Thursday, 17 October 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. 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 method 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 Senators Puplick (from 15 citizens) and Peter Rae (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co- operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collections, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individ- uals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will, propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 942 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate (a) censures Liberal Senator MacGibbon for his outrageous, contemptible and ill informed attack on the peace movement in Australia. Senator Withers-Ha, ha! Senator CHIPP —Do I assume that Senator Withers supports him? Senator Withers-I support what he said, not what he is alleged to have said. Senator CHIPP —Thank you, Senator Withers. That comment is now in Hansard. I continue: (b) dissociates itself from that Senator's stated view that the peace movement in Australia has the aim of the loss of freedom in our society, is irresponsible, dishonest, spreads nihilism- Senator Withers-Oh, rubbish! Senator CHIPP —I am quoting from him. The PRESIDENT —I ask, with respect, that Senator Chipp ignore the interjection. Senator CHIPP —With great respect, I acknowledged it so that Senator Withers's `rubbish' goes into Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is the time for the giving of notices. It is a bit too early for all this. Senator CHIPP —I continue: and is thus some way responsible for unemployment, lack of scholastic achievement, drug taking and suicide. (c) condemns the view that church groups and teachers unions are agents in an attack on youth, of the peace movement. That is what he said. I continue: (d) expresses its firm belief that the Parliament of Australia should not be used as a vehicle for extremist, uninformed and inflammatory views on a matter of such overwhelming importance as world peace and the survival of humanity. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that the Government's tax package was announced four weeks ago and that there is growing community concern at its impact and con- fusion as to its detailed provisions, especially with regard to: (a) The capital gains tax and its destructive effect on small business; (b) the non-deductible payroll tax on fringe benefits and its destructive effect on jobs; (c) the disallowance of entertainment expenses and its destructive effects on jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries; (d) the disallowance of excess expenses under so-called negative gearing arrangements and its destructive effect upon the supply of new housing for low and middle income earners; and (e) the introduction of a foreign tax credit system and its disincentives to legitimate investment in countries in our part of the world; and calls on the Government to urgently introduce the legislation implementing the package to allow full and proper debate by the Senate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) expresses its concern at Australia's worsening balance of payments position evident from the 18 per cent rise in the current account deficit for the September quarter over the previous quarter to $3,345m; (b) requests the Treasurer to make available any advice from the Treasury on which he relied for his forecast at an Economic Society meeting yesterday that the current account deficit would fall to 4 per cent of GDP by June next year and then continue to trend downwards; and (c) regrets that the Treasurer intends to try to defend the Australian dollar that is being weakened largely as a result of inappropriate Government fiscal policies, by maintaining a high interest rate policy that will inevitably damage economic growth. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts: The education of gifted and talented children. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.08) —I would seek that the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill be put on its own and the other Bills I would seek to have adjourned at the first reading stage. I ask that they be put separately. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.08) —The Opposition wishes to maintain its ability to have a first reading debate on these Bills. Whether we will or not will depend on the state of play when the Bills come forward, but if it is more convenient for the Government to deal with them en bloc and for us to adjourn them all at first reading, that is satisfactory to us. Alternatively, we would like to adjourn those Bills which permit a first reading debate separately. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.09) —in reply-I thought agreement had been reached on this matter, but I am told that the objective can be achieved by adjourning all the Bills at the first reading. I undertake to agree to that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator WALSH) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders- (A) The Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 5 November 1985 at 11.30 a.m.; (B) The hours of meeting of the Senate for that day be- 11.30 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.- 10.30 p.m.; and (C) The order of business, for that day, be as follows: (i) Petitions, (ii) Notices of Motion, (iii) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business, (iv) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business, (v) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper, (vi) At 2 p.m., Questions, (vii) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64, (viii) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, and (ix) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.11) —It was indicated to the Opposition yesterday that the Government would seek to vary the sitting hours during that extra week of sittings. I have not had the chance to take that matter to the Opposition party room, but it seems that if we are to be sitting by ourselves we may as well use the available time to best advantage. I wish only to put on the public record a request to the Government that time be made available during that week to debate the taxation package. There was discussion of that matter between Senator Button and me originally. It was thought by Senator Button when he spoke to me that he would allow time during the current period of sittings for that debate. That has not occurred. There has been a debate in the other place and the Opposition would wish to have an opportunity to debate the taxation package during that week when we return. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.13) —The Loans Bill 1985 represents that part of the Government's legislative program which is an essential element of the funding of the Government's proposed deficit for the financial year ending 30 June 1986. I would like to return to some aspects of that deficit and discuss them in more detail. I simply wish at this moment to give notice of the fact that both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, as I understand it, will be moving amendments to this Bill which have the effect of returning the Bill as presently drafted to a form that will require the annual scrutiny of the Parliament. The Bill in its present form simply gives a blanket approval to the Government to borrow in each financial year the sums that it requires in order to meet its deficit requirements. I would like to discuss the mechanics by which this is undertaken a little later during the Committee stage of the debate when we get to a discussion of the Opposition's amendments. I acknowledge the fact that discussions have taken place between the Democrats and ourselves about the present nature of the Bill. I think we have a mutual position in that we are dissatisfied with its present drafting. The deficit of about $4,900m which the Government has proposed in its Budget, certainly is still most significant, albeit that as a percentage of gross domestic product it represents a fall when compared with the figure for the previous year. One of the things that is cloaked in the discussion about the deficit, as opposed to a discussion about the level of government spending, is that when we look across the broad spectrum of government spending over the last 12 years or so we can see that there has been a very significant continuance of an uptrend in government spending by the Hawke Labor Government since it came to power in March 1983 to levels that are more in line with the expenditure levels in real terms of the Whitlam Government in the period 1972 to 1975. That compares most disadvantageously with the fall in expenditures in real terms that occurred on average during the period of the Fraser Government from 1975 to 1983. If one looks at a graph of the average increases in government expenditures in real terms, it is quite significant that the Hawke Labor Government certainly seems to be resuming the normal pattern of governments of a Labor persuasion by spending more and more of the Australian taxpayers' dollars in following its social demands. That has been quite evident from the results of the Budgets of the last couple of years. Clearly, any claim that this Government is attempting to get expenditures under control is very much open to question. We have certainly seen little attempt, except for the so-called May economic statement, by the Government to state the areas in which it sees that there should be expenditure cuts. It is pretty interesting, for instance, that in that document it claimed that expenditures in the next financial year-the present one-would fall by about $1 1/4 billion. In actual fact, by the time the Budget was handed down in August and we were able to examine the total number of new initiatives of the Government in its expenditure programs, most of that figure was soaked up, over and above the so-called cuts that it had already announced, by new expenditure programs. The other question, of course, is whether the Government is achieving the expenditure cuts that it announced in the May economic statement. There has been no clear statement by the Government that it is pushing on with such things as the privatisation of the defence service loans scheme. We have not heard in what way that has been implemented by the Government. We wonder what effect the fall in the value of the Australian dollar in recent times is having upon the Government's considerations of that situation and, of course, what effect its proposed fringe benefits tax will have on the concessional rate of interest payable to defence service employees. That must, of course, have some impact upon the Government's ability to implement that program. Senator Walsh —Do you guarantee to pass the overseas students charge increase? Senator MESSNER —I am merely asking whether the Government is pursuing these issues. We would like the Government clearly to state its position. The matter that I have just mentioned is the kernel of the issues that are before us in terms of the present tax package. There is growing concern in the community about the tax package, especially about the impact of the fringe benefits tax, and especially about the impact of the capital gains tax and the likelihood that it will greatly affect the incentive for people to gather capital in their own homes so that they can look after themselves during their working lives and well into their retirement, and thus not be on the social security benefits list upon retirement. The Government is apparently tearing ahead with its capital gains tax and clearly it has not thought out its proposition because it is evident to anybody who has any understanding of the way human beings think and work that the capital gains tax will have a devastating effect upon incentive in this country. Its real impact is going to be to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is precisely the truth. The fact is that the selection of a date like 19 September, which the Government did, and saying that all those who have assets before that date will not pay any capital gains tax but those yet to acquire assets after that date will have to pay tax, clearly will lead to a major disincentive for people seeking to enter into new business relationships and new projects, seeking to develop their own industries in a way that they might see fit and seeking to build up wealth in such a way that they do not become reliant upon the social security system. Those are the key points of the capital gains tax. The Government would have us believe that somehow it is designed to achieve other social ends, but the net effect will be to make those with assets richer and it will reduce the capacity of those without them to be able to get them. I think that is one of the most devastating effects of the Government's so-called measure of equity with the capital gains tax. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are committed, upon re-election to government, to the repeal of the capital gains tax in whatever form and, of course, we will be opposing it in the Parliament when we finally get the legislation before us. That is a fairly vital point because-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —Order! Senator Messner, I ask you to recall that this is the Loans Bill and not the taxation package. Senator MESSNER —I thought I was relating my comments quite well. Your predecessor, I think, heard my point that there was a direct relationship between the Government's approach to monetary policy and the tax package. I do not challenge your ruling but I certainly will bring myself within the bounds of your ruling. Senator Robertson —Don't cast aspersions on our chairperson. Senator MESSNER —I am sure that the Acting Deputy President can speak for himself. I thought I was handling the matter quite courteously. Mr Acting Deputy President, I simply want to make the point that the capital gains tax is an issue of very great effect in both social and economic terms which the Government has failed to grasp. The major point that I now want to make is that in light of this growing concern about the Government's total tax package which was announced four weeks ago-and we have seen only one piddling piece of legislation in respect of the sales tax Bill-the Government has failed to bring in the legislation on the most important core issues of the whole package, they being the capital gains tax legislation and the tax on fringe benefits. Senator Watson —Nobody wants them. Senator MESSNER —Nobody wants the legislation, as Senator Watson says. Maybe the Government is having second thoughts about it. We welcome that. The point is that if it is proceeding with that legislation, let us see it so that at least the community can understand what the Government is doing so that people can plan their affairs. It is one of the greatest principles of taxation law in this country or under the British system as we know it that there be certainty in the law and that the law be applied with equal concern for justice for all. We are worried at this time that there is no legislation on those key issues and consequently people are in the dark about the most important aspects of their financial and economic affairs. Having briefly digressed, I return to the key point that flows from that observation. I would have thought that the Government, with its concern for the economy of this country, would have all the concern that could possibly be generated within its own power to make sure that people in this community had certainty at the moment in the development of their economic and business affairs. Surely if the Government is truly interested in creating jobs rather than destroying them through the tax package, it should be concerned to make sure that people understand precisely where the nation is going. The deficit, which is still running at around the $5,000m level, is causing a very great deal of concern in Australia. It is also causing concern to overseas investors who are consequently looking askance at the value of the Australian dollar and questioning whether perhaps the value of the dollar is falling as a result of a lack of confidence in this Government's control over the money supply. As a result we see the Australian dollar bouncing around under the US70c mark. Clearly, that is a vote of no confidence in this Government's economic management and, of course, in some of its other disastrous decisions in foreign affairs. All in all, the question of the money supply and the way in which the Government is funding its deficit are issues of great concern not only to Australians but also to people overseas. I think we have to acknowledge that the falling dollar is a significant problem when we look at the question of not only the Government's Budget deficit but also the deficit that exists on our current account in our dealings overseas. We have a growing problem in that our overseas deficit is approaching $11,000m as a result of our inability to export more than we import in terms of value. As a result of the problems of competition and the fact that our wage structure in this country is simply bearing too hard on the costs of manufacturing in this country, we find ourselves increasingly unable to sell effectively on world markets. The deficit of $11 billion a year on our current account has to be made up by way of capital inflow into this country. It has to be covered in that way. Therefore, the Government is deliberately in the position, by its own policies, of being forced to ensure that interest rates in this country continue to rise. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that interest rates in Australia are rising very fast at the moment right across the board. This is having a devastating impact at present on home buyers and those with mortgages. People are receiving letters from their building societies and banks asking them to extend their mortgage period although their monthly repayments may not be necessarily increasing. Others find that their monthly repayments are increasing and, consequently, they will find it more and more difficult to meet their commitments as time goes by. That is all because of this Government's deliberate policy of making sure that interest rates are kept high to attract capital to cover the deficit that is attributed to our lack of trading success overseas. The blame can only be laid at the foot of this Government, which is deliberately moving in that direction. I think the key point that we need to bear in mind is that not only do high interest rates have a direct impact upon people with mortgages on homes and people trying to obtain a home but also the capital gains tax and the decision to abolish negative gearing for tax purposes will have a destructive impact on incentive to invest in this country. Investment is the main source of new jobs in this country and by no means can the Government claim total victory in its fight against unemployment. That was made clear in this place yesterday by the discussion on the question of youth unemployment that was initiated by the Opposition, particularly Senator Vanstone and Senator Hill, both of whom are from South Australia. Clearly, many patchwork jobs are being done in order to camouflage the effect of unemployment across the community, but in no way has the Government solved the problem. The problem can be solved only by stimulating investment right across the community. Therefore, it is very odd that this Government's policy seems to be to destroy investment in this country by encouraging the highest possible interest rates, by deliberately encouraging policy directions which will maintain them and by introducing such measures as the capital gains tax which are destructive to new investment -not old investment-and consequently will have tremendous effects upon the ability of this country to create jobs in the years ahead. Perhaps it is something to do with ideology; perhaps it is something to do with confused ideas. It is probably a mixture of both. This Government simply has no clear package of ideas to develop the nation in the way in which Australians would like to see it happen. I turn briefly to the Bill. As it is presently drawn, it sets out a blanket power for the Government to borrow money year upon year in perpetuity in order to meet its deficit. In previous years the Bill has been a mere machinery matter to transfer the deficit on defence expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund. As a result, it becomes the measure of the Government's deficit and is charged against loan moneys that are raised on the open market. We in the Opposition believe that the Parliament should retain annual review and scrutiny of the Government's loan raising programs. Therefore, at a later stage we will be moving an amendment in conjunction with the Australian Democrats, in order to return the Loans Bill to the status of a Bill requiring an annual review process rather than that which is proposed by the Government in this legislation, which would give it an open-ended power. We will, of course, be moving those amendments at the Committee stage of the debate. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.32) —The Loans Bill 1985 which is before us today enables the Government to procure the necessary funds to finance the Budget deficit. This is perhaps a suitable time for some reflections on the size of the borrowings of the Government and the other commitments that it has made. The Budget deficit for 1985 was $6.746 billion. The mooted figure for 1985-86 is $4.9 billion. These are huge amounts of money and it is important for parliamentarians to see them in perspective. This year's Budget deficit amounts to $328 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Having said that, I point out that I am not a member of the school that sees Budget deficits as in- herently evil. The old Fraser notion that the size of the Budget deficit was the cause of inflation has been proved wrong. During the early 1980s we saw very low deficits-in fact we saw virtually balanced Budgets-yet we had periods of very high inflation. However, the first two Hawke Budgets had very high deficits and decreasing inflation, so the old notions have no substance to support them, at least in the Australian economy. If we look at the United States economy we see a similar thing happening. Right now the United States is experiencing very low rates of inflation and its Budget deficits are at record high levels. Nevertheless, it is without question and without argument that governments must use deficits responsibly in order to keep the economy going in times of recession and to cut them back when the stimulus is no longer needed. This is something that is beginning to be understood even by conservative politicians. Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform of cutting government expenditure to encourage economic growth. He certainly cut government expenditure in the welfare area; unfortunately with resulting increases in crime and poverty. However, to counterbalance that he in fact showered the military industry with almost limitless amounts of money. This has flowed into the civilian economy and has created jobs and growth in the United States. Of course, had Reagan directed his spending to welfare programs and to the upgrading of decaying cities and the infrastructure generally in the United States, far more jobs would have been created and the social environment would have improved markedly. Notwithstanding all this, I think there is little argument that the pick-up in the United States economy is largely traceable to Reagan's program of spending and large deficits. Likewise in Australia, the Hawke Government has brought about economic recovery by running very large deficits over the last three years. A nation is very much like a corporation; it must run at a certain level of debt. The level of debt varies with conditions experienced at any given time. As long as a debt is prudently managed and the loan funds wisely invested, a reasonable level of debt is a desirable thing. I turn now to the Bill. It must be said that the Government is proposing something very underhand with this piece of legislation. The Government proposes to ensure that future deficits are financed without parliamentary approval. Clause 3 (b) would have the effect of preventing the Parliament ever again debating the size of the government deficit. Such a move would be an absolute travesty of the rights of the people of this country through their parliamentary representatives. The Parliament would be denied the right to debate the deficit, no matter how big and no matter what the econ- omic strategy of future governments may be. It is not good enough, as the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) said, for deficits to be looked at and debated at the time we are debating Supply Bills. Supply Bills cover a multitude of important areas. The deficit and a government's borrowing requirements could easily be overshadowed by other considerations or not discussed at all if this Bill were passed. The government deficit is the debt of all Australian people. No individual would agree to going into debt without examining closely the terms of repayment. Companies must inform shareholders of the level of debt and how the debt is invested. Yet the Government expects the Australian people to give up the right to examine its debt commitments through their elected representatives. This is an outrageous notion; it is an outrageous initiative of this Government. The Democrats are not prepared to sit idly by and see people lose their right to control their own financial deficit. As has been already outlined by Senator Messner, the Democrats will be moving amendments to ensure that the offending clause is taken out of this Bill. In the past, the Parliament's authority to borrow has been given annually. What the Government is now seeking to do is to give itself and future governments the right to borrow forever and to deprive the Parliament of the ability to authorise that borrowing annually. If the Government is allowed to get away with it now it could attempt to get appropriation for three, five or 10 years. In one year it could then get rid of the Appropriation Bills as well. If the Government gets away with this attempt to reduce the powers of both Houses of Parliament, future governments could undertake borrowings without even informing the Parliament. This Government may not do that but the facts of the matter are that future governments certainly could. They could decide to stop informing the Parliament of the details of their borrowing and financing programs. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that the Democrats will not be blocking the Bill as such. This Bill is absolutely crucial because without it the Government could not govern. However, the Bill does much more than provide finance for the Government. In effect, it seeks to reduce the powers of both Houses of this Parliament. It opens up the possibility of substantial borrowings being undertaken without the Parliament being informed at all. We believe that the only safe course is for the Parliament to force the Government to disclose precisely what it is doing. I hope that my comments have underlined the importance and dangers of this piece of legislation. It is significant that when this legislation was debated in the House of Representatives on 14 October the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Hurford, said in closing the debate: No points of substance have been raised to which I need reply. However if I have missed any, we will be going through the Hansard record . . . It seems that the Opposition in the other place was not sufficiently wide awake to realise exactly what the Government was trying to foist on the Parliament. I did have the opportunity of having a discussion with Senator Messner a couple of days ago and I did show him the amendment that we proposed to move when this Bill was debated. Subsequently the Opposition has stirred itself and it now has some amendments of its own, which we will be supporting. I do stress the critical importance of what we are talking about and the fact that this Bill was able to get through the House of Representatives without the Opposition's attention being drawn to this aspect to me underlines the absolute importance of a Senate that can act as a House of review. Without it the Australian people could well have been confronted with a situation where they would have been giving carte blanche to a government to raise any amounts of money at all without reference to this Parliament, to open the doors to essential government by the Executive without any control at all by the people's representatives. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.43) —The Senate is debating the Loans Bill 1985 which, on a casual or first reading, appears to contain the usual sorts of mechanisms to enable the Government to raise funds by loan to offset the deficit. It might appear to be a very similar Bill to Loan Bills of the past. However, I believe that the Senate should be aware that the 1984 Loan Bill contained a provision limiting it to the financial year 1984-85. In the Bill before the Senate at the moment there is a new clause which refers to a prescribed period which means the financial year ending 30 June 1986 or a later financial year, and this is the clause that the Opposition is opposing. On the other hand, we should be assured in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) that the standing loan legislation will in no way detract from the Senate's ability to debate the Budget. Nor does it impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to authorise and appropriate money for expenditure for particular purposes. However I do believe that that statement must be open to some question. This means that the Bill provides, in effect, for standing legislation rather than annual legislation to obviate, in the words of the Government, the need each year for what in effect is a machinery financing measure. However, I believe that the motives must be questioned from the viewpoint of parliamentary scrutiny. One independent source suggests that there must be some ordinance or regulation before the Parliament to authorise any borrowing beyond 30 June 1986, even with the present Bill unamended. The Senate is entitled to an independent legal view, or certainly an opinion from the Auditor-General on this matter. A simple reading of it would lead to the conclusion that the Government, within a parliamentary term-or maybe even extending beyond a parliamentary term, as my colleague Senator Messner mentioned-in future may not have to present the annual Loan Bill to Parliament for debate. This would certainly cause a number of problems because it could lead to a situation in which some items could be included in the Loan Bill and not be subject to the scrutiny of a Senate Estimates committee. I see this new proposed procedure to be an abrogation by this Parliament-handing over its rights to the Executive branch of government. This is a matter of concern. Australia continues to live beyond its means with a consequent fall in living standards for the majority of its citizens. The Government boasts a high level of economic activity and we do not deny that, but there is growing concern that while the gross domestic product rose by $42 billion it has been financed by gross public sector borrowings of $30 billion, requiring also a capital inflow mainly in the form of borrowings in the latest period of $17.5 billion. Therefore, I submit that it is relatively easy for a government to maintain an appearance of affluence whereas that affluence is quite superficial, particularly when it has been achieved largely on borrowed funds. The servicing of our debts now involves high interest costs. Indeed, it is poor servicing when debt is used to finance current consumption. That is the situation in this country at present. We now have the highest real interest rates in the world in addition to unacceptably high nominal rates, and the prospect of a fall in interest rates is not bright. Authorities suggest that the high interest rates will prevail for at least a further 12 months. This is contrary to what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has told us and what the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) leads us to believe. The Government also has an unusually high level of government paper which it must fund in 12 months. This alone will place intolerable strains, the highest ever, on the raising of new finance by this Government. Internationally there is growing concern about the rise in the level of external debt. It has been suggested that current interest rates have been boosted by 3 percentage points by a deliberate effort to keep up the value of the Australian dollar. That is what the Australian community has been expected to pay, because of the profligacy of this Government, to keep up the value of the dollar. External debt at 30 June 1985 was $68 billion. From the days of economic buoyancy in the 1960s we note that there has been quite a perceptible change in the relative importance of investment. This investment has declined. On the other hand, public consumption and external borrowings have increased. The deficit is now working to depreciate further the Australian dollar. In fact, its true value has been stated to be approximately 55 to 61 cents, and they are the levels we are likely to find it will flow to in the next six months. Unfortunately, foreign debt is now so great that it takes approximately one-third of all export earnings. This compares with about 10 per cent during the 1970s. When all the horrors of the Argentine's external debt were revealed in about 1982 when the matter received a lot of publicity, interest repayment represented about 24.5 per cent of export earnings. That gives a valid comparison of the trouble Australia now finds itself in. The Government cannot continue to ignore the problems of the gap between earnings and outgoings or receipts and outgoings on the balance of payments account. This leads to higher inflation, reduced competitiveness, a reduction of future earnings and a further weakening of the dollar. All this leads to is pressure, pressure, pressure on a weakening Australian dollar. Associated with that weakening of the dollar, there are additional burdens on those who borrowed overseas because debt repayment in these circumstances becomes intolerable and embarrassing in regard to both State and Federal governments-anybody who has borrowed overseas. The Government must examine the reasons for industry's uncompetitiveness on the international market. Both State and Federal governments must examine their own imposts, charges and taxes-including payroll tax and workers compensation-and the problems of centralised wage fixing policy and union demands beyond commercial reality. All these factors have crippled, and are continuing to cripple, our export markets and must lead to further problems in the future. It must be of some embarrassment to the Government that the Australian dollar has now fallen to its lowest level against the New Zealand dollar during the past five years. Australian debt has now supassed that of Venezuela, the Philippines and, most significant of all, it is now seven times bigger than the figure was in 1980. World growth statistics of the past year and a reduction in world inflationary pressures-and we acknowledge a reduced inflation rate here in Australia-provided the Australian Government with an environment that would have enabled it to wind back some of its current account shortfall, but unfortunately during this period Australia's international trading performance has further deteriorated. The Government lost a vital opportunity that was available for it to act-an opportunity that may not be available again for many years in the future. The growth in invisibles payments has passed the increase in receipts and, following the floating of the Australian dollar, the widening current account deficit had to be matched by increased overseas finance. Unfortunately Australia's inflation rate is now rising and it is approximately twice that of our major trading partners. The Government's attitude towards discounting will further enhance the inflationary problem which has been compounded by higher import costs for manufacturing. The Government has not really thought out the full implications of so many items in its tax package. Australia is increasingly becoming more and more dependent on overseas capital rather than local capital, yet in this situation the Australian Labor Party brings out a tax reform package which includes a tax on capital gains, putting further pressure on overseas capital to finance local development. As my colleague Senator Messner said earlier-- Senator Walsh —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I try to be a tolerant man, but I ask the Chair to rule on what relevance this tirade has to the Loans Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —I think that Senator Watson was attempting to construct a necessary link with the subject matter of the Bill. It may not be entirely satisfactory in its construction, but I believe the link is preceptible. Senator WATSON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would remind the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, that perhaps some of my criticism is getting very close to heart. After all, loans are associated with deficit financing, and that is what this Bill is all about-bridging the gap between expenditure and receipts. It is a loan Bill. In fact, the Minister wants to make it a loans Bill. We prefer it to be restricted to 30 June 1986 rather than to extend it to subsequent periods because that would make it so much easier for the Minister's Government not to curb its expenditure patterns and not to look at raising appropriate taxes, to diminish further Australia's living standards. This tax package is like a pack of cards; it could almost collapse under the weight of the growing opposition that is coming from the business community. Until the Government decides to cut its expenditure levels, tax increases and high loan raisings will continue to be part and parcel of the Government's platform. I believe that in the Government's tax reform package, we are merely seeing a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. I support the amendments to be moved by my colleague Senator Messner and I trust that they will be carried to enable a loan Bill to 30 June 1986 to be passed but I urge the Senate to support the deletion of the words `prescribed year' so that there may be full accountability by this Parliament. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.58) —I support what has been said by the Opposition on the Loans Bill 1985. It is called a loans Bill, but in fact is a loans and appropriation Bill and I believe in its effects may have been better titled the Khemlani affair avoidance Bill, because that is the impact of it. As has been explained by Senator Messner and also by my colleague Senator Watson, this Bill is contrary to the practices of the Parliament, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and an attempt to by-pass the Parliament to enable the Government to govern indefinitely, subject to the constitutional requirement of election, but without having to resort, day to day, year to year, to the Parliament in relation to funding. All this is coming from the Party which brought the electors of Australia the Khemlani unauthorised loans affair, the Iraqi breakfast affair, the highest public debt ever known in this country-right now-and the highest real interest rates in the history of this country. This Bill is now being brought forward at a time when constant expressions of alarm are coming from all sectors of the community regarding public debt. The cost of servicing that public debt is now averaging $35 per week for every taxpayer in Australia. Senator Townley —And it shows no sign of getting any better. Senator PETER RAE —It is increasing at an exponential rate. Senator Haines —That is the worst sort. Senator PETER RAE —It is, as Senator Haines says. It shows no sign of getting better but is getting worse. Let me refer not to what I say, but to some of the well-known commentators and authorities. I quote from the Australian Financial Review of 16 October 1985. Noel Bushnell, in an article entitled `More experts focus on Australia's external debt', states: The growing body of literature on Australia's external debt gains another title with the first joint effort of two more prominent Melbourne economy watchers published today. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures and the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research devote six pages of October's Economic Focus, to this subject which in the past three weeks has engaged the attentions of the ANZ and National Australia Banks in different ways. The article goes on to say that economic focus tends towards the National's view and states: The combine notes that Australia's total level of debt, at 33 per cent in 1984-85, is now below the internationally accepted danger mark of 40 per cent of gross domestic product. But it adds that the debt service ratio (interest plus repayments as a proportion of exports of goods and services), at 33.6 per cent last year, is well above the considered critical point of 25 per cent. Further, NIEIR- that is, the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research- projections put the debt service ratio at 43.7 per cent this financial year and 48 per cent next year. That is confirmation of the interjections by both Senator Townley and Senator Haines and is contrary to the interjection by Senator Walsh. The article continues: The combine says increases in external debt and the debt service ratio can lead to reduced international confidence, significant currency depreciation, higher interest rates and the need for contractionary economic policies-the kind of experience many developing countries are having. That is not a very nice picture to be drawn, yet it is consistent with the projections made by the Government itself and the Treasury in the Budget. I believe that for this Government to attempt to bring, as I said, a Khemlani affairs avoidance Bill before the Parliament at this time is to stretch the credulity of the Parliament and the public to its extreme. Whilst Senator Siddons referred to the fact that the Australian Democrats were aware of this, so too was the Opposition-before there was discussion-concerned about it. It is not a matter of saying who was first-rather, thank goodness attention was paid to the matter in the Senate. I congratulate and support those who have spoken before me, including Senator Siddons. I am delighted to know that there will be a combine of attention to this attempt to avoid the normal processes of the Parliament. The Bill introduces in clause 3, as Senator Watson said, in a very quiet and apparently innocent way, this provision: . . . `prescribed year' means- (a) the financial year ending on 30 June 1986; or (b) a later financial year. That means any year in the future, at any time. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Every year. Senator PETER RAE —Every year, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle says. Then it provides in clause 6 that the Treasurer may borrow money to the sum which he considers necessary for expenditure from Consolidated Revenue in that prescribed year and the amount by which it is likely to be less than the amount of the expenditure made, and to be made, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in that year. In other words, whatever the deficit is, from nothing to the total amount can be borrowed. Senator Jessop —It is open-ended. Senator PETER RAE —It is an open-ended borrowing capacity. This is not just a loans Bill. It is an appropriation Bill as well, because clause 8 provides: The Loan Fund is appropriated to the extent necessary for the purposes of this Act. The Bill gives the Government power to borrow indefinitely during any prescribed year, which means in any year in the infinite future. That money would be appropriated automatically as a result of this legislation. Then we have a provision which I think is a lulu. It seems to be an absolute beauty if one does not look at it carefully. The Bill provides in clause 9 for a limitation of expenditure, which sounds good enough if we read only the first part of clause 9. But if we look at the second half of clause 9 we find that sub-section (1), which is a limitation states: . . . does not affect the expenditure of money appropriated under the heading `Advance to the Minister for Finance' in a relevant Act for a prescribed year. All that is needed is one appropriation for the Minister for Finance in one year and then, under that definition, every year thereafter is a prescribed year-into the infinite future. Senator Jessop —It is escaping proper parliamentary scrutiny. Senator PETER RAE —As Senator Jessop says, this is an attempt, I think an unworthy attempt, to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. It is as well that there is a unanimous approach on this side of the chamber that it is not good enough for a government to be allowed to get away with this. This is what I think the Senate is for, and is doing. I support what Senator Messner and my other colleagues and Senator Siddons have said. I look forward to the amendments being made during the Committee stage. (Quorum formed) Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.08) —In replying I intend to break my speech into two parts. The first part will deal with the substance of the Loans Bill proper and the proposed amendments to be moved by the Opposition; the second will deal with some of the peripheral matters which the Opposition raised. The proposed amendments are important for one reason only. They are important because they demonstrate that under the new leadership of the Liberal Party the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in his first confrontation with the fanatics faction of the Party, backed down. The Liberal Party Leader, in the first test of real leadership, when there was a requirement for him to show some leadership, backed down and succumbed to the pressures of the fanatics faction. Only last Monday in the House of Representatives Mr Carlton, the shadow Treasurer chosen by Mr Howard, said: This Bill makes arrangements for the Government to borrow. Previously there used to be an annual Loan Bill to handle this situation for all circumstances arising during a financial year. This Bill has been drafted as standing legislation rather than annual legislation to remove the necessity to pass legislation annually. As the Bill does not itself authorise expenditure- I repeat, `as the Bill does not itself authorise expenditure'- but merely creates a mechanism whereby expenditures authorised by other legislation can be made, the Opposition does not object to the concept of standing legislation. It merely improves the efficiency of the Parliament. We therefore support the Bill. If I may say so, that is a very accurate and succinct assessment of the Government's Loans Bill. But, three days later, because the fanatics faction in the Liberal Party put the heat on the new Leader, we find that wholly accurate and sensible assessment by Mr Carlton being overturned, being junked, being put through the shredder. The fanatics in this place, who represent the fanatics faction in the Liberal Party, are being allowed because of the weak, puerile Liberal Party leadership, to move the absurd amendments which are about to be moved. Senator Peter Rae —Tell us about Khemlani. You were around at the time. Senator WALSH —I will refer Senator Peter Rae to a couple of quotations from 1975 in a minute. We hear a lot of pompous humbug about parliamentary scrutiny from the very same people who, with the exception of Senator Peter Rae, for five years allowed the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer, to bypass parliament completely in making unauthorised loans to Telecom Australia for the purpose and effect of cosmetically reducing the Budget deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement; loans for which Telecom had no formal obligation to make repayment, nor was Telecom obliged to pay any interest. For five years the former Treasurer cooked the books in that way, without a whimper from any member of the Liberal Party in the Senate with, as I said, the exception of Senator Peter Rae. This craven, abject surrender by the Liberal Party's new Leader in the first test of strength with the fanatics faction in the Liberal Party, demonstrates, if any further demonstration were needed, that this man could never be trusted to be Prime Minister because he would be too big a risk. The crazies faction would be the de facto government of the country if Mr Howard were ever to be Prime Minister. None of the fanatics who have spoken on this Bill has attempted to deal with the statement by their shadow Treasurer that the Bill does not itself authorise expenditure. That is a simple and accurate statement of fact. By contrast, we get newspeak, we get plain, false assertion by several members of the Liberal Party and also- although I suspect more in ignorance than in malice-by Senator Siddons. The plain fact-and I know that at least some members of the Opposition have been briefed by officials on this question-is that this Bill does not authorise expenditure, whether it is an annual appropriation or a standing appropriation, any more than any loans Bill which has ever been passed by this Parliament authorises expenditure. Expenditure must be authorised by the appropriation Bills or by other standing appropriations. The Parliament has the chance to scrutinise those Bills-in the case of the annual appropriations, every year, and in the case of the standing appropriations, at the time they are introduced. This Bill does not authorise one cent of expenditure. Moreover, on 19 June I wrote to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts concerning the proposal for a standing appropriation instead of the annual appropriation. Senator Walters —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I was in my room when I heard the atrocious behaviour of Senator Walsh. I ask him to withdraw the comments he made about a member of the other place-that is, the Leader of the Opposition. His language was most immoderate. I ask him to withdraw his description of the Leader. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, an objection on those grounds must be taken at the time the remark is made. You cannot listen to it in your room and then come into the chamber. You must be present at the time that the remark is made. Senator WALSH —I am not sure what Senator Walters was objecting to, Mr Deputy President. I referred to the craven, abject surrender in the first confrontation with the fanatics faction of the Liberal Party. Senator Walters —I now take a point of order, Mr Deputy President, in regard to the description that the Minister has just used of a member of the other place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you are objecting to the reference to craven, abject behaviour, as I understand it? Senator Walters —That is right. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think it would facilitate things, Senator Walsh, if you withdrew that and went on with your speech. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr Deputy President. As always, I am happy to oblige and to conform with your wishes. The substance of this Bill, of course, lies in two key phrases which were accurately and adequately presented by Mr Carlton when he said: . . . the Bill does not itself authorise expenditure . . . In respect of making it a standing appropriation instead of an annual appropriation, he said: It merely improves the efficiency of the Parliament. His second comment is as correct as his first comment, that is, it improves the efficiency of parliament. A measure which is really a mere formality, if the Government's Bill were accepted, would no longer have to come before the Senate each year. No longer would it have to be printed and occupy or waste parliamentary debating time. It has been put to me by some members of the Opposition that they are reluctant to forgo an opportunity to debate government expenditure or government economic policies in general. That, of course, is another specious reason. If the Opposition wants to debate public expenditure or general economic policy, it has the opportunity to do so almost every day, if it chooses, by proposing for discussion a matter of public importance, apart from all the other legislation which provides an opportunity to debate that policy. Senator Messner —Where is your tax legislation then? Senator WALSH —Senator Messner knows that Mr Carlton was correct in his description of the Bill and in his support of it. But the fanatics faction of the Liberal Party has now taken it over. The fanatics faction has taken over the Liberal Party as far as this legislation is concerned. The present Leader of the Liberal Party has rolled over for it. It is an ominous sign, should he ever become Prime Minister, that the fanatics faction would run the country. Senator Messner —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The Minister is going on with a lot of tedious repitition. He is repeating the same point over and over. I call on him now to make quite clear the point he is trying to make in respect of this Bill. We want to hear clearly his justification for implementing this Bill in its present form. Senator WALSH —I endorse entirely the assessment of the Liberal Party's shadow Treasurer-that is, that the Bill in this form improves the efficiency of parliament. I do not think it can be put more accurately or more succinctly than that. It improves the efficiency of parliament, a view which the joint Public Accounts Committee implicity accepted as of 19 June, when I wrote to it, and which the shadow Treasurer explicitly stated only last Monday. But suddenly, it is all turned around. Senator Watson —What does the Auditor- General say about it? Senator WALSH —I do not have an opinion from the Auditor-General, Senator. But I do have a letter from the Attorney-General's Department dated 30 July which states, amongst other things: I confirm that in my view there are no constitutional problems with the Bill insofar as it will provide standing authority to borrow for defence purposes up to the limit of the amounts appropriated for defence purposes in any year and to supplement deficiencies in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Bill will have an adequate constitutional basis in section 51 (iv) of the Constitution. I do not consider that any constitutional difficulty arises from the fact that the Bill will provide standing borrowing authority. The Bill, of course, largely follows the format of the previous Loans Act which had been passed to provide borrowing authority on an annual basis. That is a letter from the Attorney-General's Department. The Auditor-General audits the use of moneys raised pursuant to Commonwealth Acts. But it is not otherwise a matter for him; that is, the Loans Bill is not a matter for the Auditor-General. This is an absurd piece of opposition, late in the day, which is diametrically opposed to the view of the Liberal Party which was very well expressed-I always give credit where it is due-by Mr Carlton three days ago. I am not sure how long the Parliament has been passing Loan Bills but certainly for several decades governments of all persuasions have used the Loan Bill as an expeditious financing device, not, of course, I say again, to appropriate money. The current Bill patently does not do that. An honourable senator referred to 1975 a while ago. After a couple of decades of Loan Bills going through Parliament each year in a rather boring way, this is what Senator Sir John Carrick said, I think on 1 October 1975: What is the result of an analysis of this simple little machinery Loan Bill? First, it is a device, and a corrupt device. That is what he said in 1975. We have never heard that sort of poppycock from anybody, of course, since then. That was done for what was a perceived politically expedient reason. Senator Peter Baume, on 14 October 1975 of the Loan Bill 1975, said: This question of loans is no routine matter. It is at the very heart of this Government's incompetence and dishonesty. We are not hearing that sort of nonsense today, but that was the sort of misdescription and the sort of blatant misrepresentation in which the Opposition of 1975 indulged on this same piece of legislation. We are seeing today merely a variant of that. The other matters raised by the Opposition which have a peripheral relationship to this Bill concerned the level of government expenditure and so on. The plain facts are that when the previous Government was ignominiously put out of office in 1983 it had managed the nation's finances so irresponsibly that not only were we facing a prospective deficit of $9.6 billion in the financial year 1983-84 but also the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), had deliberately chosen to withhold the truth from the public. When advised by the Treasury of the prospective deficit for the following year the present Leader of the Opposition and the then Prime Minister continued to misrepresent the truth by saying publicly that the prospective deficit was $6 billion, when in truth it was $9.6 billion. That is the sort of ethical standard which was practised by the present Opposition Leader when he was in government. Outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product in this financial year have increased by only 1.3 per cent-less than the population growth and about one-third of the GDP growth. As a consequence of that, outlays as a proportion of GDP in this financial year have declined by one per cent. This Government has imposed upon itself more fiscal discipline than any government in history. No previous government has committed itself in advance for the period of a whole Parliament to the discipline of the trilogy. The Opposition always commends expenditure cuts in the abstract. When Senator Messner was speaking, I invited him to give a guarantee that the Opposition would not oppose the Government's decision announced in the May statement to increase charges for non-Australian Development Assistance Bureau foreign students at Australian tertiary institutions. I have been hearing rumours that the Opposition has said it is going to knock that proposition off when the legislation comes before the Senate. Senator Messner at that time ducked an opportunity to give a guarantee that the Opposition would support the Government's expenditure reduction. I give Senator Messner an opportunity again to give that guarantee that the Opposition will support Government legislation which will reduce public expenditure. I give him an opportunity to say so. Senator Messner —Stop stunting and get on with it. Senator WALSH —Senator Messner will give no such guarantee, which illustrates plainly the humbug and hypocrisy of this Opposition. While at all times it supports reductions in government expenditure in the abstract, when it comes to the specifics it will not support them. Even worse, of course, is the fact that the Opposition runs around wildly promising to increase expenditure. I will give a not exhaustive list of the expenditure increases promised by this Opposition. Senator Watson —I raise a point of order. I accepted a point of order in relation to matters in my contribution to the debate when I was talking about the problems of expenditure. I hope that Senator Walsh will acknowledge this point of order that he is departing from the Bill and talking about expenditure. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —We are debating the Loans Bill. I understand that the Minister has to bring in the purpose for which the Loans Bill is required, but I ask him to keep his remarks as close as possible to the Bill itself. