major party in the current industrial dispute. It has not refused to carry any goods. It is in fact an innocent bystander, as are all the other international airlines. This Bill is concerned with a loan for an aircraft. The aircraft has not even been purchased yet. We cannot say that this aircraft is not carrying meat. Senator Watson —We are talking about Qantas operations. That should be the basis of your debate. Senator SANDERS —The basis of this discussion is Qantas operations, and I will be getting to that point in a minute. However, I think we have seen the lengths to which the Opposition will go to stretch debate on a Bill to cover its own political point of view without regard to the topic under discussion. It is not even within the power of Qantas to resolve the industrial dispute, which is before the appropriate forum, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Therefore, it is quite absurd to involve Qantas in this dispute. Let us take a look at Qantas. Many countries have national airlines; Qantas is an airline with a country. Qantas has the emblem of a flying kangaroo. In fact, the emblem could well be changed to that of a flying sacred cow because Qantas gets away with whatever it wants in this country on the basis, as Senator Collard has pointed out, of its fine safety record. Qantas does have a fine safety record. For one thing, Qantas, like any other airline with a very good safety record, has been lucky. TAP Portugal used to be the safest airline in the world. It had one crash at Tenerife and went to the bottom of the list. That is what happens with companies operating the modern very high capacity aircraft. Qantas has been lucky. It is a good airline and it also has the advantage of flying in beautiful weather conditions. Most of its route structure is across major oceans. It very rarely has to deal with the mid-winter conditions of Chicago O'Hare International Airport or those in the capitals of Europe. It lands and departs in those areas but it does not operate consistently in them. Therefore its safety record is quite good. All flying is safe. Flying is a very safe way to travel and statistically it is one of the safest ways, for a number of reasons. For one reason, all countries have quite strict rules over the maintenance of aircraft, and for another, no pilot wants to kill himself-no pilot will willingly kill himself. In Australia we have been sold this myth that somehow our airlines are safer than anybody else's on earth. They are not; they are as safe, but they are not safer. Qantas uses this safety argument and also the awe of the non-flying public and the non-flying parliamentarians over flying. Flying is very mysterious to them. They feel they are out of their element. They are off the ground and worried. It is almost like paying a shaman or a witch doctor a lot of money to keep us safe. The Government is willing to pour money into Qantas in the hope that that will add to the chance of getting the passengers back safely on the ground, but that is not necessarily so. I think it is time to look at Qantas in relation to the total aviation picture in Australia. Are the consumers and the taxpayers of Australia actually getting a good deal out of Qantas? I say no, they are not; they are getting a raw deal. After checking this morning, the cheapest Qantas flight, Melbourne-Los Angeles-Melbourne is $A1,519. Continental Airlines, flying in the other direction from the United States of America to Australia and back to the United States has a fare of $US467, which on today's rate is about $A667. An American coming to Australia and going back to America over the same distance pays roughly half the price of a Qantas passenger. Senator Aulich —Some don't pay at all. Senator SANDERS —Some do not pay at all, that is true, but the honourable senator would know more about that than I. Overseas fares are kept artificially high by an agreement between Qantas and the Government to protect Qantas. This is an indication of how the consumers of Australia are being disadvantaged by the flying sacred cow, Qantas. What about domestic travellers? Here I applaud Qantas's efforts. Qantas would very much like to fill its 12,000 empty seats per week on domestic sectors over Australia by getting the Australian travelling public into those seats. It could sell them at a reduced price on a stand-by basis. It would be of great benefit to the travelling public but, of course, the two-airline policy does not allow this. I think Qantas could be made more profitable than it is, while giving the consumers a better deal, if it were combined with Trans Australia Airlines. I think a combination of Qantas and TAA would make for a more efficient operation. Qantas has just bought six Boeing 767s. According to rumours in the industry, it is about to buy some Boeing 737s. TAA, however, has just chartered off two of its Airbuses because of lack of work. If TAA and Qantas were combined, as Air New Zealand combined its domestic and international routes, the equipment could be used more rationally, thus saving the taxpayer considerable money. In return for the deregulation of the industry to allow Qantas to carry passengers on domestic sectors, Ansett Airlines of Australia should have the ability to compete directly with Qantas on international routes. We recently saw Qantas and Ansett in competition to co-operate with Fiji in taking over Air Pacific Ltd. Qantas won the contract. Senator Watson —In what circumstances? Senator SANDERS —Senator Watson has asked about the circumstances in which the competition was run. It was based on who could furnish the best service at the cheapest cost. The Fijian Government made the decision that Qantas could do this. Unfortunately the Fijian Government is beginning to question that decision because it has turned out that Qantas is getting a $1m cut per year on its operating costs through Nandi on the Los Angeles route. Air Pacific has found also that Qantas is operating its Boeing 747, but is competing with Air Pacific routes out of Australia, so there is some uneasiness at the moment in Fiji. It would be far better for the travelling public and probably, because of the competition, the airlines themselves if Ansett or any other airline could use these international routes. East-West Airlines should be able to expand its structure if it wishes, as should any new airline starting up. One of the reasons given for protecting these routes is that the airlines want to protect their load factors. However, some 92 per cent of Australians do not fly regularly. That is a huge market to be tapped. If the fares were cheaper and services were more frequent, more people would fly, as happened with deregulation in the United States. Deregulation in the United States has been going for a number of years. Before it came in there was the same type of doom and gloom talk in America as is now taking place in Australia amongst the people who hold the duopoly, and amongst aviation writers in general. In the United States, when deregulation came in, some airlines were shaken out of the business and others came in. One which came in was an outfit called People's Express, which operates from Newark, New Jersey. It is the eleventh biggest carrier in the United States, serving 45 destinations in the United States and operating overseas. Its fares have made it twice as cheap to fly as to travel by bus and it has taken passengers away from buses and trains. Its terminals are filled with people who have never flown before. Its fares are $49 from Newark to Atlanta-where the bus is $104; $69 from New York to Dallas; and $89 to Brussels in Belgium. It is doing quite well. Yesterday I flew back from Fiji on a Continental Airlines DC10. Senator Watson —Why not Qantas? Senator SANDERS —Because Continental Airlines is cheaper. The aircraft was flown by a very experienced air crew. I went up into the cockpit and talked to the captain and his crew. When I got on to the aircraft I noticed that it was called Employee Ownership 1. I asked the air crew: `What does this mean?' I was told: `We own the aeroplane'. The employees of Continental have bought much of the equipment. I was told that they are getting returns on their purchase and also keeping the airline afloat. Continental was one of the airlines which went bankrupt under deregulation. One would think that, with all of the trauma that these pilots have gone through, including cuts in salary, they would be bitter about deregulation: Not so. The flight crew of that DC10 was unanimously agreed that deregulation was the best thing that had happened to the aviation industry in the United States. The aggressive operators survive; the shonky operators go out of business. The consumers benefit mightily. They told me some of their fare structures. They are flying from Los Angeles to Seattle for $US69. That is probably a greater distance than that from Hobart to Brisbane-$US69 each way. The consumers are benefiting; the flight crews are happy, even though they did take a cut in pay. They are trading out of their bankruptcy. They feel that the whole deregulation exercise in the United States was completely worthwhile. I asked them: `Would you do anything differently now in the light of your experience with deregulation?' They said no, that it had to be done the way it was-complete deregulation-and it is now working. The doom sayers said that with deregulation there would be an increase in aircraft crashes. That has simply not happened in the United States. They also said that smaller centres would not be served. That has not happened either. In fact, the services increased. Instead of United Airlines flying one jet a day into Bakersfield, smaller aircraft run by commuter airlines are now making four and five trips into places such as Bakersfield in California, increasing the convenience to the consumer. Senator Watson —Is deregulation Democrats policy? Senator SANDERS —Deregulation is Australian Democrats policy. Senator Watson —Why did you oppose the deregulation of banking? Senator SANDERS —I am the spokesman on aviation, and I have developed my policies on deregulation. I am speaking about deregulation at this time. This is a time for a complete shake-up in the Australian aviation industry. Having said all that, the Boeing 747-300, the aircraft under question here in the Qantas loan Bill, is an excellent aircraft. If this aircraft is used intelligently, along with the rest of the TAA and Qantas fleet, the Australian taxpayer and the Australian consumer will benefit greatly. I hope that the new 747-300 will join its sister aircraft in flying across Australia and around the world safely, economically and in competition with aircraft of other operators. This can all happen if the Government quickly adopts a progressive and far-sighted airline policy which leads to the deregulation of the aviation industry in Australia. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.13) —The Senate is dealing with the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985, which guarantees certain loans by the Government and imposes on Qantas certain conditions. Clause 5 (a) requires that the Treasurer is satisfied of the terms and conditions of the borrowing. This provision is a further demonstration that the Parliament is prepared to pass over the real power to the Executive branch rather than retain it within the legislative structure. We acknowledge that the Executive has the responsibility for executing or overseeing what is agreed to by the legislature. But when we see legislation in this form, which virtually hands over more and more power to the Executive at the expense of the legislature, I think it is a sad day for Parliament. Parliament should be trying to impose greater conditions on the Executive. The terms and conditions should be stipulated in the Act. True, the fine detail must be left to the Executive branch; but I think that here we are giving it a carte-blanche opportunity of conducting the whole arrangement as it sees fit. But when a problem occurs we throw up our hands and say: `There should be more parliamentary control'. Now is the time when we should be exercising that control over performances not only by government departments but also by statutory corporations such as Qantas. Qantas has gained a reputation as an efficient, long-haul passenger operator. I emphasise the words `passenger operator' because Qantas does provide a high degree of comfort in reliable aircraft and allocates satisfactory departure times for travellers. That is why Qantas services are in such demand by the travelling public. I think last year's profit was the highest in the operator's history. This was due to a continuing recovery in the airline industry with growth returning after several years of recession. The turnabout in trading was also due to a sustained cost reduction program. The implication there is that in the past Qantas has not been watching its costs perhaps as closely as it should have and that, therefore, a little more competition probably would encourage it to be very much more cost-efficient and lower its airfare structure somewhat to the benefit of the travelling public. Given the improved climate, it is not surprising that Qantas needs to upgrade its aircraft with the acquisition of another extended upper deck Boeing 747-300 series aircraft. However, I must point out, as other speakers have done, that Qantas has achieved this result from a very privileged position, for Qantas operates in a very protected environment. I believe that this situation should be contrasted with the situation of many of the manufacturers in the manufacturing sector. Successive governments have allowed many manufacturers to go to the wall, with devastating effects on employment, particularly for the young and the unskilled. We are finding that under this protective umbrella the travelling public is, in effect, paying a higher price and getting a lesser service than it would otherwise get if there were a little more competition. It is rather surprising, therefore, to find that Qantas wants to compete on routes within Australia with the domestic carriers Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines, such as the Perth-Sydney route. Yet it opposes, say, British recommendations to open up the Kangaroo route from London to Australia because it wishes to protect its privileged international position. Whilst many accolades have been given in this chamber to Qantas-certainly so far as the comfort of passengers and the reliability of its aircraft is concerned, accolades might be justified-its freight operations leave a great deal to be desired. While all parliamentarians believe that our industries should be more export-oriented, the new industries that are seeking overseas markets have to rely very heavily on an efficient freighting operation. I submit that until now Qantas has not fulfilled that role particularly well. We certainly need a lot more competition from cargo carriers operating out of Australia because, time and again, Qantas lets down Australian domestic industries seeking to send products overseas. It has to happen only once every six months with a delicate or perishable cargo for the whole profit of 12 months to be lost. So Qantas must maintain reliability of service and increase its range of services if it wishes to improve its position. Only recently we had the dreadful chilled meat stand-off fiasco in regard to which I do not think Qantas management gained very much respect from producers around Australia. I also take the opportunity of commending Senator Jones on his contribution. It appears somewhat ironic that Qantas seeks to go outside Australia for people to design its uniforms. That situation has not changed much over the years. I come from the fashion industry, the textile section. For years we were unable to break into the operation of Qantas. However, with other airlines, we had no trouble. For example Kelsall and Kempe managed to secure substantial contracts from airlines such as Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. We provided the material for the uniforms of the female ground staff and hostesses but we were unable to secure work from Qantas-not even the rugs or anything associated with the furnishings; yet we were Australia's leading fashion manufacturer of wool and wool-associated fabrics. The Cathay uniform at the time became something of a trend and fashion setter. So the quality, appearance and structure of the cloth were undoubted. The performance of Australian companies continues to be ignored while Qantas looks overseas. I believe that Qantas should use Australian products much more frequently. Many travellers on Qantas flights are somewhat dismayed when they see that so many of the products served on Qantas menus are produced in countries other than Australia. Qantas has to lift its game in this area if it is to retain its status. It has to be opened to a little more competition in order to provide not only better but also lower cost services to passengers and freight forwarders. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.22) —We have heard a series of speeches in this debate on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 which, at best, praise Qantas Airways Ltd with overwhelming censure. The trend of the speeches so far has been to say that Qantas has been successful, that it has had a good safety record and that it is making a profit, but there are criticisms. The speeches have tended to concentrate on those criticisms rather than look at the very good record this company has had in Australia, particularly since the early 1980s when changes occurred in its structure. Since that time Qantas has traded well, has flown more hours, has made greater profits and has contributed to the wealth that comes into this nation. That must be remembered in the context of the criticisms that have been made. Senator Watson —Could it not have done better? That is the point we are making. Senator COONEY —We can always do better. We could ask Senator Watson's question of any company in either the private or the public sector. They can always do better. That is the purpose of good management. It is the very purpose of always looking to see how improvements can be made. It is in that context that this Bill is before the House. The Bill guarantees loans to be raised by Qantas to buy another aeroplane which will make its service more attractive and its operations more efficient. As Senator Watson said, it can always do better. This Bill is one of the pieces of machinery which is being used to make it better. Senator Watson and Senator Jones have criticised the fact that Qantas went overseas to have its uniform designed. That is a fair criticism. However, that sort of criticism has to be balanced against the praise and approbation that should be given to Qantas for the overall thrust of its activities in this decade, which thrust is towards making the company a better airline and a national flag carrier we can be proud of. Senator Collard and Senator Watson have both indicated that the Opposition will now support this Bill. There were some concerns about that because earlier it was thought that denying this Bill a passage might be a means of easing the situation which had resulted from industrial activity that had been undertaken or was threatened by the Transport Workers Union. I refer to the meat dispute which has been occuring in Australia and simply say that when legislation comes before the House and opposition to it is predicated on the proposition that that opposition might relieve an industrial situation which might otherwise arise, that is the sort of activity that is aimed at by section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. In opposing legislation, a secondary boycott is threatened in order to relieve a situation elsewhere. There is certainly irony in the passage of legislation being threatened in order to relieve a situation elsewhere. That is the sort of scenario at which section 45D is aimed. I am glad that the Opposition's earlier intention has been reversed and that this Bill will now be put through the House with a unanimous support. However, listening to the speech of Senator Sanders, I wondered about that because the thrust of that speech was that the Bill ought to be opposed- Senator Collard —Was there a thrust? Senator COONEY —That was not only the thrust, but as I understand it, the Australian Democrats may intend to oppose the Bill. Senator Sanders was quite derogatory of the efforts that Qantas had made over the years and, as I understood him, not even its safety record was worthy of any praise. He seemed to think that the very good safety record of Qantas was a matter of some luck. In fact he almost seemed to suggest that it was a matter of some regret-there seemed to be a note of regret in his voice-that there had not been some sort of crash to indicate that the safety record of which Qantas is so proud was one that it really did not merit. That seemed to be the thrust of his speech because he used phrases such as `all flying is safe'. The intent of such statements seemed to be to denigrate this airline. He said that Qantas did not compare in its efficiency with the airlines in the United States. The one airline that he mentioned was Continental and after recent events in Victoria, it is a wonder that he put that forward as one of the airlines that we should admire. Nevertheless, that seemed to be his proposition. It seemed unusual to me that he should use the United States as a basis for comparison with Australia. In the United States there is a population which is well in excess of 10 times our own and to say that because a particular system works in the United States it will work here is to make a proposition which is too unsophisticated to bear thinking about. Of course with the Unites States' high population there will be more airlines flying, more air routes and more people catching aeroplanes. In Australia we have a very sparse population set in various areas around the country. That population depends absolutely on airlines. Of course those routes will be expensive because of the number of passengers using them is not as great as elsewhere. Instead of looking at that, seeing the positive contributions that these airlines make, and taking the attitude that Senator Watson took when he said that the airlines were doing a good job but they should improve, Senator Sanders entered on a very destructive course of condemning outright the airlines which operate in this country and our flag carrier overseas. Senator Sanders said that the answer to all this was deregulation. One wonders again whether the deregulation he talked about as having saved Continental was the same deregulation that produced the present situation in Victoria. That appeared to be the proposition that he put forward. It is very difficult to see where the Democrats stand on this matter, but it seems as if they are opposing the Bill because that is the thrust of Senator Sanders's remarks. Leaving aside the Democrats, the rest of the Senate supports this Bill to improve the capacity of this airline, which has been highly successful this decade. Qantas made a profit in the 1984-85 financial year. It flew 7.4 per cent more hours than it did in 1983-84 and it carried 15.8 per cent more passengers than it did in the previous year. Qantas's seat factor rose to 64.2 per cent, the highest since 1980-81, and its total revenue increased by 15.3 per cent to $2,219m. In addition the average number of employees rose by 3.1 per cent to 11,710 and the average staff strength increased. Qantas has provided better services, employment and profit. In those circumstances it is only appropriate that this Bill, which gives a guarantee by the Government of borrowings by the company-a statutory authority-so that it can buy another aeroplane to increase the services it has so happily provided to date, should be supported. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.33) —The Senate is being asked to pass the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 which gives the authority needed for Qantas Airways to make an important purchase in respect of additions to its fleet to meet its obligations and requirements in the years ahead. Having regard to what has been said in this debate, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate today, it must be asserted again very strongly that there is no airline in the world which has the reputation of Qantas. It is recognised as being a safe, reliable and cost efficient public enterprise and one of which most Australians are very proud. Therefore, it is a matter of some regret that some honourable senators should take such a negative view in debating this very simple, technical Bill which, I remind the Senate, is literally an annual Bill because the Commonwealth is required every year to act as guarantor for Qantas and other airlines in this country in respect of the large purchases that are needed to maintain a very effective and modern airline industry in our country. Qantas, having a reputation in the international arena, obviously would require both the support and the encouragement of the Commonwealth in its purchases. Therefore, it is a regular feature of the Parliament that it is asked to approve such Bills which guarantee the national airline and give it the opportunity to modernise its fleet and maintain its excellent record. The prestigious magazine Flight International recently gave its safety award to Qantas for the second consecutive year, recognising not merely its unblemished accident record but also the many positive engineering, maintenance, training and operating initiatives Qantas has taken to ensure that this safety record is maintained. I remind the Senate that safety is not a matter of luck. It is achieved through the policy of the organisation, through the dedication of all the staff associated with the airline and through the success of its operation. Whilst I appreciate that many zealots in the Senate take advantage of these annual events to put forward their repsective views about the airline industry, including you from time to time, Mr Acting Deputy President, surely it has to be recognised-and I am not suggesting that it is not-that those contributions should be constructive and should move in the direction of enhancing the record of and the respect given to our public enterprise airlines. As I said, this is a fairly simple piece of legislation. It is a technical Bill. Similar legislation requires the approval of the Parliament on a regular basis. It authorises the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings-in this case $US115m for Qantas so that it can purchase a Boeing 747-300 extended upper deck aircraft with its related spare parts and equipment. As has been pointed out, this is the fourth purchase of such an aircraft, in addition to some other aircraft purchased in 1983 for the sum of $760m. The fact that Qantas can point out to the Government its requirement to purchase an aircraft and seek the Government's approval in the sense of the Government acting as a guarantor is but another indication of the tremendous turnaround that has taken place in the Australian economy. The airline has been able to take advantage of that turnaround by attracting increased patronage. Qantas needs the purchase. In convincing the Government of that fact, Qantas has been able to convince the Government that it will be maintaining the support of those persons in this country and elsewhere who wish to engage in international travel. I am surprised, as Senator Cooney suggested, that one honourable senator should try to make a comparison with Continental Airlines Inc. I make no disparaging comment about that airline other than to say that there have been in the media rumours and murmurings which suggest that that airline, in its endeavours to establish a more competitive position with Qantas, has placed itself in a very serious financial position and that its future viability is in question. That is not the case with Qantas. Qantas has been able to show, as was evident in the debate in the House of Representatives, a vastly increased profit ratio. This flows from the Hawke Government's decision in 1983-84 to increase the economic base of Qantas, and the airline has placed itself on a much firmer commercial base. One can only say that, having been given that economic base, the Qantas organisation, both management and staff, has shown itself capable of performing its proper function. I believe and the Australian people believe that it is well run and well conducted, and it is accepted by Australians as being a very successful public enterprise. Of course, it has shown that in the important turnaround that has taken place in its profit ratio in the last financial year. The purchases are scheduled to arrive in 1986. Very importantly, the Government, in discussion with Qantas, has set certain standards with respect to offsets and other purchases by Qantas. Whilst there was some criticism about going overseas in respect of the design of uniforms, finally the manufacturing of those uniforms will be done by the Australian clothing industry. As a result of negotiations between the airline, the Government and various Ministers, including Senator Button and Mr Brown, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, agreements have been reached which have resulted in improvements within Australian industry. Of course, from time to time Opposition senators take advantage of these debates to raise other matters. I remind the Senate that until 1983 it was normal for present Opposition spokespersons to be sponsoring such a Bill, as it was my obligation as shadow Minister to support it. There have been certain changes in the makeup of the Parliament since then and we appreciate that there is a general degree of bipartisanship in respect of these matters. However, I want to touch finally upon the controversy, the public debate, taking place in Australia in respect of continued public ownership, government ownership, of Qantas. I remind the Senate that the Government was elected in 1983 on a platform which included an unequivocal commitment to retain Qantas in public ownership as Australia's international flag carrier. Of course, we have seen some changes in attitudes by the Opposition parties in recent times. I am not quite sure just what is the actual policy of the Liberal and National parties at the moment. In the debate Senator Collard said that the 1984 policy was to sell part of Qantas to Australian shareholders and to Qantas employees, but when that policy was developed and expressed, I must remind the Senate, the Opposition parties had a different leader. The Australian people are not-certainly the Government is not-quite sure where we stand with respect to the view that was expressed at that time. The Opposition parties have made many conflicting statements about privatisation. It has been pretty obvious from debates in the other place that there is a great division in the Opposition parties about privatisation. When honourable senators make contributions to this debate we cannot really be sure whether they are personal views, party views or coalition views or whether they are just expressions of opinion and contributions to a particular debate. The current fad, of course, is to say that privatisation is the answer to all the world's economic problems. It has been applied to a great degree in the United Kingdom. We need only look at where Mrs Thatcher lies today in public esteem, and she was one of the great apostles of privatisation. Not only is she not well regarded by the British public but also the level of public support for her Government and Party is very much below that of several years ago when she was re-elected as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It appears to me, as it would appear to many other people, that privatisation of public enterprise would not always achieve social or economic objectives nor does it necessarily follow that it would lead to greater efficiency. I support the remarks that Senator Cooney made. The Government is always looking for ways to improve its record. Parties are always looking for improvement in their policy development. Companies are looking for improvements in efficiency. Currently, Mr Holmes a'Court is showing great interest in the Big Australian, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. He claims that if he took over more efficient management policies could be pursued by that organisation. It does not matter whether we are dealing with the private or the public sector; people are always striving for improvements in efficiency and cost effectiveness. That is as it should be. Provided that senators make their contributions in a constructive way, as they do from time to time, debates on these matters will have some substance and some objective. We believe that under this Government the performance of Qantas has improved and that public enterprises can be run efficiently and profitably. As long as such enterprises are given proper charters, proper commercial responsibility and, importantly, as this Government has done, given a firm financial basis their records can be compared against private sector activity. The Government believes that Qantas has performed admirably. Its performance shows that public enterprises can be and should be not only competitive but also efficient. In those circumstances, the Government is entitled to ask the Senate to approve the Bill that is under discussion. I confidently expect the Senate to pass the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985, as it has passed similar loans guarantee Bills in preceding years. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 16 September, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.49) —As I indicated previously this morning, the Bills before the Senate are basically routine Bills. The Opposition will not be opposing the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and allied Bills. In the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985 changes are proposed to the way in which export inspection charges will be levied. Those changes are welcomed mainly because they mean that some tidying up will be done and some savings made. The Government proposes to allow the industries to opt for whichever system offers them the most viable option. This Bill proposes that charges be levied on a man-hour basis. This proposal replaces the flat rate charge which was levied regardless of costs. One of the beauties of this Bill is that it will allow greater self-regulation within industry; in other words, industry is on trial to show how it can operate under this system and keep its standards high. It is significant, Mr Deputy President, that we have industries outside our export industries that operate under self-regulation. One area you know quite well is the engineering section of our airline industry. We have just finished debating the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985. I mentioned the engineering side of the airline industry. Senator Sanders drew a comparison between Qantas and Continental Airlines. As I indicated, the engineering sector is self-regulated. It is the best in the world. I recall that because of a cost-cutting operation a DC10 crashed at O'Hare Airport when an engine and pylon came off the wing of that aircraft. Only two airlines in the world were implementing that cost-cutting maintenance operation that ultimately led to the accident; namely, the airline whose plane crashed at O'Hare-I think it was American Airlines Inc.-and Continental. At the same time as that cost-cutting operation was being carried on, Continental was seeking to undercut Qantas on the Pacific routes. I have raised this point mainly because Senator Sanders raised it in his speech today but also to point out that we have self-regulation in industries other than the export industries, such as the engineering section of the airline industry. It is the best in the world and it works very well. As I said, export industries will be on trial. The proposals in the Bill will allow greater self-regulation. I hope that the industries rise to the challenge. The proposals would help keep their costs down by keeping government costs down and they could still maintain the high standards that are necessary to guarantee that our exports are accepted around the world. The Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985-Senator Haines has commented on the names that we give these confounded Bills-provides for a charge on registration or on annual renewal of registration of an export licence. That is a good idea also. I understand that the poultry industry has already opted for that proposal. The Government has estimated that these Bills when implemented will give a saving of $18m per year. I might add that under this Government already inspection charges have doubled from $23.9m in 1982-83 to $53m in the current year. That increase is being borne by the export industries at a time when we just cannot afford it. I say once again that all of those export industries are associated with our primary industries. At a time when our current account deficit is running at around $10 billion and rural industry is providing 45 per cent of our export income it is to be abhorred that export inspection charges are increasing unnecessarily and a burden is being put on those industries. If this $18m saving is for real, it is to be welcomed. I admit that when we were in government we looked at cost recovery. We were recovering up to 50 per cent of costs. We did not go any further because of the parlous state of those industries. It is now part of our policy to remove inspection charges from those industries for the very simple reason that those industries are providing jobs and very much needed export income. Let the people of Australia be under no illusion as to where we stand. The point has been made that these changes were made with little or no consultation with the industry. Once again, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is guilty. He has been in a lot of trouble this year because of that lack of consultation. We in the Opposition, that is, the Liberal and National parties and the Australian Democrats, have amended quite a few primary industry Bills. Senator Haines —We have tried to amend more than you would support. Senator COLLARD —The Democrats have tried to amend a few more, but we have amended some that the industry wanted us to amend, all the time in consultation with the industry. I would have thought that the Minister would have learned his lesson. Obviously, he has not. Unlike Senator Haines, I have not read the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to any great extent; so that wipes about 10 minutes from the time for which I could speak. Undoubtedly, Senator Haines is raring to go, having read in great depth that tremendous report. As I indicated, the Opposition, although not liking the fact that the industry has to bear the costs, welcomes the changes, if they are there, and certainly welcomes any reduction in the charges. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.56) —Senator Collard is perfectly correct that most of the comments I want to make today with regard to the package of Bills before us-the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985, the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985-stem from comments made in the Alert Digest No. 9 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Senator Collard has generously commented to me that he has never learned so much fascinating information as he has gleaned over the last couple of days from the Alert Digest to which he was directed by some comments I made about primary industry Bills earlier this week. In doing that, I think I have done a service to Senator Collard and the Senate. Senator Collard —Possibly it will mean more work in the future. Senator HAINES —Yes, but it is very important that we pay attention to the comments that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee makes with regard to certain infringements of civil liberties, self-incrimination sections and unnecessary delegation of power. The people about whom Senator Collard and I are concerned need the attention of the Parliament to be given to the sorts of things that the Executive and bureaucrats get up to and that may well not be in the interests of those people. The Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 amends two Acts to provide for the collection of charges to be imposed consequential upon the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has criticised clause 20 of the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 because it removes self-incrimination as an excuse for not submitting returns or providing information under the Act. There is, of course, the usual proviso that returns or information so submitted or provided are not to be admissible in evidence except in proceedings for failing to furnish information or a return or for knowingly furnishing some information which is false or misleading in a material particular. It is important to note, however, that, prior to the omnibus Amalgamation Bill which is currently being amended, offences existed with regard to failure to submit returns and so on. In fact, the Department of Primary Industry, as I understand it, actually thought that those provisos were in the May legislation. Unfortunately, the Attorney-General's Department, apparently having a mind of its own and acting on whatever it must have thought was a good idea at the time-although, I am sure, with the very best of intentions-put in sub-clause 10 (2) without actually receiving instructions, I gather, so to do from the Department of Primary Industry. Because bureaucrats in the Department of Primary Industry are as busy as the rest of us, it apparently also escaped their eagle-eyed scrutiny. The reason the Attorney-General's Department gratuitously inserted this sub-clause-the original sub-clause 10 (2)-was that apparently there had been a case in Queensland on this matter and the Attorney-General's Department decided that it should be made clear whether self-incrimination applied. In fact, the Attorney-General's Department, apparently believing it was on to a good thing, decided that it ought to insert a similar clause in all primary industry legislation. Having got the ball rolling there, goodness only knows where else we will find these sorts of provisos. However, the Department of Primary Industry thought that sub-clause 10 (2) in its original form would prejudice the whole system of levy collection; so the Attorney-General's Department as amended it in the new form in which it appears in this piece of legislation. I gather that the reason the Primary Industry Department was concerned and believed that the system would be prejudiced if the original form of sub-clause 10 (2) were retained was that it was based on self-assessment, except for the meat inspection charge. The Department believed that the excuse of self-incrimination would be used so that returns would not be lodged. It would, therefore, be difficult to collect the levy, necessitating going before a magistrate, getting a search warrant, finding the books in each case, and so on. I certainly have considerable sympathy for the problem the Department faces in collecting a lawful levy; but, like the Scrutiny of Bills Committee generally, I am concerned about the number of instances in which clauses of this type are appearing in legislation. I had reason earlier this week to raise the matter in respect of the Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill 1985. The Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985 provides for a charge to be made upon the registration of an export registered establishment where this is requested by an industry. It complements the existing quantity based inspection charges and the proposed man-hour charges in the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985. This extension of the range of legislative options for imposing charges on industry to recoup part of the costs of inspecting rural produce for export gives the industries affected a choice with regard to the most appropriate method of applying inspection charges, However, I remind the Senate at this stage of the infamous Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill which I am sure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, will recall and which appeared before this place some time in 1981-82. It involved an increased charge to be imposed on apiarists. The Senate sent the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, of which Senator Rae was then Chairman, which reported some time later that no country to which we exported honey required an inspection certificate and, therefore, there was no need for the levy in the first place. I think it is necessary that the Parliament keep an eye on the sorts of levy Bills that appear before us from time to time. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has criticised, in particular, clause 7 in this legislation, which provides that the rate of charge is to be fixed by regulation. No maximum rate is set and this is seen by the Committee as an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. The same concern is expressed by the Committee with regard to clause 7 of the complementary service charge Bill. Customarily, the Senate has wanted the maximum set and in the past this has been about double the operative rate. About a year ago the Australian Democrats, in the case of another piece of legislation, moved an unsuccessful amendment which sought to make the maximum the operative rate. In our on-going concern to keep the Government honest-presumably, bureaucrats fall into that basket as well-we faced a problem in this instance. When we contacted the office of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to get some idea of what the maxima should be before drafting the amendment, we were informed that there is some difficulty with setting rates at the moment, particularly if we want to stick to the operative rate notion and not some huge figure which would cover all eventualities. The Department of Primary Industry was arguing that maxima have not been set in these two Bills, partly because they are new charges and there is a need to do a detailed study of man hours, et cetera, before discussing with industry what the charge should be and partly because different industries will opt for different combinations in paying their charges. The fish and poultry industries, for example, have chosen different methods already. The Minister, in his response, apparently made a commitment-I emphasise this-that the new methods of charging will not be introduced until there has been full consultation and the industry as a whole wants them. I understand that option papers have been given to the different industries affected and I hope that a resolution to it all will not take too long. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.06) —While the Opposition supports the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill because they allow more flexibility in the payment of these enormous export inspection charges that this Government has imposed on the rural community, we do not agree with the general concept of export inspection charges. Indeed, it has become our policy that all these inspection charges will be abolished as soon as we regain government. This present Government has moved against the rural industry in a more discriminatory way than any government in the history of this country. The sad part about it is that our farmers are the most efficient people in the world. We know that-I can see some Government senators nodding their heads in agreement-the farming industry is the most efficient industry in this country. The problem we face is that our main competitors in other parts of the world are so heavily subsidised. We have heard the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, saying in this chamber many times what a great benefit the falling dollar is to the farmers. I will tell the Senate what the falling dollar has done to this country and to our export industries as well. It has sent real interest rates to their highest level in 50 years. It has sent inflation up; we are reaching double digit figures. I can see Government senators nodding their heads in agreement with that statement also. It has increased the cost of farm machinery-a cost that the rural industry certainly cannot afford. The Government has done a deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Australian dollar has fallen because our peers, other countries, do not see us as a viable state. As the value of our dollar is so low they are not willing to invest or to buy at any price, so our dollar is now below US70c. What has happened in the rural export industry versus other export industries? Our total exports increased by 4.3 per cent between 1979-80 and 1983-84. But what happened to the rural industry, which accounts for about 50 per cent of those exports? Total exports increased by 4.3 per cent but rural exports decreased by 12.9 per cent. This all happened with the breaking of the drought and the wage freeze that the previous Government brought in. As I have said, our main competitors are heavily subsidised. Low world prices for the rural industry are not a figment of the imagination. In yesterday's Australian Financial Review there is an article which is headed: `Australian study shows high price of EC's rural policy . . .'. According to that article, this policy will cost Australia one million jobs. The article states: The employment cost of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community could be as high as one million jobs. This is one of the main conclusions of a new study by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics, released yesterday simultaneously in Canberra and London. The study is part of a new stage in Australia's response to the impact of the CAP on world trade in agricultural commodities, and the costs imposed by it on the world-and on Europe itself. The National Farmers Federation's newsletter states that this will cost $5,000 per farm. The latest Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecast indicates that the real net value of rural production will fall by 22 per cent this financial year. There is an agreement between the National Farmers Federation and the major banks that they will not foreclose on members of the farming community; that they will give them time to pay. Things are so bad on the land that the farmers are being given time to pay by agreement between the banks and the National Farmers Federation! What does the Government do when things are so bad that agreements have to be made between the banks and the National Farmers Federation and when the Bureau of Agricultural Economics says that things will get worse and the real net value of rural production will fall by 22 per cent this financial year? This Government introduces a capital gains tax. It does away with the water usage tax return and it allows the Mudginberri situation to develop. Every senator in this chamber would know that the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union held one of the slaughter houses to ransom for months to the extent that we lost one of our valuable export agreements with Taiwan. Senator Boswell —Three million dollars worth of sales. Senator WALTERS —As the honourable senator has said, $3m worth of sales were lost because a radical group of meat workers put up a picket line. We all saw them on television-a couple of big fat blokes sitting under a shade saying: `Nobody pass this line'. What did the Government do? It allowed its meat inspectors to go there and say: `Oh, those blokes look too big for me. I'm not going to cross that line'. The Government allowed its meat inspectors to back off. It did not insist upon its meat inspectors going in to inspect that meat for export. What was this strike all about? Senator Aulich —We should have sent you. Senator WALTERS —I think I might have done a bit better than your meat inspectors. Senator Aulich —Would you? Senator WALTERS —Yes, I believe I would. What was the strike all about? How democratic was this strike? The slaughtermen and their employer came to an agreement on what was best for them. They decided that they would not slaughter so many beasts a day; they were going to work as hard as they wanted to. Their pay went up and the cost of slaughtering the bullocks went down. It helped the export market and it helped the men because they were doubling their take-home pay. But the union had not organised it; the union objected. So this Government stood by the union and told the meat inspectors that they need not cross the picket line. It was only as a result of the National Farmers Federation standing by that slaughterhouse that we have the situation we have today. That picket line was illegally stopping members of other unions crossing it. We had a secondary boycott on our hands in contravention of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. Union funds were taken and a fine was imposed. But that has not helped the slaughterhouse much. It has a right, which for the first time in many years it is using. It is taking on the union and demanding that it get compensation for the export markets it has lost. If the Government does not assist in this matter by enforcing the law everyone in Australia will acknowledge that there is one law for the unions-with the Government's support they will be outside that law-and there is another law which the rest of the community must obey. I move from the Mudginberri situation to look at what the unions have done to another section of the rural industry. Last year I visited Japan with a parliamentary delegation and we went around many of the woollen mills. We asked the Japanese to give us longer term commitments on our export industries, but they were not a bit interested. They said: `There is no way we will give any long term commitments to Australia. We used to deal almost solely with Australia in fine and coarse wools but we no longer do'. In fact they deal with 16 countries in greasy wool and 22 countries in clean wool. They no longer deal solely with Australia. Why? The answer is that our storemen and packers held up our exports of wool bales for so long that the woollen mills in Japan ground to a halt. The Japanese said: `Never again will we deal with Australia solely. We will make sure that we deal with other countries so that when a similar disruption occurs we will not have to close our woollen mills'. What a situation we have reached-the most efficient farmers in the world are held to ransom by these radical unions. We all remember very well when the waterside workers had to back down over the live sheep exports. They had refused to load live sheep, but farmers converged on the docks and said that they would load them themselves. I remember very clearly one nervous waterside worker asking: `Are the farmers armed?'. The leader of the farmers said: `Don't ask me if they are armed. You know as well as I do that every farmer has a gun. I do not know whether they have brought their guns'. That was the only reason the waterside workers backed off. This Government is doing nothing to help the farmers; it is doing everything in its power to do otherwise. I am not quite sure what it sees as its main aim. As I have said, the Opposition supports these Bills, only because they are a step in the right direction towards allowing more flexibility in payments. We do not condone the very high levy that this Government has imposed on export inspection charges. It is our policy to do away with that as soon as we return to government. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.20) —At the outset of my speech on the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and associated Bills I congratulate Senator Walters on her wonderful speech. She certainly understands the needs of the rural areas. We support the Bills but we want it to go on record that the moment we are returned to government all inspection levies will be abolished. The Bills assist the fish and poultry industries but do not take into consideration the high inspection charges imposed on the beef and cattle industries. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, should take cognisance of the fact that this meat inspection issue was sent to a committee. Mr Kerin would not wait for the report, and imposed a 200 per cent increase on inspection levies for the beef industry. He did that after having gone to all the farmers in the rural areas saying that he would take their case to Cabinet and fight for them. But the truth of the matter is that he did not even bring the issue before Cabinet. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council summed the matter up by saying: `It made a mockery of the Hawke Government's stated commitment to consultation and consensus.' They are its words, not mine. We have seen this time and again in the sugar, beef and other industries and it proves once and for all that Mr Kerin says to the rural people that he will do one thing and then comes back here and does the very opposite. He got away with it for the first two years, but the people out there have now had enough. We saw 40,000 people demonstrate on the grass outside Parliament House. They had been pushed to the cliff and would just about have gone over it if this Government had kept imposing charges, such as inspection levies, upon them. When we return to government all inspection levies will be abolished. If Senator Grimes were in the chamber he would say that- Senator Walsh —Have you cleared that with Mr Howard? Senator BOSWELL —That is the national coalition policy. Senator Walsh —Is it? Senator BOSWELL —It is coalition policy and the Minister is well aware of it. That is a fact of life. We have promised the rural producers of Australia that when we get back to government we will abolish those levies. Senator Grimes, and probably Senator Walsh, will say: `We are agrarian socialists because we stand up for the people in the rural areas'. I point out to the Government that the Australian farmer is the most efficient in the world. He can take on any farmer and out-produce and out-sell him providing they are functioning on an equal basis. What we have to understand, and what I keep trying to get across to the Government at every opportunity, is that we cannot expect our rural producers to produce against heavily subsidised countries such as those in the European Economic Community. Now the Americans are going to subsidise their farmers. But we can produce on an equal opportunity basis. We cannot expect our farmers to bear the brunt of all these increased costs. Every time a Budget is brought down the rural producers are used as the milking cow of this Government. In the May mini-Budget rural primary industries bore 76 per cent of the total government cost. Two billion dollars in tariff protection was added on to fuel costs-$13,000 per farm. We have seen high interest rates coming in. The Government, to support the falling dollar, has increased interest rates, which have been inflicted on the farming community and have now become one of its highest costs. The highest cost used to be fuel, which the Government has put up by 30 per cent. Fuel costs used to be the farmers biggest worry, but now it is interest costs. All of these costs keep going up and up while every other country in the world is assisting farmers with rural credits and subsidies to help exports; yet this Government totally ignores the plight of the farmer. The Government has said that it will use the user pay system, as we have seen in the fishing industry legislation today. The user must pay, but the user cannot pay if he cannot compete against all the other primary industries in the world which have their products heavily subsidised. I refer Senator Walsh to the American farm Bill that is before the United States Senate at the moment. Already we have lost $54m of wheat sales to the Yemen and that figure could go as high as $700m. This Government must come to terms with whether it wants a rural industry that earns $16 billion a year in overseas sales. How will the Government ever be able to fund its overseas debt without primary industry? It must come to some sort of conclusion on whether it wants primary industry. It cannot keep inflicting one cost after another on the industry, treating it as a milch cow in every Budget. The Government has taken away income equalisation deposits, the fuel freight subsidy and water and soil conservation programs and has brought in a capital gains tax and negative gearing. It would be fair to say that this Government has been most hostile against the primary producers of Australia. When we come before the Senate and put the case for primary industry, all we are told is that we are agricultural socialists. No doubt Senator Walsh will get up and give us another bash on that today. He does not understand, or apparently does not want to understand, that we have to be able to compete on an even basis. Australia's primary industry must be able to stand up against America and the European Economic Community and function in the same way as other countries against which we compete for markets. If the Government continues to bring down inspection charges and other costs, it will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The goose is just about dead now, which is why the National Farmers Federation has rallied its troops, who will not be pushed any further. Senator Walters mentioned the Mudginberri dispute. That is the watershed; that is where Australian farmers have said: `That is enough, that is far as we are prepared to go'. I warn the unionists that if they are going to take on the farmers of Australia in industrial disputes, by refusing to load live cattle and sheep or boycotting abattoirs, they will find themselves in court every time under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. They will bankrupt themselves, because the farmers will take these maters to the barrier every time. The coalition supports the Bills. They are of some very narrow assistance to the fishing and poultry industries. They do not go far enough, but we support them. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.30) —The last 10 minutes has been like stepping into a time capsule. The sort of rednecked populism we have just heard took one right back to Black Jack McEwen, who in 1970 said that he was sick and tired of telling farmers, who already had the money in their pockets, what the Country Party had done for them. It is appropriate that such drivel should have been mouthed today, on the same day as John Hyde's column in the Australian Financial Review deals with this very question. He says: Everybody, except perhaps the Nats themselves-- that is, the National Party of Australia-- expected the National Farmers' Federation to fall out with the National Party. The marriage with the National Party (nee Country Party) to rural interests has been heading for the rocks ever since the great Black Jack McEwen induced his party to take the protected manufacturers to bed. The only wonder is that the union survived such flagrant infidelity for so long in New South Wales and Queensland. He goes on to say: The politicians' old strategy- the strategy that Senator Boswell has just touched upon- is in tatters. In the interests of farmers, the nation and even of the National Party it must never be patched together. Hyde goes on to say that many of the more intelligent, younger National Party members of parliament agree with that. Senator Boswell has just disqualified himself from that class. Hyde notes that the former Leader, Anthony, came out of retirement last week and attempted to stitch together the old strategy. He says: It is one of the silliest statements I have ever read. One cross farm leader described it to me as `drivel'. He goes on to refer to Ralph Hunt, the present Deputy Leader, who originally said that he stepped down from the front bench after the 1983 election to make way for a younger and more active politician. Few people would have disagreed with him when he said that there was a need to have somebody younger and more active than himself on the Opposition front bench. Following Mr Anthony's retirement, Mr Hunt, having previously declared himself as a political corpse, was resurrected as the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Now we have in the National Party leadership positions not only the undertaker but also the corpse. John Hyde says: Ralph Hunt, when he is in Canberra, is usually fairly sensible. But among other nonsense he told a meeting at Werris Creek was this gem: `National Party policies are . . . to examine the establishment of a tax-free investment fund- Senator Walters —I take a point of order. I believe that that was a very insulting remark to members in the other place and I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —What was? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —You will have to reacquaint the Chair with the remark. Senator Walters —You are joking! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you will have to reacquaint the Chair with the substance of the remarks. Senator Walters —You want me to repeat the fact that one is an undertaker and the other is a corpse. You knew that, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator WALSH —Mr Acting Deputy President, that was a reflection on the Chair and I suggest that Senator Walters should withdraw that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I believe that it was a reflection on the Chair. I ask you to withdraw. Senator Walters —I had greater appreciation of your mental ability. I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, the terminology used in the description of two members of the other place could perhaps be interpreted as being derogatory and I ask you to withdraw. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President; if you have that view, I withdraw. I referred to a time warp a while ago. There is also a time lag between reality and Senator Walters's recognition of it, because it must have been 30 or 60 seconds before it penetrated Senator Walters's consciousness that I had said it. I suppose one should be grateful that the time lag between reality and the consciousness of reality in this case was 60 seconds. That is really good, because the lag between reality and the recognition of reality on the broader question of agricultural policy is clearly a few decades instead of a few seconds. I remind everyone that Mr Hyde was a member of parliament throughout the entire period of the Fraser Government, and a member of the Liberal Party throughout the entire period of the Fraser Government and for some 18 months prior to that. In response to the latest dose of snake oil that Mr Hunt offered the farmers at Werris Creek last month, he said: Come off it Ralph! . . . A speech about the creeping hordes of socialism and a few lollies from the taxpayers' bag no longer excites rural Australia. Senator Walters, although in the Liberal Party, shares many attributes with National Party members. The views she expressed and the views Senator Boswell expressed were of a sort of rednecked populism which is dying even in the National Party, except in its Queensland rump. It is therefore quite unsurprising that Senator Boswell comes from Queensland. I also want to make sure that it is put on the record that Senator Boswell, on behalf of the coalition Opposition-so he said-gave an undertaking that all export inspection charges would be abolished- Senator Boswell —That is the policy. Senator WALSH —If the Liberal-National Party coalition should ever be re-elected to government. He has just confirmed that that is what he said. He said: `That is the policy'. All export inspection charges will be abolished. The net increase to outlays, at present levels of expenditure, because of that would be about $52m-a figure which would, of course, continue to escalate. On top of all the other irresponsible spending promises the coalition parties have offered, we need to add $52m for the export inspection charges. The only other point I want to make concerns Senator Boswell's reference to the sugar industry, and some emotive phrases along the lines of `the Government is taking money off farmers and giving it to other people' or words to that effect. That is precisely what the Queensland Government has done over a long period with moneys advanced for a 20-year period by the Commonwealth Government to the State Government for on-lending to farmers at concessional rates of interest. The money is repayable to the Commonwealth over a period of 20 years, but the Queensland Government has made a practice, over a long period, of requiring repayments of the loans advanced to farmers ahead of that time. The repayments have then not been returned to the Commonwealth, which originally provided the funds, but stuffed into a hollow log for a sort of slush fund used for all sorts of electoral purposes, including those that have absolutely nothing to do with advancing money to farmers. We are not sure how much money is in that hollow log, but at least about $30m or $40m has clearly been stuffed into it over a period of years. Senator Boswell has described perfectly the tactic of the Queensland Government; that is, it has taken money off farmers, money advanced by the Commonwealth at highly concessional interest rates for on-lending to farmers for rural reconstruction, and stuffed it initially into a hollow log and then it has taken it out of the hollow log from time to time for whatever purpose seemed to be politically expedient at the time, but for some purposes which have nothing whatsoever to do with rural reconstruction or lending money to- Senator Collard —What is wrong with reusing it? Senator WALSH —Senator Collard asked: `What is wrong with reusing it?'. Firstly, as a moral question-but I know that would not concern the Queensland State Government-it was money advanced by the Commonwealth for the specific purpose of lending to farmers to facilitate rural adjustment, and therefore morally, when repaid by the farmers, it ought to have been returned to the Commonwealth, although there was no legal obligation to do that. Secondly, the money, once retrieved from the hollow log, was not in all cases used for lending to farmers, either to facilitate rural adjustment or for any other purpose. It was lent and used for other purposes. I am grateful for Senator Collard's intervention. He has let me know and everybody know that he thinks it is perfectly proper that that should be done. Given that the present problems of the sugar industry are to a substantial degree attributable to the regimentation of that industry by the Queensland Government, given that the sugar industry is 95 per cent concentrated in the State of Queensland and therefore is unlike the meat, wool, wheat or any other of the major industries, and given that the Queensland Government has money stuffed up a hollow log and has had it there for years, it is entirely appropriate that the Queensland Government should be required to make a matching contribution to the funds which have been offered by the Commonwealth. The Queensland Government, however, has flatly refused to do anything for the Queensland sugar growers. It has an abysmal record and performance compared to that of the New South Wales Government, which, being marginally involved in sugar production, has offered a matching contribution to the Commonwealth's offer. So the complaints of the sugar growers ought to be directed to the Queensland Government, which has refused to provide any assistance at all, whereas both the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government have done so. I think what makes Senator Boswell particularly annoyed is that the particularly primitive brand of redneck, rural populism to which he treated us about half an hour ago, no longer works. Even in Queensland it no longer works. The sugar growers have let the State Government know that they find its record completely unacceptable. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 16 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.46) —The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1985 is a normal machinery measure to establish funding for the States for welfare housing and other works programs in the States. The Opposition's concerns are chiefly with the economic direction of this Government. Many of the decisions which lie behind these funding Bills for the States are critical to the understanding of the decisions which the Government has undertaken recently in this area. Perhaps I should start by sketching a little of the economic scenario in which the Government has sought to undertake these various programs. I draw the Senate's attention to the very high level of interest rates in this country at present which dramatically affect the level of activity in both housing and public works right across the country. Not only is the public sector of the construction industry affected but also, naturally enough, private investment is. Let us turn to interest rates and their effect on the average wage earner. This Bill sets aside a large part of its funds for the development of welfare housing in the States. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there will be greater and greater demands upon that sector as a result of this Government's policies. I mentioned earlier the high interest rates that exist in this country at present. It is absolutely clear that under the Hawke Labor Government this country has the highest real interest rates in its history. In fact, since this Government came to power in March 1983 we have had a continuous growth in real interest rates from about 2 or 3 per cent to a rate these days of about 8 per cent. We are talking about real interest rates, that is, the difference between the nominal rate, which people are charged when they take out loans on their homes, less an allowance for the current rate of inflation. Real interest rates are the major determining factor or indicator when people are deciding to invest in long term projects. That factor is now at its highest level in this nation's history-all brought about by the direct policies of the Hawke Labor Government. Obviously, real interest rates are a critical factor in understanding the background to which this legislation seeks to draw the nation's attention. The present real interest rates are clearly detrimental to the potential of the development of both housing and private investment and, therefore, job creation across the nation. The effect of these interest rates is being felt at all levels of the community. I draw the attention of the Senate especially to the recent action of the South Australian Government under Premier John Bannon, who is facing an election very soon. He realises the political heat of the market-place. Voters in the outer suburban areas of Adelaide find that their mortgages are going through the roof, that they are having to meet more of their repayments from their own pockets; or, if that is not happening, they find that the loans which they took out, say, on a 20-year basis, are being adjusted to a 29-year or 30-year basis. So they are getting behind year after year. Mr Bannon, because he is under a certain degree of political pressure now with an election around the corner, has decided to subsidise the building societies to the tune of $3m a year from the State Government's Treasury in order to keep down interest rates. One might think that is an admirable course to follow but when one considers what it will do to the rest of the money markets and, in particular, the banks, credit unions and other financial institutions in South Australia, one can see that there will be a widespread ripple effect, or, if you like, a kind of vacuum cleaner, into which the State Government ultimately will be totally drawn if it does not face the reality of the market-place in terms of interest rates. It is clear that the Premier of South Australia has only one view in mind and that is winning the next State election. Therefore, anything he might do to spend taxpayers' money in whatever way, irresponsible or otherwise, is all fair game when votes are at stake. The Bannon Labor Government of South Australia is clearly oriented in that way, determined to stay alive after the next State election, which aim is not likely to be achieved. The interest rate factor is building up as a major issue, not only in terms of elections but also in terms of the day to day existence of individuals right across Australia. We have to realise that all this is happening at a time when there is a great deal of pressure on people's pockets in other regards. For instance, the average wage earner is now being hit by increased inflation as a result of this Government's policies. Inflation is rising in each quarter. It has been announced in the last year that the annual rate of inflation is probably of the order of 8 per cent and many respectable economic commentators are now predicting a 10 per cent rate of inflation for the year ended 30 June 1986. That being so-one has only to listen to pensioners to know that food costs at the supermarket are rising day by day at a far greater rate than are their indexed pensions-the effects are also being felt in the household pockets. So, at a time when increased mortgage payments are going to hurt people, a higher cost of living results from ordinary rises in food costs and other living costs. Consequently, people are going to feel the heat very significantly in the year ahead under this Government's policies. The tax package which has been brought down in recent times also has a very important bearing on this area. I instance the effect of the Government's decision to disallow deductions under the negative gearing arrangements. This, combined with the capital gains tax, has had and will have a very significant effect upon the ability of private investors to develop properties, houses, units and other commercial buildings for low income earners. Clearly, it will restrict the ability of people to entertain economic decisions pertaining to those kinds of developments. As a result, a shortage of houses for low and middle income earners will occur in the months and years ahead and we can expect rents payable by those people to rise very significantly. In this country about half a million people receive supplementary rental assistance through social security. If rents rise, say, by $5 a week on average across the community, people who are on pensions and benefits find themselves unable to meet the repayment of that extra $5 and the Government decides that supplementary assistance ought to be made available in order to cover it, that is an extra cost to the Government of $2 1/2m a week. On an annual basis that is something like $130m. That comes as a result of increasing rents by $5 a week. The Government will deliberately contribute to that increase in rent by introducing the capital gains tax and by disallowing expenses under negative gearing arrangements. Yet, the total revenue that the Government will get next year from abolishing negative gearing is a mere $55m; so if the Government is forced to bail out pensioners to the tune of $130m it will be faced with a loss in terms of the revenue it gets from abolishing negative gearing. Of course, capital gains tax will not come into force or produce any revenue until 1990. We do not want capital gains tax at all, but that just shows how confused this Government is, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I know you feel that way as well, judging by the odd occasion on which you have spoken publicly on various aspects of the Government's tax package. Senator Grimes —You had better tell us how the fringe benefits tax will hurt the poor. Senator MESSNER —I do not think that that is relevant to this debate on works and housing, and I think that the Acting Deputy President agrees with me on that matter. The point is made. This Government is confused about its tax package, it has no sense of direction and perhaps the Minister could explain to us how he can reconcile the introduction of a capital gains tax in order to take account of people who are otherwise negatively gearing properties, with the abolition, at the same time, of negative gearing for tax purposes. The two actions are contradictory and the justification that the Minister has been making for a long time about abolishing negative gearing deductions is now taken care of by the introduction of this so-called capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is nothing more nor less than a device to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Those who had assets prior to 19 September 1985 will not have to pay any capital gains tax, whereas those who are trying to acquire assets after 19 September 1985 will have to pay the tax. Consequently they will lose the benefit of being able to accumulate assets at the same rate as people who already have them. Therefore, the result will be absolutely the opposite to the one that the Government expects. The gulf between the rich and the poor in Australia will be even greater, all because of the Government's misguided, contradictory and confused policies on taxation which roll over into the whole area of financial affairs and policy in this country. Having demolished the Government's policies on taxation and having shown up the very significant weaknesses in its direction, I reiterate the major point of this argument: This Government is presiding over the highest real interest rates in this country's history. These have been induced deliberately as a central part of the Government's economic policy. The reason is simple. The Government has got this country into such a mess because of its lack of competitiveness overseas that our dollar is collapsing in terms of prices on world markets. The dollar has to be devalued of course in order to try to offset the huge wage increases that we have suffered over recent times, which make us uncompetitive on world markets. Therefore, in order to offset the problems of bringing in enough money to cover our huge deficit overseas-now standing at about $11 billion a year-the Government must, as a fundamental instrument of its tax and economic policies, keep interest rates high. It must do that in order to attract capital from overseas to balance the budget. That is the simple fact of life that this Government is living with. Therefore, interest rates must stay high while the Government flounders around dealing with its wages policy. At the same time it fails to impress anybody in the community that it has a firm hand on the economic tiller. That is exactly the circumstance we are facing in this country now as a result of the Hawke Labor Government's policies. In respect of the States, the heat will be felt increasingly by State governments and other bodies which are spending in the areas of capital works and housing developments. That will come two ways-first, through the increased cost of money to those States as a result of high interest rates that they are now suffering and, secondly, through rising inflation in the cost of the development of their projects and of the buildings, materials and labour costs associated with those projects. As a result, we can expect to see more and more State Premiers queueing up at the door of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer at the Premiers Conference in June 1986. They will be looking for more money to meet the project commitments they are now entering into. The obvious cause of those problems lies squarely at the feet of this Government because of its economic mismanagement and its failure to keep interest rates on a downward path. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(12.02) —As Senator Messner has already indicated, the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1985 is a machinery Bill which has been introduced to legislate Loan Council agreements. First, it gives $558m in free capital grants to the States and, secondly, it provides concessional loans at low interest rates to the States and Territories for public housing in 1985-86. This legislation arises out of a decision taken at the Loan Council meeting in May this year and authorises payments resulting from those decisions which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. The Bill specifically seeks to authorise a number of things, including the payment of general purpose capital grants to the States in the last half of this year and the first half of next year, the pre-payment of capital grants during the first six months of 1986-87, pending passage of similar legislation in that year, and the continued payment in the next three years of loans on concessional terms and conditions of amounts nominated by the States and the Northern Territory from their approved borrowing programs. It also provides scope for the payment of concessional housing loans in the first six months of the next three years, the amount to be advanced to each State under this provision being limited to an amount equal to half the amount it was permitted to nominate in the previous year. The grants were originally introduced to help the States finance works such as schools and other capital works from which debt charges are not normally recovered. In this legislation the Government has, as the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said in his second reading speech, recognised the considerable contribution made, by arrangement, to the financing of public housing in the States by way of the encouragement it has given to the States to increase their housing expenditure. This is something devoutly to be wished because the public housing sector certainly needs a boost and is likely to need a bigger boost in the future, partly for some of the reasons Senator Messner suggested and partly for others. In the past governments in Australia have tended to concentrate their subsidies on the private ownership sector. For example, in 1977 subsidies to private home ownership were in the vicinity of $811 per capita, while the subsidy to the public housing sector was $769 per capita and the subsidy in the rental housing sector was a mere $190 per capita. By 1983 a $1,500 per capita subsidy was paid to home ownership-the 1977 figure almost doubled-while the public housing subsidy figure of $400 per capita was the reverse-that is, almost half the subsidy offered in 1977. The subsidy to the rental housing sector in 1983 was $170 per capita, which was marginally lower than that which applied in 1977. Those sorts of figures are cause for concern amongst a number of people in the community. There has been an increasing number of newspaper reports, television programs and so on about problems in the housing industry and about problems that individuals and families have in acquiring a roof over their heads. We have all heard stories about the number of people who live in caravans around Australia and the number of young people who are living in cars, bus shelters and so on. These problems are not going to go away while the Government merely concentrates its attention on subsidising private house ownership. Certainly I accept that the Federal Government this year announced that it would do something to help people out of poverty traps involving lack of access to housing. But as I understand it, the increase in the availability of rental assistance, for example, will not come into effect until November of next year, which leaves us with a quite long period in which people can still find themselves in difficulties. Senator Messner raised the spectre of problems that are likely to be caused by the introduction of measures in respect of negative gearing and capital gains taxes. I must say that I-like, I suspect, a number of senators in the chamber at the time-got a little confused about his argument. He seemed to be attacking the Government for not making the capital gains tax retrospective when I would have thought he would at least have been applauding that. There are arguments in the community about just what the effect of negative gearing measures and new capital gains tax provisions is likely to be. A report in the Age of 28 August this year quoted a sociologist who argued that the changes to the tax system would not be the cause, or the only cause, of a rent crisis that he sees as coming fairly soon. On 27 August one Terry Burke, senior lecturer in sociology at the Swinburne Institute of Technology, disputed claims that tax changes affecting investment would cause a crisis in the private rental housing market in Australia. He said that there was already a rental housing crisis and that it had been caused by a growing demand from low income people-not by land- lords getting out of the rental business. I suggest that a large part of that demand from low income people has been due to government policies in the past, including such things as first home owners schemes, which are pitched not at low income earners but at middle income earners so that the problem focuses almost entirely on those people who are already facing financial crises of one sort or another. Senator Messner also mentioned the problem likely to be caused to individuals and families by possible deregulation of housing loan interest rates, and certainly by the current pressure for the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling to be raised. As has been pointed out in this place in recent weeks, banks are already getting around that ceiling by introducing service fees of one sort or another. These really are only a ceiling lift by some other name. I must say that Senator Messner commented on these things with some gall, since I recall that the last years of the Fraser Government were notorious for the continual increases in interest rates from home loans. I remember in those years the increasing number of people who were facing mortgagee sales because they were simply not in a position to budget continually for an increased outlay to the bank. To extend the term of a loan, of course, is a fairly temporary solution for most people. The term can be extended to only a certain extent and when this limit is reached they face the problem again of having to find, out of the housekeeping, an extra $10, $20 or $30 a month to pay the additional interest burden. I recall saying on several occasions in the Senate during those years that this was having dramatic and somewhat deleterious effect in other sectors in the community. When housing loan interest rates rise, when one's mortgage repayment goes up each month and there is no commensurate increase in the pay packet, obviously decisions have to be made about how expenditure within the family budget is to be altered. The first thing to go is usually the standard of food that the family consumes. This inevitably has an effect on the small business people in the area-the local butcher, greengrocers and so on. That of course in turn spreads out into the community. Clothing is something that people look at twice before expending money if money is tight. Families with children are particularly hard hit since the little wretches have a tendency to grow out of things at an amazing rate if they are anything like my two. It is not an easy thing for a parent to say to a child: `I am sorry but you have to wear that particular pair of shoes or jeans or your school uniform or whatever for another couple of months because we simply cannot afford the $20 or $30 required to replace them'. It is certainly not easy on the child either, so all sorts of internal family problems arise as a consequence. It is not just those areas, however, that are affected. Purchases of major items-a new car, a replacement for the washing machine that is internally haemorrhaging, a replacement for the refrigerator that has developed a terminal illness-are all put off if the demands of higher interest rate payments are forced down the throats of families. When they are finally forced out of their home, or when they are placed in a position where they cannot afford to take out a loan in the first place in order to buy privately, there is obviously a commensurate increase in the pressure placed on both the private rental market and on the demand for public housing. If the statistics that I have cited are correct, neither of these things is being attended to by governments nor has been in the past. I suspect that we will regret that if we do not pay attention to it fairly soon. On the question of negative gearing and the capital gains tax, I would have thought that any fair-minded person in the community would argue that we ought to have in this country an equitable, fair, relatively uncomplicated and loophole-free tax system. To allow some people to pay virtually no tax because they can get involved in negative gearing programs, to allow others to make large profits of a capital nature from the sale of property and one thing and another and not pay tax on these profits, is grossly inequitable when the average worker has no say about how much tax he or she contributes to Consolidated Revenue. Rather than complain about proposals which attempt to end negative gearing and which attempt to make the tax system more equitable by taxing capital gains, we ought to be looking at some way of re-routing the income that governments recieve from the new tax measures into the housing sector. If, as some people argue, the introduction of stops on negative gearing programs and the introduction of a capital gains tax will in fact cause people not to purchase flats and houses and so on for rental purposes, the Government ought to be injecting large amounts of money into areas that will provide the roofs over people's heads that apparently will be missing from the private sector. That means that we will have to inject large amounts of funds into the provision of public housing and rental assistance subsidies. We need to have a close look at the Australian dream of owning one's own home. Something like 70 per cent of people in Australia own their own homes. The other 30 per cent may, for all I know, aspire to it. That ownership figure is certainly higher than that in almost any other country in the world. We need to do the sorts of things that the South Australian Housing Trust is doing. From my movements around the States, looking at various housing commissions and housing trusts, I have to say, with absolutely no parochialism whatsoever, that the South Australian Housing Trust is one of the most forward-looking public housing authorities in Australia. It is not by any means perfect. At the moment it is engaged in a program of shipping people on low incomes and in poverty situations out of the city into country areas. This places a tremendous burden on country towns in the Riverland, in the south-east and in the Iron Triangle of South Australia, because those low income people are not in a position to contribute a great deal to the economics of an area but they place instead an increased burden on the services in that area. The services in country towns in South Australia are no different from services in country areas in any other State in that they are somewhat depleted. These moves also place a burden on the people concerned because adults and children are being moved away from the environment that they are familiar with and away from friends and families whom they could use for support. On the other hand, having made that criticism of the Housing Trust's programs, I have to say that it also attempts to integrate its public housing into the general community. It tries to avoid establishing ghettos and instead it purchases older homes and builds new ones in areas where private ownership and private rental also exist. In some council areas the Trust is also looking at other sorts of flexible programs for housing people of all ages and all types so that there is some mobility in housing for young couples, families with large numbers of children, older people and so on. I know that a few years ago one local government body in a country area in South Australia was looking at organising its housing so that when young couples needed a home they would have available to them a stock of fairly small homes, units and flats that would be adequate for their needs. When they had children they would be able to move into larger homes and as their children left home they would be given the opportunity to move back into the smaller sorts of units that they needed for their retiring years. Those sorts of flexible plans that allow for mobility are something that the Government ought to be looking at and encouraging in other areas. As I said earlier, there is considerable concern in the community about problems in housing allocation. On 21 August of this year the Age ran an article headed `Housing allocation cut in real terms'. The article stated: Public housing and the first home owners scheme will receive less money in real terms. The article was referring to this year's Budget. It continued: The total housing allocation rose by 5.2 per cent to $1,397 million, an effective reduction of about two per cent in real terms. The first home owners scheme was allotted $290 million, the same as last year, an effective cut of about seven per cent. The Victorian Government Minister for Housing, Mr Wilkes, made a plea to the Federal Government to reconsider its negative gearing proposals. The article stated that his Department alleged: . . . the decision, which no longer allows investors to claim losses on property against other income, could add 87,000 families to the State's public housing waiting list. It continued: Mr Wilkes wanted a special grant so that the department could buy enough flats to meet the extra demand. Whether the moneys being made available under the legislation before us today will satisfy Mr Wilkes is anybody's guess. I suspect, however, that he was talking in terms of a grant additional to that which we are looking at today. There is a very real concern that public sector housing is taking a nose dive. An article written last month in the Australian commented: The housing industry showed patchy growth during July, with a strong rise in private-sector building approvals but a fall in public-sector go-aheads. This information was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The article continued: Private-sector approvals during the month rose by 8 per cent on the June figure to 13,008-a 2 per cent increase in seasonally adjusted terms-while approvals of public-sector homes and other residential buildings fell by 32 per cent to 814. Total housing approvals were 13,822, a 4 per cent rise in absolute terms but a 0.7 per cent fall after seasonal adjustment. The value of buildings approved was down slightly from $1,423.8 million in June to $1,374.3 million in July. Victoria showed strongest growth, with a 13 per cent rise in approvals to 3,610. Queensland and Western Australia also experienced increases of a lesser degree. In a country which prides itself on being reasonably affluent, we cannot afford to face a future where there is a dearth of public housing and an increasing cost in private housing. If this legislation goes some way towards providing the States with the means to provide more families and individuals with a home, that will be all to the good. I do not think that we can stop at this point. We must look at using more Consolidated Revenue funds to provide people access either to the private rental market or to homes provided by the public sector in all States. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.23) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1985, which is routine legislation. As Senator Messner and Senator Haines both said, this legislation comes up each year. The Opposition parties will not oppose it. For that, we are very grateful. I shall reflect for a moment on some of the things that Senator Haines said in her thoughtful speech on housing problems in general and in particular on the lack of public housing in this country. All of us who have thought about the problems facing low income earners are well aware and have been aware since the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty some years ago that as a rule the biggest determinant of poverty is housing costs. The poorest people tend to be in private rental accommodation. This is exemplified in New South Wales figures on emergency relief. In excess of 50 per cent of the people receiving emergency relief in New South Wales are in fact private renters. They pay anything from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of their income in rent, compared with the average of 10 per cent to 15 per cent paid by those in public accommodation. Senator Haines —Even those people in private housing do not pay that percentage of their income. You were talking about people in private rental. Senator GRIMES —People in private rental accommodation pay 50 per cent to 60 per cent. According to the New South Wales survey people in public housing in New South Wales pay on average about 15 per cent. Senator Haines —But even those people who are buying homes are not allowed to spend that amount of money. Senator GRIMES —Indeed. Senator Haines has brought up a problem that we have had in this country for a long time. We have had and still have a policy of encouraging home ownership, and I am not one of those people who condemn such a policy. I am very attracted to the work of a person who has had a good deal to do with the work of the South Australian Housing Trust. I refer to Hugh Stretton, who has pointed out in his very thoughtful articles that the encouragement of private ownership of housing is a very effective way of increasing housing stock. We also need public housing and, as Senator Haines has said, in a country as affluent as Australia this is one area that we have neglected in the past at both State and Federal level. But in recent times this Government and, in particular, the South Australian Government have concentrated as much as possible, within the limits of economic policy, on public housing. It has become a cliche, I know, but it remains a fact that the best way to assist people in our community in this difficult economic situation is to encourage economic growth and to get a vibrant and active economy. That is what the policy of this Government has been about. We are in an extraordinary situation in that, having introduced our housing policies when we first came to government, we have seen the greatest recovery in the housing industry in this country in decades; yet we are sometimes implicitly criticised for doing too much in this area. We have to strike a balance between assistance for those who want access to private ownership and those who need public accommodation. That balance is not always easy to strike; but that is what the Government is about, in co-operation with most of the State governments. The South Australian Government, for instance, has been the major beneficiary of this legislation, particularly the nominating arrangements. The State has nominated the whole of its borrowing program for public housing in the past two years and in 1985-86. It therefore receives about $131m of these funds in 1985-86 on concessional terms and conditions. This will enable the South Australian Housing Trust-Western Australia is in the same situation-to do very much more in the area of public ownership than it has been able to do in the past. I have no real argument with most of the things that Senator Haines said. I think we are all very concerned with the very real problems which face disadvantaged people in this area in Australia. I have a few problems with what Senator Messner said, as I always do. Before Senator Messner grew his beard, he liked to imitate Jeremiah. Since he has grown his beard he thinks he is Jeremiah. Every time he makes a speech in this place-again he made a speech today which bore no resemblance to the legislation before us-he gives us all a lecture on the evils of the Hawke Government and our economic policy. Today, the lecture we got was threefold. It was, firstly, about the evils of high interest rates and how the Hawke Labor Government had deliberately set about creating them; the second element was an extraordinary attack on our changes to negative gearing; and the third was the introduction of the capital gains tax. While I was listening to Senator Messner saying that interest rates are too high-who can disagree with him when anyone who is paying off a mortgage knows that they are too high-and that the Hawke Government's policies would destroy this country, create unemployment and put everyone out of work, I was looking at today's Australian Financial Review. It points out, as everyone in the community knows, that unemployment is down and is continuing to fall; employment is up and is continuing to rise; inflation is down considerably on what it was when the previous Government went out of power; business confidence is increasing, according to the share index in the article on the front page of the newspaper; the number of industrial disputes is at a record low; the share market is up; and there is a general feeling of confidence in the community. Senator Messner always ignores those very cogent facts. When we were in opposition we referred to the fact that 250,000 people had been added to the unemployment list and inflation was rising at a rapid rate. The then Government is now on the Opposition benches and we are in government because of the things that were happening. We will stay here because we have reversed all those trends. That is the routine that Senator Messner goes through on any legislation he talks about. Senator Messner then-as Senator Haines said in her speech, it was very difficult to understand his logic-had the gall to tell us that we were hitting the poor by abolishing negative gearing and introducing a very mild capital gains tax. He said that all the people who had been taking advantage of negative gearing and the fact that this was the only country in the world without a capital gains tax were doing so to help the poor in the community obtain low income accommodation. I am amazed that even Senator Messner would try to put that sort of line to honourable senators. We have had a problem of high private rents and insufficient rental accommodation in this country for over a decade. Negative gearing and the lack of a capital gains tax did not help to solve those problems at all, and the introduction of this relatively mild capital gains tax, in the view of most commentators, certainly will not have the diabolical effects which Senator Messner has mentioned. He then said that the taxes are no good anyhow because they do not raise enough revenue. How these taxes, if in Senator Messner's view they will not raise enough revenue, will depress the housing market in the way he says they will is quite beyond us. Senator Haines —He never lets the facts get in the way of a good idea. Senator GRIMES —Some of us never spoil a good argument by using the facts, but on this occasion I am. I really thought Senator Messner would tell us that the introduction of the tax on free lunches also would affect the poor, but not even he would go that far. This legislation, as we all know, is routine. It provides funds to the States in the manner in which we have all talked about at various stages of this debate. I thank honourable senators for supporting the legislation and I assure them that the Government's policies will, as they have in the past, increase economic growth, increase employment, decrease unemployment and increase investment and business confidence generally in the community. In that way, the disadvantaged will be assisted as they have been in the past three years of our government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.35) —The Opposition supports this legislation. It makes a number of changes which display good common sense with which we wish to be associated. These changes are six in number. The first change allows Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to enter into hedging and financial futures contracts in accordance with ministerial guidelines. That makes sense. The second change enables Australia Post, Telecom and the OTC to lease property for periods longer than 10 years without ministerial approval provided the lease cost does not exceed a prescribed threshold. That makes sense. The third change imposes a duty on Telecom to ensure its facilities are not used for illegal purposes. This amendment flows out of the findings in the report of the Vincent Review of Allegations Against Telecom that some Telecom employees had been involved in SP betting operations. That certainly makes sense. The fourth change brings the relevant disclosure of interest provisions in the Overseas Telecommunications Act, The Telecommunications Act and the Postal Services Act into line with the disclosure of interest provisions applying to members of other statutory bodies. Surely that makes sense? The fifth change amends the Overseas Telecommunications Act to allow persons over 65 years of age to be appointed and to hold office as commissioners, except as managing director. The Opposition supports that. The final change provides for the licensing of recently developed systems in the infra-red spectrum and the Opposition supports that. We believe that these changes will allow Telecom, Australia Post and OTC to operate more efficiently and effectively and we wish the Bill a speedy passage. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.37) —The Australian Democrats support the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill. We believe it provides a useful addition to the powers of the various authorities that are dealt with in the Bill. I would like to make just a couple of points about the organisations concerned. I certainly hope that the contracts which are drawn up under the Bill will be drawn up with more care-certainly in the case of Australia Post-than the contracts which are available between Australia Post and the airlines, as outlined in my questions at a recent Estimates committee meeting. I hope that Telecom Australia will use the extra money and the extra freedom that are given by this Bill to the advantage of the whole Australian community and that it will use its commercial power to help Australian industry develop an electronics and communications arm. I hope that Telecom will take the message and try to use Australian contractors as much as possible. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.38) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their support of what Senator Peter Baume has described as commonsense changes. This is a commonsense piece of legislation from a commonsense Government and I am sure that honourable senators will see many more like it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Sitting suspended from 12.40 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I had a question to ask, but as it was to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and he does not seem to be with us yet, I would prefer to wait until a little later in Question Time. Here he is. How nice. My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer him to the tabling in the House of Representatives yesterday of a letter from Mr Eddie Visbord, the acting head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that, whatever the actions of public servants, the Prime Minister must ultimately assume responsibility for what they do as well as for his own failings? Does the Minister further agree that in the Prime Minister's continual search for scapegoats he has failed to live up to the standards of ministerial responsibility put forward by members of the Australian Labor Party in recent years? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney referred to the letter from Mr Visbord, and tabled by the Prime Minister, which adverted to a number of matters relating to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I have always put the view that ultimately a Minister must accept responsibility for the advice which is given to him by his Department and for actions which are taken upon that advice. In respect of this matter the Prime Minister has accepted responsibility for actions taken on advice given to him by his Department. One of the great concerns in the Bicentennial Authority issue-as it has now become known-is to what extent there was ministerial responsibility at all under the arrangement set up by the former Government for the administration of the Bicentennial Authority, and that was a view which was specifically put by Mr Reid, the Chairman of the Authority. In accepting, as I do, the general concept of ministerial responsibility, if people want me to read the extracts from the lengthy discussion which has taken place on this topic in Australia over many years-particularly during the last five years of the previous Government, when the issue arose on many occasions in relation to a great variety of issues-I will do so. The fact of the matter is that the fundamental issue which touched off the Visbord letter was the question of a missing letter in a file in the Prime Minister's Department. If honourable senators have read any of the statements which have been made in respect of ministerial responsibility they will know that I certainly do not accept the view that it is the obligation of a Prime Minister of this country to go through 800 files in his office. Senator Durack —You expected me to go through a hundred thousand. Senator BUTTON —No, we did not expect the honourable senator to go through 100,000; we just expected him to get one out of the bottom drawer of his desk where it had been for five years. We expected him to get all those call girls out of his office, and things like that. That is the sort of thing we expected of him. My answer to the question is that I do not see it as an issue in terms of ministerial responsibility for the Prime Minister of this country to perform the operation of a filing clerk in his Department. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I was fully prepared to comment on the slippery answer of the Leader of the Government. I ask a supplementary question. Does the Leader of the Government deny that the Prime Minister sought Dr Armstrong's resignation, over the objections of Mr Reid? Does he deny that Mr Reid sought and obtained the Prime Minister's approval for settlement terms? Does he deny that the Prime Minister urged Mr Reid to be generous in this matter? Senator BUTTON —I do not deny-in fact I assert-that the Prime Minister sought Dr Armstrong's resignation on the basis of advice from his Department, and the Prime Minister accepts full responsibility for that fact, and has from the commencement of this matter. I do not deny that the Prime Minister, by arrangement with Mr Reid, saw that Mr Reid supervised the terms of settlement with Dr Armstrong. Mr Reid always asserted that that was his right and the Prime Minister believed that that was his right in respect of the negotiations of terms of settlement. It is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister said in some conversation or other-I cannot identify it at the moment-that Mr Reid, in looking at the total package, should err on the side of generosity. I do not dispute any of those things. What relevance they have to the particular question the Opposition is seeking to put in issue, I am not sure. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen the spurious advertisement which appeared in the West Australian on 26 September and which purported to inform residents of the Pilbara about the perks component of the Commonwealth Government's tax package? Is there anything in the advertisement which can be described as being remotely accurate? Can the Minister advise the Senate that the mining industry is well aware of the facts in this matter and will not be misled by this type of mischievous advertising? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have had the opportunity to see and examine the misleading and irresponsible advertisement placed by the Liberal candidate for the Pilbara, Mr John Van Uden, in the West Australian under the sub-text `Let's tell the turkeys to get seasoned'; a quality of abuse which even Senator Chaney these days, with his new found sophisticated mode of interjection, I think cannot match. The estimates given in the advertisement are erroneous because they relate to the total value of the fringe benefits involved, not the taxation payable on those benefits. The tax payable would, on these grounds alone, be only a quarter of the figure quoted. I will go through a couple of illustrations. The advertisement quotes a figure for subsidised rent of $80 per week. Assuming that in the Pilbara context this involves the difference between market rental of about $120 a week and actual payments by employees of $40 a week, the tax paid would in fact add up only to about $1,000 per annum, not the $4,000 per annum that is set out in the advertisement. I do not have precise information concerning the cost of free water, power and rates. But even if we assume the figure of $2,000-odd per annum used in the advertisement, the tax payable would be less than $1,000. The advertisement quotes two family return air fares per annum as being typical for the Pilbara. But the Australian Mining Industry Council, in its advice to us, had allowed for only one trip per annum in its estimates, although it appears that some companies may in fact be providing two trips. The AMIC estimate for the cost of each trip is approximately $1,700. As only half of the value of the trip is taxable, the tax payable on two trips per annum would amount in toto to about $800 per annum and not the $4,000 claimed in the advertisement. If one adds together the above estimates of tax payable, at around $2,800 per annum, the comparison is obvious with the $10,000 quoted in the advertisement. The mining industry and the workers in the Pilbara would be well aware of the details of this matter and they will not be misled by such ignorant, irresponsible and manifestly politically motivated advertising. I mention finally that discussions have been held with industry representatives, both by my departmental officers and by officers from the Treasury, including discussions initiated by Senator Cook as Deputy Chairman of the Western Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council. I am confident that as a result misleading, spurious and irresponsible advertisements of this kind will be seen for the charade that they are. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to the advice given to the Prime Minister by his close supporter, Senator Graham Richardson, that Mr Hawke should remove or move sideways three senior officers of his Department because of their actions over the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Has the Prime Minister taken, or does he intend to take, action suggested by Senator Richardson to find further scapegoats for his own failings? Has any officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet involved in dealings with the Authority been transferred, demoted or disciplined? Senator BUTTON —Senator Richardson has always been regarded as a man of great generosity of spirit and on this occasion he has given some gratuitous advice. Senator Richardson is as entitled as any other person in the Senate, the Parliament or the community to give advice to the Prime Minister about what he should do. People do that in various ways-in this place, by telegram, by telephone or in other ways. Senator Richardson has apparently given some advice to the Prime Minister which he apparently announced through a loud hailer across King's Hall. The question of the administration of a department is a matter for the Minister concerned. The acting permanent head of the Prime Minister's Department has proposed certain changes to the Department. I understand that the Prime Minister has endorsed some of those changes. Senator Durack —Here it comes. They are going to get the chop. Senator BUTTON —These `ho, ho's' coming from the Opposition members are the sorts of noises they usually make when they are contemplating a free lunch. The changes involve the establishment of a separate Bicentennial Division in the Prime Minister's Department which will be supported by two branches. The head of the division will be Mr Ron Harvey. The Prime Minister, in response to the various suggestions which have been made to him in connection with this matter, including the suggestion made by Senator Richardson, has, both publicly and privately, expressed concern at the way in which the Bicentenary celebrations have been handled at various levels, including the role played by his Department. He sought an explanation from his Department in relation to the missing letter, which he was entitled to have. Of course, apart from this little fracas, the Prime Minister has absolute confidence in the loyalty and dedication of his Department, as all Ministers have in their respective portfolios. I can understand Senator Richardson offering the piece of advice which he did, because it is consistent with the conclusions of the Senate Estimates Committee. Senator Walters —Where is he? Senator BUTTON —One has occasion to deal with people suffering disabilities, but not usually blindness. The Estimates Committee of which Senator Richardson is Chairman, had this to say: The Committee considers that the Prime Minister has to accept the ministerial responsibility for the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Nevertheless he was obviously not kept fully informed by his Department. The evidence indicates that officers of the Department displayed gross incompetence in their handling of this issue. Senator Short, I must say, in fairness to him- Senator Chaney —Some Rhodes scholar he turned out to be. Senator BUTTON —Yes, a real Rhodes scholar. Senator Short, in fairness to him, expressed a qualification about that, but I think that is a qualification which is looking after the interests of a particular peer group to which he belongs. Senator Michael Baume proceeding to address a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister- The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is clearly not a supplementary question; it is an additional question. I rule it out of order. Senator COONEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Has the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region established or put into effect any safety standards for disposing of contaminated water into the Magella catchment area of the Kakadu National Park? Has Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd established or put into effect safety standards for disposing of contaminated water into the Magella catchment area of the Kakadu National Park? If the answer to those questions is yes, are the safety standards the same, or are they different in any way and, if so, in what way? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Cooney was kind enough to suggest that I might get some advice from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who has advised me that the spill of tailings on 24 September at the Ranger uranium mine was immediately and effectively cleaned up. The Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region has advised that the spillage was small and of little environmental consequence. The radiation exposure of workers would have been very small and well below the prescribed limit. The Acting Minister for Mines and Energy in the Northern Territory, who has the supervisory responsibility, discussed the incident with the Ranger management and Ranger ceased using the pipeline until it was completely rectified. The Commonwealth Government expresses its concern at the number of breakdowns of the tailing pipeline at the mine and expects Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd to immediately tighten its control on the pipeline operation. To that extent the Commonwealth will consistently keep this matter under review. Senator MASON —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that because of petrol price discounting currently in New South Wales some people pay as low a figure as 42c a litre for super grade petrol, while others, especially in country areas, pay 59c? Is the Government not concerned that its petrol pricing policies are in such disarray that some people pay 17c a litre more than others-the highest figure I can remember? Is it not especially serious that the effect of these distortions is a disincentive to decentralisation in Australia? Since the present petrol pricing policy of the Government is plainly farcical, what does the Government propose to do about it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Commonwealth Government's legislative authority to control retail prices, including petrol prices, is constrained to a very large degree by constitutional considerations, with that authority really lying with the States. Senator Durack —You have been learning about the Constitution lately, have you? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not with any assistance from Senator Durack, with the utmost respect. While the Commonwealth has been able to operate a maximum wholesale prices surveillance system through the Prices Surveillance Authority, because of the co-operation of State and Territory governments and the oil industry, it does not have the power to enforce any PSA direction if the States or, more particularly, any part of the industry decide to ignore it. Actual retail prices, as Senator Mason no doubt will be aware, are set by the refining companies, their distributors and agents. These prices naturally reflect differences in supply costs and, more particularly, reflect differing degrees of competition. Consequently, they vary both over time as conditions change and as between outlets. The reality is that in discounting we are seeing a competitive market at work with all the advantages and disadvantages that may be perceived to flow from that. The problem of discounting, or more particularly the absence of it, is most acutely felt in country areas of Australia where there is less competition, or very often no competition at all. That is the primary explanation for the very substantial difference in price levels to which so many people have been drawing attention between metropolitan and country areas. There are also the added costs associated with freight to consumers in country areas and the higher wholesaling and retailing costs associated with smaller sales volume in those areas. Any attempt to regulate petrol prices with a view to making them uniform, either as between the States or within the States as between different locations, will, the Government believes, introduce significant distortions into the operation of the market. Any savings made in costs in particular areas would only be short lived and could eventually give rise to major structural adjustment problems. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia has visited East Timor in the last few days? If this is a fact, will the Minister say whether the Ambassador accepted the invitation issued by the Fretilin Armed Forces Commander to speak with himself and Monsignor Belo by radio while he was there? Did the Ambassador visit the Comarca prison and speak with Cancio Da Sousa Gama? Can the Minister provide a detailed itinerary of the Ambassador's visit? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Morrison, arrived back in Jakarta last night from a four-day official visit to East Timor. His visit to East Timor was organised as part of the Embassy's regular program of visits to different parts of Indonesia, including East Timor. It is hoped that this visit will yield new information on the military, economic and human rights situations within that province. I am seeking a detailed itinerary from the Ambassador so as to be able to answer the details of Senator Robertson's question. I hope to be able shortly to provide that. Senator HAMER —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of comments made by the Director-General of the European Economic Community responsible for energy that Australia could be filling 25 per cent of the uranium needs of the EEC by the end of the century? Is the Minister aware that this market is estimated to be worth between $430m and $580m at today's prices? Without relaxing our vital policy on uranium safeguards, will the Government be seeking to guarantee supplies of uranium for energy purposes to the EEC? Did the cancellation by the Government of the uranium export contract with France damage Australia's reputation as a reliable trading partner? Did it, incidentally, save France a great deal of money? If the Government is to continue to impose a ban on the sale of uranium to France, which will be generating 50 per cent of the nuclear energy for the EEC, what will be the cost to Australia in terms of a valuable market forgone? Would one of the beneficiaries of such a policy be South Africa? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is acutely aware of the market opportunities for uranium that will exist in Europe, particularly in the latter part of the 1990s, as indeed is the case elsewhere in the world, even if the market capacity to absorb additional uranium is at the moment pretty tight. We are actively encouraging not only the existing uranium producers but also the Roxby Downs joint venturers to seek to get into those markets and engage in continuing discussion with them about ways in which that might be assisted. It is not the Government's belief that the embargo on the supply of uranium for end use in France has, in fact, affected in any way Australia's commercial reputation, or the probability of our becoming a major supplier of uranium to Europe in the future. The circumstances of that embargo are extremely well known and well understood and, I believe, appreciated. It is essentially seen as a bilateral matter, as it is between Australia and France. The possible supply of Australian uranium for end use in France would require both a decision by France to seek such uranium and the willingness of someone to supply it. France has shown no inclination to disturb the present situation by seeking Australian uranium from any third parties, and so long as the present situation continues we do not see the embargo having consequences of any kind for the supply of Australian uranium to other Euratom countries. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to the view held by some elements in the community, which view is being fostered by the Northern Territory Government and certain Opposition members, that the Federal Government is in the process of handing over vast tracts of prime pastoral land to the Aboriginal people to the disadvantage of non-Aboriginal residents. Is this an accurate account of the true situation? Senator GIETZELT —A number of statements have been made in recent times with respect to the symbolic gesture with which this Government is associated-the handing over of Ayers Rock to the Aboriginal people. A consequence of that action has been a number of statements which suggest an inaccurate picture has been drawn from the debate that has taken place. In preparation for the debate, I sought certain information, which has now come into my possession. I was not able to discuss it in full yesterday because of the way in which the debate took place. But what is indicated is that of the Northern Territory pastoral properties, 18.2 per cent are owned by individuals, and 38.4 per cent are owned by Northern Territory companies, which it is suggested include many companies with foreign shareholdings; and 37.4 per cent of pastoral properties in the Northern Territory are under foreign ownership, including such well known international figures as Nelson Bunker Hunt, the Sultan of Sabah, Kerry Packer, Lord Vestey and other similar-type foreign owners, as well as some Australian nationals. Only 5.9 per cent of the pastoral leases in the Northern Territory are held by Aboriginal people. According to figures supplied to me by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, it appears that in 1983 Aborigines-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President, I think it is quite out of order to call Kerry Packer a foreigner; it is Rupert Murdoch who is a foreigner. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GIETZELT —I am sure there are other notorious people involved in such ownerships. According to the figures supplied to me by the Bureau of Statistics, Aborigines comprise 57 per cent of the rural population of the Northern Territory-although some people have suggested that the figure is much higher than that; even up to 70 per cent. Therefore, to accuse Aborigines of dominating pastoral leaseholdings in the Northern Territory is clearly inaccurate and clearly false. It is evident that the policies of the Northern Territory Government have resulted in benefit to foreign companies to the detriment of all Territorians regardless of their race. I was handed a document this morning which I find rather disturbing. It shows copies of advertisements placed in a Northern Territory newspaper in Alice Springs in 1982 saying: Any person found trespassing, shooting or camping on-- Rather than read them all, I will just name a few of the areas concerned: The Hugh River Rainbow Valley area, Tempe Downs Station, Temple Bar Station, Undoolya Station, Yambah Station and the Owen Springs Pastoral Company. In one case there was a sign saying: Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be prosecuted. It would appear that, whilst many views have been expressed regarding the access of Australians to Aboriginal properties, it is pretty clear that Aborigines are not permitted to go on to properties owned by pastoral companies. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate, including during deliberations of Estimates Committee A, the report of which was tabled in the Senate earlier today and part of which includes the Committee's consideration of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Did the Prime Minister seek advice from his Department on the terms of Mr Reid's letter to him of 19 August, or is it rather a fact that the first knowledge his Department had of that letter was when the Prime Minister tabled it in the House of Representatives on 19 September, which was 20 days after Dr Armstrong had been paid out as Chief Executive of the Bicentennial Authority? I also ask: Did that letter to Mr Reid of 19 August contain the details of the elements of the settlement package which Mr Reid was negotiating with Dr Armstrong? Senator BUTTON —Senator Short's question involves some detail. I will obtain an early answer and advise him of it shortly. Senator TATE —I ask the Minister for Community Services: Is it a fact that he intends to sell the Melville Rehabilitation Centre in Perth to Mr Alan Bond for a luxury hotel? If not, is the Minister aware that a Mr Les Butler, the Federal Secretary of the Hospital Employees Federation, has claimed at public meetings, including, I believe, one in Launceston, that the Minister is doing a deal to this effect? If not, is there any basis for such mischievous and what may even be defamatory suggestions? Senator GRIMES —First, not only am I not in the process of selling the Melville Rehabilitation Centre to Mr Alan Bond, but also I have neither the capacity nor the desire to do so. Nor, incidentally, does any other government agency intend to do so. Secondly, I am aware that Mr Butler made these statements at a meeting of hospital administrators in Launceston a couple of weeks ago and at other public meetings in Victoria. It is unfortunate that this official of the union of which I am proud to be a member should be making statements of this type which I believe are not only serious and damaging to me but also probably could be construed by many people as being defamatory. I have no knowledge of why Mr Butler is making statements of this type. He certainly has no evidence to back such statements. Senator Walsh —He sounds like a bit of a ratbag. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Walsh says, he sounds as though he is a bit strange at the moment. He may be indulging in tactics such as attacking me because of other concerns he has with the affairs of the union. However, I have no alternative but to deny publicly in this place such statements, assure members of the Hospital Employees Federation and anyone else that I am not indulging in such activities with Mr Bond or anybody else, and ask Mr Butler to explain his strange behaviour to the public generally and in particular, to the union members for which he bears some responsibility. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister, and it follows questions about the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I refer the Minister to his statement this afternoon during which he quoted from the report of Senate Estimates Committee A in support of comments by that Committee on the negligence of the officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I ask the Minister: Would the problem of extravagance with public funds have been avoided if the Prime Minister had asked his Department for advice with regard to the entitlements of Dr Armstrong before placing pressure on Mr Reid to secure his resignation or dismissal? I further ask the Minister: Were the negotiations conducted through the Prime Minister's office without proper advice from his Department? Does this indicate the Prime Minister's inexperience in public administration or is there a more general breakdown in communication between his Department and his office? Senator BUTTON —I referred to the Senate Estimates Committee report in the context of answering a question relating to Senator Richardson. The nexus between what I quoted from the Senate Estimates Committee report and the question was that Senator Richardson was involved in both matters, in one way as a subject of the question and in another as Chairman of the Senate Estimates Committee. I am asked by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle for an opinion as to whether the problem of extravagance in the expenditure of public money would have been averted if the Prime Minister had sought advice from his Department before having discussions with Mr Reid about the removal of Dr Armstrong as the General Manager of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I can offer only an opinion about that. I think the answer to that question must be no. It is my recollection that at the time the Prime Minister met with Mr Reid to discuss complaints against Dr Armstrong he was accompanied by officials of his Department, amongst others. That was so, I think, throughout the course of the discussions. But certainly there is no doubt about the fact-it is a matter of public record-that, prior to those discussions, advice was tendered by the Prime Minister's Department to him. A lot of that advice is now on the public record. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries whose activities in 1973 and 1978 disrupted world economic activity. I ask the Minister: Can he report on the implications for Australia of the recent Vienna meeting of OPEC, particularly the pressure from six of its 13 members to exceed their production quotas for crude oil? What are the possible budgetary consequences and implications for Australian coal and other energy industries of the moves at the OPEC Conference? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has been widely reported in the Press that the two-day OPEC meeting on 3 and 4 October in Vienna broke up in disarray. As expected, the major stumbling block was the question of production quotas, or the division of OPEC's share of the market amongst its members. No new agreement was arrived at, the major stumbling block being Saudi Arabia's indication that it was no longer prepared to produce at below its quota level and also its revelation confirming reports in recent weeks that it had entered into arrangements to sell quantities of oil at what were effectively discount prices. The inability of OPEC to make clear decisions with regard to production quotas certainly does not augur well for the Organisation. A number of nations are likely to increase output whenever the market permits. Among those reportedly seeking increases in their production quotas were Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Gabon and Ecuador, with Ecuador threatening to leave OPEC unless its quota was increased. All this could add significantly to available world supplies over the coming months. It is the case that recently the oil market has been stronger as a result of increasing demand due to the onset of the northern winter and the disruption flowing from Iraqi attacks on Iranian oil institutions. But it can be expected that this situation would be reversed if OPEC production discipline is weak, as seems presently to be the case, and a steep fall in prices could consequently result in the latter part of the northern winter if not sooner. It has been the case in recent weeks that a number of OPEC officials, including Sheikh Yamani and the President of OPEC, Dr Subroto, had been warning OPEC and non-OPEC countries alike to restrain output to avert a major reduction in prices. The consequences for Australia of a major oil price drop would, in the Government's estimate, be mixed. There are a number of negatives. First, in the short term, there would be a major decline in government revenue which would either blow out the deficit or force new or increased taxation elsewhere. In the longer term we face difficulty with our energy exports-petroleum, coal and liquefied natural gas, coming on stream soon-with potentially lower prices and possibly lower volumes. That, in turn, flows through to the prospect of diminution in oil exploration activity. Further, with our trade concentrated in agricultural and mining products rather than manufactures or services, we could not be expected to share proportionately in the benefits that would flow to the large industrialised nations from a major drop in oil prices, although it is true that to compensate for that there could be a lagged improvement in market conditions for minerals and metal products. On the negative side, there would also be a potentially massive pressure on the world's banking system if a price drop were of such a magnitude that it so reduced the revenues of countries such as Nigeria, Mexico and Venezuela that they became unable to service their huge external debts. The effects of this would then flow through to all the Western economies, including Australia. On the more positive side, a substantial drop in oil prices-apart from being of benefit to motorists and consumers-would lead to some lowering of inflation and the cost structure for industry, an effective increase in income by all petroleum product users and a likely increase in economic activity in at least some sectors of the Australian economy as well as in the international economy in general. In summary, this is an important issue; it has certainly been the subject of a lot of newspaper comment in recent days. There would be winners and losers flowing from such a situation. Australia's energy-producing industries would certainly be harmed, but there could be subsequent improvements for some other industries, including minerals production and processing, as economic activity picks up around the world. Senator Sir John Carrick —What about agriculture and the benefits to farmers? Senator GARETH EVANS —I referred to motorists as consumers, but of course the farming sector is also a very significant consumer of petroleum products. It might be expected that, overall, difficult short to medium term problems of structural adjustment would arise and on balance it is difficult to predict the net result. Senator SANDERS —I address my question to the Minister representing both the Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General. In light of the report in the National Times on the Norfolk Island Ouvea bungle, based on the Minister's replies to Australian Democrat questions, will the Government now tell us why, given the fact that the crew were arrested by Australian police on 15 and 16 July, an urgent check was not carried out on their passports before these documents were returned by the Norfolk Island Administration? Would the Government agree that the inconsistencies and confusion in the replies to questions on the Australian aspect of the Rainbow Warrior bombing indicates that the impression grows of `a giant bungle on Norfolk Island'? Will the Government now give a full, frank and detailed explanation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that there have been inconsistencies or confusion in any of the information that has been put on the record by me or anyone else about this affair. To round out some of the answers that have been given in light of Senator Sanders's question, I add the following on behalf of the Special Minister of State and the Attorney-General: Information given to the Government by the Norfolk Island authorities is that, while the three members of the crew of the Ouvea were in custody on 15 and 16 July, New Zealand police officers on Norfolk Island initiated an urgent check on the validity of their passports. That check involved, as it does with passports, communication with French authorities through Interpol. Checks of this nature, irrespective of the country involved, take days, if not longer. The crew members were released on 16 July because, first, no evidence was found on the Ouvea to justify their continued detention under section 9 of the Norfolk Island Police Offences Ordinance. Secondly, there was no evidence to hand to suggest that their passports were invalid or false. Thirdly, no request for the extradition of the men had been made by New Zealand. Accordingly, there was simply no lawful basis for the continued detention of the men, their property or their passports. As to the latter parts of Senator Sanders's question, I simply say that the answer I gave to the Senate on Wednesday set out the facts as they were known to the Government. The only fact that was known to the Government that has not so far been mentioned was one advised to me a few moments ago by the Minister for Territories. He said that, far from this incident being perceived as a `bungle', to use Senator Sanders's language, the Norfolk Island Administration had been complimented by the New Zealand authorities for its handling of the matter. In further response to Senator Sanders's rhetoric, I believe I have given on behalf of the Government as full, as frank and as detailed an explanation of this matter as it is possible to give. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment to the article in the Bulletin of 8 October regarding the 158 per cent increase in profits of the mineral sand miner, Consolidated Rutile Ltd, in which the Chairman of Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd, Mr Bill Murphy, is reported to have secured from the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Durack, an undertaking that a conservative Federal government would lift export bans applying to mineral sands projects and return the control of such projects, including Moreton and Fraser Islands, to the States? Can the Minister comment on the implications of this undertaking? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of the article and I think that honourable senators generally will appreciate that along the eastern seaboard of Australia there are many unique ecosystems and it is very important that there be some understanding between Commonwealth and State governments about the preservation of these areas. In my own State of New South Wales there has been a development of attitudes in recent time which has put into practice a recognition of that important principle. The areas to which I am referring are in the northern part of New South Wales particularly, and in Queensland. The coastal areas of south-east Queensland where mineral sands have been mined include some priceless and unique ecosystems which are very fragile and susceptible to disturbance. Therefore the matter must be dealt with very carefully by any public authority or private organisation which is given the rights to exploit the sands. These areas include recreational areas that are accessible to lower income groups, unlike Noosa and Gold Coast penthouses with fabulous views so often publicly admired by such people as the Queensland Premier and his wife. I believe the Opposition policy is short-sighted in that it will encourage the development of these other areas in a manner which suggests that the environment should not be protected. We should adopt a tender care approach to such projects to counter the outrageous statement by the Queensland Mines Minister, Ivan Gibbs, who said: We have rationalised sand mining in a way that would get rid of all the contentious areas. That is a rather capricious approach and one that should be deprecated. We would indeed get rid of all the contentious areas if we had the policy of rehabilitation similar to that which led to such poor management as was encountered on Stradbroke Island in 1982. There are other examples of one having to be very careful about the way in which one approaches these matters. It is clear that the Queensland Government is reluctant to enforce the condition that the original topography be restored after mining, as it is in New South Wales. Therefore, if we are to protect these important areas-and that is an absolutely essential requirement for the Queensland Government-we should be concerned about the Opposition spokesman's statements. If we give export licences for development of rutile mining willy-nilly, there will be significant long term ecological damage. To that extent, while this Government is in office it will certainly apply strict and stringent controls on the development of sand mining anywhere in Australia. Senator BOSWELL —Has the Minister for Finance seen the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics unemployment figures? If so, will the Minister join me in congratulating the Queensland Government on its performance in creating 20 per cent of the 41,900 jobs for Queenslanders? Will he also congratulate the 13,000 southerners who have fled southern Labor-controlled States to come to the State which has the fastest rate of employment growth in the nation? Does the Minister agree with me that this growth is hardly surprising when one considers that the Queensland economy has above average performances in exports, retail sales, capital expenditure, construction activity and home ownership levels and the fact that the Queensland Government has given Australian employers a lead in standing up to union excesses? Senator WALSH —I have seen the latest employment figures which show that there were 56,000 additional jobs at the end of September compared with the end of August, according to the ABS survey, and that the national unemployment rate, in spite of a very significant increase in the participation rate, has fallen to 8.1 per cent. That means that since the National Economic Summit of 1983 almost half a million new jobs have been created and inflation has fallen to almost half the level it was at that time. There are fewer industrial disputes than there have been for the previous 18 years. Unit wage costs have fallen to the lowest level since 1970. We have had two years, and are entering a third year, of real economic growth of the order of 5 per cent, something which has not happened before in Australia. All of those things, of course, are attributable to the accord. Some of the benefits of the accord spin off into Queensland, as they do everywhere else. It is astonishing, if I may say so, that the Leader of the Opposition, confronted with that evidence, should turn his back on the accord and its demonstrable success and gleefully anticipate five years of industrial warfare under a deregulated or decentralised labour market. Not even Malcolm Fraser at his worst ever gleefully anticipated five years of industrial warfare as the present Opposition Leader does. The Opposition's Deputy Leader yesterday also criticised the accord, something he had done on 24 September following the release of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report and his apparent misunderstanding of it. Between 24 September and yesterday-that is, the beginning of last week-he stepped right away from his Leader's policy on wages deregulation and a free market for labour. He was at one extreme, he went to the other extreme, and now he is back where he started in the first place. Sometimes it is difficult to determine with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what his real preference is. The OECD report to which I referred was described by Mr Brown in these terms: The OECD report on unemployment should give the Government cold comfort. Nor is there anything in the report to justify the present course the Government has embarked upon. That was of course completely in conflict with not only the facts in the report but also the facts which are revealed in the economic statistics I have cited. Senator Boswell said that employment had grown by 20 per cent in Queensland. I do not know whether it is precisely 20 per cent. I think the most recent figures reflect the same percentage as Queensland's proportion of the total population and, as I recall, Queensland still has the highest unemployment rate of any State. What is really critical is that for the last two and a half years the Australian economy has performed in a way which by Australian standards has been quite spectacular: Three years of real growth of 5 per cent, half a million new jobs, the inflation rate halved, industrial disputes at an 18-year record low and the lowest unit wage costs since 1970. I find it quite extraordinary that, confronted with that record, there could be extremists like the Leader of the Opposition who want to throw all that aside and who salivate at the prospect of five years of industrial warfare. Senator VALLENTINE —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In answer to a question yesterday on the visit to Australia by United States warships, the Minister said: There is currently a disproportionate number of visits to Western Australia by United States warships compared with port visits to the eastern States. He also stated that Mr Beazley had raised with United States authorities the need to change this pattern. Given the implication in this answer that United States warships visists to Western Australia would be reduced, does this not contradict the response by the Minister for Defence that the proposed change will not necessarily reduce the frequency of visits to Western Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —In responding to Senator Vallentine I was reading a prepared answer from the office of the Minister for Defence. He subsequently advised me that that answer may have been ambiguous in some respects and is not to be taken as necessarily committing the Government to seeking a reduction in the number of ship visits to Western Australia. What we want to do is to get a better balance of ship visits between the respective Australian ports, which may have a reduction as a corollary, but that is something which remains to be sorted out as discussions proceed further. I will refer Senator Vallentine's question to the Minister for Defence to see whether he wishes to add anything more to this, but the answer I was giving on his behalf was not intended to be quantitatively precise. It was intended to give a general and indeed sympathetic Government reaction to the concerns that were being articulated by Senator Vallentine. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Given the Treasurer's repeated swaggering and boasting about the supposed reduction in unemployment, will the Minister inform the Senate what proportion of the reduction of unemployment statistics in the last year has been due to increasing Public Service employment, short term employer subsidies, mickey mouse employment schemes and the cramming of educational institutions with the unemployed? Further, is it not true that by these means a crafty reduction in the unemployment statistics, but not in the real numbers of those unable to find permanent and productive work, has been engineered for the coming year? Senator WALSH —I cannot off the top of my head recall the contribution of the various subsectors of the economy to the total employment growth in the last year of in the order of 200,000 jobs. Senator Sheil talked about unemployment rates. Unemployment rates are influenced by factors other than the level of employment, most importantly, of course, by the work force participation rate, and are less reliable for that reason. What is of fundamental inportance and perfectly clear is that in just two and a half years since the National Economic Summit cemented the accord in place almost half a million additional jobs have been created in the Australian economy. That is job creation at a faster rate even than the Fraser Government managed to destroy jobs in its last year of office under Mr Howard's economic management. The Fraser Government destroyed 186,000 jobs in 12 months. This Government has been creating jobs at about that rate since it has been in office. The more esoteric details which Senator Sheil requested are available and I will supply them to him as soon as possible. Senator COLSTON —Has the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the reported statement of the Opposition shadow spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr Peacock, that a coalition government `would have striven to keep the ANZUS Treaty operative'? Is this statement consistent with Mr Peacock's earlier repeated calls for Australia to establish a bilateral treaty with the United States if New Zealand did not change its ships visit policy within three months of an Australian ultimatum? Would calls by the Leader of the National Party and Opposition shadow defence spokesman, Mr Sinclair, for economic sanctions against New Zealand have assisted Australia and the United States to keep the ANZUS Treaty operative? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have noted the recent claim by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr Peacock, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 September, that a coalition government `would have striven to keep the ANZUS Treaty operative'. I note that that stands in very direct and stark contrast to his repeated earlier calls for Australia to initiate moves to establish a bilateral treaty with the United States in place of ANZUS. If the Hawke Government had adopted the Opposition's earlier approach of placing ultimatums and even economic sanctions on New Zealand, Australia would manifestly have jeopardised our very close relationship with New Zealand without achieving anything in relation to New Zealand's policy on ship visits. Instead, the Hawke Government has pursued a consistent policy of seeking to preserve Australia's national interests in our relationships with both our ANZUS partners despite the current policy differences between New Zealand and the United States. Australia's relationship with the United States is firmly established beyond any challenge. The ANZUS Treaty reflects a coincidence of strategic interests between the United States and Australia that goes far beyond the terms of that Treaty. Defence co-operation between Australia and the US includes the joint facilities, combined exercises, technology transfers, intelligence exchanges and continuing consultation on international issues. While New Zealand is fully aware that the Australian Government does not share its views on the question of the allied ship visits, the Hawke Government has maintained Australia's important interests in its relations with New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand have common strategic concerns, particularly in the South Pacific region, and these are reflected in continuing co-operation in the defence field, including bilateral exercises and intelligence exchanges. These national interests are not to be lightly sacrificed, as they would have been had Australia pursued the ill-considered and heavy footed policies which have been advocated by the coalition parties. The Hawke Government will safeguard Australia's interests in our relations with both the United States and New Zealand, whatever may occur in relations between the United States and New Zealand. I make the point finally that our consistent, careful and moderate approach on this whole issue stands in very sharp contrast with the strident vacillation of our opponents. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to Senator Short's earlier question in which he asked whether it was a fact that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did not see Mr Reid's letter to the Prime Minister of 19 August until 19 September, 20 days after Dr Armstrong had been paid out as Chief Executive of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Does the Minister recall that in answering that question he said that he would need to take advice on it? I ask the Minister whether he further recalls that at a meeting of Senate Estimates Committee A on 4 October 1985, at which he was present as the officiating or presiding Minister, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Rose, said: I have just been reminded that the first time we saw the letter of 19 August was when it was tabled on 19 September. Given that reminder, does he now agree that the point put to him by my colleague was correct and that there was a gap from 19 August to 19 September before the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet saw the relevant letter? Senator BUTTON —I said in answer to Senator Short's question that I would need to obtain advice on it because it contained a number of questions of detail, not just the question which Senator Chaney has addressed to me. Yes, I recall the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet making that statement at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. I also recall, having refreshed my memory from a note, that the Prime Minister responded to Mr Reid by phone very shortly after receiving Mr Reid's letter of the 19th. There were one or two telephone discussions. The contents of the letter not being addressed have to be seen in that context because the answer was given in a telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and Mr Reid. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Chipp asked me in my capacity as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs a question about ANZUS in a number of parts. I undertook to give him a considered supplementary answer. Since it is a substantial answer, I seek leave to incorporate the text in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 1. This Government can not be accused of misleading the Australian public about the meaning of the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty. Indeed, the Government has gone to some lengths to dispel popular misconceptions about ANZUS and to clarify its value and effectiveness. In the opening sentences of his statement to Parliament (on 15 September 1983) on the outcome of the review of ANZUS undertaken when this Government came into office, Mr Hayden said: ``. . . I do not say that the Treaty guarantees Australia's national security and welfare, nor do I place us in that posture of happy dependence that has satisfied the foreign policy ambitions of many Australians in the past both within and without this Parliament.'' Further on in that same statement, in discussing the conclusions reached as a result of that review (including formal discussions at the Washington meeting of the ANZUS Council in July that year), Mr Hayden said: Support from Treaty partners can be expressed in a range of responses. The Treaty does not provide any automatic guarantee of military support in the event of attack or major threat. We were reassured by the Americans as to their understanding of the requirement for prompt and effective fulfilment of ANZUS obligations. As Secretary of State Shultz said at the joint press conference following the Council meeting: `. . . the hard kernel is the undertaking to respond in the event of attack on any of the countries involved'. In the United States view any armed attack on the ally would require, and would receive from the other allies, full and prompt fulfilment of the ANZUS security commitment-including, if necessary military support. But, as I said at the same press conference, and as Mr Shultz acknowledged earlier at the ANZUS Council meeting, the obligation to repond and to assist would not automatically involve the provision of military forces in support of the country subjected to threat or attacks-because of the requirement to observe constitutional processes. These would allow each country opportunity to assess the requirements of the situation and to determine its national interests and obligations and the mode and extent of its response. A range of responses might be available, and it would be up to the other partners to judge which response would be appropriate in a given situation. It may be in certain circumstances that diplomatic action, or political or economic sanctions against the adversary, or the supply of equipment or military logistical support for the ally would be judged a more appropriate response than direct military involvement. In other circumstances direct military support may be appropriate. Those points have been consistently stressed by Mr Hayden and Ministerial colleagues in their major public statements on ANZUS since then. 2. As there are no foreign bases on Australian soil, the question presumably refers to the joint Australian-US defence facilities, the general purpose and functions of which were explained by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 6 June 1984. As the Prime Minister noted then and as he and other Ministers have noted on several occasions since then, the Government accepts that in certain circumstances the joint facilities could be nuclear targets in the event of a nuclear conflict and that in that sense the hosting of the facilities does bring with it some degree of added risk of nuclear attack. In passing, though, I would draw to the honourable senator's attention remarks made during a visit to Australia earlier this year by Mr Victor Afanasyev, editor-in-chief of the official Soviet Communist Party newspaper, Pravda, to the effect that, if war broke out between the superpowers, the Soviet Union would not attack Australia with nuclear weapons and would ``probably not strike'' against the joint Australian-US defence facilities. As we cannot enter into the minds of possibly hostile foreign military planners, it is not possible to be categoric about the specific risk of nuclear attack on the joint facilities. Our intelligence and defence authorities have for many years now assessed the risk of nuclear war as remote and improbable, provided effective deterrence is maintained. As Australia would suffer the consequences of nuclear war whether or not we have the facilities, as we cannot therefore gain immunity by removing the facilities, and as the facilities contribute fundamentally to deterrence of nuclear war, the Government firmly believes that the tangible benefit of their contribution to avoidance of nuclear war outweighs any possible future risk to our security through our hosting of the facilities. 3. and 4. French Prime Minister Fabius has admitted that agents of the DGSE sank the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour. New Zealand has not sought consultations on the matter under ANZUS. 5. On 26 September the United States Department spokesman said that the United States viewed with deep concern the sinking of the ship Rainbow Warrior and the loss of life involved and that the United States deplored such acts wherever they occurred. The United States has made it clear that it will make no further comment on the matter while it is under investigation by the Governments of New Zealand and France. 6. For the above reasons, no. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-Senator Childs's question of Senator Gietzelt on the future of sand mining on Fraser Island reminded me that I was subject to a significant misrepresentation in the same Bulletin article from which Senator Childs quoted. I refer to the article in the 8 October edition under the heading `Moves to end Fraser Island export ban'. The article stated that sand miners had said that they had received hints from me that the Government may entertain a resumption of sand mining on the island. The truth of the matter is this Mr Reinhardt, the author of the article, contacted my office before he wrote the article to seek comment on that point. He was told that there had been no such suggestion from me. For some reason, this denial was omitted from the published story. To set the record straight, I have never indicated in any way to sand miners or to anyone else that the Hawke Government might accept resumption of sand mining on Fraser Island. The PRESIDENT —I have received advice from Telecom Australia that the problems being experienced in Parliament House with telephone services is due to some main telephone cables having been cut between Fyshwick and Manuka. The loss of the cables has severely disrupted telephone services in the Canberra area. The problem has been exacerbated by the number of calls being made generally to report faults and in attempting to make connections. Severe congestion is being experienced. Telecom technicians are working on repairs to the cables. However, at this time they estimate that up to two days may be required to restore telephone services completely to normal. In the meantime Telecom has asked that the use of telephones for outside calls be reduced to the greatest extent possible to help alleviate the congestion being experienced. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The implications for the principle of ministerial responsibility arising out of the Prime Minister's handling of the $500,000 payment to the former Chief Executive of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.06) —Mr President, the matter of public importance which we have brought forward for discussion by the Senate is that which you have just read, namely: The implications for the principle of ministerial responsibility arising out of the Prime Minister's handling of the $500,000 payment to the former Chief Executive of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Until yesterday Parliament, through the House of Representatives and Senate Estimates Committee A, has been dealing with a controversy over the removal of Dr Armstrong from the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Over the last month or so the personal involvement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has gradually unravelled. Until yesterday the central issue was the display of the Prime Minister's incompetence. He had shown his lack of administrative skills, his failure to admit his role until he was forced to by journalists and by parliamentary action, including that taken within the Senate Estimates Committee, his failure to be open, frank, truthful and, most significantly, his failure in the course of this matter to ask questions which any sensible man would have asked. It is important to note that right through this period the key issue which has been raised and pursued is the personal involvement of the Prime Minister in this whole matter. It is not some distant affair that involves his Department; it is a matter that involves the Prime Minister and his personal actions. It is a matter in which he has had the closest possible involvement. It is a matter in which, notwithstanding what was said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in answer to a question today about the independence of the Bicentennial Authority, it is quite apparent that the Authority acted on the urging and, indeed, the instruction of the Prime Minister with respect to Dr Armstrong. Yesterday, in the course of this unhappy affair, Mr Hawke played the last card. He played the card of a scoundrel. He set out to blame everybody else and particularly set out to blame his Department. The Opposition believes that Mr Hawke-the Prime Minister-has been guilty of a cowardly act. We believe that he has been guilty of an unprincipled act and an act which flies in the face of the way that the system of government in Australia is supposed to be conducted. We should have some pity for poor Mr Visbord, the loyal public servant whose lengthy letter of regret was put forward in the House of Representatives yesterday. I suppose we may never know how that letter came to be written. It may, of course, be the final act of loyalty by Mr Visbord. The sad and shameful fact of the matter is that our ever-diminishing Prime Minister set out to hide behind that letter from Mr Visbord. In the view of the Opposition the issue now is what the Government is doing to distort and destroy the principles under which government is conducted in this country. Let us look at Mr Hawke's direct personal involvement in the whole matter and at his attempts to extricate himself from it and to cover it up. On 15 August of this year the Prime Minister instructed the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority to terminate Dr Armstrong's services. It is clear from the paper which was tabled by the Prime Minister that he urged that action against the wishes of the Chairman of the Authority, Mr Reid. It is evident from the public record that the Prime Minister knew that Dr Armstrong could not be sacked for misconduct and that any termination had to be by way of an agreed settlement. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister told Mr Reid that this matter had to be dealt with speedily so that he could have an answer to questions which might be raised when Parliament resumed on 20 August. When Mr Reid wrote to him on 19 August, having complied with his instructions, in a letter which set out the nature and broad terms of settlement, including the fact that there would have to be consideration for restraints on the retiring Chief Executive, the Prime Minister's response was to tell Mr Reid to err on the side of generosity. Mr Reid, in the context of that conversation, told the Prime Minister that the settlement would be expensive and that it would cost more than $400,000. If there was any point at which the Prime Minister should have been put on notice that he should make some inquiries, it was surely then. On the knowledge that he had of the position of Dr Armstrong, it was quite clear that the sum of money was about equivalent to the full amount-indeed, it may have been more-that would have been paid to Dr Armstrong had he served his full course. I would have thought that any prudent man, let alone a Prime Minister who was a Rhodes Scholar, would have been put on inquiry by the citing of that figure. Subsequently, the Prime Minister received the Chairman's letter of 28 August which set out the specific terms of settlement. The letter sought the authority of the Prime Minister for the settlement, the Prime Minister being the Minister responsible for the Bicentennial Authority. The Prime Minister, by his letter of 30 August, in full knowledge of the details, told the Chairman to proceed. Over a period of weeks the Prime Minister knew what was happening and that it was happening pursuant to his instructions. His intervention was that the matter should be dealt with generously. Over a very lengthy period, therefore-over the whole period certainly-the Prime Minister had every opportunity to seek advice, legal or otherwise. He had the whole of his Department at his disposal to check and ensure the validity of the Bicentennial Authority's actions. In fact, there was no action by the Prime Minister, no objection by him, and the settlement proceeded. Of course, it proceeded after the man who had to sign the cheque took the trouble to contact the Department and was told to proceed. All this started to come forth only after a journalist, Mr Laurie Oakes, published articles which indicated that this had occurred. Of course, we then had a series of parliamentary actions which have gradually drawn the facts from the Prime Minister, other Ministers and the Department. I believe that the facts we have had to this point speak for themselves. The Prime Minister has now sought to blame his public servants, and his henchman and numbers man, Senator Richardson, has said publicly that public servants should be penalised and shifted because of what has occurred. It is relatively easy to make judgments in this matter about the rights and wrongs of the situation. We in the Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-have so often heard the views of the Australian Labor Party, in opposition and in government, on the standards which apply in these matters. It has been very interesting to hear the Government appeal to precedent in terms of the problems which flowed from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the problems faced by Senator Durack as Attorney-General in respect of matters which occurred in his Department. That has been referred to frequently in the Senate this week. It was referred to on radio by Senator Richardson this morning. That is a matter which Senator Evans, the failed Attorney-General, Mr Hawke, Mr Young, Mr Hayden and all the luminaries of the Labor Party when in opposition said warranted the resignation of a Minister. Let us contrast the facts in that case which has been appealed to by the Labor Party as a precedent. In those circumstances the relevant Minister, the then Attorney-General, had no personal knowledge of the matters which had occurred. There was no suggestion that there was any way in which he could have had personal knowledge. There was no suggestion that it was a matter on which he had given instructions or in which he had been involved. It was not a significant single matter of the sort which is under the direct control of the Prime Minister, as in this case. Instead, it was one of the tens of thousands of cases being considered by his Department at that time. Statistics show that the Crown Solicitor's Office dealt with more than 100,000 matters in 1980-81 and more than 80,000 in 1981-82. This was one matter that was being dealt with by an officer of the Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth. It is instructive to see what followed the disclosure of that maladministration within the Attorney-General's Department at that time. It was dealt with by inquiry and officers who were found to be at fault were dealt with by normal administrative and legal processes. They were not dealt with by the numbers man of some political party claiming that they should be dealt with in some ad hoc fashion. We can also see the contrast between the behaviour then and the behaviour now in the way in which the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, drew attention to the very good general record of his Department, admitted that it had areas of difficulty and where there has been breakdowns-as occurs in any big organisation-and pointed to the way in which these matters were being rectified by the Government. He did not hide in a craven fashion behind the Public Service. There was no political attempt to take it out on the Public Service, such as has gone on in such an unedifying way over the last few days. The Prime Minister, in putting this letter before the Parliament and in having his great friend and henchman, Senator Richardson, carry on about what ought to be done with these public servants, gives us examples of behaviour which is not fit behaviour for a Prime Minister, as it would not be fit behaviour for any Minister or any back bencher. The Prime Minister has been directly and personally involved. The Bicentennial Authority, which is subject to the direction of the Minister and which deals with funds that are subject to the control and the appropriation of the Government-as the Bicentennial Authority said when it settled this matter, it is entitled to spend money only in accordance with what the Government requires-was told by the Government that it should proceed. We have no evidence of the Prime Minister making any of the inquiries any sensible person would have made with respect to these matters. On the one hand, the Government appeals to precedent and says that, after all, there have been difficulties before and Senator Durack did not resign, when Senator Durack had nothing to do with the matters that occurred within his Department and in this circumstance the Prime Minister was directly involved and was the moving force in the matter. On the other hand, the Prime Minister suddenly found great reserves of energy and conscience after his involvement was exposed. He showed no signs of activity or life until that exposure occurred. All this is quite damning. It is quite obvious, on the face of things, that the Prime Minister had not lived up to his responsibilities. The worst feature of the matter is that he is now seeking to hide behind those who are there to serve him. We have no evidence that they were even asked to examine this matter in a way which could have given a prudent Prime Minister independent advice. In terms of the standards that are supposed to be applied, many quotations from Government members are very relevant. They are all statements which have been uttered when they have been seeking to apply standards to members of the party to which I belong or to members of the National Party of Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen, as recently as this year, referred to the difficulties with respect to extradition treaties which enabled Mr Trimbole to escape legal custody when he was arrested in Ireland. Mr Bowen said, when commenting on what had occurred with respect to that treaty over the preceding years, including the years when the now Opposition was in government, that he did not blame departmental officials. In his Press release of 27 March he said: It is a matter of who is the boss-the Minister at the time. I do not care and I do not believe that the people of Australia care that Mr Visbord is sorry that the Department was not able to proffer some advice to the Prime Minister, when all the evidence is that the Prime Minister acted so much off his own bat and there is no evidence that he sought the advice that would have enabled him to avoid the errors into which he fell. We have had many debates in this place about the standards which should be applied. The person who has been most ready and vocal in insisting that high standards should be applied is the failed Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. He carried the political consequences of his own failure in the office of Attorney-General. He is the man who promised so much and delivered so little. I note that he was to speak in this debate but he has been withdrawn. I consider that a very prudent move in view of the fact that so much of what he has said on this issue in the past can be quoted. What did he say about the subject of ministerial responsibility when he was claiming that Senator Durack was responsible for one of the one in 100,000 files which existed in his Department? This morning we heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, asking whether we expected the Prime Minister to go through 800 files. One might have asked Senator Button whether he expected Senator Durack to go through 100,000 files to find which ones might not have been getting immediate attention from the officers of his Department. Senator Button —The Prime Minister's files are not in the bottom drawer of his desk. Senator CHANEY —That is typical of the misleading, slippery approach which is adopted by the Leader of the Government in the Senate-this man who hides behind a smile to disguise untruths. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, in Question Time today, and again by that interjection, has sought to imply that files were in the bottom drawer of the desk of the Attorney-General when he knows that is an untruth, that is gilding the lily and that is a lie. The fact of the matter is that we have had a series of lectures read to us by members of the Labor Party of Australia with respect to the responsibility of Ministers. If we go back to what Senator Gareth Evans has had to say we find that in 1982, when this was a matter of major political importance, we had Senator Evans quoting a Liberal leader, Mr Fraser. Senator Evans said: But . . . they must be the standards which the Prime Minister set or has talked about over a long period. This was going to be a Government without impropriety. In 1972 he said-- that is, Mr Fraser- If a major blunder occurred in a department, of real importance to Australia-- Then there are various interpolations and Senator Gareth Evans continued: and if the Minister were unaware of it, the Minister should accept responsibility for the mistakes of his department and offer to resign. The next day, when questions were raised about the real responsibility of Senator Durack, he said: He is the Minister responsible for everything that happens within his Department. Later in the same debate he said: . . . why didn't it become known to you? Why didn't you ask the right questions in 1978? Those are the sorts of standards which were being insisted upon by the Labor Party in those days. They are a long way from the standards which the Prime Minister is adopting when he hides behind his public servants and when his leading numbers man denigrates those public servants and says that they should be moved. That is a fine response to an area to which the Prime Minister has made such a deep personal contribution. I do not think there is very much doubt about the way in which the public sees this very unsavoury matter. It was interesting to see in this morning's Canberra Times that Mr Pryor de- picted the Prime Minister as a goatherd sleeping under a tree. I think that is a very interesting and illustrative view. Of course, we have no mention of the Opposition in this matter but instead a Prime Minister who is sleeping under a tree. I do not believe that the Prime Minister was asleep on 19 August when he was told by Mr Reid that payments in excess of $400,000 would be made to the Chief Executive of the Bicentennial Authority. I wonder where the letter of 19 August from Mr Reid was kept. Perhaps it was in the Prime Minister's personal bottom drawer and that is why his Department did not get to see it. Perhaps the problem is that the Prime Minister's bottom drawer has been involved in this whole exercise. I thought that Mike Steketee summarised it all very well in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. In a lengthy article headed `Mr Hawke still ducking the Bicentennial wave', Mr Steketee said: But Mr Hawke is prepared to blame everyone but himself for the administrative and political lapses involved. He was kept in the dark, he was misled, his department had failed to pass on information. But none of it was the Prime Minister's fault. That is the claim of this ever-diminishing Prime Minister. Nothing is his fault although he was the moving force in the dismissal! He was the man who approved the general approach and the terms which were entered into by the Bicentennial Authority. Mr Hawke now stands as someone who has shown himself to be administratively incompetent. He is now wearing the tattered robe of the unprincipled and he has unleashed his numbers man on to his own Department. He has ignored the fundamental principle which should govern his exercise of the great responsibilities of the Prime Ministership. We believe that this whole episode has exposed the Prime Minister in a very shabby light indeed. We believe that he stands condemned for his inactivity, his incompetence and now for his shameful hiding behind his public servants who are his responsibility. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.25) —Most of the angst in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) occurred in his last sentence when he referred to the shameful behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in seeking to hide behind Senator Richardson's comments, or something like that. I will deal with that matter in a minute. Senator Walters —You will have to be good. Senator BUTTON —I am good; that is one of your difficulties. I do not make that comment in any serious peer group sense; I make it just here, confronted by somebody like you. The problem the Opposition has with all this is that the Government does not seek to avoid responsibility in respect of this issue. It accepts responsibility for what has occurred and, importantly, it has taken actions when deficiencies have been exposed. I just want to identify, because it is important to do so, the areas in which the Government accepts responsibility and the areas in which, in a sense, it does not accept responsibility. The Government and the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the decision to seek the removal of Dr Armstrong as Chief Executive of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The Prime Minister had advice about that and that advice has been published. Senator Chaney —He said that was a matter for Mr Reid. Senator BUTTON —He did not say that that was a matter for Mr Reid. He has said that he accepts responsibility for the advice and he asked Mr Reid to get rid of Dr Armstrong. That is not a matter of concern. Honourable senators ought to check that in the record. But the second point- Senator Walters —What did he say? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should not be impatient. The second point, for which the Prime Minister does not accept responsibility, is that of speaking to Dr Armstrong and negotiating the terms of settlement of his retirement. Senator Sir John Carrick —He told Mr Reid to do that. Senator BUTTON —Yes, he did. Senator Sir John Carrick —And he accepted the terms. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —Order! As this is a very important debate the Leader of the Government in the Senate should be allowed to develop his argument without help. (Quorum formed) Senator BUTTON —Opposition senators expressed concern about the fact that Government senators were not here. I assume that the reason Government senators were not here is that they are not particularly concerned about this. They listened to Senator Chaney's speech on the radio and decided to stay away. They were not concerned about the allegations made by Senator Chaney. The real difficulty which the Opposition has with this matter is that the Government does accept responsibility for a wide range of matters which have happened in respect of this recent bicentennial matter. There are two areas in respect of which responsibility is not accepted, and they have been identified. The first of those areas is that the Prime Minister was advised-and he accepted the advice of his Department and he accepted the advice given to him by Mr Reid, the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority-that it was Mr Reid's responsibility to negotiate the terms of settlement with Dr Armstrong. That is an area in respect of which the Prime Minister does not accept full responsibility because it is an area of somebody else's responsibility. Honourable senators opposite, when in government, made it that way. They set up the Bicentennial Authority. Senator Short —It was bipartisan. Senator BUTTON —Oh, no, Senator, just a minute. The legislation was certainly bipartisan. But as the honourable senator ought to know, Mr Reid's evidence was that he particularly sought a whole set of arrangements in the legislation from the Government and he got them. Senator Missen —Mr Hayden signed it as well. Senator BUTTON —It does not matter. If a point I make eludes the honourable senator I will say it again, but I do not think it is worth it. The second point on which there must be some lack of acceptance of responsibility relates to the particular issue of the lost letter of, I think, October 1979-Senator Short can correct me if I am wrong-which dealt with the conditions of appointment of Dr Armstrong. Senator Chaney makes a great point of putting two things together. Firstly, Mr Visbord, a respected and admired Deputy Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister giving an explanation of why that-- Senator Chaney —What led to that letter being written? Senator BUTTON —That letter arose from the Prime Minister seeking an explanation in relation to the evidence given before-- Senator Chaney —Did he send Senator Richardson round to see him? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney makes accusations against me when I am on my feet, but that interjection is getting a little worse than anything I ever said. But let me get that clear because I want honourable senators on the Opposition side to understand it. Mr Visbord, a respected Deputy Secretary to that Department, wrote to the Prime Minister giving an explanation of what had happened in respect of the lost letter in reply-there is no doubt about that, not in reply to a request for a letter-to a request for an explanation from the Prime Minister as to why that letter had not been drawn to his attention. Any born to rule Liberal administrator would tell honourable senators that that is the first thing they do if somebody does not give them an appropriate document-they seek an explanation. Senator Chaney —You asked for the document. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney clearly has not even read the transcript. One does not ask for a document which one has been specifically told is not relevant. Senator Short —He was not told it was not relevant. Nobody told him it was not relevant. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Short wants to quibble with the words `not relevant' he may. If the honourable senator had studied all the discussions which emerged between the Prime Minister and Mr Reid and all the correspondence from Allen, Allen and Hemsley, the Australian Bicentennial Authority's solicitors, it would have been quite clear that that letter of October 1979 was not regarded as being relevant to Dr Armstrong's settlement. Honourable senators should read the letters and study the discussions which have taken place. Senator Short —How is it not relevant? Senator BUTTON —The details of the letter were not relevant. It was represented to the Prime Minister that there was a contract between the ABA and Dr Armstrong which had to be paid out. Senator Chaney —And provision for four months notice. Senator BUTTON —No, it was not represented as a contract with a provision for four months notice. Senator Short —Yes, it was. Senator BUTTON —Does the honourable senator allege, as Senator Chaney does, that it was a contract with four months notice in it? He does not allege that because he knows better than his colleagues here Senator Chaney, who has just led the debate on this matter for the Opposition. Senator Chaney should check with his colleague Senator Short and find out the truth of the matter. It is in respect of those two matters that the question of responsibility has to be qualified. The first matter is the area in respect of which the Prime Minister was advised that the responsibility lay with Mr Reid and in respect of which the Prime Minister was advised by Mr Reid that it was his, Mr Reid's responsibility. Senator Sir John Carrick —When was that advice given? Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants to study the documents- Senator Sir John Carrick —Was it given on the 15th? Senator BUTTON —The 15th, the 19th-on a number of occasions. Read the transcript of the Senate Estimates Committee. It is all there. Senator Sir John Carrick —I have. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator ought not to be asking that question then because he ought to know. It is in respect of that area of responsibility that the Prime Minister cannot be held fully responsible and it is, of course, also in respect of this missing letter that he cannot be held responsible. Senator Short —What about the failure to seek advice on the critical letter of 19 August? That is the critical letter. Senator BUTTON —With the greatest of respect, it is not the critical letter and the Prime Minister replied to that and evidence was given about the nature of that reply. Senator Short —He has never replied to that letter, other than over the phone to Mr Reid. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator started off his interjection by saying that the Prime Minister never replied and then finished it by saying that he replied only over the phone. He cannot have it every conceivable way. I propose to continue with what I am saying and not to listen to any more interjections because honourable senators opposite are all getting very excited about this issue. They are in a State of bliss founded on ignorance. The reason for this whole performance today is that over the seven years of the Fraser Government we saw an appalling performance of ministerial charades relating to a whole range of matters and appalling hypocrisy about appropriate ministerial standards and so on. Of course this occasion is the Opposition's first big go on the question. Senator Sir John Carrick —Tell us about Mick Young. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator can tell me about Mick Young. What did the Prime Minister do about Mick Young? Does the Opposition complain about that? Senator Sir John Carrick —Yes, the Prime Minister let him off the hook. Senator BUTTON —All right. For Senator Sir John Carrick's benefit let me make some comparison between these two periods of government. The burden of the Opposition's complaints today is that Senator Richardson-this is a very tenuous connection-who is a senator elected to this Parliament and who has his own views, which he is entitled to state, was working for the Prime Minister in expressing his own views. I will say a lot of things about Senator Richardson, but one thing honourable senators opposite ought to be clear about is that he is a very independent minded man and he did not need to be told by the Prime Minister what he had to say about this issue. But the Opposition seeks to make a connection between a letter from Mr Visbord and a comment by Senator Richardson, and there it is, the whole cowardly abdication of ministerial responsibility by the Prime Minister! All Senator Chaney's windy rhetoric from his school days comes out about this appalling and cowardly incident by the Prime Minister. I understand what this is all about from the Opposition's point of view. It has an appalling record. It is not the question of a lost letter in the Prime Minister's Department which has stirred up the Opposition about all this; it is the memories of the former Minister for Primary Industry standing trial before a jury on a criminal charge. A royal commissioner commented on Mr Nixon: I am bound to record my view that the Minister did not deal with allegations adequately and effectively. That was from a royal commissioner-it was not just the question of a lost letter. Mr Nixon remained in his job. Mr Sinclair remained in his job throughout the Australian Dairy Corporation scandal and Senator Durack remained in his job and offered a fair commentary, which I accept, about his own position in relation to that matter. Senator Durack said a lot about these things. Senator Chaney —That is because Senator Evans kept standing up and giving him lectures. Senator BUTTON —That is what the Opposition is doing today; it is a role reversal. Senator Durack said: How on earth does anybody believe in this day and age-- as honourable senators will recall, Senator Durack was a modern Minister-- with departments as large as they are and enormous activities of Government, that Ministers can know or ought to know all of the ramifications of the actions of their Departments. That was Senator Durack's defence to leaving a file in the bottom drawer of his desk for five years. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. That is a total misrepresentation of the position once again and it should be withdrawn by the Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Do you seek withdrawal? Senator Chaney —Yes, I seek withdrawal. Senator BUTTON —I have some other things to say. Senator Durack did not leave the file on tax avoidance lying in his desk for five years. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is that satisfactory? Senator Chaney —That will do. Senator BUTTON —I refer next to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who was criticised for not taking responsibility for the actions of her Department in relation to the Greek conspiracy case. There was no question of her resignation as Minister. Here the hounds are baying because of this incident of a lost letter and the efforts to put together two situations-the Visbord letter and the comments made by Senator Richardson. As I said at Question Time today, the question of improving the performance of the Bicentennial Authority is a matter for the Prime Minister. He will take steps to do that, I have no doubt, but that is a matter within his ministerial responsibility. Senator Chaney sought to tie all of this to the question of ministerial responsibility, so we had to hear all quotations again. I think the important point Mr Malcolm Fraser made-which is applicable to Senator Chaney-in discussing all the authorities on ministerial responsibility was that this question is often misrepresented. There is often grave misrepresentation as to what ministerial responsibility means. That is something which Senator Chaney was guilty of in the course of his remarks today and I have no doubt there will be more of that in subsequent speeches in the debate, but it is not a matter that is of fundamental concern to the Government. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.44) —I enter this debate with some reluctance. I think it is quite proper that Senator Chaney should have introduced such a matter. I enter the debate only because I believe that I may have a very small contribution to make on the future of the Australian Bicentennial Authority and the future of what our birthday party should be, rather than trying to make political capital, which the Liberal Party of Australia is entitled to do, out of the past events. To begin with, I acknowledge, as is very well known, that I am a very close friend of Dr David Armstrong and I have an enormous admiration for him. I have known him for a period of 10 or 12 years. He was a brilliant State President of the Australian Democrats. I would have thought, had he not accepted the job, out of 200 or 300 applicants, to become Executive Director of the Bicentennial Authority, today he would be a Democrat senator in this Parliament. Senator Button —You are very lucky, aren't you? Senator CHIPP —Senator Button is the lucky one, not to have David Armstrong here as a senator on the opposite side. I cannot speak highly enough of him in the sort of capacity in which I saw him work. Senator Sir John Carrick —He was wrongly sacked. Senator CHIPP —I am not in a position to know that. It was my problem that I, like many other members of parliament, did not take a lot of interest in the activities of the Authority until this brouhaha broke out. Senator Sir John Carrick —But they did not proceed on the ground of misconduct. That is the important point to make. Senator CHIPP —I will come to that. I think that probably 90 per cent of the members of this Parliament were not taking a great deal of interest in the Authority, which is something we should be criticised for, until this crisis began. However, I must say something about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). As Leader of the Australian Democrats, I see him regularly on certain matters relating to the conduct of Parliament, as I see Senator Button and Senator Chaney. To that extent I was kept informed, on the run, by way of incidental comment by the Prime Minister, of the events of this crisis as they occurred. I have never lobbied the Prime Minister-as he will testify-in any shape or form, for or against Dr Armstrong. I would bow to people such as Senator Short and Senator Sir John Carrick, who were on the Estimates Committee and have studied these things in detail. They would know a lot more about the detail of this, but I just briefly place on record, without going to his defence, that as far as I am concerned the Prime Minister has done nothing improper, dishonest or reprehensible in this affair. That leads to the question of ministerial responsibility which Senator Chaney quite properly has brought before the Senate. In the 25 years that I have been here I have heard lots of definitions of when a Minister should resign under the Westminster system. Quite frankly, with the exception of four or five cases, I have not seen examples of where he should have resigned. For example, I think it was quite wrong for Senator Withers to have been forced to resign when he did. I did not think that that was a resignable offence. I single out that event because I would like to be favourable to people. I think the rule of thumb is that if a Minister knows about something and does nothing about it, and that results in unnecessary cost to the taxpayer or a wrong-doing, surely that is a sackable or resignable offence. Senator Walters —The Prime Minister did know. Senator CHIPP —I am just stating the offence; I am not putting a point of view. There is an extension of that, with which I think all honourable senators would agree: If a Minister ought to have known something but did not know and did not bother to find out, that also could be said to be a resignable offence. I am not in a position to judge whether the Prime Minister ought to have known. I have never been a Prime Minister. I have been a Minister eight or nine times and, God knows, that is a busy enough life. I have jotted down one or two other incidental things in which the Prime Minister was mixed up during this time-the tax reform package, the Rainbow Warrior bombing, the South Pacific Treaty and the Budget. Those are the sorts of things that come across a Prime Minister's desk approximately 18 hours a day. I am of the view that it is an academic argument as to whether the Prime Minister ought to have known or ought to have found out more about the letter of 19 August and the Bicentenary. I have some sympathy with a busy Prime Minister, and every person who has occupied that office while I have been a member of this place has been guilty at some time or other of not knowing something that theoretically he ought to have known. Therefore, whilst I say that Senator Chaney has acted perfectly properly and has done the Senate a service in raising this matter today, I think that it is very difficult to be specific about when a Minister should or should not resign. Having said that, I believe that the Prime Minister has made a classic mistake in this affair. Maybe he made it because of his being too kind-hearted. I do not know the reason, and I shall not advance one. I have had a lot of experience in these matters, because I have occupied a job as executive director, having as my boss a board, or a council or whatever. I have the old-fashioned idea that the job of the executive director is to carry out the instructions of the board or the council. A good executive director will not only be a good implementer of policy; he will also be creative and put creative ideas up to the board. We now reach, in this course of logic, this position: If the $20m spent by the Authority had been spent badly-and I am not saying whether it was, but one would wonder about $19m being spent on salaries and only $3m on projects-surely the question should have been asked: Did the Executive Director carry out the functions of the Board?. If the Board was at fault, the Board should have been sacked. Senator Sir John Carrick —But it was all reappointed by the Hawke Government. Senator CHIPP —That may be so. Senator Sir John Carrick might wish to attribute blame, and that would be his right. I am trying to talk in principle. Surely the only two reasons to sack Dr Armstrong would have been, first, that he had been guilty of misconduct-and there has been no suggestion of that-or, secondly, that he had refused to carry out or had carried out incompetently or inefficiently the functions of the Board. Senator Sir John Carrick —And there is no evidence of that. Senator CHIPP —There is no evidence and no suggestion of that. If anyone should have been sacked, I should have thought that the first cabs off the rank would have been Mr Reid and the Board. I am not suggesting that that should have been the case; I am just arguing logically. That is why I find it difficult to understand this matter. Anyway, that is the position. Where do we go now? I do not blame the Liberal Party one iota for getting the absolute maximum mileage of political capital out of this matter that it can. If the Labor Party were in the same position, it would do the same. But surely there must be an end to it at some time, for several reasons: So that we in this Parliament can get on to something a little more important, such as the 50,000 nuclear bombs that exist in the world; such as the two million people in Australia living in poverty; such as the 100,000 kids who tonight will not have a bed in which to sleep; such as organised crime, which now involves $5 billion a year; such as 600,000 human beings in this country who are now unemployed. When shall we, as a parliament, get back to those trifling issues and off this all-consuming monster of the Bicentennial Authority? I pay a tribute to the Melbourne Age, whose editorial this morning said this: Dr Armstrong's settlement was excessively generous. But then, dealing with the report of Dr Griffith, it went on to say: The report paves the way for the authority to recover at least $240,000 paid as compensation. It would, we believe, be unwise to do so. For one thing, it would involve the authority in a long and probably costly and certainly distracting legal battle at the very time when it should be concentrating its efforts on pulling the bicentennial program together. For a second, there is an argument for saying that while Dr Armstrong got his windfall settlement partly as a result of Mr John Reid's over-generousness and partly as a result of the Prime Minister's inattention to detail, he got it legally, and he left on the basis of that agreed settlement. To seek to undo the settlement now would not be a proper way for the Government to behave. True, it might help to remove some of Mr Hawke's undoubted embarrassment. But it would be unfair to Dr Armstrong. It would also be unfair to the authority itself, particularly now that Mr Reid has resigned and a new chairman has still to be appointed. I should have thought that that was a very wise comment. I plead with the Opposition, I plead with Mr John Howard, and I plead with Mr Robert Hawke, the Prime Minister, to get together and to come to some bipartisan view on this matter, to say: `Okay, the lemon has been squeezed dry. Let us ask Dr Armstrong for so much back, or let us call it a day and not engage in a lengthy process which could take two years through the courts to reach finality'. What would happen in the meantime? Would we get a self-respecting top citizen of this country to accept the job as Chairman of the Authority while he has to make a decision as to whether he demands $300,000 back from Dr David Armstrong? Not one self-respecting top citizen would touch the bicentenary with a 40-foot bargepole. What top executive would we get to fill the role of executive director when he is being invited into a minefield of the gargantuan proportions of this sort of thing? For God's sake, let us settle the thing now. If the Liberals think that they have another week or so more of mileage in this, quite rightly, bless them; let them go for it. But please have a light at the end of the tunnel where it can be said `Enough is enough', and where Mr Hawke and Mr Howard can get together to reach some settlement. I come to the Authority itself. I have never been too impressed with birthday parties. I think that that is because I have had a few too many myself. In any event, I just question the wisdom of the decision-it was a decision of Mr Fraser and the Liberals-to spend $271m. Really, is it not possible to contemplate that we could be spending that money a little differently? Two hundred and seventy-one million dollars is a birthday party to end all birthday parties. Senator Sir John Carrick —We were going to have a water conservation plan for the Bicentennial but it has been scrapped. Senator CHIPP —If that were a suggestion it would have my absolute and total support. I think that we ought to consider priorities. Instead of tall ships, dancing girls-if that is the suggestion-brass bands and whatever, why not make as a major priority an attempt to wipe out trachoma among Aborigines by the year 1988, or whatever? That is possible with this kind of money, $271m. What about doing more than paying lip-service to multiculturalism? Why not try to have by, say, 1995, every child in this country speaking two languages? Would not that be a great thing to celebrate as a birthday? Why not encourage every child at school in 1988 to have a project to say what kind of Australia they would like by the year 2000, what problems children face and see, and what solutions children see to the problems of this country? Is that not the kind of thing that we would want, and would that not be more appropriate? Should we not have, as Senator Sir John Carrick says, a water conservation plan, or something like that, rather than tall ships and races, and whatever? Senator Chaney —What about the road program? Senator CHIPP —As I understand it that is already in place. I do not know whether it was Mr Fraser or Mr Hawke who thought of that, but it has my total commendation; it is fantastic. It is inevitable when something like this happens that there is a political scandal, or whatever, but surely soon there must be a light at the end of the tunnel. I plead with both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party not to let this matter go to litigation and to continue it for the next two years, because only the Bicentennial itself and the people of Australia would suffer from that. Senate adjourned at 3.59 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 263. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 107) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Finance aware of a 1978 study by Anderson, Boven, Fensham and Powell who believe that only a small percentage of students would be affected by the re-introduction of tertiary fees. (2) Have there been other studies conducted over the last few years which estimate such affected students to be as high as 60 to 70 percent. (3) Would the re-introduction of tertiary fees greatly disadvantage those women who are self-supporting and possibly single parents, a category which is an ever-increasing percentage of the mature-age student intake. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There have been various studies and surveys of possible effects of the re-introduction of tertiary tuition fees. These studies and surveys have used a wide range of methodologies, and have been based on different assumptions about the details of any possible fees schemes. Consequently, the enrolment consequences of any specific fees scheme can not be reliably predicted from the findings of these studies and surveys. (3) The impact on any group of any fees scheme would depend, among other things, on the details of that particular scheme. Accordingly, it is not possible to provide a sound answer to this generalized question. (Question No. 121) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: Were pencils which were manufactured overseas used by the Australian Electoral Commission in polling booths for the 1984 Federal election; if so, what proportion of pencils so used were manufactured overseas and why were Australian-made pencils not used. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Electoral Commissioner has advised that pencils and other stationery items used in polling places are purchased in the form of Polling Booth Packs through a national contract let by the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS). All pencils in the 1984 Polling Booth Packs were of overseas manufacture. At the time of procurement of the Polling Booth Packs for the election, however, the contracting authority (AGPS) was under the impression that because an Australian company had been nominated as the subcontractor for the supply of pencils these would be of Australian manufacture. (Question No. 122) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Is the Treasurer aware that Lancelot John Priestley took part in a Curran-type scheme which involved hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax avoidance; if so (a) did the partnership involving Mr Priestley involve the tax scheme operator Brian Maher's Commercial Securities Ltd; (b) was Mr Priestley associated with four now defunct NSW companies, Bukama Pty Ltd, Trafmill Investments Pty Ltd, Play-o-Mat Pty Ltd, and AEP Distributors Pty Ltd; and (c) did these companies in 1977 ultimately end up passing through the hands of directors which included John Patrick Donnelly and Lee Gabriel Hurley, and, ultimately, into the bottom of the harbour in a manner which left approximately $500,000 in avoided tax. (2) What is the current cost to the taxpayer of Lancelot John Priestley's salary as a member of the NSW Supreme Court. (3) How many tax cases has Mr Priestley dealt with as a judge of the NSW Supreme Court. (4) What are these cases and in which instances did he decide in favour of the Commissioner for Taxation. (5) Was a partner of Mr Priestley in the tax avoidance scheme a Sydney solicitor, James Hamilton Momsen. (6) Did the National Times of 7 March 1982 carry an apology to Mr Priestley which stated that he had acted `in accordance with the highest standards of his profession', and did the same edition of the National Times carry an apology to Mr Momsen. (7) What is the estimated total cost to the taxpayer of tax avoided by Mr Priestley in this and any other schemes in other years. (8) What is the total amount of salary paid by taxpayers to Mr Priestley since he became a judge. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act prohibit the disclosure of information concerning the taxation affairs of a taxpayer. (2) Salaries paid to members of the NSW Supreme Court are determined by the Government of NSW. (3) As a judge of the NSW Supreme Court, Mr Priestley dealt with only one reported tax case where he sat as one of three judges. (4) The case was DFC of T v AGC (Advances) Ltd 84 ATC 4177 and the court unanimously dismissed the appeal by the Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation. (5) See answer to question (1). (6) The National Times of 7 March 1982 carried the apologies referred to by the honourable senator. (7) See answer to question (1). (8) See answer to question (2). (Question No. 176) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) How many taxpayers (classified by available income brackets) received a Concessional Expenditure Rebate in (a) 1981-82; (b) 1982-83; and (c) 1983-84. (2) What proportion of the total number of taxpayers in each income bracket received a Concessional Expenditure Rebate in the above financial years. (3) What proportion of all taxpayers had taxable income within each of these income brackets in each of these financial years. (4) What proportion of the total cost of the Concessional Expenditure Rebate went to people in each available income tax bracket in each of these financial years. (5) What was the total cost to the Budget of the Concessional Expenditure Rebate in the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 and what is the estimated cost to the Budget of the Concessional Expenditure Rebate in 1984-85. (6) Does the Treasurer have any information as to the proportion of the total cost of the Concessional Expenditure Rebate in the above years attributable to each component of allowable Concessional Expenditure (e.g. superannuation, rates, self-education, etc,). Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The available data relating to taxpayers who received a Concessional Expenditure Rebate for the income years 1981-82 and 1982-83, and in preliminary results for the 1983-84 income year (covering assessments issued to 7 May 1985) are summarised below. The reduction in the number of taxpayers with, and the amount of Concessional Expenditure Rebate in respect of, the 1983-84 income year reflects the increase of the block concessional rebate threshold from $1,590 to $2,000. (1) NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS WHO RECEIVED A CONCESSIONAL EXPENDITURE REBATE Grade of Taxable Income 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ Under 6,000... 2,538 1,371 660 6,000- 8,999... 10,493 9,230 4,921 9,000-11,999... 14,811 13,080 5,837 12,000-15,999... 51,648 40,590 15,921 16,000-21,999... 181,261 161,707 76,134 22,000-31,999... 206,375 276,862 177,150 32,000 and over... 69,866 111,573 85,991 Total... 536,992 614,413 366,614 (2) PROPORTION OF TAXPAYERS IN EACH INCOME BRACKET WHO RECEIVED A CONCESSIONAL EXPENDITURE REBATE Grade of Taxable Income 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ % % % Under 6,000... 0.4 0.3 0.2 6,000- 8,999... 1.1 1.0 0.6 9,000-11,999... 1.4 1.5 0.7 12,000-15,999... 3.5 2.9 1.2 16,000-21,999... 14.3 11.4 5.1 22,000-31,999... 36.3 34.6 19.5 32,000 and over... 41.4 45.0 28.8 Total... 8.6 10.0 6.0 (3) PROPORTION OF TAXPAYERS IN EACH INCOME BRACKET Grade of Taxable Income 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ % % % Under 6,000... 11.3 8.2 7.2 6,000- 8,999... 15.9 15.0 14.4 9,000-11,999... 16.9 14.1 12.9 12,000-15,999... 23.7 22.6 21.1 16,000-21,999... 20.4 23.1 24.5 22,000-31,999... 9.1 13.0 15.0 32,000 and over... 2.7 4.0 4.9 Total... 100.0 100.0 100.0 (4) PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE CONCESSIONAL EXPENDITURE REBATE IN EACH INCOME BRACKET Grade of Taxable Income 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ % % % Under 6,000... 0.3 0.1 0.1 6,000- 8,999... 2.3 1.7 3.2 9,000-11,999... 3.2 2.6 3.1 12,000-15,999... 8.6 6.2 5.5 16,000-21,999... 30.4 23.3 18.5 22,000-31,999... 38.9 44.2 43.1 32,000 and over... 16.4 21.8 26.6 Total... 100.0 100.0 100.0 (5) The cost to the Budget of the Concessional Expenditure Rebate generally impacts in the financial year following the year of income, i.e. the cost in respect of the 1980-81 income year is reflected in the 1981-82 revenue. As set out in the 1984-85 Budget Paper No. 1 at page 312, the cost to revenue in respect of the income years 1980-81 to 1982-83 and the estimated cost for the 1983-84 income year are as follows: Income year Cost to revenue $m 1981-82... 93 1981-82... 110 1982-83... 130 1983-84... 70 (6) The proportion of the total cost of the Concessional Expenditure Rebate attributable to each component of allowable Concessional Expenditure for the income years 1981-82 to 1983-84 is as follows: 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 % % % Doctors... 3.5 3.7 4.4 Hospital... 2.1 2.1 3.5 Chemist... 6.6 7.2 7.9 Dental... 5.5 5.6 6.6 Optical... 1.4 1.4 1.5 Other medical and funeral... 0.9 1.0 1.4 Education... 18.2 17.5 19.5 Self-education... 0.9 0.9 1.0 Rates and Taxes... 12.3 12.2 10.8 Life Insurance... 18.1 17.1 15.5 Superannuation... 30.3 31.2 27.8 Adoption... * * 0.1 Calls... * * * Total... 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Less than 0.05. (Question No. 216) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: Does Mr Abe Saffron have a tax liability in excess of $ 1/2 million; if so, what steps have been taken to collect this outstanding amount. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commission of Taxation has advised that the secrecy provisions of the income tax law preclude him from disclosing to unauthorised persons information of that nature. (Question No. 262) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: Was a Question without Notice asked of the Minister representing the Treasurer on 15 September 1981, in respect of the taxation liabilities of the estate of Sir Robert Askin; if so, how long after such a question did the Commissioner of Taxation commence investigating the estate. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, the question without notice concerning the taxation affairs of the late Sir Robert Askin's estate was asked on 15 September 1981. (2) The secrecy provisions of the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation from divulging information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. I am therefore unable to answer the second part of the honourable senator's question. (Question No. 276) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of a television appearance on the Good Morning Australia program, on 7 March 1985, by a Mr John McManus who described himself as Public Relations Officer with the John Birch Society. (2) What is the purpose of Mr McManus's visit to Australia in view of his statement on the program, referred to in (1) above, that his society does not believe in democracy. (3) Has the John Birch Society forged any link with other far-right groups in Australia such as the League of Rights. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am informed that a Mr John McManus of the John Birch Society appeared in a live interiew in Brisbane's Good Morning Australia program on 7 May 1985. (2) I am not aware personally of the reasons for his visit to Australia; however a report in the Australian on 9 May 1985 quoted Mr John McManus as saying that he was visiting Australia to share experience and to learn. (3) I have no knowledge of links the John Birch Society may have forged with the League of Rights or other groups in Australia. (Question No. 291) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: In each month since 1 January 1985, what have been the rates of sales tax and the sales tax revenue from each of: (a) imported; and (b) Australian- (i) whisky, (ii) brandy, (iii) wine in glass containers of volume 1 litre or under, and (iv) wine in other containers. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The rates of sales tax applicable since 8.00 p.m. (AEST) on 21 August 1984 are as follows: (i) whisky and brandy: Imported 20%; Australian 20%. (ii) wine: Imported-grape-alcoholic 10%; non alcoholic 20%; non grape-alcoholic 10%; non alcoholic exempt. Australian-grape-alcoholic 10%; non alcoholic exempt; non grape-alcoholic 10%; non alcoholic exempt. Amounts of sales tax revenue derived from sales tax of particular commodities or groups of commodities are not recorded separately. (Question No. 314) Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) In the event of a major nuclear accident at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, would legal liability for compensation rest at government, state or local level. (2) What precautions exist to protect the surrounding citizens from an accidental escape of dangerous substances from the Lucas Heights reactor. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), which operates the Lucas Heights Research Establishment, is of course a Commonwealth instrumentality. The question of Commonwealth liability in the event of an accident at the Lucas Heights Research Establishment was dealt with in some detail by my predecessor Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh in his answer to Question on Notice No. 411 (see Hansard, 6 December 1983 pages 3350-51). It is difficult to envisage circumstances where State or local government authorities could be liable for a major nuclear accident at the Research Establishment, although any question of liability, for example in the event of negligent performance of emergency procedures, would have to be determined in accordance with relevant legal principles, and would depend on the facts of the particular case. (2) The emergency procedures which would apply to the protection of local residents in the event of an accident at Lucas Heights are set out in APTCARE (A Plan to Cope with Accidents at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, New South Wales), a joint plan drawn up by the AAEC and New South Wales authorities. As Senator Walsh indicated in his answer to Question No. 588 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, page 87), copies of a document summarising APTCARE have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. This document may also be obtained from the AAEC by any interested member of the public. APTCARE is currently in the final stages of being updated in consultation with State authorities, and a revised version of the APTCARE document is expected to be completed shortly. This document will be available to the public on request from the AAEC. (Question No. 326) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: In calculating the revenue to be derived through provisional tax from primary producers, did the Australian Taxation Office make due allowance for carried forward losses from a series of poor years as a result of the drought. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. (Question No. 397) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What funding is provided to a `drop-in' centre for the unemployed called the `Rise and Shine Centre' at 754 Darling Street, Rozelle, New South Wales. (2) What is the purpose of the funding referred to in (1) above. (3) What training programs are provided by the centre referred to in (1) above. (4) What external evaluation has been made of the success of the centre referred to in (1) above in achieving its aims. (5) How regularly are reviews of such centres carried out. (6) What control or supervision is exercised over the content, particularly the political content, of `courses' offered to unemployed persons attending such centres. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The ``Rise 'n' Shine-Rozelle CYSS'' Local Management Committee (LMC) is receiving for the period 1 November 1984 to 31 October 1985 a standard Level 3 Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) Grant of $100,000. This grant is paid in quarterly instalments. (2) The Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) is a Commonwealth Government labour force program. Its objective is to encourage communities to assist local unemployed young people to develop their capacity for obtaining and retaining employment, and also to become more self-reliant during periods of unemployment. (3) Training and support programs currently offered by Rozelle CYSS include driving lessons, photography, hospitality industry training (bar person and waiting courses), electric guitar, drumming, radio workshop production, mechanics for women, Tai Chi, drawing, cookery and nutrition, and video production. In addition to these activities advice and assistance is provided to participants with respect to typing, job search, and job resume/applications. (4) The New South Wales CYSS State Advisory Committee is responsible for monitoring the effective operation, management and development of CYSS in that State. The Committee assesses the performance of Rozelle CYSS and all other CYSS projects in New South Wales as part of a regular six monthly review program. Any particular difficulties which arise in relation to the operation of a project would be considered by the Committee as a matter of urgency and outside the normal review process. Rozelle CYSS also conducts its own internal reviews and evaluations of its program, including consultations with local youth agencies and the Commonwealth Employment Service. (5) Rozelle CYSS is visited monthly by a Field Officer of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations who ensures that the project is operating according to CYSS guidelines. The project is also required to submit two monthly financial reports and quarterly program activity reports to the Department. (6) The primary responsibility for the conduct of the project, including the provision of appropriate courses, lies with the Local Management Committee (LMC). LMC members are elected annually at a duly advertised public meeting, except for the Manager of the local Office of the Comonwealth Employment Service (CES), who is an ex officio member of any CYSS LMC in the CES area. The CYSS State Advisory Committee and the Field Officer are available to provide advice and support to CYSS projects experiencing temporary difficulties. In cases where such advice is not heeded and a project is in breach of the CYSS guidelines payment of its quarterly grant instalments can be suspended at any time. (Question No. 402) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: What amount of Government money has been given by way of assistance to the journal Quadrant in each of the last 10 years Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Commonwealth Government funds for literature are channelled through the Australia Council. The Literature Board of the Australia Council has made the following grants to Quadrant since 1975/76: $ 1975-76... 21,120 1976-77... 15,200 1977-78... 20,450 1978-79... 24,600 1979-80... 32,000 1980-81... 25,500 1981-82... 30,069 1982-83... 45,500 1983-84... 16,250 1984-85... 28,250 (Question No. 403) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: Does Mr Patrick Veitch hold a position with the Australian Opera Company; if so: (a) what is that position? (b) when was he appointed? (c) what is the duration of his appointment? (d) what superannuation arrangements have been made with Mr Veitch? Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised that Mr Patrick Veitch holds a position with the Australian Opera Company. (a) Mr Veitch is the General Manager. (b), (c) and (d) Questions relating to his employment should be addressed to the Australian Opera, which is an independent Company. (Question No. 407) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Was an Australian trade union official interviewed during a `May Day' program on Radio Moscow's short wave `News' service on the 1st of May 1985; if so: (a) did he purport to speak on behalf of the Australian trade union movement; and (b) who was the person speaking and in what capacity was he, in fact, visiting Moscow and speaking on the radio program. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: According to information available, which is based on regular monitoring of all Soviet media, no such interview was broadcast on Radio Moscow on 1 May 1985. (Question No. 409) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What is the function of the Comptroller of expropriated property. (2) Could the Minister for Finance list the Commonwealth's holdings of expropriated property. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Custodian of Expropriated Property administered the property rights and interests of German nationals in the Territories of Papua and New Guinea which were expropriated in accordance with the Treaty of Peace (Germany) Act 1919. The Treaty of Peace Regulations (1920) enable the Governor-General to appoint a person to be the Custodian of Expropriated Property; the current appointee is a First Assistant Secretary in the Department of Finance. The Custodian received approximately 600 properties, including plantations, virgin land, trading stations and town blocks, expropriated by the Australian Government from German nationals in Papua and New Guinea in World War 1. The regulations authorised the Custodian to dispose of the properties by sale. (2) The Custodian sold all the properties in the 1920's and undertook to give clear title to all purchasers. The Custodian was faced with the task of registering all the lands under Torrens title and transferring the titles to the purchasers. The Depression delayed title surveys and during the Japanese occupation in World War II most of the evidence to support title claims was destroyed. There are five properties requiring further survey work, issue of Certificates of Title, registration of transfers or execution of indemnities before the Custodian can give proper title to the purchasers. The properties involved are: (a) Beliao Island-Portion 634 and Lot 2, Portion 188; (b) Malala Virgin Land; (c) Lamussong Extended; (d) Panaras Plantation; and (e) Wangaramut Trading Station. The Australian Government Solicitor, on behalf of the Custodian, has been negotiating with officials of the Government of Papua and New Guinea to progress these matters. (Question No. 458) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What was the cost to the Federal Government of transporting, accommodating and catering for the delegates to the 1983 Economic Summit. (2) What was the cost to the Federal Government of transporting, accommodating and catering for the delegates to the 1985 Taxation Summit. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Transport $104,334; catering $46,016. No accommodation costs were met by the Commonwealth. (2) Accounts for the Taxation Summit are still being received. Payments made to date and those currently being processed total: Transport $61,597; Catering $46,144. Final payments are expected not to be substantially higher than these figures. No accommodation costs have been, or will be, met by the Commonwealth. (Question No. 460) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) Can the Department of Veterans' Affairs newly devised travel form be simplified to better suit elderly claimants. (2) Does the detailed travel form have to be completed on every occasion that a veteran or spouse visits a specialist, even if subsequent visits are only for repeat prescriptions. (3) Why does the travel form state `rates are the same as those paid to Commonwealth Government employees' when this has subsequently been ruled out by Queensland office employees. (4) What rates are applicable. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The travel form is currently under review and a new simplified form will be available shortly. (2) Each visit involves a separate claim. The Finance Regulations require each claim for payment to be certified correct and to include all relevant data for that particular claim. (3) The rules were changed with effect from 1 July 1985 following the Economic Statement of May 14. The revised travel form will not contain the wording to which you refer. (4) The rates now applicable are based on the cost of the most economical form of public transport available. My Department meets the cost of other transport, e.g. by taxi or private car, only if this is medically necessary. The rate for private car use where this is medically necessary is 11.16 cents per kilometre regardless of engine size. If overnight accommodation is necessary as a result of attendance for an appointment, payment to a maximum of $40 a night will be made subject to submission of an official receipt. Associated with overnight absences, meal allowances are payable at the rate of: Breakfast $5; Lunch $5; Dinner $12. (Question No. 535) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Has the Attorney-General seen what has been described as a scurrilous article in the journal `Matilda' which alleges that Dr Geoff Edelsten is under investigation by the National Crime Authority. (2) Can the Government confirm whether Dr Edelsten is under investigation by that Authority. (3) Was Dr Edelsten the subject of an inquiry of the Costigan Royal Commission. (4) Does the Government know of Federal Police records which purport to link Dr Edelsten with the import and trafficking of narcotics, pornography, and vice activities and the exportation of fauna; if so, are these documents accurate. (5) Will the Government carefully scrutinise any application by Dr Edelsten to establish any medical practice in the Australian Capital Territory in the light of Dr Edelsten being named as being Mr X in the Medicare Fraud and Overservicing Joint Committee of Public Accounts Report. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2), (3) and (4) As a general rule, in order not to prejudice the operations of law enforcement agencies or the fair trial of any person, I propose to adopt the practice of neither confirming nor denying allegations such as those raised in the question. I emphasise that no inference should be drawn from this practice in any particular case. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to part 5 of the honourable senator's question: (5) The Government does not acknowledge that the Dr X referred to in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts report is Dr Edelsten, and the inference drawn elsewhere has been denied by Dr Edelsten. The responsibility for the registration of medical practitioners to practise medicine in any State or Territory lies with the relevant medical Registration Board in that State or Territory. Any application by Dr Edelsten to practise in the ACT will be considered in accordance with the criteria applied to any application from a medical practitioner seeking registration in the Territory. Senator Walsh —On 26 March 1985 (Hansard page 783) Senator Short asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: What return to Commonwealth revenue would he expect to result from greater scrutiny of benefits such as discounted air fares, subsidised canteen services, entertainment expenses, free beer for brewery employees at their work breaks and free weekend meat for butchers' apprentices, which is common. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The estimated cost to revenue of the non-reporting of fringe benefits, deductions for entertainment expenses, unspent cash allowances and over-claimed deductions for other employment-related expenses was set out in the draft White Paper for the Reform of the Australian Tax System at pages 87-93. The total revenue forgone was estimated to be of the order of $1150m per year, of which the major components were the cost of allowing deductions for entertainment expenses $300m, unspent cash allowances and over-claimed deductions for other employment-related expenses $150m, the provision of cars $280m, subsidised housing $80m and low-interest housing loans $90m. No separate estimate is available in relation to the other kinds of benefits referred to in the honourable senator's questions. Senator Button —On 10 May 1985 (Hansard, page 1760) Senator Vanstone asked Senator Grimes, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the estimated cost of the Taxation Summit. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: An amount of $400,000 has been included in Appropriation Bill No. 2 to cover the estimated cost of the Taxation Summit (see Division 939/01). The following detailed break-up of this estimate is included in my Department's explanations of the estimates (page 29) which were tabled in the Senate on 23 August: $ Transport... 150,000 Printing... 150,000 Catering and hospitality... 40,000 Office Requirements, stationery etc... 20,000 Fares... 20,000 Other... 20,000 400,000 The estimate was not sub-divided, and expenditure has not been separately costed under the particular headings the honourable senator sought. Expenditure brought to account to date amounts to some $134,000 Senator Walsh —On 13 May 1985 (Hansard page 1799), Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the number of submissions made to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and from whom they have come. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: When announcing that the Government would conduct a comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system, the Prime Minister indicated that the Government would welcome submissions from interested individuals and agencies. Up until 4 June, a total of 508 submissions on tax reform had been received by the Office of EPAC. The submissions have ranged in length from one page letters to documents in excess of 150 pages, constituting a substantial amount of information and views on aspects of tax reform. Submissions were received from a very wide cross-section of community groups, including: industry, labour and professional organisations; women's groups; church groups; welfare groups; government departments; corporations; small businesses; academics; taxation consultants; and individuals (including wage and salary earners, self-employed, unemployed and those engaged in domestic duties). The Office of EPAC has released a public paper titled `An Overview of Submissions Received on Taxation Reform' which provides a summary of the 473 submissions received up until 20 May 1985. Senator Walsh —On 14 May 1985 (Hansard page 1878), Senator Boswell asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: I refer the Minister to recent taxation rulings 2121 and, the latest one, 2129, which have the effect of redefining salaries and wages, forcing many small business people who are genuine sub-contractors, consultants, share fishermen and share farmers into the pay as you earn taxation system. Does the Minister agree that this decision has resulted in small business people losing their independence and working capital, has created a more rigid labour market and has increased costs in the building, computer and insurance industries, and now for share fishermen and share farmers? Does the Minister also agree that the PAYE method of taxation is inappropriate due to the seasonal and unpredictable income of many of the people affected by this decision? Will the Minister and his Department review these rulings in the light of the hardship being caused? During the debate on the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, also on 14 May 1985 (Hansard page 1983), the senator claimed that Taxation Ruling 2129 specifically states: Share fishermen are considered to be employees for the purpose of sub-section 221A of the Act. Where evidence exists that a master and servant relationship does not exist tax instalments are still considered necessary in most instances because payments are considered to be wholly or principally for the labour of the person in terms of paragraph (a) of the definition of salary or wages. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not accepted that Taxation Rulings IT 2121 and IT 2129 have the effect of forcing many small business people who are genuine sub-contractors, consultants, share fishermen or share farmers into the PAYE taxation system. The Government does not agree with the contention that the rulings will result in small business people losing their independence and working capital or that the rulings will create a more rigid labour market or increase costs in those industries mentioned. Where the deduction of tax instalments at standard rates is inappropriate because of special circumstances that apply to an employee or class of employees the income tax law authorises the Commissioner of Taxation to vary the rate of deduction so as to meet the special circumstances of that employee or class of employees. Consequently, the Government does not accept that the rulings will lead to hardship. The honourable senator has, unfortunately, failed to quote Taxation Ruling IT 2129 in its proper context. The ruling deals with the question of whether certain payments to individuals are payments of `salary or wages' for the purpose of the PAYE provisions of the income tax law. In relation to share fishermen, the ruling states that where, amongst other things, work is performed under the direction and control of the owner and/or operator of a fishing vessel, it is considered that crew members (including the skipper) paid on a share of proceeds or share of catch basis are neither carrying on business in common nor in receipt of income jointly. The ruling is directed at employees as such, and individuals who are virtually in the same position as employees, attempting to circumvent the PAYE provisions by claiming, contrary to fact, to be carrying on a business. The ruling is not directed at fishermen genuinely carrying on a business of ``fishing operations'' within the meaning of the income tax law. Senator Walsh —On 23 May 1985 (Hansard page 2425), Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: How much tax has been recovered under the bottom of the harbour legislation. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Collections to 30 June 1985 under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) legislation amount to $457m, including $304m paid as income tax. The balance was paid as recoupment tax. Senator Gareth Evans —On 12 September 1985 (Hansard page 502) Senator Durack asked me, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Acting Attorney-General if he is still the Acting Attorney-General otherwise the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to a report in a newspaper headed `18 tappers get Bowen's blessing'. That puts it more succinctly than I may be able to do. It refers to the fact that the Attorney-General has granted indemnities to at least 18 present and former members of the New South Wales Police Force who may give evidence to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which is investigating the New South Wales police tapes. How many indemnities have been recommended by the Royal Commissioner to date? How many have been approved by the Attorney-General? Does he still have under consideration further indemnities in this matter? Has the New South Wales Attorney-General taken similar action to indemnify these witnesses from prosecution under State law? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not correct to state that indemnities have been given to present and former members of the New South Wales Police Force who may give evidence to the Royal Commision. It is true that the Attorney-General has given indemnities to a number of such persons who have given evidence to the Royal Commission. The indemnities granted were recommended to the Attorney-General by the Royal Commissioner pursuant to his Letters-Patent and in accordance with procedures announced by Mr Justice Stewart at a public hearing on 24 May 1985. On that date His Honour stated, inter alia, ``The terms of reference refer to the publication of a notice requiring persons desiring indemnities to come forward. On Saturday, 1 June 1985 a notice will be published in various newspapers inviting persons to notify the commission in writing of their intention to appear before the commission and to give evidence. Such persons will be invited to furnish written statements of their evidence as soon as possible. Except in special circumstances, only persons giving such notice within 28 days of the commission's notice will be considered for the recommendation of the granting of indemnities against prosecution or the giving of undertakings by the New South Wales Police Commissioner. Generally speaking, all persons making statements will be called to give oral evidence to the commission. Any person making a statement who expresses a wish at that time to receive an indemnity or undertaking will be advised prior to his or her appearance before the commission whether or not I am prepared, on the basis of the contents of the statement, which may be at that time unsigned, to recommend the grant of any such indemnity or the giving of any such undertaking, should the statement be signed at the time the person appears before the commission and should the other conditions specified in the letters patent be fulfilled. Persons tentatively offered indemnities or undertakings will be called to give evidence. Such evidence will include, but will not be limited to, the adoption of the contents of the statement earlier provided. I shall decide what my recommendation will be during the course of the witness' evidence and make it known at that time. I have been advised by the Attorneys-General for the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales and by the New South Wales Police Commissioner that they will act upon my recommendations.'' The Commission hearings, and hence His Honour's indication to witnesses as to whether he is or is not prepared to recommend indemnities, are in camera and are the subject of confidentiality orders pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act. Accordingly, I believe it is inappropriate to indicate the number of indemnities that have been granted or recommended. That question will, no doubt, be dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission. (Question No. 246) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) Since 1 January 1983 how many phone operators have been recruited by Telecom: (a) as permanent staff, (b) for fixed terms of 3 months or less, and (c) for fixed terms of more than 3 months. (2) In each 6 month period since 1 January 1983, what proportion of staff whose fixed-term contract ended in that period were then recruited either permanently or for another fixed term. (3) In each 6 month period since 1 January 1983, how many phone operators have been replaced after contracting Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) and what steps have been taken to minimise the incidence of RSI when new equipment has been introduced. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Since 1 January 1983 the recruitment levels for Manual Assistance staff have been as follows: (a) Staff permanently appointed-approximately 1270. (b) and (c) It is not possible to ascertain the length of time of fixed terms of employment without a detailed examination of the individual records of all Manual Assistance staff. The employment is however approved in accordance with strict guidelines which focus on workload needs and vacancies which are not likely to be of a continuing nature. Fixed terms of employment of Manual Assistance staff since 1 January 1983 have totalled approximately 1200. A number of these are new employees and the remainder are existing fixed term staff whose initial periods of employment have been extended because the workload requirements have continued longer than initially expected or, who have re-engaged into other temporary vacancies which have arisen. (2) Approximately 60-70 per cent of fixed term staff are either offered permanent appointment because a suitable vacancy has arisen or another fixed term contract because the workload requirement has extended longer than initially expected or another temporary vacancy has arisen. (3) Telecom has a policy whereby staff reporting at least one week of time lost with RSI are immediately placed on the `inoperative staff list' which enables fixed term staff to be employed as replacements. This remains the situation until either the injured person returns to full time work or otherwise ceases. The number of reported RSI cases in the Manual Assistance area, and therefore the number of staff replaced, are as follows: January-June 1983-111 July-December 1983-183 January-June 1984-299 July-December 1984-801 January-June 1985-588 With regard to reducing the incidence of RSI in the Manual Assistance area, a joint Telecom-Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers Association Task Force has recently completed an examination and has made recommendations on this matter. Action is about to commence on these recommendations and this along with a number of prevailing initiatives is expected to contribute to the reduction of RSI. Some examples are as follows: The introduction of RSI education sessions for keyboard staff. The preparation and introduction of comprehensive guidelines covering the implementation and use of screen based keyboard equipment. The consideration of organisational strategies to introduce improved job design or job enlargement for keyboard staff. The introduction of appropriately designed equipment and improved working environments and the ongoing consideration of improvements in these areas. (Question No. 251) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: What is the current effective rate of protection for the steel industry? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Under the Steel Industry Plan, which commenced on 1 January 1984, the Commonwealth provides direct assistance to the steel industry through both tariffs and bounties. It is difficult to measure the effective level of assistance provided by the bounties as they cover less than 50 per cent of the industry's output and operate on a sliding scale which provides for a phasing out of bounty payments as output increases. In any year the amount of bounty payment depends on the health of the industry. Bounty payments for 1984-85 were $53.6m (about 75 per cent of the total available bounty). Based on an estimate for bounty payments in 1984-85 of $54.8m on the Industries Assistance Commission has indicated that the level of effective assistance provided by bounties and tariffs in 1984-85 would be of the order of 19 per cent (compared with 16 per cent in 1981-82). (Question No. 253) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: What is the effective rate of protection for the shipbuilding industry as a result of the Government's policy decision in 1984. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The most recent estimates of effective rates of protection published by the Industries Assistance Commission for manufacturing (including shipbuilding-Australian Standard Industrial Classification number 3241) are for 1981/82.stimates for 1982/83 are currently being finalised and should be available shortly. The IAC has advised that the impact on the average effective rate of assistance afforded the shipbuilding industry (ASIC number 3241) of the Government's policy decision announced on 11 October 1984, is expected to be relatively small. As a guide only, if the effect of extending the bounty to exports was to increase expenditure in 1985/86 by the full $10m allowed by the legislation, then the level of effective assistance would increase from around 20 per cent to about 25 per cent in 1985/86. If the assistance level was estimated for only those shipbuilding activities eligible for bounty payments, the rate of assistance for eligible vessels would obviously be unchanged, but a greater proportion of the overall industry output will receive the bounty. The bounty rate in 1985/86 of 22.5 per cent of the construction costs of vessels (to be reduced to 20 per cent in 1986/87) corresponds to a nominal rate of assistance approximately 29 per cent. This yields an effective rate for bountiable vessels of around 40 per cent. The effect of the removal of the 2 per cent duty on components used in the construction of ships eligible for bounty on the effective rate, for all practical purposes, is minimal. (Question No. 404) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Did the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories (Ross Committee) criticise the Animal Breeding Section of the National Biological Standards Laboratory for having: (a) a low standard of animals; (b) excessive related staff resources; (c) excessive production costs; and (d) unsatisfactory standards regarding considerations for animal welfare, (2) What steps have been taken by the Government to rectify each of the criticisms referred to in (1) above. (3) Did the Ross Report also recommend a high priority for the reduction of animal usage in the National Biological Standards Laboratory. (4) Has any such usage reduction referred to in (3) above taken place; if so, what are the relevant details; if not, why not. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) New accommodation for the breeding of disease-free specific pathogen free mice has been provided in the Brucella building. The Pharmacology laboratory and its animal house have been transferred to better premises. A second veterinary officer, whose main duties are related to the control of animal disease, has been recruited and is operating in a well equipped diagnostic laboratory. These actions have led to a marked increase in animal quality. When the Report was released, the Government commissioned independent reviews of its findings in relation to the proposed new NBSL building generally and to the Animal Breeding Section particularly. These reviews were carried out by Dr John Smith, Animal Welfare Officer of the Australian National University, and by Sir Gustav Nossal, Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. Dr Smith examined the related areas of staff resources and production costs in considerable detail. He concluded that the staff requirements at that time were `acceptable and reasonable' and `would ensure that all animals are properly cared for at all times'. Both Dr Smith and Sir Gustav Nossal commented specifically on standards of animal welfare. Dr Smith concluded `that the spirit of the NHMRC-CSIRO Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Experimental Animals in Australia is being observed by the NBSL', and Sir Gustav stated that `I feel it is important to record, however, that the dedication of Dr Brian Portas and his staff who look after animals in NBSL deserve high commendation'. I should emphasise that NBSL has a fully functional Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee and that two veterinary officers, both specialists in laboratory animal science, are responsible for the care and health of the laboratory animals. (3) Yes. (4) This already had been given, and continues to have, high priority. The numbers of animals issued by the Animal Breeding Section have decreased by about 30% in the past 2 years. This decrease was largely due to the replacement of animal tests for the potency of insulins by physicochemical tests. Other significant actions have been the development by NBSL of cell culture methods to replace animal tests for testing the toxicity of plastics such as urinary catheters which are to be inserted into the body, an internationally recognised initiative, and the introduction of cell culture and other in vitro methods to replace some of the animal tests previously performed on hormones and on bacterial and viral vaccines. While further reductions in animal usage can be confidently expected in the next few years, it is highly unlikely that the need for some animal tests on the therapeutic products will entirely disappear. (Question No. 406) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: Can he say in respect of the Australian Ambassador in Washington, Sir Robert Cotton, the number of occasions on which he: (a) sought; and (b) gained an appointment to meet with the United States Secretary of State. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The answer in respect of (a) is 8, and of (b) is 5. During his period as Ambassador in Washington, Sir Robert Cotton called on the Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, five times. Each was when accompanying visiting Australian Ministers-Mr Street in 1982 and 1983, Mr Hawke in 1983 and 1985 and Mr Hayden in 1983. He made three other requests for appointment which did not prove possible. The first was essentially for a courtesy call following his arrival in 1982. The second was prior to the 1984 ASEAN Foreign Ministers' and the ANZUS Council Meetings. The third was for a farewell call. The Secretary's declining two of these requests was in accordance with firm rules about his not receiving any of the 156 Ambassadors resident in Washington for introductory, farewell or courtesy calls. The other call was declined because Mr Shultz was making a number of overseas visits at the time and it could not be fitted into his busy schedule. As Ambassador, Sir Robert met with Mr Shultz informally on a number of occasions, the last being when he attended the ANZAC Day memorial service in Washington Cathederal on 25 April this year. On that occasion, the Secretary of State expressed his personal regret at not being able to receive the Ambassador for a farewell call. (Question No. 414) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What co-ordination is taking place through the Department of Resources and Energy for developing a national strategy for dealing with co-ordination of all tiers of government to protect the fragile ecosystems of urban rivers. (2) What co-ordination, if any, of Commonwealth Government departments whose activities might affect the Georges River in Sydney has been undertaken by the Department. (3) Have any approaches been made to the Department by the New South Wales Government to ensure that all appropriate Commonwealth departments would participate in any future effort at co-ordination of protection of the environment of the Georges River in Sydney. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commonwealth, State and local governments collaborate on a project-by-project basis in studies, which take account of environmental implications, to determine the most suitable floodplain management strategies for selected river systems. (2) Several studies referred to in (1) above, and resultant works, have been undertaken in the Georges River catchment in recent years. (3) No. (Questions Nos 423-450) Senator Chaney asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: What was the value of purchases of equipment and services for each statutory authority in the Minister's portfolio for (a) 1979-80; (b) 1980-81; (c) 1981-82; (d) 1982-83; and (e) 1983-84. Senator Walsh —As indicated above, the honourable senator asked identical questions of all Ministers. With their concurrence, I provide the following answer on behalf of all Ministers: I refer the honourable senator to my answer, on behalf of all Ministers, to questions Nos 348-375 (Hansard, 10 September 1985, page 364). I would point out that even the apparently more modest ambit of this set of questions would involve a substantial commitment of resources, in reviewing literally thousands of documents for each authority. This would effectively involve the examination of all financial transactions other than salary payments. I am not prepared to authorise the commitment of resources to such an excercise, if only for the reason that this Government is seeking to maintain a strict regime of fiscal discipline and responsibility in a very difficult budgetary and economic environment. I would make the further point that this Government has introduced substantial reforms to Budget procedures. Such reforms include the presentation of additional information in Budget documents to ensure that the Parliament, and through it the people of Australia, receives the fullest possible information about the Government's overall administration and its particular Budget objectives. (Question No. 459) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) produce an audio-visual recording of the 1983 Economic Summit; if so; (a) were copies of this recording advertised and sold by the ABC; (b) who directed or under whose authority were the recordings made; (c) how many copies of the recording were produced; (d) how much did it cost to produce, manfacture and put on sale the recordings; (e) how many copies of the recording were sold; and (f) what are the total proceeds of sale to date. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: A video-cassette of the 1983 Economic Summit, which was a shortened version of the television event entitled `Time for Consensus' was produced by the Government and distributed by the Australian Government Publishing Service. It was retailed in ABC Shops and through ABC Enterprises direct Mail Service. ABC Enterprises produced and retailed an audio-cassette set of the complete Conference at $125 per set. (a) Copies of the set were promoted by the ABC and retailed through its Shops and ABC Enterprises Direct Mail Service. (b) The recordings were produced under the direction of the Director of ABC Enterprises, Mr Glenn Hamilton, with the approval of the Assistant General Manager (Radio), Keith Mackriell. (c) 150 units. (d) The 1983 Economic Summit audio-cassette set contained 16 C90 cassettes with plastic binder detailing the speakers. The total cost of manufacture was $5733.30. It is not possible to determine marketing costs as these activities were performed as part of the normal functions of ABC Enterprises. (e) To date 51 sets have been sold. (f) $6375. (Question No. 472) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) Is any Commonwealth funding involved either directly or indirectly in the transfer of the Orroral Valley antenna to the University of Tasmania's site at Cambridge, Tasmania; if so, how much money is involved and on what has it been spent. (2) Can the Orroral Valley antenna be used for the tracking of military satellites. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The antenna will be used for astrophysics research within the University of Tasmania. Because of modifications made to enable the antenna to be used for astrophysics research, it will not be suitable for the tracking of satellites. (Question No. 475) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Have the Departments of Health and Primary Industry recommended that the Customs embargo on the import of potatoes into Australia be lifted. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honorable senator's question: The Department of Health has no interest in imported potatoes following the transfer of responsibilities for plant and animal quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry in December 1984. As the embargo was not in place for quarantine reasons and quarantine conditions have existed for more than a decade for the importation of potatoes from New Zealand, my Department did not raise any objections to lifting the Customs embargo in accordance with access provisions in the Australia/New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. (Question No. 476) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Did the request for the lifting of the embargo on the import of potatoes into Australia come from: (a) Australian growers; (b) Australian processors; or (c) New Zealand industry. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The request for lifting of the embargo came from the New Zealand Government. (Question No. 477) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Was the request to lift the embargo on the import of New Zealand potatoes into Australia discussed with Australian potato growers; if so, did the growers agree that no risk existed if such action was taken. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The request was discussed with representatives of Australian potato growers at a meeting of the National Potato Panel on 3 November 1983. Growers did not agree that there were no quarantine risks. Growers have been advised that if they have evidence to support their view that the quarantine measures in place are inadequate they should present such evidence to the Minister responsible for quarantine. Growers have not presented evidence that justifies change. (Question No. 478) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Have discussions been held with the potato growers of Australia as to the terms and conditions of the embargo on the importation of potatoes from New Zealand, or elsewhere; if so, when were matters relating to storage, location, use and disease discussed. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The safeguards to be taken with New Zealand imports were explained in correspondence with industry representatives and at meetings with growers at Bungaree, Victoria on 23 February 1984 and at the seventh National Potato Industry Conference held in Launceston on 22 February 1985. (Question No. 479) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Did the Government support or allow `quota', not shipped in any year, to be carried over to the next or future shipments, under the new regulations for the import of potatoes from New Zealand; and did the Government introduce any new or specific requirements as to: (a) end use, (b) storage conditions and (c) locality of origin. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The decision to allocate 50 per cent of the 1984 quota entitlement in 1985 and the other 50 per cent of the 1984 entitlement in 1986 was based on the following facts. In mid 1983 New Zealand requested access to the Australian market and it was agreed that consistent with the provisions of the Australia/New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement access should be provided. However for a number of reasons, which included the need for change to Customs legislation, Australia did not put access arrangements into place until mid 1985. As New Zealand was entitled to 1984 quota, provision was made for equivalent access but to reduce the impact of this entitlement it was spread over a two year period. The principle involved in this approach is quite different from carrying over to future years quota which was available in a particular period but not shipped. The Government did not introduce any new or specific requirements in relation to end use, storage conditions and locality of origin. These requirements were developed to allow the safe importation of potatoes from New Zealand when the Customs embargo was lifted in 1973 and 1983 in response to a shortfall in Australian production. Specifically the requirements are: (a) Potatoes are only for processing and not for retail; (b) Potatoes must be stored under secure conditions in approved processing plants in capital cities; (c) Potatoes may only be imported from the Manawatu-Rangitikei area of the North Island where black wart or potato cyst nematode do not occur. (Question No. 480) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Does the New Zealand Government have any embargo on the import of potatoes from any country; if so, is the embargo due to other countries being subject to the diseases `potato cyst nematode' or `potato black wart'. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: New Zealand prohibits the import of potatoes from all countries where the diseases wart, ring rot, virus diseases (eg. yellow dwarf), Colorado potato beetle and golden nematode are present. (Question No. 481) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: What methods exist for the prevention of our controlling the spread of the diseases `potato cyst nematode' or `potato black wart'. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Potato cyst nematode and black wart are controlled by prohibitions on potato cultivation, long term crop rotations and the use of resistant varieties. Potato cyst nematode is also controlled by application of chemicals to the soil to kill the nematodes. To prevent spread of the disease restrictions may be imposed on the movement of seed potatoes, vehicles and farm machinery from infested properties. (Question No. 482) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Do the potato diseases cyst nematode and black wart exist in New Zealand and not in Australia. (2) Are the diseases referred to in (1) above readily transmitted through both tubers and attached soil. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The two diseases exist in New Zealand but not in Australia. (2) The two diseases are readily transmitted through both tubers and attached soil. However the risk with cyst nematode is considerably less with clean washed potatoes. (Question No. 483) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Does the `onus of proof', under the provisions of the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985, rest with the widow of a World War II Veteran to establish her claim where the Veteran dies after 30 October 1985 from a disability not already accepted as related to his war service or if he was not in receipt of a totally and permanently incapacitated war pension; if so, why. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Clause 119 of the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 (VEB) deals with the standard of proof to be applied in determining claims and applications for Repatriation benefits. My answer to Senate Question No. 492 outlines the reasons why clause 119 does not place an onus on any claimant, including a widow of a Veteran, to prove a claim. The significance under clause 119 of whether a Veteran died or dies 40 years or more after service is in what standard of proof is to be applied by the Repatriation Commission in deciding whether or not the Veteran's death was service-related. Where, for example, a Veteran served overseas in World War II and died 40 years or more after the end of the war, namely after 30 October 1985, the civil standard of proof is to be applied under the VEB in determining a claim for a war widow's pension. This requires reasonable satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for granting the claim. By contrast, the standard of proof that applied before amendments made by the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985, in respect of the determination of all claims, was satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. Even in those cases where the civil standard of proof now applies, I would expect many war widows' claims to be successful. Where a Veteran dies from an accepted war-related disability, a war widow's pension will be payable. Where a TPI pensioner dies, his war widow will be entitled automatically to a war widow's pension. (Question No. 492) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: Do the provisions of Section 19 of the draft Veterans' Entitlement Bill 1985 (which is proposed to replace Section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920) place an evidentiary onus on Veterans to establish a `reasonable hypothesis' by producing material to place before the Repatriation Commission before an application can proceed to full consideration by the Commission; if so, does this effectively place the `onus of proof' on the applicant whereas in the legislation it repeals, this `onus' rested with the Commission. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Clause 119 of the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985, which has the same effect as the amendments made to section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920 in June 1985, deals with the standard of proof to be applied in determining claims and applications for Repatriation benefits. Clause 119 requires that, before a claim can be granted, the material before the Commission must raise a reasonable hypothesis that there is a connection between the Veteran's incapacity or death and service. It does not place an onus on the Veteran or widow to establish such an hypothesis. To assist in resolving concerns that had been expressed on this issue I sought an independent opinion from a leading Sydney Queen's Counsel in relation to the amendment to section 47 of the Repatriation Act. His advice was: ``In my view, a reference to `onus' in this context is quite inappropriate. Section 28 (1) of the Act provides for the Secretary to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to cause an investigation to be made into the matters to which the claim or application relates. Further, it is the duty of the Commission to satisfy itself of all matters relevant to the determination of the claim (section 29). Thus, although the claimant initiates the claim, it is quite unnecessary for him to provide any evidence. The evidence may be ascertained by the Secretary or the Commission or it may be provided by the claimant. As a practical matter, of course, a wise claimant will place before the Department all information in his possession which may be of assistance to his claim, but it is quite misleading, in the context of an inquisitorial proceeding, to talk of an `onus' lying on any part''. (Question No. 502) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: What is the current situation with regard to biological control of (a) Galvanised Burr; (b) Noogoora Burr; (c) Love Grass; (d) Spiny Emex; (e) Bathurst Burr; (f) Wild Radish and Mustard Weed; (g) St John's Wort; (h) Parthenium Weed; (i) Saffron Thistle; (j) Perennial Bindweed; (k) Blackberry; (l) Caltrops; (m) Heliotrope; (n) Khaki Weed; (o) Water Hyacinth; (p) Serrated Tussock; (q) Lantana; (r) Collabah; (s) Silver Leaf Nightshade; and (t) Thistles. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following details in response to the honourable senator's question: (a) Galvanised Burr-Because it is native to Australia, there is little prospect of biological control of this weed. (b) Noogoora Burr-Attempts to control this weed in the past by biological means have not been successful. However, a rust fungus thought to have been accidentally introduced with certain sunflower accessions is currently having a significant effect on this weed in Queensland. Unfortunately, and because its accidental release prevented proper screening, this rust fungus does cause damage to certain sunflower varieties. (c) Love Grass-No work is planned and the chances of successfully controlling this weed by biological agents is considered to be low. (d) Spiny Emex-Agents to control this weed have been released in the past. However, the insects only completed their life cycle in an irrigated release site in the Loxton area in South Australia. Both CSIRO and the Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands are currently conducting research in South Africa in an attempt to locate other control agents. (e) Bathurst Burr-Previous releases of control agents have been unsuccessful. The New South Wales Department of Agriculture is currently conducting research to develop a mycoherbicide (biological herbicide) to control this weed. It will be some time before the research is completed. (f) Wild Radish and Mustard Weed-CSIRO is currently conducting an initial survey in Europe to find control agents for Wild Radish. No work is planned for Mustard Weed. (g) St John's Wort-A beetle has been previously released by CSIRO which has been found to be successful in controlling this weed in all but shaded areas. CSIRO is currently conducting further research to locate other agents. (h) Parthenium Weed-Queensland Department of Lands has released an insect which is successfully attacking this weed but it has yet to be demonstrated that biological control alone will prove effective. (i) Saffron Thistle-This weed is closely related to safflower which is an important oilseed crop. No work is planned to control this weed by biological means. (j) Perennial Bindweed-No work is planned in Australia although the United States Department of Agriculture is currently doing research to find control agents. (k) Blackberry-An illegal release of the rust fungus Phragmidium violaceum has been made by persons unknown and this is currently attacking most varieties of Blackberries in a number of regions. The Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands has conducted research into related rust fungi. Because of the possible conflict of interest among commercial berry growers and others who utilise Blackberries, it has been proposed that Blackberry be declared under the Biological Control Act 1984. Steps are being taken to initiate this action. If Blackberry is declared under the Act, the related rust fungi may also be released. (l) Caltrops-No work is planned in Australia although the United States Department of Agriculture has done some work on this in the past. (m) Common Heliotrope-The CSIRO is currently conducting research in France and in Australia to an agent to control this weed. (n) Khaki Weed-No work is planned for this weed at present. (o) Water Hyacinth-An insect released by CSIRO is successfully controlling this weed at present. (p) Serrated Tussock-No work is planned for this weed at the moment. (q) Lantana-This weed presents a problem because of its genetic diversity. A number of agents have been released in the past with only limited success. No work is currently being undertaken by CSIRO on this weed. (r) Collabah-The Department of Primary Industry was unable to obtain information on a weed with this common name. If the reference is to either Eucalyptus coolabah or Coolibah grass (Thellungia advena) then there is little prospect of biological control as both are native species. (s) Silver Leaf Nightshade-Steps are currently underway to have this weed controlled by biological means. Advertisements, in line with existing Standing Committee on Agriculture procedures, were placed in newspapers recently seeking public comments on the proposal that the weed be controlled by biological means. If no adverse comments are forthcoming it is probable that development of a means for biological control will proceed in the near future. (t) Thistle-See comments for (s) above. The proposal for thistles concerns Nodding Thistle (Carduus nutans and C. thoermeri) and Slender Thistle (C. tenuiflorus and C. pycnocephalus). (Question No. 522) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Why did the McKay Committee, during its inquiry, not visit Tasmania or hold discussions with any Tasmanian wine producers, given the outstanding reputation of the Tasmanian vineyards as producers of high quality wines. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Inquiry into the Grape and Wine Industries (known as the McKay Inquiry) was established with wide-ranging terms of reference covering all aspects of the grapegrowing and winemaking industries. The Inquiry widely advertised its terms of reference and sought submissions from all interested parties. It was provided with information on the Tasmanian wine industry in a written submission from the Tasmanian Government. While Tasmanian wine is of high quality and there is potential for increased production, the fact remains that Tasmanian wine grape production accounted for only 0.04 per cent of the total Australian grape crush in 1983/84. Also the Committee considered that the problems facing Tasmanian wine producers, all of which are very small operations, are unlikely to be significantly different from similar sized wineries producing similar quality products elsewhere in Australia. Given the need to utilise public funds most effectively in the conduct of the Inquiry, it was decided that a visit to Tasmanian wine producers was not warranted. (Question No. 526) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: When will the Minister for Defence provide an answer to my question without notice on 22 August 1985 relating to naval personnel. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to my response on 23 August 1985 (see Hansard of 23 August, p. 295). I have nothing further to add. (Question No. 534) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 December 1985: (1) Did the Government in 1983 set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to review the subject of awards, medals and decorations for more members of the Defence Force. (2) Has this Committee yet reached any conclusions; if so, what are its recommendations; if not, when can it be expected to report. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, (2) The committee has completed its report which is awaiting consideration by the Government. (Question No. 549) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Was the number of persons receiving unemployment benefits in South Australia as at the end of August 1985 less than 50,000. (2) What was the last year in which unemployment beneficiaries in South Australia in the month of August was below 50,000. (3) What was the last month in any year in which South Australian unemployment beneficiaries were less than 50,000. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) 1982. (3) November 1982. (Question No. 462) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What planning progress has been made to monitor environmental impact of the Ok Tedi mine on the Torres Strait. (2) Is there a need for an environmental management agency in the Torres Strait; if so, what avenues are available for funding such an agency. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Extensive monitoring of discharges from the Ok Tedi mining operation is currently undertaken by Ok Tedi Mining Limited under the supervision of the Papua New Guinea Government. The Australian High Commission in Port Moresby has been instructed to seek the advice of the relevant Papua New Guinean authorities on the availability of data from existing sampling stations, including data collected before mining operations began, and views on the possible inclusion of pre- and post-mining data from selected stations in a collaborative study. My Department has held preliminary discussions with other interested Departments about the development of an environmental monitoring program for Torres Strait. The Torres Strait Islanders are being consulted in this regard. Discussions have been held between officers of the Department of Primary Industry and research scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the James Cook University on the type of program necessary to gather baseline data and establish a monitoring program. (2) The Australian and Papua New Guinea Governments are committed under the Torres Strait Treaty to protect and preserve the marine environment in the vicinity of the Protected Zone established under the Treaty. Each Government has designated a representative to work in the Torres Strait community to facilitate implementation of the provisions of the Treaty. The Treaty also provides for the establishment of an advisory and consultative body, the Torres Strait Joint Advisory Council. The Government sees no need at this time for additional arrangements for environmental management in the Torres Strait area but will keep the matter under review. (Question No. 541) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) How many letters has the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment received on the Tasmanian woodchip issue each month since January 1985. (2) What proportion of letters has favoured changes to the present operation of the woodchip industry, for each of these months. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2)- Month Total letters received Number of letters favouring changes Percentage favouring changes February... 10 7 70 March... 291 124 43 April... 287 116 40 May... 487 175 36 June... 221 47 21 July... 117 106 91 August... 808 711 88 September*... 398 371 93 Total... 2,619 1,657 63 * Figures to 13 September 1985. (Question No. 224) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) Have there been any government-to-government communications between Australia and the United States concerning renewal of the lease agreement for the Pine Gap joint defence facility. (2) Has the Australian Government given any under-takings to the United States Government in regard to renewal of the lease agreement for the Pine Gap joint defence facility. (3) Under the existing lease agreement or any other arrangement with the US Government, at what point is the Australian Government required to make a commitment for renewal of the lease agreement on the Pine Gap joint defence facility. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The honourable senator's question is based on a misunderstanding about the nature of the agreement governing the establishment of the facility at Pine Gap. There is no ``lease agreement''. The agreement is published in the Australian `Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United States of America Relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility', Treaty Series (A.T.S.). It comprises two documents, the 9 December 1966, as extended and amended by an Exchange of Notes of 19 October 1977 (A.T.S. 1977 No. 24). These documents are concerned with the terms and conditions of a partnership between the Australian and United States Governments involving the establishment and operation of the facility at Pine Gap. The joint nature of the responsibilities is reflected in Article 3 of the Agreement, which says: ``The facility shall be established, maintained and operated by the Cooperating agencies of the two Governments and information derived from the research programmes conducted at the facility shall be shared by the two Governments'. The relevant current provision governing the currency of the Agreement is contained in the 1977 Exchange of Notes. It provides that the Agreement be extended for a period of ten years from 19 October 1977 and thereafter until terminated. After this extension has been in force for nine years ``either Government may at any time notify the other in writing that it desires to terminate the Agreement in which event the Agreement shall terminate one year after such notice has been given''. (Question No. 225) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) Is it intended that the new lease arrangements for Pine Gap will impose conditions or terms which prohibit use of the joint facility, in view of the Australian Government's stated opposition to the United States Government's Star Wars program. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) See my response to Question on Notice No. 224. The Prime Minister has sought and obtained clear assurances from the United States that the joint facilities are not involved in the Strategic Defence Initiative research effort nor do they perform any task other than those known and agreed to by the Australian Government. (Question No. 226) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: (1) At what level within the Government will consultations take place on acceptable terms of the new lease arrangement for Pine Gap. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) See my response to Question on Notice No. 224. (Question No. 521) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How many of the RAAF Mirage aircraft remain in operation. (2) How many Mirage crashes were there during 1984 and to date in 1985. (3) What were the costs of the extensive refurbishment programme which supposedly enables the Mirage aircraft to be operated safely beyond its original design airframe fatigue life. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) There are seventy-five Mirages remaining in active service (63 x 1110 fighters, 12 x 111D two seat trainers). (2) During the period 1 January 1984 to 13 September 1985 there have been seven Mirage accidents involving eight aircraft. In these accidents, six aircraft were destroyed (two in one accident). The other two aircraft are considered repairable. (3) The cost incurred for the structural elements of the Mirage refurbishment program is $30,997,318. This can be compared to a structural element project approval level of $32.753m in a total project approval of $71.794m (March 83 prices). Although some additional expenditure is expected, the final cost of the structural refurbishment will not alter significantly from this figure. The structural refurbishment primarily involved the purchase of new wings and the refurbishment of existing wings. The Mirage does not yet have a finite fatigue life, based on the safe life philosophy. In-service experience, testing and damage tolerance analysis have identified areas of the airframe prone to fatigue cracking and the hours at which this is likely to occur, with the RAAF's usage of the aircraft. The RAAF has adopted a safety-by-inspection philosophy for the lifing of the aircraft. A finite airframe fatigue life, within the boundaries of a test spectrum, is only now being determined, as a result of a tripartite test program. (Question No. 530) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Did the Prime Minister make any statements or promises to people in the Bathurst/Orange region in late 1984 concerning the Government's rejection of their land for defence purposes; if so, what were those statements. (2) What area in the Orange/Bathurst region is now under consideration for siting of the Army Training Facility. (3) What percentage of the area originally considered unsuitable is now once again under consideration. (4) Does this new study for siting the Army Training Facility conflict with statements made by the Prime Minister to landholders in November 1984. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 28 November 1984 I reaffirmed the rejection by the Government of a proposal to consider, inter alia, an area of 350,000 hectares near Bathurst/Orange as a possible location for a 160,000-hectare Army training facility. (2) The site in the Bathurst/Orange region now being considered is irregular in shape and comprises approximately 70,000 hectares centred some 25 kilometres northeast of Orange. (3) The site of approximately 70,000 hectares that is now being considered lies almost entirely within the 350,000 hectares originally proposed for consideration. It amounts to approximately 20 per cent of the 350,000-hectare area. See also the answers to (1) and (4). (4) No. My remarks on 28 November 1984 related to the proposal, originated by the previous Government, which was based on an Army requirement for 160,000 hectares. That Army requirement was reviewed and roughly halved at the instigation of my Government. The 70,000-hectare site in the Bathurst/Orange region now being considered by the Government is one of three new options which were nominated by the New South Wales State Government in March 1985 and which were based on the revised Army requirement. Senator Walsh —On 11 September 1985 (Hansard, pages 449-450) Senator Sanders asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned woodchip export licences and the Government's consideration of the environmental impact statement on Tasmanian woodchipping and associate forestry operations. The Minister for Primary Industry has advised that his statements in Tasmania during a two-day visit to inspect areas of concern in the operations of the woodchip industry reflected his view that licences would be renewed. That view is supported generally by the community in Tasmania. It is also consistent with the view held by the Forest Action Network, which represents conservation interests in Tasmania and is seeking to ensure that appropriate environmental protection measures are implemented by the forestry industry. The Minister made no comment on the volumes or the conditions which might be involved in renewal of licences. The environmental impact statement (EIS) is being examined by the Government; the issues it raises have not been prejudged, but will be taken into account with other matters including the social and economic impact of any decision. It is not the policy of the Government to close down industries, particularly in cases such as the forestry industry in Tasmania which is a significant and decentralised employer. The Government is concerned, nevertheless, to ensure, insofar as it has the power, that the industry operates in an environmentally sensitive manner. Senator Button —On 19 September 1985 (Hansard, page 754), Senator Sanders asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice on whether the Australia intelligence community had any foreknowledge that some form of action was being organised against the Greenpeace organisation in New Zealand, and whether the Australian Government refused to pass this information on to the New Zealand Government because of an agreement with the United States Government. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In my press release on 18 September I stated that I 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 Rainbow Warrior. This assurance includes any knowledge of plans for action against Greenpeace in New Zealand. (Question No. 412) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Was a Mr Donald Chisholm employed under a Community Employment Program (CEP) grant to work for ACE Television in South Australia; if so, and in view of the fact that Mr Chisholm receives both the unemployment benefit as well as income from his two small businesses in South Australia, how can this person qualify for a CEP grant. (2) Is Senator D. Vigor a member of the Board of Directors of ACE Television. (3) Is Donald Chisholm also a member of the Board of Directors of ACE Television. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Mr Chisholm was referred to the CEP project, which commenced on 7 May 1984, because he met the participant eligibility requirements of the Program. Subsequent enquiries by officers of my Department did not uncover any evidence that Mr Chisholm was in receipt of any income at the time of referral to the project. I would point out that CEP participants are not eligible to receive unemployment benefit from the time they commence work on a project. Mr Chisholm ceased receiving unemployment benefit on his placement with the project. (2) Senator Vigor is on the Board of Management of ACE Television and currently holds the position of Vice President. (3) No. Mr Chisholm resigned his place on the Board of Management of ACE Television following his placement on the CEP project. (Question No. 463) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which post offices have opened in Western Australia since 3 May 1983 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Western Australia since 3 May 1983 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Western Australia have been renamed since 3 May 1983; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices and post office agencies have opened in Western Australia during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: Post Offices and Post Office agencies opened Date operations commenced Balcatta... 1 July 1983 Noranda... 1 September 1983 Northlands... 4 October 1983 Karawara... 6 February 1984 Marmion... 3 September 1984 Langford... 1 July 1985 Wangara... 1 July 1985 (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in Western Australia during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Shenton Park West... 31 May 1983 Siesta Park... 31 May 1983 Mogumber... 30 June 1983 Wannamal... 30 June 1983 Quindanning... 1 July 1983 Tuart North... 4 July 1983 Alfred Cove... 1 August 1983 Hines Hill... 1 August 1983 Koolyanobbing... 1 August 1983 Arthur River... 1 September 1983 Lowden... 1 October 1983 Mirrabooka... 1 October 1983 Quininup... 1 October 1983 Walgoolan... 1 October 1983 Cadoux... 10 January 1984 Cloverdale North... 27 January 1984 Floreat Park... 31 January 1984 Maya... 31 January 1984 Bentley WAIT... 3 February 1984 Canna... 29 February 1984 St James... 6 March 1984 Moulyinning... 1 May 1984 Benger... 31 May 1984 Wokalup... 31 May 1984 Tardun... 30 June 1984 Yelbeni... 2 July 1984 Manmanning... 9 July 1984 Waterman... 31 August 1984 Mullalyup... 1 September 1984 Piawaning... 2 October 1984 Yampi... 30 November 1984 Hearson... 14 December 1984 Parkerville... 28 December 1984 Ardath... 28 December 1984 Belka... 28 December 1984 Burakin... 28 December 1984 Barrow Island... 31 January 1985 Yornup... 28 February 1985 Bayswater South... 13 March 1985 Wilga... 15 March 1985 Cheetarra... 29 March 1985 Highbury... 29 March 1985 Wilson Park... 29 March 1985 Tenindewa... 17 April 1985 Grimwade... 30 April 1985 Mollerin... 30 April 1985 Redmond... 30 April 1985 Bulyee... 31 May 1985 Joondanna... 28 June 1985 Melville Heights... 28 June 1985 Clackline... 29 June 1985 Yuna... 31 July 1985 (3) The following post office has been renamed in Western Australia during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: (a) Original name of Post Office: *Balga. (b) Date renamed: 3 October 1983. (c) New name: Mirrabooka. * Mirrabooka Post Office Agency was closed on 1 October 1983 and Balga Post Office was renamed Mirrabooka from 3 October 1983. (Question No. 500) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) When will all the sections of the Crimes Amendment Act 1982 be proclaimed. (2) Why have they not been already proclaimed. (3) What is the nature of the financial obligation which would accrue to the Commonwealth in respect of payments involved in the imposition or work orders, as provided for by the Crimes Amendment Act 1982. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Consideration is being given to amending the Crimes Amendment Act 1982 to enable the unproclaimed provisions to be brought into force progressively as each jurisdiction enters into the arrangements the existence of which is a prerequisite to the operation of those provisions. (2) Those provisions of the Crimes Amendment Act 1982 which have not yet been proclaimed require the making of arrangements by the Governor-General and each of the State Governors and the Administrator of the Northern Territory under which federal offenders may serve non-custodial sentences such as community service orders under the supervision of State or Territory officers. Difficulties have been raised by the States concerning certain financial and administrative aspects of the proposed arrangements. (3) By virtue of section 120 of the Constitution the States are obliged to make provision for the punishment of persons convicted of offences against Commonwealth law. Accordingly, no direct financial obligation would accrue to the Commonwealth in respect of payments involved in the imposition of work orders, as provided for by the Crimes Amendment Act 1982. The Commonwealth Grants Commission would, of course, take into account the expenses incurred by the States in providing community service order schemes for federal offenders when determining the relative funding needs of the States. Senator Gietzelt —On 19 September 1985 (Hansard, pages 755-6) Senator Walters asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice concerning the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Review Authority's examination of claims for a separate category of assistance under the scheme for apples and pears. The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: At the request of the Authority the Tasmanian Apple and Pear Growers Association has provided a submission in support of its claim for a separate commodity classification for apples and pears. Arrangements have been made for representatives of the Association to meet with members of the Authority on 15 October to discuss the submission and for the Authority to then determine the advice which it considers should be given to the Minister. While no deadline has been set for completion of the Authority's report to the Minister on this matter, the Minister has asked for its early advice. A copy of the Authority's report to the Minister will be given to the Association.