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr Deputy President. It was previously ruled that Senator Watson's comments were relevant to this Bill, although acknowledged by the then occupant of the chair as being of marginal relevance. Given that that ruling has been given, I think I am entitled to reply to Senator Watson. Not only does the Opposition in some instances refuse to allow this Government to make the expenditure cuts which its plans; it runs around quite irresponsibly promising large increases in expenditure. I will give a non-exhaustive list: The abolition of the assets test, about $140m; the Darwin-Alice Springs railway, for one year only, $78m; construction of a parallel runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, $157m; additional spending on defence, $210m; additional spending on health, $150m; the abolition of export inspection charges promised by Senator Boswell the other day, confirmed by Senator Collard and not contradicted by any member of the Liberal Party, another $52m; and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to make tertiary education for two or three days a week a precondition for young people receiving unemployment benefits. That is another $600m. This is about $1,373m in firm promises for increased expenditure which either the present Leader of the Opposition has given or to which the previous Leader of the Opposition committed a future Liberal government and which the present Leader of the Opposition has not repudiated. Humbug! Humbug! The greatest humbug of all is the proposition or the promise to repeal the capital gains tax. Senator Messner only last month wrote a minute which was then thoughtfully leaked by someone in that unhappy little coalition which temporarily is being held together in the Liberal Party. In that minute Senator Messner said: `We cannot even hold our own numbers in the Senate on this question. There are people in the Liberal Party, Liberal Party senators, who, if they thought there was any chance of the Government's capital gains legislation being defeated, would vote for it'. The same honourable senator who wrote and signed that minute goes around the countryside promising that a future Liberal Government will repeal the capital gains tax when he knows and has committed to paper the knowledge that Liberal Party Senate numbers will not even hold together on the question. That is apart from the fact that the possibility of any party having a clear majority in the Senate under the present electoral system is highly remote. So the Liberal Party gives that undertaking secure in the knowledge that it will never be able to deliver on it. The Government will not accept the proposed amendments although I acknowledge that it is not a matter of fundamental importance. As Mr Carlton said, the Bill in the form that has been proposed by the Government merely improves the efficiency of Parliament. For that reason it should be passed in that form. That is the view of the Public Accounts Committee and it is a view certainly shared by the Liberal Party shadow Treasurer and put on the record only three days ago. As I said, the Leader of the Liberal Party, in his first confrontation with the fanatics faction of the Liberal Party, rolled over and decided to accommodate them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.31) —I move: (1) Clause 1, leave out `Loans', insert `Loan'. Several amendments have been proposed and circulated in my name. The amendments set out the various changes to detail which are required to be made to each part of the Bill in order to return it to the situation which we outlined at the second reading stage; that is, to return it to the status of being an annual Bill. The reason I will be moving each amendment separately is that we have an arrangement with the Australian Democrats that we will move amendments Nos (1) to (8), excluding No. (2), which is the same as the Democrats amendment which they will be moving on behalf of themselves and the Opposition. We plan to divide on that amendment. Our first amendment merely changes the word `Loans' to the word `Loan'. This might seem a somewhat pedantic move but the point is that all previous Bills that have authorised loans to be raised by the Government in this fashion have been described as the Loan Bill for the particular year for which the moneys are to be raised. The Bill which has been brought forward by the Government is described as a Loans Bill and it gives the Government general authority to raise money by way of borrowings in perpetuity. That is the fulcrum of our objection to this piece of legislation. It is why the Opposition will move the amendments in conjunction with the Australian Democrats to ensure that we return to the annual basis of authorisation. Firstly, I wish to deal with one or two points raised by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) which have some relevance to the Committee stage. The Minister made the point-he is quite entitled to use discussion in other places to justify his case-that the Opposition in the House of Representatives said that this measure was somehow an improvement of efficiency of parliament. I make the simple point that it is for parliament to judge what will be efficient for its own uses. It is not a question of the Government telling us what the situation ought to be. Parliament comprises both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is for those two chambers to decide what way things will be handled in an expeditious or an efficient manner. The thing that has been clouded throughout the Minister's contribution to the debate at the second reading stage is just what is his justification for doing this other than that case he put down about the efficiency of parliament. What is efficient or otherwise for parliament is not usually a government's concern. Governments are usually concerned about what is efficient for government. It is for the Parliament to decide what its role is in this particular matter. The Senate is seeking, by virtue of these amendments, to ensure that proper authority is exercised over the Government's borrowing programs. But if it is the efficiency of government that is at stake, and that is really what the Minister is saying to us, he has not given us any justification for that stand at all, either in his second reading speech or during his summing up at the end of the debate. Therefore, we are no clearer as to what the Government intended by virtue of its amendments in the first place. Instead of harping on about differences that the Minister perceives within the Opposition parties, he would do the Parliament a far greater service by standing up and telling us what it is that he intends by this Bill and what he has in mind. Then we might understand what the Government is on about and we might be able to consider very carefully the Minister's legitimate concerns in this matter. But no, he goes about berating the Opposition in such a stupid, polemical and puerile fashion that we have to stand back and accept that nonsense while the real business of Parliament is let go by this Minister who cannot see the wood for the trees. We want to hear from him what it is that the Government wants done with this legislation that will improve the performance of the Parliament under the Government and why it will be more efficient. The Minister has not said one word. I raise one or two other matters in passing. The Minister continues to stunt about the question of the Opposition's position on expenditure cuts. He will get that information in due course. He will get it when it really counts. I will be there to debate it with him in detail when our policies are released. I give him the undertaking that if he will appear with me on television or in any other forum to discuss them I will be only too happy to accommodate him. In view of all this stunting that he will go on with from now until doomsday, trying to draw out of us our policy before we are good and ready to release it, he can go and jump in the lake. We are not in the business of Cecil B. De Mille or anybody else. We are certainly not here to accommodate Minister Walsh in his fancies trying to make cheap political points when he has nowhere else to go. Senator Walters —He is ignoring the challenge. He is not game. Senator MESSNER —Indeed. Let me return to one or two matters that are part and parcel of our amendments. I want to draw the distinction between appropriating money for expenditures by government-which is the proper function of parliament and the basis of the authority which parliament has had over government since the days it was constituted and certainly since the days of King Charles I-and the funding of the government's programs, which is done on a temporary basis by the government entering into the money markets. This may be through the banking system, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the short term money market or whatever it might be involved in. It is that second part which is the concern of this legislation; it is the funding of the Budget deficit, if you like, on an overall pattern over any financial year from 1 July through to 30 June of the following year. That is what I understand this Bill to be about. The question of appropriating moneys for expenditure by government is entirely a different matter. Indeed, that is covered by the Appropriation Bills which are brought forward by the Government each year, which are debated and voted upon in this place and which allow the exercise of parliamentary prerogative over government programs. Those two things are separate. I think that we have to see this Bill in terms of what its real purpose seems to be; that is, to authorise the Government to borrow in order to cover its Budget deficit. That is why my colleagues on this side of the chamber, including Senator Peter Rae and Senator Watson, have been raising very strongly the point about the huge size of this Government's deficit, its lack of economic policy and the problems it is creating for Australians through its high interest rate policies. Those are the issues which surround this Bill. If the Government succeeds in passing it and removing that program from all parliamentary scrutiny forever we will not have the opportunity to debate at all the borrowing program of the Government. It is all very well for the Government to talk about its expenditure programs and say `There are plenty of opportunities through matters of public importance or first reading debates on tax Bills to discuss these matters', but it obviously would not give us the opportunity to get to the very core of the issues and debate the legislation which authorises this Government to act. If the Government is so concerned about that, why does it not bring into this Parliament as soon as possible the legislation that is required to implement the tax package? The Government knows of the enormous concern about the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the disallowance of deductible expenses resulting from that package. Yet we have no detailed information. The Government will not bring forward these matters for debate in this Parliament. We cannot even get a debate on the tax package. The Parliament will rise and it will be another two weeks before we will have an opportunity to debate the tax package although the Government brought it into this place and the House of Representatives four weeks ago. We still have not had any opportunity to debate these issues at all. So how can we rely on Senator Walsh's opinion that we will be able to debate such an important question as the funding of the deficit and the borrowing program of the Government when we hear his kind of say so and promise? It is certainly not on and we will not accept it. This clause is perhaps the most important. It is the one to which the flagship of the Opposition's amendments are directed insofar as it draws attention to the real nature of this Bill. We have yet to hear the Government's justification for the clause. The Bill, as it is presently drafted, authorises in perpetuity the Government's fund raising program, borrowing program, to continue indefinitely. We are firmly committed to making sure that this position changes. These amendments will certainly return the Government's borrowing program to an annual basis. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.43) —We support the Opposition's amendment No. (1). I wish to comment on quite a few matters in regard to Senator Walsh's summing up of the debate at the second reading stage, but as I will be moving an amendment on behalf of the Australian Democrats immediately following debate on this amendment, I will leave my detailed remarks until then. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.43) —The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) during his summing up cited as an authority the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I would like him to give information to the chamber on the nature of the inquiry that was made by the Minister, or his Department, to the Public Accounts Committee and the form and relevance of that communication. I would also like him to table in the Committee the Public Accounts Committee's response in relation to its authority on what the Government is doing in relation to the Loans Bill 1985. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.44) —I have just been handed a letter dated 19 June addressed to Senator Georges and I table it. There was no response. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.45) —I submit that the Minister has misled the Committee because he claimed as an authority a response from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. There was no response as a result of my inquiry. Senator WALSH(Western Australia)(11.45) —You silly little man. What I said was implicitly endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee and the reason was that there was no response. Senator Walters —This is misleading the Committee completely. Senator WALSH —Oh, you little fool. Senator Messner —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Senator Walsh, I ask you to withdraw the words `you little fool'. Senator WALSH —The `little' or `fool'? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I ask you to withdraw both. Senator Messner —And the earlier remark too, Mr Temporary Chairman, about Senator Watson. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I also ask you to withdraw the other remark. I found that offensive too. Senator WALSH —What, the `silly', the `little' or the `man'? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I found it offensive. Senator WALSH —I withdraw any implication that he is silly, any implication that he is small and any implication that he is a man. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I ask you to make an unqualified withdrawal. It is a sensitive issue. We know that you have a peculiar sense of humour but I would like you to make an unqualified withdrawal. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.46) —In light of the Minister's latest revelation I ask: What was the purpose of his reference to the Public Accounts Committee in support of his argument? Did it have any relevance in support of his argument? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.46) —I am not going to answer any more silly questions. The Public Accounts Committee was notified of the Government's intention and it raised no objection. It gave no response and, therefore, implicitly endorsed what the Government was doing. This arose only very late in the day, when the fanatics faction of the Liberal Party of Australia decided that it would stand on its dignity, as it perceives it, in the Committee and repudiate what Mr Carlton said only three days ago. Another possibility-it is not unrelated-is that the Committee is being cynically misused by Senator Peter Rae in this instance in his desire to get even with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, for dumping him onto the back bench a few weeks ago. We have heard a lot of humbug. It has been said that the reason the Opposition is not willing to allow this to be a standing appropriation is that it wants to retain scrutiny over government expenditure. That, of course, is nonsense, because the Loans Bill does not authorise government expenditure other than the minuscule amounts-- Senator Messner —Government borrowings. Senator WALSH —Some of Senator Messner's colleagues said `expenditure'. If not his colleagues, certainly Senator Siddons said that. `It was a way of doing away with the Appropriation Bills' I think were the words he used. This Bill does not appropriate any money other than the miniscule amount associated with the expenses of borrowing. So the argument is wrong on one ground. If we delve a bit further we find that about 70 per cent of total government outlays is covered by standing appropriations authorising expenditure. That is the legislation which provides the legal basis for spending public money and 70 per cent of it is covered by standing appropriations to which the Committee and the humbugs who are grandstanding on this issue have not objected. They are wrong on two grounds: Firstly, on the simple factual ground that a Loan Bill does not appropriate money other than to the very limited extent to which I referred and, secondly, if the Senate had any genuine interest in scrutinising public expenditure it would not have allowed 70 per cent of total outlays to be covered by standing appropriations while scrutinising only the residual 30 per cent. Another specious reason given by various members of the Opposition is that they want to control government borrowings, and certainly this Bill authorises borrowings. However, the Treasurer may borrow money only in accordance with other Acts authorising the issue of securities, that is, only by way of treasury bonds, notes, or bills. The appropriation for defence sets the limit on the amounts which may be borrowed under this Bill. If it were accepted as a standing appropriation, annual appropriations for defence would continue to put the ceiling on the amounts which may be borrowed. So there is absolutely no substance in the argument put forward by the Opposition. As I said earlier, the only reason this exercise which we are going through now is important at all is that it tells us about the Liberal Party; it is not particularly important in itself, and I said that in the beginning. As Mr Carlton said, to enact this as a standing appropriation merely improves the efficiency of parliament. On that ground alone, the Government's case rests. It is not a matter of crucial importance. If it is accepted as a standing appropriation it will mean that the government, no matter who is in government, will not have to incur the expense of printing another Bill. The parliamentary bureaucracy will not be lumbered with the burden of dealing with a Bill which is in fact just a pure formality. To accept it as a standing appropriation takes no authority at all away from the power of the Parliament either to scrutinise that residual minority of public outlays which is authorised by annual appropriation, instead of standing appropriation, or to control or limit the amount which may be borrowed under this Bill because it is limited by the amount appropriated annually for defence purposes. I presume, although it has not been made entirely clear, that the reason the amendments are going to be moved in the way proposed is that the amendments following amendment No. 1 are consequential amendments. That being so, the Government will call a division on amendment No. 1 but not on the subsequent amendments if amendment No. 1 should be carried. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.52) —I am sorry, but I am having a little bit of trouble with the logic of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). I understood the Minister to say that the fact that the Public Accounts Committee did not respond to the Minister's letter implied that the Committee was in support of what the Minister had put forward in his letter. I would submit that there has been no reply and there has been no discussion by the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, I believe that any indication of support by the Public Accounts Committee for what the Government is doing is completely out of place and irrelevant. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.53) —I wish to refute the suggestion that none of those who are concerned with this Bill has expressed a concern in relation to the extent to which there are standing appropriations. I do not have before me the details of the number of times I have referred to this matter in this place. I do not have before me the number of papers that I have written for publication in relation to this matter. I do not have before me the number of occasions on which I have raised this matter in addresses to various organisations. However, I can say that for many years I have expressed concern and heard others express concern about the degree to which the number of standing appropriations has increased-the number went from 60 per cent to nearly 70 per cent in about the past 10 years-and the degree to which appropriations are not being subject to the proper scrutiny of Parliament because they result from agreements. Payments are made under some 330 agreements. These agreements are properly the subject of scrutiny and examination by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. That Committee has started to look at the non-statutory bodies. I believe that the Committee is moving-this was certainly the case when I was involved with it-to look at that huge amount of taxpayers' funds which passes as a result of agreements between the Commonwealth and the States and not as a result of detailed and specific appropriation of the Parliament. That is a matter of concern. If the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is genuine in expressing his concern about this matter perhaps he will give some sort of an assurance that he will do something about it. I will certainly do what I can to support him if he does. It is a matter of great concern that so much of the total annual expenditure is dealt with outside the Budget and the specific annual appropriations that are passed by the Parliament. I see that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, an ex-Minister for Finance, is nodding in agreement. I simply say that Senator Walsh did not discover this. Senator Walsh is not the first person to talk about it. To suggest that there is an inconsistency between the attitude previously adopted by the Opposition and the attitude that it has adopted on this occasion is simply an untrue statement which will not bear investigation. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.55) —There has been a lot of talk about appropriations. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) spent most of his time saying that appropriations could be debated with the Budget. That is true. This Bill is not about appropriations; it is about the Government raising money. It is about whether there should be any control on the amount of money that the Government can borrow. How the Government spends the money once it has borrowed it is another thing again. As I interpret his remarks, Senator Walsh is trying to tell us that the Government should be given carte blanche to borrow any amount of money it likes without any scrutiny of the Parliament. Admittedly- Senator Walsh —Were you not listening to what I said? Senator SIDDONS —I was. The Minister talked about appropriations. We are not talking about appropriations. We are talking about the restrictions that parliament should place on the fund-raising capacity of a government. If we are going to give the Government carte blanche to raise as much money as it likes, I am sure that it will find ways of spending it. The important thing is to control the Government's fund raising procedures. Surely the Australian people should be concerned about this matter. The level of our foreign debt has risen from 9.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 1978 to 33 per cent at present. This is an enormous increase. The Government is borrowing money quite recklessly. It is leaving it to future years to worry about how these enormous amounts of money are to be repaid and financed. Senator Walsh said that the Government does not propose to call a division on the second amendment. I am not sure that my foreshadowed second amendment has been circulated to everybody. That amendment states: Clause 3, definition of `prescribed year', leave out paragraph (b) and leave out `or' at the end of the previous paragraph. The Democrats will call for a division when the question is put on the amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.57) —I gave the Australian Democrats the benefit of the doubt when I spoke earlier in seeking the reason for their opposition to the Bill. I said it had probably more to do with ignorance than malice. That has just been confirmed because Senator Siddons said-and I think these were his exact words: `If money can be borrowed ways will be found to spend it'. Of course, ways will not be found to spend any money at all unless this is authorised by Parliament-this applies to either the present or the past-through Appropriation Bills. So Senator Siddons appears to have misunderstood the purpose of this measure altogether. I apologise for having overlooked Senator Peter Rae. There may have been one or two other people who have raised concern about this matter in the past. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the puppets who sit on the other side dance to somebody else's strings. They have been quite happy to allow, and have never questioned, the arrangement whereby the great majority of total government outlays is covered by standing appropriations. They have never given this any concern at all in the past. However, like puppets on strings they meekly go along with the amendments which are being moved by the Opposition today which, firstly, do nothing to increase parliamentary control or scrutiny of appropriations and, secondly, with the exception of Senator Peter Rae and perhaps one or two others, completely ignore the fact, of course, that when they have had the chance either to criticise or block standing appropriations they have never bothered to do it. I am confused about just what amendments are going to be moved. Firstly, I have not seen any specific piece of paper as notice of an amendment from Senator Siddons. I understood that amendment No. 2 on the piece of paper circulated by the Opposition was the amendment which Senator Siddons proposed to move, but that does not seem to be what Senator Siddons said a while ago. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.00) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I will be moving the second amendment. I just foreshadowed that and I do not know why Senator Walsh is confused about it. The CHAIRMAN —At the moment we are dealing with amendment No. 1. We can clear up that confusion when we come to amendment No. 2. Senator SIDDONS —I would like to make another point. Senator Walsh described me as being ignorant, or used words to that effect. I presume he is suggesting that, if the Government has the funds to govern, anything else is unimportant. Is Senator Walsh saying that we should not have any control over the means by which governments raise money? If that is what he is saying I would suggest that he read history. Bismarck managed to govern for many years without reference to the German Parliament simply because he was able to raise money. He had the funds to pay the ordinary expenses of government. I suggest to Senator Walsh that he ought to be a little more careful of the sort of language he uses. I would be happy to debate with him at length the question of whether or not it is important to have some control over how funds are raised by governments. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.02) —I do not want to have an endless debate about this sort of trivia. Bismarck was not subject to the Audit Act 1901. In fact at the time Bismarck was doing that the Audit Act had not been passed and the Commonwealth of Australia did not even exist. So it might be an interesting piece of history but it has absolutely nothing to do with this Bill or any discussion associated with it. I was not saying that parliament should have no scrutiny over the amount of money which is borrowed. The point is that honourable senators opposite have the cart before the horse. It is the appropriation of money for expenditure which determines the need for either revenue or borrowings either on a long term basis or on a bridging basis, and essentially this legislation provides for funding on a bridging basis. I omitted to say before that pursuant to this legislation a ceiling is placed on the amount which may be borrowed every year by the amount which is appropriated annually for defence purposes. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.03) —Having listened to what I think could be described as vulgar abuse which has substituted for any sort of argument by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, I am tempted to say that the paucity of the case which he has to put is in direct proportion to the rudeness he has displayed towards any and everybody to whom he has directed remarks. I am reminded of that old phrase `to put my opponent's argument in a nutshell, and I can think of no more suitable container'. If the Minister would like to read the Bill he would find that it does say that the loan fund is appropriated; it does say that there is unlimited borrowing in any year, indefinitely into the future, and it does say-and this is important-that the Advance to the Minister for Finance can be used for expenditure. It does not say-but the Minister knows this fact and has pointed to it-that nearly 70 per cent of the appropriations are standing appropriations which do not need to go through the Parliament in a particular year and that the other 30 per cent in the extreme case could be under the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Senator Walsh —It goes in the annual Appropriation Bills, which you surely must know. Senator PETER RAE —The annual Appropriation Bills can be bypassed. That is the concern with this particular provision. What the Government will be trying to do with this provision if it gets it through-and thank God it will not be getting it through-is govern without going to the Parliament. It is going to be able to bypass the Parliament indefinitely until, as I said, the Constitution requires an election. Senator Walsh —Getting even with John Howard does not justify that sort of misrepresentation. Senator PETER RAE —I am not concerned about that; I am stating my view and what the clear position is so far as this Bill is concerned. I do not know what has been said otherwise. The Minister is quite wrong if he says that Senator Siddons and the Australian Democrats have been misled in relation to this. They formed a view and we formed a view; we both formed views separately but they happened to be similar views about what was trying to be whacked over as a confidence trick by this Party that brought us the Khemlani loans affair, the Cairns loans affair and the Iraqi breakfast-all of the things that led to a situation where Gough Whitlam, the Prime Minister, said `I'll smash the Senate; I'll rule without it' and tried to. This is the Party which now says: `We are innocent when we bring before the Senate this seemingly innocent Bill. We are trying only to expedite the business of Government; we are trying only to make the Government more efficient'. Occasionally it even says it is trying to make the Parliament more efficient. Taking away the Parliament's power to scrutinise the exercise of the function of the Executive is not making Parliament more efficient; it is destroying it. That is what concerns people on this side of the chamber. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Messner's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Rae, PeterChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chipp. D. L. Sanders, N. K. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Siddons, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Vigor, D. B. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T. Black, J. R. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Knowles, S. C. Coleman, R. N. Kilgariff, B. F. Elstob, R. C. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Ray, RobertMissen, A. J. Reynolds, M. Macklin, M. J. Grimes, D. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. McKiernan, J. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.13) —I move: Clause 3, definition of `prescribed year', leave out paragraph (b) and leave out `or' at the end of the previous paragraph. That amendment will ensure that the matter of loan raising by the Government has to be debated annually. The CHAIRMAN —On a minor point of procedure, Senator Siddons, you do not have to move to leave out words such as `or'. That can be done by the Chairman, under his authority. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.14) —I agree with Senator Siddons inasmuch as that amendment and all the others are really consequential to that which has just been carried. We will not seek to divide on it. The important vote has been taken. The Opposition has carried the no confidence in John Howard and Jim Carlton motion by repudiating what Mr Carlton said in the House of Representatives only three days ago. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.14) —Following that last bit of nonsense, I indicate that we will support the Australian Democrats' amendment. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.15) —This amendment is not consequential. In fact, it is the basic amendment which will stop the Government having standing authority to raise money without reference to the Parliament. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.15) —I have to correct that repeated misrepresentation of the facts. The Parliament will have the authority to restrict these borrowings by the amount of money that it appropriates in the annual Appropriation Bill. This is just a machinery device to provide bridging finance within a financial year for expenditures that have already been authorised. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.16) —Senator Walsh keeps coming back to the point that has been debated and debated. We insist that the Parliament must have control over the Government's ability to raise money. How it spends its money is a separate issue, but this is not a standard piece of legislation. It is not of no consequence as the Minister for Finance keeps trying to tell us. It will control the Government's fund raising ability. As such, the motion that I have just moved will stop that being automatic and will force the Government to come to the Parliament each year to indicate what money it is raising and from where it is raising it. Amendment agreed to. Amendments (by Senator Messner)-by leave-agreed to: Clause 3, definition of `relevant Act', (a) leave out `a prescribed year', insert `the prescribed year'; (b) leave out `(a) in the case of the prescribed year ending on 30 June 1986-'; (c) leave out paragraph (b). Clause 3, definition of `relevant service', leave out `a prescribed year', insert `the prescribed year'. Clause 4, (a) leave out `a prescribed year', insert `the prescribed year'; (b) leave out `that prescribed year' (wherever occurring), insert `the prescribed year'. Clause 5, (a) leave out `a prescribed year', insert `the prescribed year'; (b) leave out `that prescribed year', insert `the prescribed year'. Clause 6, (a) leave out `a prescribed year', insert `the prescribed year'; (b) leave out `that prescribed year' (wherever occurring), insert `the prescribed year'. Clause 9, (a) leave out `a prescribed year' (wherever occurring), insert `the prescribed year'; (b) leave out `that prescribed year' (wherever occurring), insert `the prescribed year'. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.19) —The Opposition supports the aims of the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. This legislation flows from several investigations but it was prompted in the end by the results of the May National Road Freight Industry Inquiry of 1984. The committee of inquiry comprised Mr Thomas May, Professor Gordon Mills and Mr Jim Scully, who received general acknowledgement for the work they did and for producing a very good report including 98 recommendations. The report highlighted the position of the industry and the problems that go with it. As a result it highlighted the industry's history which showed that it has had many problems. The industry has a lot of instability, there seem to be worsening conditions, greater losses and bankruptcies and a lack of uniformity between the States. There are inadequate relationships between the operators and the shippers and so on. It is hoped that by getting some national legislation many of these problems will be overcome. There are wide areas of acceptance in the industry for this type of legislation but considerable reservations as to the legislation that is now before the Senate. It has not yet been explained why it is necessary to have this legislation now. The Opposition can see no need to have this legislation dealt with at this juncture. It is little more than a framework for a Bill. The agreements with the States are not finalised; the regulations are far too general and too broad; the arrangements concerning rail, for instance, are not finalised in any way. There are no uniform agreements with the States. Nothing can happen before 1 July at the earliest, and there has still been insufficient consultation with large sections of the industry. In fact, only about an hour ago I received two telexes on the matter, and I think that it would be appropriate for me to read those telexes. The first was addressed to Senator Chaney, to me and to the Prime Minister and said: We implore you to delay current legislation before the Senate regarding interstate transport referring to regulation changes expounded last May in the national inquiry into transport. Your source of information has been the TWU, the LDRTA, the NFFA as well as the Master Carriers Association all of which claim to represent a large portion of interstate owner drivers. This is totally untrue. This section of the industry believes that the proposed legislation is contentious and provokes further examination as it affects a large percentage of owner drivers not represented through the inquiry. That is signed by Kevin Small. The next telex was addressed to the same people and read: Further to legislation on interstate transport currently before the Senate, which is obviously the result of last May's inquiry into transport, we would advise that an estimated 95 per cent of interstate road freight is carried by owner drivers. Contrary to information you may have, very few of these owner drivers are represented by any organisation, i.e. Freight Forwarders Association, Master Carriers Association, TWU, or the Long Distance Road Transport Association. No doubt the above organisations claim to represent a large proportion of interstate owner drivers, however, this is quite untrue. We beg you to delay this legislation so our section of the industry can examine the proposals in detail. That was signed Mr Reg Mullins. I know that truckies are difficult people to talk to because, like fishermen, they attend meetings very badly and prefer to work than talk. There is a tendency for them to be individual operators, but I am informed that probably 80 per cent of all operators are individuals and probably belong to no group at all. That makes our job of getting certainty as to details quite difficult, but we need to ensure that all operators are represented and that their views are known. I know that there have been efforts to try to do this and meetings at all hours of the day and night in all sorts of places around Australia, but I have not yet had enough evidence to indicate that there has been a general acceptance by the industry, or that it has been adequately consulted since these Bills were produced very recently. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has stated that there has been general support from the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I am not sure what he calls general support. Does that mean total approval and total acceptance, or is it partial approval and conditional acceptance? Is it subject to agreement on a whole range of issues yet to be finalised? There is a whole range of issues not yet finalised. In these discussions we must remember that we are considering an industry of approximately 15,000 operators. We are now talking about fees of the order of $1,400 for a large truck, plus another $300 for third party. We must also remember that the Interstate Commission has been charged with producing a report and having this in hand by the end of April 1986. In the overall time frame, that is not very far away. That report is on the cost recovery for interstate road and rail services. To the best of my understanding and on the best information I have been able to get, the States are most unlikely to pass any legislation without more consultation, and, at best, I cannot see them passing any legislation before the autumn session of the State parliaments, and probably not until after the Interstate Commission report comes down. There is no doubt that the industry and the States will go along with any and every move that will produce better standards and greater uniformity, and improve safety, and that they will do their part in every way possible, but I am concerned as to whether the items that the Commonwealth has undertaken can be carried out by the Commonwealth. The industry in particular is wondering that also. We must be careful what we are doing because Australia has a particular need for long distance transport. The vastness of Australia makes it absolutely essential that we bring things together. So much of the production of Australia is away from the areas of either export or consumption and indeed the best possible system is needed to make that viable. It is vital that the costs be reasonable-both to those who are supplying the service and to those who will be using it. The economic efficiency of the system has to be maintained and assured. We require and expect an undertaking from the Minister that there will be no proclamation of any of this legislation until all the present unresolved issues are finalised and legislated. The legislation cannot be fully effective without the complete adoption by all the governments concerned. I noticed in the Minister's second reading speech the following statement: The report and the subsequent fast-track package have received broad industry and general community support as these groups have recognised that the recommendations must be implemented as a package. I think that is very important, and the crux of the story is that it must be implemented as a package. I do not want to see us diving into this and trying to pass legislation covering one or two points, leaving all the rest still to be negotiated at some future time. The legislation mentions an amount of $1,400. I am not satisfied that that figure can be included as any sort of undertaking. I am not sure whether it is reasonable that this figure be included at a time when there is another inquiry whose job it is to try to assess what that figure may be. It is also reasonable to point out that the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on 9 October 1985 drew attention to the fact and said: The Committee has consistently drawn attention to provisions permitting a tax, levy or change to be fixed by regulation without stipulating a maximum amount (see most recently its comment on the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill . . .) The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that by leaving the amount of charge to be specified in regulation it may be considered an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. We have to be careful that we are not leaving a figure to be arranged by regulation when that should not happen and when it should come before the Parliament, or, alternatively, I am not sure that the figure mentioned is not a foot-in-the-door figure. From other sources we are being told that it would not be possible to provide this coverage at $1,400. I have seen figures of $5,000 or even $8,000 mentioned by some sources as to what it may cost. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind. I would like to hear whether it is possible to give some reasonable guarantee as to what the costs will be, how they will be determined and whether this will be dealt with by the Parliament or by regulation. I believe that it should be possible to give the industry something that it really can understand. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the industry to support the legislation while it is so unclear as to a matter of money. We have the question of the States' fees. I am not yet sure whether the States have agreed to accept the same amount or that a similar amount should be charged overall and those currently charging more should take less. I am not sure whether the States have said so. I do not think they have. We do not know yet whether all the government authorities, the trading authorities-I have seen Australia Post and Telecom Australia mentioned in this regard-will be paying the same sorts of fees as the rest of the trading sector of the economy. Mr Lloyd in the other place, I think, summed up the situation fairly well. As recorded on page 1200 of the House of Representatives Hansard for 18 September 1985, he said: We believe that more exposure of the legislation is necessary because of the uncertainty as to how many of the aspects will be implemented, possible gaps and contradictions in the legislation, the too great a dependence on regulations and the uncertainty of the definitions. Nothing has happened since then to close any of those gaps. I believe that there ought to be more detail as to the distribution of the money. I am not yet satisfied-I cannot find anyone who can tell me-as to what the formula for the distribution of the funds will be, how the items that go to it will be determined or whether there will be any appeals from State to State. We are told that a determination made by the Minister in writing will be the method. I am not sure whether that is the most appropriate way of going about it. I would like to see a much better defined method for distributing the spoils. The question of safety is very important. Safety standards need to be uniform. But we are not yet told whether there are to be uniform vehicle inspection requirements, who will fund the stations, whether there will be a charge or the nature of the charge. Again, the regulations and clause 34 give the Minister the power to determine and declare standards, to be known as Federal road safety standards. But do the States know what those standards are? Does the industry know and is this area covered by what the Minister refers to as general support? There are many other areas of vagueness and lack of definition. I am not sure how we can satisfy the users or the other governments as to the matters they are raising. As I have said before, this Bill is little more than a framework of a suggested piece of legislation. There is scope for so many amendments. Had we thought that the Government was absolutely serious about the legislation we would probably have produced 20 or 30 amendments to try to clarify some of the vagueness in the Bill. I hope that by the autumn session at least we will be able to have proper legislation with all the details, with agreements from the States and advice from the operators that they understand it and that they can assist in putting the various relevant areas together. The operators are giving us a lot of advice but it is conflicting, as I have said, because we are getting it from different sources. It is all being given with the best of intentions. All the operators fully support sound, fully explained and easily understood legislation, but we cannot give them that because the Government has not provided it. There is still room for much more discussion and much more input. In the House of Representatives a Government speaker made the following comment: For the State Governments there will be improvements in railway cost recovery to match any improvement in cost recovery in the road freight section. This would also apply to the Australian National Railways Commission. There has been no discussion to my knowledge of the degree to which that is likely to extend or how it is to be done. I raise the situation of the State of Tasmania. The Federal Government runs the railways service there. Is it the intention of the Government to see that the rail freights rise, bearing in mind the present loss situation of the Tasmanian railways? What will be the attitude of the Government if legislation affects the cash flow situation, if increasing the cost of rail freight creates a downturn in the amount of freight carried? Have there been discussions with Tasmania on this matter and have undertakings been given as to what the Government would do if its actions prejudiced the position of those railways? This is very important. It is not just one of the things about which we can say `This is just covered by general agreement', because general agreement requires a lot of specifics to fill it in. The main objections that are being raised are that the legislation provides for a considerable overuse of delegation and regulation. There are far too many unresolved issues-unresolved with industry and with the States. There is no urgency. This legislation will definitely not be required before the middle of next year at least. I believe that the Bill should lie on the table to be dealt with in the autumn session after people have had adequate opportunity to look at it, after we have had an opportunity to gain input from those who are involved and after we have been able to resolve the many questions that still remain. I have said before and I will say again that this Bill is nothing more than a draft or a framework of legislation. It is so incomplete as to make the industry very suspicious of what the Government is trying to achieve. On behalf of the Opposition, I move: Leave out all words after `That', insert `these Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to remove the current excessive reliance on regulation, for presentation in redrafted form at the commencement of the 1986 Autumn sittings'. Debate (on motion by Senator Colston) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(12.40) —I rise in this debate to offer a very simple solution to a time-consuming and frustrating problem. I ask honourable senators: How often have they received a letter from a country area in their State and wanted to check the name and address in a telephone book, possibly for verification of the spelling, or else to answer the letter by telephone? How often have honourable senators pulled out, or had their staff pull out for them, all the country telephone books and begun the lengthy and tedious search to try to find out which telephone book corresponded to the post code in the letter? How often are they lucky enough to find it on the first go? How often have they had to search in book after book and gradually track down the STD area code by stealth or luck? I must admit that my staff have resorted in moments of stress to contacting the extremely courteous and capable telephone switch staff who we are lucky enough to have in Parliament House. Even they have great difficulty with this exercise, although, I must say, they have always succeeded in the end, but at a cost in time and with a certain element of those symptoms which we try to avoid in this place-stress and frustration. Before I came into the Senate today I checked carefully with the Department of Communications to see whether there was any document or service which combined or related post codes with STD area codes or if there was any reason why they should not be so related. In regard to the first query I was told that postal addresses with post codes in alphabetical order were contained in the back of all telephone books and that a service was available to find out STD area codes by ringing 0175 at any exchange. In regard to the second query, the answer was that there was no reason why the two codes could not be combined; it was only that no one had thought of it. In that case I propose a very simple solution to this problem. Let the Department of Communications produce a booklet which lists the postal addresses in Australia in alphabetical order by State, or perhaps by the country as a whole, and which shows not only the postal code for each address, but also the STD area code. Because computers can readily reorganise lists into any format one desires, let there also be a list of post codes in numerical order, showing the corresponding STD area code and, conversely, the STD area codes in numerical order, showing the corresponding post codes. Such a booklet would save stress and frustration and would repay every senator and member in parliament by a considerable saving of time. Besides, I think it could well be a best seller. Many other organisations, businesses and so on, must be suffering exactly the same problem. I am sure that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) would earn the undying gratitude of the telephone staff in Parliament House. If the Minister can authorise his Department to produce this booklet before the end of this parliamentary session, I for one will promote it in every way I can. I now provide the Department with its first entry, selected at random in Vic- toria: Crossover, for which the post code is 3821, and the STD area code is 056. I had to find that out the hard way. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.44) —I would like to use the brief time available this afternoon to draw the Senate's attention to a matter of some interest to the rural community and a matter that should be of some interest to all people interested in Australian industry. Broadly speaking, the matter simply is fertiliser. Several weeks ago I was approached by a number of farmers in my State who were concerned about the increased costs that were flowing from anti-dumping measures. Farmers in Western Australia and South Australia are particularly concerned about this issue. I understand that the National Farmers Federation presented to the Australian Customs Service a somewhat technical argument that in the case of the two products we are talking about dumping had not occurred, and that if it had occurred, it had not caused any injury to Australian manufacturers. Nonetheless, the Customs Service was not convinced by this submission and found that dumping had taken place. Farmers have, undoubtedly, some very real fears that relate to their immediate economic plight, but I suggest today that longer term considerations need to be taken into account. We cannot lose sight of what is probably, in this matter, the ultimate question, namely: Does the rural industry in Australia require a constant assurance that fertiliser will be available to it and, if it does require that assurance, does that mean that we must maintain and protect the Australian fertiliser industry? There are some very simple reasons why farmers want to be able to buy the United States fertiliser. Price is the first one. It was the main reason, prior to the anti-dumping measures being applied. But there is another much more basic reason why they would like to keep purchasing the United States product, namely, its physical characteristics. You may not know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the American high analysis fertiliser is much more even in size of its pellet shape and, accordingly, is much easier to deal with on the farm, much less hard wearing on machinery and, therefore a lesser cost to farmers using this product. In addition, because it is a high analysis fertiliser, fewer tonnes per acre are required and that again reduces the cost to the farmer of using fertiliser. The Australian fertiliser industry, on the other hand, would like to have some points put in its favour. I have already flagged to the Senate that I think the most important question we have to decide is whether, in the long term, we want to ensure the supply of fertiliser to the Australian rural community and, if we do, whether that means we need to protect and maintain the fertiliser industry in Australia. But I think we should consider some of the problems facing the fertiliser industry. One problem facing it at the moment is competition from imported United States high analysis fertiliser. Another problem is the requirement that the phosphate it uses be carried from Nauru and Christmas Island by the Australian National Line. Various people in the industry to whom we speak and the farmers agree that this requirement adds at least $16 a tonne to the cost of the raw material product being used by the Australian industry. A very large capital investment is required to develop phosphate plants and move into high analysis plants. There is a number of deposits of phosphate within Australia. Development of these deposits would save industry in Australia having to use ANL because the resource would be here on the mainland. But, naturally, development of those phosphate deposits requires a high capital investment and industry is concerned that if the rural community wishes to grab at daily cheap prices and not concern itself with the long term future, it should be very cautious about a large capital investment on a day to day basis. Another problem the Australian industry has is that there is a government duty on aspects of its product that does not apply to proportions of the imported product because it is already mixed before it comes to this country. It is not appropriate to assume that the phosphate industry in Australia is a homogeneous one. The industries are different in several respects. In terms of ownership, there are some private commercial companies and there are also some farmers' co-operatives. I suggest that the fact that there are some co-operatives indicates that farmers have gone into this business venture, not so much with the interest of making a profit, although, undoubtedly, that would be in their minds, but with the interest of having some control over the supply of fertiliser and that indicates that a large portion of the rural community would like to be sure that Australia maintains its fertiliser industry. The Australian Customs Service received a complaint from manufacturers that American products were being dumped. That complaint indicated that the nature of the injury to industry was as follows: Firstly, a reduction in the sale of like products; secondly, a decline in market share; thirdly, reduced production and capacity utilisation; and fourthly, a reduction in employment. The Customs Service acted upon the manufacturers complaint under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 and the criteria that it uses for determining whether injury is caused is found in section 5A of that Act. The complaint was lodged in March 1985 and the Customs Service issued a preliminary finding on 24 July this year. That finding indicated that dumping was taking place. The Customs Service proposes to continue imposing anti-dumping measures and has now invited further comments on its findings. Mr Acting Deputy President, I have highlighted, firstly, the industry; I have very briefly highlighted the farmers' attitude; and I have highlighted some of the problems that are faced by the industry in Australia. But the problem does not stop there. We need to consider the global context. The fertiliser industry in Australia, while not exporting and supplying only the Australian rural industry, in a sense has to compete in the global context because people all over the world in the fertiliser industry are keen to make Australia one of their markets. The American fertiliser industry is facing a massive oversupply. It is reported that several large United States banks are propping up American fertiliser companies and this may not last. The consequences are that these companies, in order to keep their cash flows going, are happy to sell fertiliser at a lower price in Australia than they would sell it in their own country. We need also to take account of the fact that the increased production of fertiliser in certain Third World countries has added to the increased supply on world markets. Additionally, we should also remember that the raw materials from some overseas countries bring with them production problems; increased costs for Australian manufacturers. We need to ask ourselves whether there is any difference between dumping that comes from foreign government policies such as the European Economic Community's common agricultural policy, and overseas commercial actions. There has been no suggestion that the dumping of this fertiliser on the Australian market is a consequence of government policy in any other country. In conclusion, having flagged the general problems in this area, I remind the Senate that the rural community in Australia is currently facing enormous cost pressures. The Australian fertiliser industry, while facing cost pressures, is facing other pressures from competition from overseas fertiliser manufacturers. The reason I raise this matter today is not only that Australia has a large rural industry and therefore the matter should be of interest to this Parliament but also that, in the more general sense, there are no simple solutions. In this, as in many other cases, very valid points should be taken into account on both sides. The Government is not here to serve purely the rural community or an industry that is suffering as a consequence of international competition. This is an example of where the role of government co-ordination, or government intervention, plays a very real part in deciding the future of the rural community and of the industry. Because valid points have to be taken into account on both sides we should tread very carefully. I do not want to say any more than this because I will develop a thorough paper on the matter and distribute it to honourable senators so that, if they are interested, they can read it at their leisure. Senator PARER(Queensland)(12.55) —As a matter of public interest, I raise yet again the sorry saga of a contract between the Department of Housing and Construction and E. &J. M. Maltry at the new Brisbane International Airport. The contract to carry out certain works was granted to E. &J. Maltry in November 1983. This company had been in operation for approximately 20 years and credit evaluation at December 1983 showed that it was considered sound with a better than average pattern of payments. Maltry's subsequently engaged subcontractors and tender prices were determined on the basis that claims would be paid within seven days of progress payments from the Department of Housing and Construction. Payment terms, of course, are important in determining prices. As the job progressed, subcontractors became concerned that the Department was not, in accordance with the original understanding, making payments in the time specified. The contractor, Maltry, was requested on several occasions to approach the Department regarding payment for deliveries made of completed goods to the airport site. The contractor advised on each occasion that the Department would not consider the request. During late May and early June 1984 several attempts were made to discuss non-payment of completed works with the Department. A major subcontractor, Evans Deakin Industries Ltd, made numerous telephone and personal calls, but to no avail. The Department refused to make officers available. On 18 June 1984, Evans Deaken informed Maltry and a Mr John Hodges of the Department of the removal of labour from the site. The reaction was that the Department did not want to know. Notice of intention to claim charge under the Subcontractors' Charges Act 1974-76 (Queensland) was issued on 19 June 1984 on the same day labour was withdrawn by Evans Deakin. On 20 June, an unofficial discussion was held with the Department project manager, a Mr Trevor Barrel, who was informed of the notice under the subcontractors Act but told that it would be withdrawn if work recommenced. The project manager advised that work would recommence in about a week. The provisional liquidator to Maltry was appointed on 21 June. With the sanction of the Department the provisional liquidator remained on site with some labour in an attempt to keep the contract alive. Major suppliers and subcontractors were approached by the provisional liquidator to give their support in meetings with the Department for completion of the contract. The response of the Department was negative and frustrating. A meeting was held with the provisional liquidator at the office of the Director of the Department of Housing and Construction, a Mr Janssen, who said he would investigate the matter further with his officers. Follow-up revealed that the Director had been transferred interstate and an appointment was made with the Acting Director, a Mr Caton, for 31 July to discuss the proposal for the provisional liquidator to complete the contract. Notice of termination of contract was served on the provisional liquidator on 27 July 1984 and the meeting with the Acting Director cancelled. The provisional liquidator telexed the Federal Minister, Mr Hurford, outlining what had happened and a reply was received declining to comment on the contractual matters. On 20 June the Department wrote to Evans Deakin claiming it was not bound by the Subcontractors Charges Act. This Act was introduced to protect subcontractors in the event of a prime contractor going into liquidation or bankruptcy. It was introduced to cover all construction authorities letting contracts in Queensland and provided for moneys owing to the prime contractor to be paid direct to subcontractors and suppliers. The Department of Housing and Construction claimed that it was not subject to the same law applicable to every other construction authority in the State. On 20 August 1984, the Department was advised that it was bound by the provisions of the Queensland Act and, therefore, was prevented from paying any moneys to the liquidator. The Government's solicitor acknowledged the letter and stated: It is unlikely that there will be any moneys to be paid by the Commonwealth to E. &J. M. Maltry. The question of whether the Commonwealth was bound by the subcontractors Act went to the Supreme Court on 20 September 1985. The Full Court handed down its decision finding unanimously in favour of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd and, on 11 October, the Commonwealth sought leave of the High Court to appeal the judgment of the Full Court. This, Mr Acting Deputy President, is a very sad and sorry affair. It indicated a litany of bungling events. The tragedy is that in the Commonwealth frenzy to show that it is not covered by an Act which covers everyone else in the State, 285 subcontractors and suppliers have not been paid a cent. In December last year this so concerned the Government Whip in the other place, Mr Ben Humphreys, that he called for an inquiry. Predictably, nothing happened. Evans Deakin is the largest of the subcontractors, being owed around $215,000 and, as such, has taken up the running. However, another 284 are owed approximately $1.3m. Some of these have gone broke, and others have been required to mortgage their homes to avoid bankruptcy. Apart from the totally unnecessary delays which have been caused by the Department's lethargy and bungling, contractors will need to consider seriously their position in future contracts where any Commonwealth department is the principal, and protection offered by the Queensland Sub-contractors Charges Act is not assured. Why is the Government continuing to penalise 284 innocent subcontractors who have provided goods and services under the terms of their contract? I believe these events are grounds for an inquiry into yet another case of monumental government mismanagement. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(1.01) —Today I wish to express my concern about the growing problems that are clearly emerging on the trade and balance of payments front, as evidenced by the rush into print by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this morning's newspapers as a result of an address he gave to the Economic Society in Canberra. The Treasurer's urgent need to try to dampen concerns in Australia about the worsening trade and balance of payments situation is natural because, of course, these worsening trends result directly from government policies. It is no coincidence that the continuation of a downward trend in our overseas reserves, in our overseas trade figures, in our balance of payments in general, has followed the renegueing by the Government on it's statement at Budget time that there would be full discounting at subsequent national wage cases for the impact of devaluatiion of the currency so that, in fact, there would not be a full recompense to Australian workers for the impact of devaluation. That, of course, was a sensible statement by the Treasurer at the time because that devaluation emerged from the fact that Australia was living beyond its means. The decision to renegue on that deal was made, of course, under pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which required the Treasurer to change his position totally, which he did. Instead of arguing at the current wage case that there should be a discounting for devaluation of about one per cent the Government is now totally supporting the 3.8 per cent claim. The Government has now said that it will press for a 2 per cent discounting at next April's case, which is to be totally made up by a reduction in taxes to take place in the following September. In other words, there is to be no effective discounting, in terms of take home pay, for the devaluation. That is a reversal of the position that the Treasurer recognised to be important, to be essential, in effect, for the carrying out of the Government's economic policy which was stated to sustain economic growth, to maintain the recovery and, thereby, of course, to improve the unemployment situation. The latest balance of payments figures show that there has been an 18 per cent rise in the Australian current account deficit for the September quarter over the previous corresponding quarter, lifting it to $3,345m. An 18 per cent rise clearly puts in question the Government's assertion in the Budget Papers that the trade deficit would remain at about $10.5 billion in the current year. That was the level last financial year. It is way above the traditional figure of about 3 per cent. Last year's total of $10.5 billion represented about 4.9 per cent and the forecast was that because of the growth in gross domestic product this would fall to about 4.6 per cent in the current year. Extraordinarily, the Treasurer has been saying that despite this increase in the overseas deficit the Government felt that the situation was on target and it was not concerned. I found that curious, particularly when I kept hearing the Treasurer's dissertation on the J curve, which, in simple form, means that things will get worse before they get better. Last night the Treasurer said that not only did he expect things to get better but also, rather than the external deficit falling to about 4.6 per cent of the GDP, he expected it to fall to about 4 per cent. He did not say whether this was simply because GDP would rise faster than expected, or whether the overseas deficit would fall further than expected, but the clear implication is, of course, that the trade figures will improve and that the current account deficit on the balance of payments will get better. The reasons behind his making this claim he did not reveal. We do not whether, in fact, he was relying on Treasury advice. If he is relying on Treasury advice it means that Treasury advice has changed dramatically since the Budget. In the Budget Papers the Treasury kept insisting that it was absolutely vital that there should be full discounting of wages for the devaluation if Australia was to remain competitive and if the Government's objectives were to be achieved. It is already noted that those objectives have been put in jeopardy by the Government's decision not to discount wages and I now question the Treasurer's reliance on the J curve theory that things, having got a little bit worse, will get an awful lot better. Senator Townley —They will get an awful lot worse. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As my friend from Tasmania says, they will get an awful lot worse. The reality is simple. I do not think the Treasurer has addressed his mind to the question of what happens to the so-called J curve theory when the combination of factors emerges in the economy that is here now in the Australian economy. In the first place, we have to recognise that a large proportion of Australian imports are producer goods, and there is little prospect of imports of producer goods being diminished during an economic recovery which the Treasurer says will be about 5 per cent this year. If, in fact, the devaluation will not have much of a diminishing impact on the level of imports of producer goods it means that their cost to Australia will simply increase. I cannot see how on the import level, at least in the producer goods area, we will have any dramatic improvement, in the sense of substitution by locally produced goods, in that element of our import Bill. Another point I would like to make is that in many areas of consumer goods that are being imported the Australian economy does not have the capacity to respond quickly enough to replace those goods, if there is to be an increase in demand in that area as a result of some of the Government's other policies, for example, the policy of either maintaining or actually increasing real wages. On the level of imports, it seems unlikely that the Government's strategy will work. What about exports? Do we see any real prospect of Australia's exports booming as a consequence of our devaluation? I must say that I find it very difficult, when looking around, to see why, in a market where we are price receivers rather than price makers in most areas, there should be any major recovery in our exports, certainly one sufficient to reduce the serious problems we face in our balance of payments position. The continuing fall in the price of oil and the prospect of further falls cast a cloud over the prospect of our energy exports and if we look around in the commodity arena, we note that many of our competitors are in desperate need of sales and any pick-up in world demand for those items should, I imagine, lead to a much greater level of exports from the massively indebted Third World nations than from Australia. We wonder what evidence the Treasurer had to make these extraordinarily bullish forecasts about the balance of payments. Perhaps they are based on the same lack of evidence as his enthusiastic comments and those of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before the last election that interest rates would fall. We saw no evidence from them at that time on what they based this claim. In the absence of any evidence from the Treasurer, by way of, say, advice from the Treasury, to back this claim, I think it should be taken with several grains of salt. Unless the Treasurer can substantiate his claims, which appear to be quite extraordinary, the world community will continue to be uncertain, and properly so, about the outcome of Australia's economic recovery and its impact on our balance of payments. We know already that the Treasurer is saying-it is reported in this morning's Australian Financial Review-that the Government will continue to put a floor under the depreciated dollar through tight monetary policy and high interest rates. Now we have a clear indication that the depreciated dollar is weak, largely as a result of the Government's own policies, particularly its policy of refusing to discount wages for the devaluation. We notice that the Government, because of its inappropriate fiscal policies, has to have an offsetting-type monetary policy and we see from the Treasurer that this involves the continuation of high interest rates. The Senate is entitled to ask how high do interest rates have to go to protect the currency from the consequences of these government policies. In particular, how high do they have to go to protect this nation from the consequences of the Government's deal on wages with the ACTU. That is the crux. This whole policy revolves around the fact that the Government renegued on its undertaking on wages because it was told to by the ACTU. The continuing balance of payments problem and the high interest rate problem relate specifically to the wages deal the Government did to keep the accord alive. If keeping the accord alive is so important to the Government that it leads to these kinds of problems, I believe we have seriously to question whether there is sufficient benefit in that enormous cost for us to accept that the accord should continue in its present form. It is a weapon by which the ACTU can continually blackmail this Government because the accord with the ACTU is the only coherent and consistent element of government economic policy. If it were to fall apart, the Government would have no policy. That is why the ACTU has this Government over a barrel and it consistently has the capacity to blackmail it into doing what the ACTU wants it to do. Unless we find much greater evidence that Mr Keating has a sound basis for his comments, certainly a far sounder basis than obviously he has been able to convey to the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Mr John-Claude Paye, who during the week said that clearly the external balance situation was one of the major problems that the Government faced, people like the Secretary-General of the OECD and the rest of the world should look in a very cynical way at what the Treasurer is seeking to do. The Treasurer's policy is one of desperation. He is trying to talk up the Australian currency and the balance of payments just as he tried to talk down interest rates before the last election. I believe he is doing so with as little evidence now as he had then. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(1.16) —I will not speak for very long. I want to bring up a matter that arose earlier this week when a Tasmanian senator spoke about a Tasmanian member of parliament concerning a diplomatic bag. When that was brought up the Senate's proceedings were being broadcast. We were on the air again yesterday and I was tempted to ask a question on the matter. I chose not to because I think that would have been to lower myself to the same petty level that I believe was used earlier this week. When I looked forward to the next sitting week I realised that we would be on the air all week and so I have chosen to use a couple of moments now to say what I think and what I wanted to ask. That the matter was brought up I think is a pity. The Senate, during the time that I have been a senator, has been a place where attempts to make small petty political gain by way of raising such matters have not been made. I was tempted to ask-and I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to make note of the question and perhaps give me a confidential reply in writing; I specify that it must be confidential-how many Australian Labor Party members of parliament, State or Federal, have been found to be doing the same kind of thing? I have it on fairly good authority, an authority that some people might be surprised at, that Labor people have been doing these things. That is why I ask for the information to be made confidential. I do not believe that something that may be done inadvertently, certainly not with malice or in an attempt to defraud the country, should become an item of discussion as this matter became in the Senate this week. I hope that, gradually, the people who are new to this place will look back on a few of the precedents or even ask the advice of their leaders or their staff. Of course, they do not always have to take that advice. But many of them would be very wise at least to try to ascertain what the situation has been on previous occasions. I ask for that advice from the Minister in due course. I assure him that, if necessary, I will go to his office and read it in his presence. The information would then remain confidential to me. If we start throwing too much dirt a lot of it bounces back and it can be made to stick. I think it would be wise for some of the senior people in this place to counsel some of the junior ones to watch what they do. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.20) —Today I raise the question of advertising and the public interest. I also raise the needs for consumers who have been injured, as a result of product or advertising negligence, to have an effective means of obtaining proper redress. In that regard I indicate that I am currently investigating the issues of standing and class actions as possible vehicles for balancing the economic might of large corporations and the consequent legal disadvantages for the ordinary citizen. If we have any real desire to see that justice is done we have to ensure that injuries and wrongs can, in practice, be remedied and that the single individual is not thwarted by the immense legal hurdles which currently are put before him by our legal system. Of course, we need to get the basic environment right at the start. Prevention is much less costly than remedy. After an injury or illness has occurred as a result of bad advertising we must be able to gain redress. The people of this country ought to be able to get information that is useful in making decisions about products and that, basically, is a purpose of advertising. In the United States part of that information comes in the way of comparative advertising. That approach is made far more difficult in Australia by the regulatory restrictions that are put on the advertising process. For instance, standard 38 (i) of the Television Program Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal currently in force, states: Advertisements should contain no claims intended to disparage competing advertisers or their products or services, or other industries, professions or institutions. A lot depends on the interpretation given to the word `disparage'. The Macquarie Dictionary lists two strands of meaning for disparage. The first is `to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of.' If this definition is read very literally it becomes almost impossible to put forward comparative claims in advertising. That is a most unfortunate state of affairs because it denies an opportunity to the public of having product matters put to them in stark relief. There are similar provisions in article 15 of the Media Council of Australia's code of ethics, which states: Advertisements shall not disparage identifiable products, services or advertisers in an unfair or misleading way. The wording in itself is not objectionable except that the word `false' should be inserted before `unfair' to give greater clarity about what is objectionable. The real question then becomes one of interpretation. The Media Council of Australia has barred Press and radio advertisements for the Melbourne fast food chain Wendy's Hamburgers following a complaint from McDonald's Family Restaurants. The offending advertisement was headed: `Did you know the beef patties in some hamburger restaurants were frozen?' I think it is quite reasonable that such information be drawn to the public attention. It appears that no one is disputing the accuracy of the claim, but the advertising that included this information was knocked out on the grounds that it was disparaging. There was also the case of the Western Australian Government's anti-smoking commercial called `Pretty Face'. The advertisement cost $40,000 to make and was banned by Australia's advertising standards council last December on the strength of one complaint only. The same advertisement went on to get major international acclaim during the fourteenth annual international awards competition at the United States television and radio commercial's festival earlier this year. It seems rather strange to me that we should be removing that sort of important information from people's attention when they are faced each year with massive hospital and work absence costs directly attributable to smoking. What makes me uneasy is that these decisions can be made more or less behind closed doors and without any input by ordinary people or by their representatives from consumer organisations. It is important that active people from consumer groups have awareness of the problems of misleading advertising. Without the chance for such people to report back to the public through their member organisations we really have a problem. Advertising in Australia is monitored primarily by a variety of bodies set up by industry groupings to administer self-regulatory controls. For example, the advertising industry has funded the Advertising Standards Council and the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations has its commercials acceptance division. The monitoring of print advertising is dealt with by the Australian Publishers Bureau and of radio advertising by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. An honours thesis submitted by Peter James to the Department of Government at Sydney University in October 1983 gave the following figures for the activities of these bodies in 1982: The Australian Publishers Bureau vetted and approved 1,555 advertisements for print; the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters accepted 11,443 of 11,500 commercials submitted in New South Wales, and the commercials acceptance division of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations approved 14,204 of the 14,567 advertisements submitted for its judgment. This is an enormous work load in anyone's terms and the responsibilities are great. The general public, however, ought to have some direct input in this process and an input at that level. The decision making process must be seen as acting in the public interest otherwise suspicions will arise when unusual or difficult decisions are made. Nothing breeds such suspicions as quickly as the unavailability of information, particularly information about how standards are being interpreted. We need regular reports and reasons for decisions for the rejection of advertisements and it is absolutely essential that there be some accountability to the public. I find it interesting that the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations withdrew its applications to the Trade Practices Commission for authorisation for the operations of its commercials acceptance division. The Federation regarded it as unacceptable that there be an obligation for it to consult regularly with consumer groups. That, I think, is most unfortunate as my experience of consultation especially with consumer groups is one of very constructive exchanges from which positive solutions to problems can be developed. Consumer groups should not be automatically written off as anti-business or by some other extremist description. They are interested in consumers and the business which provides the service to them. They are aware of the difficulties suffered by the consumers themselves and they have real contributions to make to the solutions to these problems. According to the advertising source, McCann, Erickson, Hoare and Govett in 1982, $2,500m was spent on advertising in Australia. That was about 1.5 per cent of our gross national product, a greater proportion than is spent anywhere else in the Western world. We have an obligation to remove the deleterious effects of misleading advertising. We must ensure that where such advertising is consciously carried out and results in harm to people, adequate opportunities for redress and adequate compensation are available. It would, of course, be better to get public interest involvement before the trouble starts. The general public needs information on which decisions concerning products can sensibly be made. This is the purpose of advertising. It makes a positive contribution to our society and if it is going to make this contribution properly we must offer the advertising industry a sensible legislative framework in which it can operate. Sitting suspended from 1.29 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree with various assessments in the professional accounting world that a combination of the higher company tax rate, the foreign tax credit system and the particular approach to the imputation of dividends provisions of the tax package could lead to a worsening of the balance of payments problems as the measures, combined, provide an incentive for Australian companies with operations off-shore either to cease those operations off-shore or to move off-shore entirely? Senator WALSH —I am not familiar with the assessments to which Senator Chaney referred and I would not like to give a considered opinion on them unless I had read them. Prima facie it seems to me unlikely that that will happen. In particular, the change proposed in the taxation of Australian investments abroad is that if Australian investment goes abroad into a tax haven, where there is either no company tax or a rate of company tax much lower than Australia's rate, those profits in the future will have the level of taxation topped up to the Australian level. Not only does it seem to me unlikely that that change will cause Australian companies to move off-shore, it seems to me that that change is a substantial deterrent to Australian com- panies moving off-shore. Therefore, they will be more likely to invest in Australia. I do not know whether Senator Chaney wants to endorse the proposition that Australia should wink and nod at Australian companies taking advantage of such tax shelters as the Bahamas. To a significant extent that is what can be done now and that is what the Government is going to terminate. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I am sorry that the Minister has taken a question which I think is of serious concern to Australian industry as a plea for tax havens or tax dodging. I can appreciate the Minister not wanting to give a considered opinion on a matter that he has not carefully considered, but I ask whether he agrees that the new arrangements which the Government is putting in place will mean that Australian companies operating abroad in countries with a lower tax rate than Australia will in fact be in a less competitive position in that country than the domestic companies in that country. In other words, under these arrangements they will be subjected to a heavier tax burden where they are trading overseas than their competitors in that overseas country. In those circumstances that is a disadvantage for Australian companies in that position. Does the Minister agree that that could lead some companies to decide to establish their total operation off-shore rather than to adopt the guise that he is suggesting, which is to bring all of their operations back to Australia? Senator WALSH —If Australian companies shifted their total operations off-shore they would cease to be Australian companies. Senator Chaney, despite his disclaimer, is quite clearly suggesting that the Australian Government should allow Australian capital to be invested overseas under a tax regime more favourable than the same capital would face in Australia; that we should accommodate that sort of policy. I suppose he is entitled to believe that. I just believe that we should not allow special tax treatment for Australian investment overseas which is more favourable than for the same Australian investment inside Australia. As I said earlier regarding the assessments to which Senator Chaney has referred, I do not want to give a considered opinion on them. However, as a result of the imputation, it is a fact that the total level of taxation on companies and their shareholders will be lower than it would otherwise be. That, of course, must be an incentive. There is room for opinions in the interpretation of this whole question, but I can tell Senator Chaney that one specific policy which beyond any doubt will either reduce or increase our current account deficit is the Government policy to increase the charges to non-Australian Development Assistance Bureau overseas students at tertiary institutions. Such a policy would close Australia's current account deficit. I understand that the Opposition intends to oppose that. I have invited Senator Messner to come clean on that point and he has ducked that challenge. Let everybody know that if the Opposition opposes the Government policy on that question, it will be exacerbating our current account deficit. Senator COATES —Has the Minister for Education seen reports supporting the development of private tertiary institutions to export educational services? Those reports suggest that this would increase competition and improve efficiency in tertiary education. Is there any evidence to suggest that private tertiary institutions would improve efficiency, educational standards or educational opportunities? Does the Minister agree that if there is to be export of educational services, it is preferable for it to be by public institutions rather than benefiting unspecified private interests? Senator RYAN —I know of no evidence that a sudden development of unregulated private institutions claiming to be marketing education services would bring any benefits, either to those to whom these courses are being marketed or to the country from which they are being marketed. I think it is quite clear from the- Senator Sheil —Ever heard of the Kalgoorlie School of Mines? Senator RYAN —The interjection by Senator Sheil anticipates what I was going to say. There are a number of Australian institutions which are currently involving themselves in off-shore commercial activities, and some on-shore, and these have been successful. A large number of universities have commercial arms through which they sell consultancy services, research services, and through which they gain a closer relationship with industry-based research. These are activities which our Government supports and which it is trying to encourage and facilitate. For example, I think it was at the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has now formed with the business council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry a university industry committee which will explore the possibilities for more developments of these kinds. As far as the advanced education sector and other universities are concerned, there is now considerable effort being made to export services. For those honourable senators who did not watch the National program the other night I give as an example external studies courses available in Singapore conducted under the auspices of the Western Australian Institute of Technology. Criticisms of our Australian education system such as have been coming from Mr Shack, the new and obviously very inexperienced spokesperson on education for the Opposition, suggest that no such activities are under way. In fact, a large number of activities are under way. They are supported by our Government because they are being carried out in a way which will not undermine public institutions, which will not undermine the standards of teaching and research in this country and which will not in any way disadvantage Australian students. If we were to encourage a situation which would do any of those things I think we would be acting against the interests of Australian institutions, the reputation of Australian education here and abroad and, indeed, we would not be doing a service to students in our region. They are not anxious to come into Australia to get some sort of mickey mouse course set up by a private institution but are anxious to participate in the very high standards of public higher education that we have available to us. The terms and conditions on which students can come ought to be very well known. There are about 18,000 overseas students studying in Australia at the moment, of which 15,000 are studying in higher education institutions, mainly universities, and their studies are being subsidised extensively by our Government through the overseas students program. Some students-that is, those from Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific islands-are fully subsidised. Others are subsidised to about two-thirds of the costs of their study. In addition, as I have announced on more than one occasion, institutions which believe they are able to attract overseas students at full cost-that is, with no use of public money or public resources-are able to do so. Whether or not they will be able to do so, we will see next year. In conclusion, I make it quite clear to Senator Coates that our Government supports-indeed we are about to facilitate-entrepreneurial activities by Australian institutions in our region, but we will do so in such a way that we will protect our public institutions as well as offering a high standard of education with access by Australian students. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I refer to the question I asked him yesterday concerning the South Australian Ombudsman and Qantas Airways Ltd Board member, Mary Beasley, which question was not answered. I refer to Press reports today that a meeting took place last night between the Aviation Minister, the Qantas Chairman and the Acting Prime Minister concerning the matter. I refer also to reports that she was expected to resign from the Qantas Board today or face possible dismissal. I ask the Minister: What are the allegations against her? Have they been substantiated? When did the Minister first become aware of the allegations? When did the Minister first advise the South Australian Premier of the allegations? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Hill knows that I represent the Minister for Aviation in this place. I have been informed that this morning he received and accepted Miss Beasley's resignation from the Board of Qantas Airways Ltd. I will refer any other matters raised to the Minister. Senator RICHARDSON —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry agree with the criticism in the Australian Financial Review on 26 August 1985 concerning agribusiness corporations and their effects on farmers? The article claims that agribusiness corporations such as Elders IXL, Unilever, the Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd, to name but a few, now account for 35 per cent of our gross domestic product with the farm component accounting for only 6 per cent of these points, and that integration of farming has brought substantial profits to agribusiness corporations giving them the ability to spread their risks. Has the Minister considered research and investigation into both agribusinesses and the successful Namoi Cotton Co-operative Ltd at Wee Waa with the aim of gaining farmers a greater share of profits? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article in question although I must say that I have not had time to read through it all, let alone read through it properly. Prima facie I think that such giant companies, by Australian standards, being involved in agriculture to the extent that they are has some potential dangers. In response to the last part of Senator Richardson's question regarding whether the Minister-I presume that is Mr Kerin, not me-has considered research and investigation into the Namoi Cotton Co-operative and so on, I do not know. It is something which I will put to Mr Kerin as something which may well be worth doing. On the broader question of the changing share of the consumer dollar spent on food or other agricultural products, for a very long period there has been a declining trend in the percentage of the final price which accrues to the original producer-that is, the farmer. Independently of any possible exploitation of monopoly power there are fundamental economic reasons why that sort of change should have taken place-firstly, because agricultural products, and food especially, tend to be processed more prior to the consumer sale than was the case in the past, and, secondly, because of the nature of economic growth and rising real wages. Real wages and living standards have increased pretty steadily over the last 30 or 35 years. Inescapable in that is that the real price of at least some products must decline as a sort of mirror image of rising real living standards. As I said regarding the last part of Senator Richardson's question, I will put that up to Mr Kerin and convey any response which he cares to offer. Senator CHIPP —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the possibility that the United States of America may, in the foreseeable future, be moving its military bases out of the Philippines, is the Government now prepared categorically and unequivocally to give an undertaking that under no circumstances whatsoever will it agree to the relocation of these bases in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The United States Government has indicated that it intends to maintain its facilities in the Philippines although the situation there is sufficiently threatening for it to consider alternatives. In testimony before the United States House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee's Sub-Committee on Asia and Pacific Affairs hearing on the Philippines on 4 October-I am not sure whether that is 1984 or1985; I will need to check that-Mr Richard Armitage, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs stated that the United States Government had leased 18,000 acres on Saipan and Tinian in the northern Mariana Islands. He said that although this real estate, even with heavy capital investment, would hardly match the facilities at Clark and Subic, it provided an important fallback basing area for a re-deployment from the Philippines, especially when used in context with facilities in Guam and Micronesia. The United States bases in the Philippines occupy a vital geostrategic position in South East Asia. They cannot be replicated anywhere in any single location. Any relocation would be extremely expensive and probably less desirable strategically. Although the United States is known to be continually reviewing options and assessing the costs of redeployment, I am advised that the Minister is not aware of any information to the effect that the United States is contemplating moving its bases from the Philippines in the foreseeable future. In response to a question as to whether the United States has contingency plans to shift the bases to Australia, a State Department spokesman said on 15 October 1985, two-days ago: We do not intend to move our facilities out of the Philippines. With regard to alternatives, it is axiomatic that a great power such as the United States develops contingency plans and maintains a wide range of options, but there should be no mistake about our present resolve to maintain our facilities at Subic naval base and Clark air base. These facilities play a key role in ensuring the security and stability of our allies and friends in the east Asia and Pacific region, There has been no serious suggestion then that relocation of the bases to Australia is proposed. I do not believe it is profitable under those circumstances to respond further as to purely hypothetical issues. I mention only in that respect that the Government's policy is quite explicitly against home porting facilities being made available to allied countries and, in that respect, is significantly opposed to the position that has been taken by the Opposition. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It arises out of an article in today's Melbourne Age headed `Afghans may have Williamsons'. It refers to Dr Robert Williamson and his wife, Jenny, who were captured by the Sasooli tribe in Pakistan. In part the article reads: They are believed to have been handed on through a series of groups in the region and to have been taken into Afghanistan. I ask the Minister: Is the Government amongst those groups which believe that the Williamsons have been passed on through a series of groups and are in Afghanistan? If it does believe that, what belief does it have as to their present whereabouts and circumstances? If it does not believe that, what does it believe? Senator GARETH EVANS —The only information that I have is as follows, and it adds to the information that I was able to provide to the Senate in answer to Senator Cooney, on 10 September: Developments in recent weeks have included the receipt in early September of two brief letters dated 21 August signed by the Williamsons by their families which they have accepted as authentic and, secondly, the release from prison of Alla Ghul, whose sons had demanded his release in return for the Williamsons. The Government's position is that it would be premature and unhelpful to speculate at a time of some sensitivity in the process of seeking to free the couple. We do not know precisely where or by whom the Williamsons are being held. Latest seemingly reliable reports indicate that the couple is being held by a tribal group in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan. The Government has made a number of approaches to the Afghan authorities and has also asked other countries, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General, to approach the Afghans on our behalf. These approaches have so far produced no useful information. There have been a number of reports of possible Afghan involvement in the continued holding of the Williamsons. The Government does not have any confirmation of such involvement. We remain grateful for Pakistan's unrelenting efforts to free the couple. Finally, the Department of Foreign Affairs is in daily contact with the Williamsons' families. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the repeated claims by the Government that it has achieved record economic growth. In view of the Treasurer's admission in his Budget Speech that over a third of last year's record growth came from public sector spending-compare the 4.46 per cent growth in gross non-farm product, which includes record government spending, with the 3.7 per cent growth in gross non-farm product in the typical coalition government years-does this not suggest that this Government has not created a spectacular recovery but is trying, yet again, to juggle statistics? Will the Minister clarify this? Senator WALSH —Of course it is patently untrue to say that this Government has not engineered the most dramatic economic recovery Australia has had and the highest sustained growth rates-that is, sustained over a three year period-that we have seen since the 1950s. Senator Sheil quoted something, which I did not have time to write down, about the contribution in the last financial year of public sector expenditure to the total growth which had been achieved, which was, I think he said, in the order of one-third of that figure. I did not hear the figure distinctly but it sounds that it could well be right. I remind Senator Sheil that, whether that piece of partly out of date information that he gave was correct or not, the employment statistics which were released, I think, today show that 86 per cent of employment growth in the year ended August 1985 was in industries which operate overwhelmingly in the private sector. So in the last 12 months employment growth has been predominantly in the private sector. That is in line with the Government's expectation and economic strategy. At the time we came to office, when we were facing an economy which was more depressed than it had been at any other stage since the 1930s, which had not only double figure unemployment but also double figure inflation, it was necessary to control inflation through the prices and incomes accord. That is a policy which has been spectacularly successful. It was necessary also to stimulate the economy and initiate growth through increases initially in public sector outlays. That measure has been equally spectacularly successful. Almost half a million jobs have been created in the 2 1/2 years that the Government has been in office. Finally, I remind Senator Sheil that the growth forecast for this financial year is on track. The indications at this stage probably suggest that the forecast growth rate will be exceeded. Even if it is equalled it will mean that over a three-year period the average growth rate under this Government has been in excess of 4 1/2 per cent. For the seven years of the Fraser Government we had the miserable average growth rate of 2.1 per cent, less than half the growth rates which have been achieved by this Government. Of course, that culminated in the last disastrous year of the Fraser Government in an absolute loss of 186,000 jobs. Unemployment rose above 10 per cent in association with inflation, which peaked at something over 11 per cent. That was the end product of many years of economic mismanagement but, in particular, the intensity of that recession and associated inflation was, to a very large degree, attributable to the Fraser Government's first flirtation with a deregulated labour market, commencing from mid-1981. This produced the wages explosion and the subsequent recession and double digit inflation late in 1982 and early in 1983. I understand that most of the higher primates have a capacity for trial and error learning. One would have thought that a chimpanzee might have understood from that that experimantations with deregulated labour markets have not been terribly successful and might have learnt not to repeat them. Apparently the capacity for trial and error learning which the Liberal Party of Australia has is somewhat less than that of a chimpanzee. The Liberal Party if it ever gets back into government-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. You would be showing more application than most of us could muster if you were listening to the Minister. I suggest that he is debating the question and should be asked to draw his remarks to a close. The PRESIDENT —I thought that the Minister was rounding off his answer and that was why I allowed him to conclude it. Senator WALSH —I was indeed, Mr President. I was just about to say that the Liberal Party, like the Bourbons, has learnt nothing from that. If it gets back into government it plans to repeat that policy. It gleefully anticipates, in association with it, five years of industrial warfare. Senator TATE —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted a statement by Mr John Howard on the 15 September Sunday program equating the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka with that of the blacks in South Africa under apartheid? Is it a fact that, whereas black Africans have no political rights or franchise, the Tamils have equal political rights and equal rights of voting with the rest of the population in Sri Lanka? Is it not further a fact that the only groups in Sri Lanka which espouse the doctrine of racial segregation in separate homelands, which lies at the heart of apartheid, are the separatist Tamil terrorists and their Marxist allies? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Howard's comments equating the situation of the blacks in South Africa with that of the Tamils in Sri Lanka have caused considerable concern to many Sri Lankan Australians. It is quite inaccurate to attempt to explain the communal problem in Sri Lanka in those terms. I am able to advise the Senate that the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister has protested to the High Commissioner in Colombo about Mr Howard's remark, commenting that Sri Lanka was disturbed, disappointed and offended by it. Foreign Minister Hameed has written to Mr Hayden in similar terms expressing his surprise and disappointment and his belief that Mr Howard's remarks betrayed a puerile understanding of the situation in Sri Lanka. There is no institutionalised discrimination against the Tamils in Sri Lanka as is the case for blacks in South Africa. Tamils have played an influential role in Sri Lanka's development and have held-and hold-high government office. Concerns expressed about the situation in Sri Lanka are of a different order to those voiced internationally about South Africa. The communal problem in Sri Lanka, which undoubtedly exists, relates to the Tamils' desire for improved economic opportunities and the devolution of political power. By contrast in South Africa the issue is the total dismantling of a system of institutionalised racism. I would have thought that the drones opposite would be able to appreciate that distinction. Australia's concern at the situation in Sri Lanka has been stated clearly, including to the Sri Lankan Government at the highest level during Mr Hayden's visit there in May. More recently he has again written to Foreign Minister Hameed. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to the efforts I have been making to obtain from his colleague Senator Walsh information about the so-called independent inquiry into a proposed gold tax which was announced as having been established by the Treasurer in his tax statement some weeks ago. I am sure that the Minister, as well as the Treasurer, if not the Minister for Finance has some passing interest in this subject. When was the inquiry established? Who are the members of the inquiry? Has it met and, if so when? What are its terms of reference? Senator GARETH EVANS —As a taxation matter, it is essentially one for the Treasurer. I know it is in his hands at the moment. The only information I have about the matter is a copy of a letter which I received in the last day or two from the Treasurer to the Prime Minister proposing to the Prime Minister three names for possible appointment to that inquiry. I have no doubt that the appointment will be very rapidly implemented and the inquiry set in train on the Prime Minister's return from abroad. I am also aware that the Treasury has been working on appropriate terms of reference for the inquiry which may well, by now, have been settled. I will endeavour to seek further information of the kind that Senator Walsh has already undertaken to supply to the honourable senator. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for being much more frank about this matter than so far the Government has been. However, can the Minister tell me whether the inquiry has in fact been established? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that Senator Durack is getting a bit hard of hearing these days but I did say that the actual appointment of the person or persons to be conducting that inquiry was not yet consummated so far as I am aware. It may be that the inquiry has been established in the sense of people being allocated within the Treasury or elsewhere within the bureaucracy. It may be that resources have been devoted to it in that particular way. That is a matter on which I have no information. But I will seek that information and respond to it appropriately, through probably Senator Walsh, in due course. Senator COOK —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy comment on progress with the energy conservation program in Commonwealth buildings? Are worthwhile savings being made which justify the Commonwealth's continued involvement in this area? Senator Chaney —Good question. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a good question and it has a very good answer, too, which I am sure those opposite will be interested in listening to. The Commonwealth has been active in the pursuit of good energy management in buildings it owns or leases. Through the Commonwealth energy management program, otherwise known as CEMP, retrofit works have been undertaken to Commonwealth buildings to improve energy efficiency and demonstrate the rewards of responsible energy management to other sectors of the community. Savings through this program have been substantial and I would like to give some information to the Senate to demonstrate that fact. Minor mechanical and electrical works costing $1,000 at the Commonwealth's Cameron-Benjamin office complex in Canberra have produced savings in the use of energy worth $200,000 a year. The works included such simple steps as resetting air conditioning and lighting controls. It was also found that heating was being provided to areas such as some storerooms which did not need it. That was stopped. A separate action to reduce air conditioning fan speeds in the complex, with a once only cost of $11,000, has produced additional energy savings of $33,000. I notice that Senator Sir John Carrick is nodding with very considerable interest because he shares my concern and pre-occupation with these matters. Senator Sir John Carrick —I introduced it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, he did, and he is to be congratulated for doing so. He is showing a lot more sensible interest in these matters than are his colleagues. That is very welcome and very much to be applauded. In the Edmund Barton building, also in Canberra, the modification of lift controls to automatically shut down the lift motors when their services are not required cost nothing but will save $21,000 per annum. Overhaul and modification of the controls in the air conditioning system in the same building has yielded a yearly saving of $40,000 for an outlay of $10,000. In the Commonwealth's offices in the King William Tower in Adelaide, which I know that Senator Vanstone will have an acute interest in, work costing $7,000 on air conditioning controls, plant operating hours, thermostats and lighting levels has produced savings of $18,000 per annum. There has been an incidental benefit of the energy audit of the Cameron-Benjamin complex, but I will not burden the Senate with any further details of this matter. Perhaps it is not a matter of burdening them but rather of sharing information. I think enough has been said to make the point that it is a very successful program. I will have considerable pleasure in making further details of that successful program publicly available later today. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, concerns the current epidemic of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the measures being taken to try to address that epidemic. I refer the Minister to the July 1985 memorandum which provides information for those applicants who want to get Commonwealth AIDS research grant money. In view of the seriousness of the epidemic and the limited pool of expertise in this country, why has the Australian Institute of Health and its affiliate, the School of Public Health, been excluded from receiving any of the funds being provided by the Commonwealth in the investigation of the causes and measures to relieve this very serious condition? Senator RYAN —I do have some information on the Government's AIDS program. However, as I do not have the information that would answer Senator Baume's question I will have to refer it to Dr Blewett. Senator Peter Baume —At the end of Question Time, maybe. Senator RYAN —I will try. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer the Minister to Press reports of calls to lift the eligibility age for age pensioners to 65 for both males and females. Is it the case that females are eligible for the service pension at age 55, five years earlier than males? Is the Minister contemplating standardising the service pension eligibility age for males and females and, if so, what would be the estimated savings from such a measure? Senator GIETZELT —A publication issued by the Department of Social Security contains a article written by two officers from the Department of Finance, which the Department of Finance indicates it does not necessarily endorse, suggesting that because of the historical development of the social security system the time has arrived for a revision of the age at which pensions should be paid not only to social security pensioners but also to service pensioners. That view, of course, has been similarly expressed by certain right wing think tanks as well as one or two business organisations. So I am aware that a suggestion has been made in the community that because of changing work patterns and longevity there ought to be some revision of the age structures at which pensions are paid. That, of course, is a matter for the Minister for Social Security who was reported in today's Age as indicating that there is no proposition before the Government that he would support for any change in the existing practice. So far as my Department is concerned, honourable senators would be aware that veterans who have certain eligibility rights get the age pension at 60. This pension is known otherwise as the service pension. There is no bar in terms of age in respect of eligibility of their wives. There is also a provision that women veterans can receive the service pension at age 55. Certainly, I could also indicate, as indeed my colleague Mr Howe has, that I have no intention and the Government has no intention of altering the age factor in respect to the eligibility of those involved in the service pension area. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Community Services. Does the Government's recent report `New Directions', which outlines its new policy for people with disabilities, contain a commitment to assist these people to take their place alongside other members of the community? Does the Minister agree that the achievement of this aim requires the provision of adequate rehabilitation services and staff? Did the Minister give an assurance that the new program would not be used as an excuse to cut costs and hence staff in the area of disabled services? If he did, can he explain why direct service delivery staff numbers have been reduced by about 50 Australia-wide even though places such as the Taringa Rehabilitation Centre in Queensland have long waiting lists for service provision and other centres are not able to supply the necessary services at all? Senator RYAN —The report `New Directions' by the Minister for Community Services does contain certain commitments to people with disabilities. Included is the broad commitment to assistance to those people to allow them to take their places alongside other members of the community. Rehabilitation services, based on the needs of those people with disabilities, are an important part of that assistance. There will be no cutting of costs or staff in the area of services to the disabled. On the contrary, the 1985 Budget included a special provision of $5m for the community disability services program, $1m of which will be directed towards the provision of rehabilitation services. Staff numbers in the area of direct service delivery have not been and will not be reduced. There will be some redeployment of staff away from residential and institutional rehabilitation to community-based services, particularly in Melbourne where five new regional rehabilitation units will be established and the Coonac Rehabilitation Centre at Toorak closed. It is expected that such redeployment will allow service provision to more clients and hence a reduction of waiting lists. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article in the Perth Sunday Times of 6 October in which it is claimed that the Government's tax on fringe benefits is a job destructive tax? Can the Minister comment on this claim? Senator WALSH —If I remember correctly, that article was written by Jenni Garrigan. It alleged that the fringe benefits tax would have catastrophic effects on the Pilbara, and it referred also to a petition being circulated in the Pilbara by a Mr Smetheringham and another gentleman the name of whom I cannot remember. Of course the article neglected to mention that one of the people circulating the petition-I think not Mr Smetheringham but the other man-is the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the Pilbara. Mr Smetheringham is also a well-known Liberal Party apparatchik in the Pilbara. They are very important facts which the journalist neglected to mention in that article. I believe that the journalist either lives in Port Hedland or knows Port Hedland very well so I think that it was somewhat remiss of her to omit a fact as important as that. What it really boils down to is that it was a cheap stunt organised by the Liberal Party candidate and another Liberal Party apparatchik in the Pilbara as part of what will be a futile attempt to regain the State seat in the Western Australian election due at the beginning of next year. Senator VANSTONE —I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, firstly, whether she has either met or received representations from Dr Patricia Brennan, Convener of the Movement for the Ordination of Woman, or from any person or group favouring the ordination of women. Secondly, is the Government considering amending the Sex Discrimination Act to remove the exemption provisions covering religious organisations, in pursuit of equal opportunities for women? Senator RYAN —I have not received any delegations from women advocating the ordination of women although I am aware that it has been a very lively issue in a number of churches throughout Australia and that in some churches some steps have been taken to enable the participation of women at the level of ordination. Religious institutions are excluded from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act and there has been no discussion within Government circles about changing that. It would be a very difficult step and it would raise all kinds of issues which would not be easily resolved. I certainly would need a lot of persuading to advocate such a course of action, and I have not yet heard any such arguments. We have always accepted in our system that the internal decisions taken by religious groups are for them to take and it is not the role of government to become involved in those internal decision making processes but rather to protect individuals against any sort of religious discrimination that may arise. In the case of the ordination of women, if there is a question of discrimination it is not one of religious discrimination, it is one concerning discrimination on the basis of sex. I wish those women well who are seeking to achieve ordination within their religious groups but at this stage I know of no intention within the Government to become involved in that issue. Senator BLACK —I refer the Minister for Education to an article in the Townsville Bulletin today entitled `Peace Studies-A Brainwash'. In that article the Queensland State President of the National Civic Council, Mr Brian Mullins, said that a social justice paper being examined in Townsville schools called on students to actively commit themselves to the peace movement. Has the Minister noted that Mr Mullins has called on parents of children attending these schools to protest against attempts to turn their children into `pro-Soviet peace activists'? Can the Minister inform the Senate of any recent developments in the peace education area? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to the article in the Townsville Bulletin entitled `Peace Studies-A Brainwash' and I am aware that in that article the Queensland State President of the National Civic Council, Mr Brian Mullins, criticised the social justice paper on peace education which is being examined in Townsville schools. The first comment I make on Mr Mullins's involvement in this issue is that he does not seem to object to information that he regards as propaganda going into schools because in the same article he offers the distribution to all schools of an NCC statement entitled `Christians and peace'. So obviously some kinds of what he would regard as propaganda are acceptable and some kinds are not. When people holding and advocating extreme right wing views get involved in the debate about what ought or ought not be allowed to be considered in schools they always seem to show this double standard whereby extreme views of their own persuasion are acceptable but views which are not acceptable to them are said to be somehow dangerous to children. It is important always to expose these double standards when we see them. It might also be of interest to the Senate to note that among the contributors to the NCC paper which Mr Mullins is offering to distribute to schools is a Dr Gerard Henderson, who I understand is a senior adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. Having commented on Mr Mullins's reported views in the Townsville Bulletin, I would say that the issue of peace education and how to incorporate it properly within the school curriculum is a very complex one. It is an area about which people feel very passionately. The advocates of peace education are passionately committed to it and those who fear it, such as Mr Mullins, seem equally passionate in their resistance to it. So it is not an area of curriculum development which can be embarked upon rapidly or without proper consideration of all of the issues involved. Our Government, in general, believes that there is a place for the study of peace within the curriculum, as we believe there is an important place in our foreign affairs policy for the pursuit of peace initiatives. We would not wish to facilitate the development of peace education which was merely propaganda, even if it were propaganda with which some of us personally agreed, but we would like to see the opportunities for the study of peace and peace issues being properly developed within the educational context. In order to assist in that regard, since 1983 the Curriculum Development Centre, which is the Commonwealth's arm in curriculum development, has been monitoring and assessing the teaching of peace studies in schools throughout Australia. As well as that the CDC is funding a pilot program in peace education which will be implemented within the New South Wales State school system and within the Catholic school system in Victoria. An assessment of that pilot program will precede any further developments of this kind. The CDC is involved in a valuable process and I think that those organisations genuinely committed to peace are right to consider an educational expression of that development. In conclusion, in relation to what does or does not go into schools, as far as State schools are concerned curriculum is a matter for control by State education authorities but what appears in the curriculums of non-government schools is a matter for those schools. This Catholic school in Townsville is perfectly entitled to embark upon a study of this social justice document. The Commonwealth has no control over curriculum in government or non-government schools and does not seek it. What we do seek to do is to facilitate and assist in curriculum development initiatives of national significance, such as peace studies, so that those systems or schools which decide that they want to have such curriculum materials available to them will have materials of a sound educational nature worked out for them. Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the Minister for Transport promised that full consultation with State government and community organisations would take place prior to any decision being made in relation to the unmanning of lighthouses, and in particular the Swan Island lighthouse? Is it also a fact that the Minister, or his Department, has decided that the one and only form of consultation will be a meeting, with virtually no notice, next Wednesday in Launceston? Is it also a fact that virtually none of the community organisations, including the Australian Lighthouse Association, has representatives in Launceston? Is it also a fact that the Government has refused to hold consultations in any other more convenient venue to the ALA, the Australian Heritage Commission, the National Trust of Australia, the Professional Fishermen's Association, the Tasmanian Yachting Association and the other bodies which have indicated a wish to be consulted? Will the Minister urgently review the arrangements to ensure that full consultation is possible, including either consulting in appropriate centres or paying travel expenses to Launceston for next Wednesday's meeting? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Rae asked a very detailed question which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Transport. They are not matters on which I have particulars in my brief. The question was asked specifically of the Minister for Transport, not of the Minister representing him; so I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister for Transport for an early response. Senator SIBRAA —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the Government's announced taxation reforms which will introduce a fairer and more efficient taxation system for all Australians and for the Australian economy. Are there any indications whether these reforms are receiving widespread support throughout the Australian community? Senator WALSH —The only objective evidence of which I am aware shows that the reforms are supported by a significant majority of the population. That objective evidence is supported by the opinions of people to whom I have spoken who in turn have spoken to people all over the country. It is probably also worth noting that the Opposition seems to be in a bit of a bind about this matter. In particular the Liberal Party of Australia and the other main Opposition party, the National Party of Australia, do not seem to know which way to go. I refer in particular to a motion moved in the Queensland Parliament today by the Liberal Party Leader, the leader of the magnificent six, who sought to move a motion condemning the Commonwealth Government for its taxation package. The National Party walked out of the Parliament when a motion was moved criticising this Government for its taxation package. After walking out, the Premier of Queensland said: Mr Speaker, to satisfy the Leader of the Liberal Party I will now challenge and ask his Federal colleague, Mr Howard, to come clean, to come clean and let this nation know exactly where he stands on the very issues, the very issues that you want debated and I challenge him indeed, I stress that this is verbatim- I actually not only ask him, but I challenge him to come clean and which system of taxation does he, is he going to support, the fringe benefit tax? Is he going to support capital gains tax, or is he going to support legitimate business expenses or isn't he? Let him come clean and let him give a real tax statement as far as this nation is concerned and then let the Leader of the Opposition direct his aggression in the right direction and we would then get a better realisation of where he stands instead of a lot of cheap talk. I stress that I believe that that is a verbatim copy and not a cleaned-up copy of what the Premier said. So we know that we have very strong public support. The Party is united on this question whereas the Opposition parties are in disarray, brawling with each other in Queensland and here. The National Party is challenging Mr Howard to state explicitly where he stands on a particualr issue. I am sure that Senator Boswell wants the Liberal Party to state where it stands on all the specific questions in the package. I am sure that he, as a good loyal National Party Queenslander, would support the Premier of Queensland, and I am sure that Senator Boswell would also especially like the Liberal Party Leader to make up his mind on just what he will try to knock off in the Parliament and what he will not. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He may also wish to refer it to the Minister for Finance. Will he advise on the status of the Government's implementation of its promise to privatise the defence service home loans scheme which was a large part of the $1.25 billion expenditure savings proposals which were announced in the May mini-Budget? Has the Government found that the application of the fringe benefits tax and interest rate increases have raised the cost of this scheme to private interests and, therefore, theatened the implementation of its proposal? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that in the 14 May statement the Government made a commitment to improve the function of the defence service home loans scheme and suggested that the way to do so would be to privatise the Defence Service Homes Corporation. The matter has been the subject of considerable negotiations and discussions within a task force which the Government established subsequent to the 14 May statement, involving the Department of Defence, the Defence Service Homes Corporation, the Department of Finance and, I think, the Department of Housing and Construction. That task force is preparing a report for both the Minister for Finance and me. It is the subject of a submission to government. It would be true to say that we are concerned that the sum that has been available since 1980, $25,000, is inadequate to meet the requirements of housing in Australia. We are also concerned about the state of defence force housing generally. The task force has had the responsibility of looking into both aspects of housing for serving as well as ex-serving personnel. We hope that a submission will be before Cabinet sometime this year so that legislation will be prepared for the autumn session of Parliament. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of Press reports that the Department of Defence has made a bulk purchase of 541,000 condoms for the Australian Army? Will he comment on the reported suggestion by an Army spokesman that the condoms `can be placed over the end of a rifle during wet weather . . . then you can shoot straight through them without having to remove anything'? What is the cost of this item? Can he justify the expenditure for this purpose? Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention has been drawn to Press reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Melbourne Sun of 15 October covering the matters raised by the honourable senator. My advice is that whilst the practice of placing condoms over rifle barrels is not formally recommended in any Army documents, it is understood to be an effective means of waterproofing. Condoms do not offer a significant obstruction to rifle projectiles. However, the Senate should not be misled by references to being able to `shoot straight through' the condoms which the Army has purchased. This is not a reference to product defects of the kind which might attract the interest of the inquiry into defence project management by Senator Georges's Joint Committee of Public Accounts. On the contrary, I am assured that the contract for the purchase of these condoms was placed after independent leak and burst tests in which the condoms were inflated to a volume of more than 12 litres. This would ensure that they could waterproof such items as the gun barrels of tanks. A total of 34 tests were conducted on each of the condoms in the test program. I am not advised as to what testing procedures were employed. As to other known uses for these devices, I am advised that they also have a degree of functional utility in relation to population control and the regulation of a variety of potentially epidemic diseases. It was also believed, at the time of the abortive Australian Secret Intelligence Service `raid' on the Sheraton, that they might have had a further use in that context as regulation headgear for the operatives in question. But beyond that, I have no further information as to the uses for this very large defence purchase. Senator SHORT —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of a meeting that took place recently in South Australia of delegates from the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia, the Food Preservers Union of Australia, the Federated Millers and Mill Employees Association of Australasia and the Pastrycooks, Bakers, Biscuits and Allied Trades Union? Is he aware that the purpose of this meeting was to establish a federation of food industry unions which will have, among other objectives, the purpose of providing for amalgamation of the unions within the federation? Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the meeting was Mr Carlo Frizziero, an extreme left wing trade union official responsible for organising the lawless union behaviour at the Dollar Sweets Co. in Melbourne over the past three months, and who visited Libya at the invitation of Colonel Gaddafi, all expenses paid, earlier this year-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable member is giving too much information in his question. I ask him to ask his question. Senator SHORT —My final question is this: Is the Minister concerned that the possible amalgamation of these unions, all of which are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party and Australian Council of Trade Unions, will provide greatly increased potential for industrial disputation and turmoil in the food industry? Senator WALSH —I did not know about the meeting. I shall see what comments, if any, my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has to make on it. In response to the last line of the question, it is an unfortunate fact of life that a very substantial cause of industrial disruption in Australia is the proliferation of unions which Australia has and the consequential demarcation disputes. Senator Short should not necessarily assume, or perhaps should not assume at all, that a consequence of union amalgamations would be an increase in the number of industrial disputes. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 14 October Senator MacGibbon asked me a question about ship visits to Western Australia and other ports and I undertook to seek a reply from the Minister for Defence, which I now have in the following terms: There is no contradiction in Government policy on United States warship visits to Australia. The Government has indicated, on a number of occasions, that visits by United States warships are welcome, with the proviso, which was originally adopted by the previous Government, that nuclear powered warships can visit only ports assessed as suitable on environmental and safety grounds. No request has been made to the United States Government to restrict the number of its ship visits to Western Australian ports. The Government has indicated that it would like to see a wider spread of port visits by United States vessels; the United States Government has similar interests. Whether this will, in practice, mean a reduction in the number of visits to Western Australia depends on the total number of United States port visits being made to Australia. This is determined by fluctuating United States Navy operational requirements in consultation with the Australian Government, not by any alleged arbitrary limit unilaterally imposed by this Government. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Reid asked me yesterday whether it was correct that the Special Minister of State had refused to talk to the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Australian Federal Police Association. The Special Minister of State has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is my practice to meet regularly with the National Executive of the AFPA to discuss issues they wish to raise with me. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss national issues with one branch of the association. As I set out in my answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 14 October 1985, I have agreed with the national executive that whenever matters concerning the A.C.T. are on the agenda for their meetings with me they will include representatives from the A.C.T. branch in their delegation. I have arranged to meet with the national executive and the A.C.T. branch secretary next week to discuss issues of concern to the association. As a result of this meeting proposed industrial action in the A.C.T. has been deferred. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Publications Committee, I table the sixth report of the Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present a report relating to construction of a Commonwealth law courts building, Parramatta. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator FOREMAN —This report recommends the construction of a purpose designed Commonwealth law courts building at Parramatta to house the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Reporting Service. The major occupant of the new building will be the Family Court which is at present housed in leased premises at Parramatta. The Committee inspected these premises, which quite frankly are severely deficient in security, courtroom sizes, speech privacy and waiting areas for the public. The report states that the often unenviable tasks carried out by judges and senior court officials in attending to court processes in the existing facilities involving contact with members of the public are not assisted by the location, design and standard of functional areas, the level of amenity offered and by the atmosphere these deficiencies project. The Committee believes the new Commonwealth law courts building will be a facility which will foster the dignity of the law as well as catering in a more humane and understanding manner for the needs of the people living in the western suburbs of Sydney for the foreseeable future. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.08) —We are debating the Film Censorship Board's annual report on its activities for 1984. On the last page of that report one finds an explanation of the backlog in categorising various videos and films which is, I believe, to our satisfaction. The Board underlines the fact that in 1984 the guidelines were changed on so many occasions that it had great trouble in keeping up with things. However, it has now caught up, and I shall have various questions on the method of catching up to put to the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, whose investigations are still in progress. I find page 6 of the Board's report very interesting. When looking at the various classifications in regard to film and video tape features for sale and hire, one sees that X-rated videos constitute by far the greatest number that have been classified. Some 26.77 per cent are in that category. The next greatest number is 22 per cent, and then it falls away to 17 per cent, or nearly 18 per cent, for the other categories. I wonder why the X-rated videos are getting such large numbers through at the moment. Indeed, I hope that the figures will be different in the next annual report because the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are the only States or Territories that allow these X-rated vidoes into their shops. It seems to me incredible that the figures are so high, but these figures overlap with those for some of the States, which previously were a bit slow in withdrawing the X-rated classification. I think an even more interesting figure on that page is that which related to where those videos and films come from. The proportion coming from the United States of America is 67.77 per cent. The country from which we import the next largest proportion is the United Kingdom, for which the figure falls to 12 per cent. That underlines very clearly to me that by far the majority of videos come from the United States of America. Our Committee has been given evidence that the Mafia has a great involvement in the X-rated and some of the violent R-rated videos coming to Australia, and it concerns me considerably that the United States of America has such a large hold on our industry. I am only in the process of completing my previous comments, so by necessity I will be very brief. It is not just the video area in which the United States of America has such an overwhelming hold on our market. Page 9 of the report shows that the United States of America has a tremendous hold on our television programs compared with any other country. It is of considerable concern to me that we seem to be going for that market. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.12) —The Commonwealth's power to review and censor films and, by extension, videotapes flows from the power given by the Constitution to regulate trade and commerce with other countries and between the States. Specifically, the Film Censorship Board is constituted under regulations flowing from the Customs Act. The Board is a full time statutory body examining imported films and videotapes. It also functions as a registry and classifier of films and videotapes for public exhibition, sale or hire in the Australian States and Territories with the concurrence of the State and Territory authorities, according to various pieces of local legislation. The State of Queensland, for reasons best known to its Premier, maintains a separate Film Board of Review catering to delicate Queensland sensibilities and tastes in films and videotapes. The Film Censorship Board plays an important role in the classification of imported television programs as well as those which are produced locally by persons outside the auspices of a television station. This function is performed by ministerial arrangement on behalf of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It is a source of amazement to me that the licensees of commercial stations do not complain about this as being objectionable censorship while at the same time they have mounted a vocal campaign to undermine the Tribunal's ability to pre-classify children's television material. Decisions of the Film Censorship Board are reviewable by the Film Board of Review. During 1984 there were 15 appeals against the decisions of the Film Censorship Board. Nine of these were upheld. Considering the large number of films registered and classified-620 in 1984-this reflects the high regard in which decisions of the Board are held within the community and by film makers and distributors. Fifteen written complaints were received by the Board in respect of film and video decisions. There were also 15 appeals to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal against decisions on imported television programs. However, all is not well. The first clue to dissatisfaction with the circumstances in which the Board finds itself is in the brief accompanying letter printed at the front of this report. I quote: Unfortunately, due to staff shortages and inadequate resources this report lacks the detail of previous reports. The Chief Censor, Janet Strickland, expands on this muted criticism of the Attorney-General's Department, which carries administrative responsibility for the Board, on the last page of the report. There we see this comment: Legislative amendments in February 1984 have resulted in a more complex and time consuming decision making process. And that is without any extra staff. Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is reading his speech. Senator VIGOR —I was quoting from a letter in the actual report. Senator Georges —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to raise the same point of order. Even though Senator Vigor is reading from a letter at the moment, he was reading his speech. I think that, as a new senator, he ought to be reminded of standing order 406. I am not trying to put the honourable senator at any disadvantage but he would do better if he did not read the speech. He would be better to give his opinion off the cuff rather than reading some prepared material. I think the standing order ought to be upheld. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —I draw your attention to that standing order, Senator Vigor. Senators are not permitted to read their speeches. They occasionally refer to copious notes. I draw your attention to that and ask you to proceed. Senator VIGOR —Video classification has become a terribly heavy load on the Film Censorship Board. I believe that it is quite important that this material should be handled effectively for the community's sake. The material often contains a lot of very unreasonable material, including child pornography, bestiality, incitement to terrorism and the misuse of drugs. It is very important that, as well as looking at sexual pornography, we should have separate classifications for areas such as violence. As said previously by Senator Mason, we need to have a V classification to cover violent crimes which may be portrayed in films and to ban violence from being shown. In 1984 only 1.03 per cent of films which were put before the Board were rejected or refused classification. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.17) —I wish to speak to the Insurance Commissioner's annual report. There are two issues I wish to mention. One is that insurance fraud now joins social security and tax fraud as one of the big three. The amount of fraud that exists in insurance is very difficult to assess but the general belief at the moment is that, in fire insurance alone, it probably costs 50 per cent of the total insurance premiums of the nation just to support claims made through arson. I think the size of the insurance industry also needs to be noted. I do not think many people would fully appreciate the fact that, in the general insurance section alone, the premium income, the total of premiums paid in the year, was $7,442m. That makes it an enormous industry of considerable consequence in the overall economy. The other matter that I think is important is the question of the general health and profitability of the industry at large. I wish to quote two sections of the report. It states: The underwriting result of the private sector direct underwriters deteriorated from a deficit of $299 million for the year ended 31 December 1983 to a deficit of $344 million for the year ended 31 December 1984. This deterioration is due in large part to the underwriting deficit of the major Employers' liability class of business. The other paragraph states: The public sector results show a dramatic deterioration. The 1983 deficit of $448 million increased in the year ended 31 December 1984 to a deficit of $912 million. This is equivalent to an underwriting loss of 43 cents on each dollar of premium earned in the sector. This deterioration was caused in large part by the results of the major Compulsory Third Party class of business which deteriorated from a deficit of $420 million for the year ended 31 December 1983 to a deficit of $880 million for the year ended 31 December 1984. The actions of the courts and the time taken to get many of these cases to the courts is a matter of great concern in getting them settled and in regard to the development of contingencies in meeting the claims. It is an extraordinarily difficult position. I do not know what is going to be done about ensuring that the amounts paid for claims of one sort or another are reasonable to all parties. I am not sure that paying people large or huge sums of money in the event of various claims being lodged is the total answer but it is the one that the courts now use. It is making insurance an area of considerable difficulty. I believe that it is necessary, now that we have a very high level of consumer protection in insurance, for the insurers to have some protection. I hope that we can take some steps to combat insurance fraud, in particular in the areas of workers' compensation, motor vehicle insurance and arson. The penalties in these areas are not adequate and need to be brought up to date. I believe that there is adequate evidence available for an inquiry to be undertaken to get these matters brought before the public and dealt with in a more adequate manner. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.22) —I rise to speak about the section of the Insurance Commissioner's report dealing with workers' compensation reform. I think all of us would acknowledge the explosion in cost to the community of workers' compensation over the last several years. I think it is also worth while and very important to note that this report shows that a rather dangerous trend is emerging on the part of insurance companies providing this form of cover. It is indicated in the report that in the last financial year the underwriting deficit for this kind of insurance was $211m. That follows losses of $256m in 1981, $253m in 1982 and $159m in 1983. This signifies a very drastic trend of events in terms of this kind of insurance. We all know that the costs of insurance are rising. This is due mainly to the growth, at a fast, escalating rate, in the size of settlements handed down by the courts. We have seen enormous payouts in this area in recent years. They seem to be climbing at a rate which is far higher than the consumer price index and the ability, as we read it, of the various insurance companies to adjust their premium charges to compensate for the increasing costs. How do the insurance companies cover the huge losses in regard to the underwriting of workers' compensation insurance? It seems that the companies are able to earn from their investments sufficient income to offset those losses. I think the most ominous point that is made in the Commissioner's report in this regard occurs on page 7, which reads: What may be new however, is the possibility (probability?) that insurers who no longer have the benefit of premium supplementation to redeem past losses are more likely to succumb. From a supervisory point of view, this uncertain but nevertheless real threat warrants the closest attention to the continuing assessment of the financial condition of companies running off significant workers compensation portfolios. In the interests of security and of equity amongst all policy-holders, formal intervention by my Office in the affairs of affected companies will be a prime and early option. It seems to me that the Commissioner is giving us notice that there is a very real problem in terms of the continuing losses in this area and the continuing escalation of settlements in the courts and the inability of companies to be able to provide for those settlements. I believe that it is a most important statement, of which we ought to take cognisance. It also raises the very real question of the degree to which workers' compensation has been reformed in the various States. We know that the laws are being reviewed in both South Australia and Victoria. I am not sure about the position in other States. But clearly this is an area which is causing enormous problems, not only to business but to the whole of the insurance industry. I think we should take the Commissioner's comments very seriously. They seem to indicate that some kind of crisis point is developing. I believe that it behoves the Federal Government, in light of these comments, to take a leading role in trying to solve these very significant problems in regard to workers' compensation and the rapidly escalating cost to the community. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.26) —I had not intended to speak until I heard the comments from Senator Archer and Senator Messner on the Insurance Commissioner's annual report for 1984-85. The points they raised with regard to increasing premiums, the problem of profitability, the problems of fraud and the totally unsatisfactory nature of the compensation payments that we face, both with regard to workers' compensation and accident compensation, are things that need to be taken very seriously and with some urgency in this country. As Senator Archer pointed out, increasingly large lump sum payments are being given to people, largely because we have a system which is based on tort. Until we get away from that tortious system we will continue to have the sorts of problems that both Senator Messner and Senator Archer raised. Senator Button —Hear, hear! Senator HAINES —Thank you for the interjection, Senator. For example, the whole question of pain and suffering is included in the compensation payment. Of course, the longer that one suffers pain-and very often it is not a pretence; it is an actual situation-the bigger one's lump sum payment is likely to be. So there is no encouragement and no incentive for people to take the action necessary to improve things and to rehabilitate themselves. As a consequence they often make their lives afterwards a lot harder because they have not taken action soon enough. Lawyers, of course, do not like the argument that tort should not be involved in these sorts of things because it is a lucrative activity for those in private practice and, as well, the insurance companies have teams of lawyers. I think it is time we looked, for example, at the no-fault accident compensation system which operates in New Zealand, and which allows certain-- Senator Button —The Whitlam Government did but it was destroyed by a coalition of Liberals, lawyers, social workers and insurance companies. Senator HAINES —Senator Button may well be correct in that assessment. Certainly, last year, when I attended a conference in Canberra on that issue, the lawyers were quite vocal about the need for some element of tort to remain. It should be possible to take into account those various views and come up with a system which is better than the one we have. The one we have must be the worst of all possible worlds. It may be that we should look at the New Zealand system and adapt it to allow a tortious element in certain circumstances. But we must get away from the large lump sum compensation situation that we currently have. It is often quite inappropriate too, when we consider the short life span of some people who receive lump sum payments. In effect, often the only people who benefit from the court decision are the survivors, the relatives of the person who has been given the lump sum. Altogether, it is not satisfactory from the point of view of the insurance companies. It is not really satisfactory from the point of view of the people who suffer the injury or accident. It is not satisfactory really from the point of view of governments, which certainly have to pick up a large part of the cost in some areas. The only people, it seems to me, who benefit at all from it are the lawyers. We ought to disregard their arguments as a pure vested interest. We should look to a system which is going to be effective for the people who suffer the accident or injury and which is not a huge drain on the resources of other parts of society. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.31) —The Economic Planning Advisory Council was born with great hopes and expectations out of the National Economic Summit. Unfortunately, in this, its second annual report, it has demonstrated that those hopes have effectively been downgraded, mainly as a result of pressure brought by the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the Government to prevent it taking a view of short term economic trends. I quote from a document titled `Structure and role of the Economic Planning Advisory Council': EPAC is seen by the Government as the main vehicle through which it will continue, on an ongoing basis, the process of co-operation and consultation begun with the National Economic Summit. It went on: . . . the Council would be the major forum for discussions between Government and community representatives on prospective economic conditions and appropriate economic policies. In particular the Council would discuss the Government's proposed strategy on growth, inflation and unemployment, and provide its views as to how natural objectives in these areas could best be achieved. It would also have an important role to play in the development of incomes policy. The reality is that when EPAC continued the process of economic examination that began at the Economic Summit by way of projections of what was likely to happen in the economy given certain conditions, those projections were effectively blocked by the ACTU, and the Government forced EPAC-an alleged independent body-to stop preparing them. I want to remind the Senate of this because I believe it was a scandalous intervention by the Government into this so-called independent body. There is no doubt that these short term projections were blocked because they were embarrassing to the Government. They exposed how muddle-headed and wrong the Government's economic policies in these respects were. All we got one way or another after these projections were released was a series of lectures from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) about how a projection was not a forecast and how in fact these projections had been misunderstood by everyone. The simple reality that emerged was that these projections indicated that if the Government continued with its policies, there would be a big rise in inflation, a big rise in unemployment or pressure on the balance of payments. These projections were very interesting and it would be useful if the Senate could go back to see them. Of course, one cannot see them now as they are not being released. They were not released this year because the Government chose to give in to the demands of the ACTU that the projections not proceed. That is only part of the disappointment about the results of EPAC. Another element is that it was supposed to provide additional capacity for interest groups to have a pre-Budget input to the Government. The Senate will remember that in the run up to the Budget period under the previous Government there was an enormous range of opportunities for many organisations-in fact hundreds of people-representing both major and minor groups in the community to present their cases to the previous Government before the Budget. What has happened is that EPAC has been interposed between the community and the Government. Last year, according to the report, in response to an invitation issued to community organisations, the Council received 19 written submissions on Budget policy. It seems to me that if one can establish the effectiveness of a body which is there to diminish the capacity of the community to have a close relationship with the Government pre-Budget, EPAC has succeeded in being that instrument of government policy. It has not fulfilled its task in terms of short term economic planning and advice because of the Government's activity and it has not done so in respect of advice at Budget time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a very interesting report in that this is the first time that staff are able to be appointed by the Governor-General. The report is from the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General. This is the first time that staff can work directly for the Governor-General rather than being part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This segregation of the administration of the Governor-General's household from the political and Public Service arena has been long overdue. The constitutional strength of the Commonwealth of Australia rests largely on the separation of politics from justice, and the final authority of the Crown is above each of these. It is with concern that I note the increasing work load falling on the Governor-General's secretariat through the introduction of the Australian honours system. Previously the imperial honours recommended by the States used to be handled by the Department of the Special Minister of State. It was in recognition of Australia's independence from the United Kingdom that the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, signed letters of patent establishing separate awards for honouring outstanding Australian citizens. Yet the Government has refused to approve additional appropriations for the Governor-General's secretariat to enable the secretariat to administer efficiently the nominations of people worthy of these honours. The Government has saved eight positions in the Department of the Special Minister of State which previously administered the nomination of imperial honours. Yet the Government is quite unhappy about offering even one extra person to the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to process this area. If Australia is not going to earn a reputation overseas as a banana republic it is essential that our Governor-General nominate for awards only our most distinguished and outstanding citizens. It is therefore important that he have a reasonable staff to be able to handle these matters. I commend the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General for its dedicated service in coping with its increased responsibilities in the face of such stringent economies in its budget. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.40) —I seek leave to amend the notice of motion standing in my name relating to the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move: (1) That the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 be referred to a select committee, and that the committee inquire into and report upon (a) for the purposes of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) program, whether it is (i) necessary or (ii) desirable to carry out research on relevant human embryos by manipulation, dissection or administration of drugs; (b) if it is necessary or desirable to carry out such research, whether any guidelines can be formulated to govern such research; (c) for the purposes of the IVF program, whether it is (i) necessary or (ii) desirable to freeze relevant human embryos; (d) whether it is (i) necessary or (ii) justified to discard relevant human embryos and in what circumstances, and if so, whether any rules should be established to govern this procedure; (e) whether the Bill requires amendment to preserve its general prohibition of research on relevant human embryos without halting the IVF program, and if so, what amendments should be made; (f) what sanctions, if any, should be imposed for the breach of any prohibitions contained in the Bill; and (g) whether legislation is desirable to control research on relevant human embryos, or whether that can be achieved by self-regulation, such as under the existing National Health and Medical Research Council ethical codes. (2) That the committee consist of seven Senators, as follows: (a) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, (b) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, and (d) Senator Harradine. (3) That provisions relating to the powers and procedures of the committee be contained in a subsequent resolution. Judging by the great number of letters and petitions which have been sent to me over the past few months and the petitions that have been lodged in the Senate-Senator Harradine has estimated that there are over 100,000 petitioners-it is obvious that the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill highlights a wealth of feeling and opinion both in support of and in opposition to the in vitro fertilisation and related embryonic research program. It is an issue of polarised emotion and belief. Certainly we are facing enormous challenges in attempting to deal with all the issues surrounding in vitro fertilisation or IVF. Legal responsibility and society's ability to cope with the extraordinary advances in reproductive technology are at the forefront of those issues. It is imperative that we do not ignore these challenges that IVF has set us. It has become increasingly clear that provision must be sought to carefully monitor-or, in some extreme cases, halt-the so-called advances that reproductive technology is capable of making. The crux of the problem addressed by this Bill is whether or not experimentation on embryos should be allowed. It is clear that once a technology has been introduced it cannot easily be withdrawn. This is particularly true of a technology such as IVF. In vitro fertilisation programs are providing hope for a considerable number of people, however remote that hope may be. Infertility, and the attempts to rectify it, excite extreme reaction because of the very high emotional stakes involved. Infertile couples are particularly vulnerable in these days of `gee-whiz' technology. We have come to expect that medicine can solve every problem, if not now then at some time in the forseeable future. Since the late 1970s and the birth of the first test tube baby there has been a general, albeit misguided, belief that medical science can now counteract infertility. Although medicine has made significant and incredible strides, that is not yet true. In fact, there is evidence that the occurrence of infertility is rising. There is a considerable level of misunderstanding concerning the use of IVF as a cure for infertility. Infertility can be dealt with in a number of ways. In vitro fertilisation programs offer a last, very extreme, resort. It is far from the cure-all that is occasionally portrayed in the popular Press. The process is costly-financially, physically and emotionally. The success rate-that is, the number of healthy babies born through IVF-is not particularly high. Serious questions need to be put concerning how patients are treated in these programs. The risk of exploitation is considerable, expecially as far as issues such as surrogacy are concerned. We also need to consider who is becoming involved with IVF programs. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to bring about the end of these programs. The joy felt by those couples who have had successful pregnancies as a result of IVF has been widely displayed in the media. For some couples it remains their only alternative to childlessness. Adoption has become increasingly difficult and, for many couples, impossible. To take action to shut down IVF programs would be unreasonable and narrow minded. For that reason it is essential that any legislation concerning IVF and related research does not prejudice the benefits of such technology in doing away with those aspects of embryonic research that we cannot allow to continue unchecked. Certainly there is a pressing need to look carefully at the running of IVF programs. The establishment of companies selling IVF technology and expertise is one aspect which requires very close consideration and which this Bill addresses. Other matters that necessitate examination are those relating to the fate of the embryos-whether or not they are subject to freezing, what is the fate of those embryos not immediately implanted, and so on. While I believe that IVF programs should continue, I am disturbed at the prospects of general experimentation on human embryos. As I have already noted, the success rate of IVF programs is not particularly high. Statistics naturally differ from hospital to hospital, but generally the failure rate is quoted as being around the 80 per cent mark. Research could reasonably be expected to improve the success rate, by improving methods of embryo nurturing and transfer and of earlier and more effective identification of healthy, strong embryos. Research is an integral part of the IVF program. Without research the success rate will remain low and methods will not develop and improve. It is the possibility of Senator Harradine's Bill bringing this invaluable research to an end or frustrating it that deeply concerns those scientists who genuinely wish to improve the lot of infertile couples. Embryo research offers other hopes. In discovering more about what causes infertility, scientists hope to find ways of curing it. Insight into the causes of genetic disorders would also, I am told, prove desirable. Lessening the hit and miss aspect of embryo transfer is also desirable in decreasing the probability of necessary abortion and birth defects as a result of the IVF program. Unfortunately, there is a more sinister aspect to this research. This has been well illustrated by a statement made by Dr Geoffrey Borne, the Chancellor of St George's University School of Medicine in Grenada. He said: I believe it would be very important scientifically to try and produce an ape-human cross by artificially inseminating an ape with human sperm and I hope someone in a position to do so will make that attempt. It is that sort of thing which creates great alarm, and proper alarm, in the community. Other scientists are attributed with similar abhorrent suggestions, such as the growing of embryos for spare parts and the use of glass wombs. In January 1984 Professor Carl Wood who has had so much publicity and success at the Monash University, spoke of the possibility of cloning embryos, splitting an embryo in order to produce twins or triplets. Recently he is reported as stating that the cloning of adults is a long way off. Another of his remarks which is the cause of concern is that babies born through IVF are considered to be superior mentally and physically. Each of these suggestions carries an air of science fiction about it. Some of them are remote possibilities, probably the product of overactive imaginations. Others, such as the selection of gender, are more tangible possibilities. It is worth remembering that before 1978 the live birth of a human being conceived in a test tube would have been considered as only a remote possibility, perhaps in the category of science fiction. Today the birth of IVF babies is no longer a novelty. It is clear that if we are to prevent the sorry situation where we are faced with coping with the products of some perverse scientific experimentation we must learn to exercise some control. There is a danger that science may outstrip society. We are not, nor is it likely that we ever will be-I certainly hope we never will be-ready for the likes of that which I have mentioned. We need to take some account of the directions that medical science could take. The present challenge is to discover how to manage some effective control over this research. A certain measure of experimentation is inevitable if we are to make positive advances in reproductive technology. Australia leads the world in IVF, producing a considerable number of firsts, including the birth of the first frozen embryo baby. We have a wealth of expertise in this country. The loss of that expertise is undesirable. It is unreasonable to completely stifle all experimentation. It is, therefore, essential that we set guidelines under which valid experimentation is allowed to continue. Those guidelines must address ethical and moral issues, such as the origin and age of embryos to be used in experimentation. It is clear from people who are directly involved in IVF and related research that it is possible to reach some area of middle ground in this debate. A number of experts in this field believe that limits can be set, such as those under the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines on ethics in medical research. Definition of viable limits on research will, of course, require extensive consideration. Senator Harradine, in his recent address to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference at Monash University, stated: All my Bill seeks is to prevent human embryos from being created to be destroyed or experimented on. In other words to stop the creation of a race of laboratory disposable human beings. While Senator Harradine's motives are sound-he has stated on several occasions that he does not want to see the end of the IVF program-the Bill in its present form remains open to wide interpretation. As general experimentation has created fear in so many people's minds, this Bill has created fears in the minds of those directly practising in the IVF area and those who support them. It is clear in this respect that the Bill concerns, as I have said, the majority of those people who have an interest in IVF, whether they be the practitioners, patients or technologists. I think this ambiguity needs to be further addressed and corrected. It is for that reason that I have moved a motion to refer this Bill to a select committee. I will deal briefly with the terms of reference and explain why I have chosen them. As I have pointed out, I share Senator Harradine's grave concern about the extent of experimentation. I am satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, causes concern to those practitioners in the field who think that if the Bill is passed in its present form, the program would be halted. We need to know a lot more about the pros and cons of that argument. I do not propose to express my views on that at this stage. In these terms of reference I have tried to draw out what I think are the relevant issues that should be addressed by scientists, philosophers, lawyers and moralists. It is an issue which goes to the core of human life or the potential of human life, to the nature of that life, and it clearly involves great moral as well as scientific issues. I think the first limbs of the terms of reference are self-explanatory. In passing I refer to item (c) regarding whether it is necessary, or desirable to freeze embryos. I know that issue worries a great many people. This Bill does not address-I will not address here-what are the legal problems in the long run of freezing embryos. We are here addressing the question of freezing in relation to Senator Harradine's Bill and the immediate conduct of IVF programs. But the whole issue of freezing is a much greater one than that which the Bill addresses or which this committee, if it is set up, will be addressing. Another very grave issue is the question of discarding embryos that are not implanted or transferred for implantation and, if that is justified, in what circumstances would it be justified? As I have said, the core of my case for establishing a committee is stated in term of reference (e) as follows: . . . whether the Bill requires amendment to preserve its general prohibition of research on relevant human embryos without halting the IVF program, and if so, what amendments should be made . . . I congratulate Senator Tate, who has made an attempt at drawing up some amendments. I think they deserve great consideration but they would be better considered by a committee than by the Committee of the Whole of the Senate. I believe-I speak only for myself-that Senator Tate's amendments go very much along the road of satisfying my concerns. We will hear what Senator Harradine says about them later. I think Senator Tate has made a very positive step. Two other terms of reference which I have added raise important questions. Senator Harradine's Bill has some fairly heavy criminal sanctions for breaches of the legislation, if it is passed. Again I register the very great concern that has been expressed to me by practitioners in this field about how that would affect them. I am sure it would affect them very deeply if they had criminal sanctions of that kind hanging over their head because of what they do. They are likely to be very concerned indeed. It is most important, of course, that legislation should make it clear what is meant if there are to be sanctions of that kind. However, I hope that the committee would address the question of whether criminal sanctions are the right form of sanctions in this area and whether it would not be better to have some form of civil remedy, injunction-type remedy, to enforce such legislation if it is passed by this Parliament. I included in the terms of reference the question of whether legislation in this area is desirable at all, whether self-regulation is adequate and whether such guidelines as those which have been established by the National Health and Medical Research Council in its ethical codes on this subject are adequate. I do not believe they are. This issue has become one of such enormous importance and widespread concern to the community that it has to be addressed by this Parliament and other parliaments. I think legislation will be required but I would be influenced by what conclusions the committee took after its report is received. Victoria already has legislation on the subject. I have not asked that the committee look at that legislation because I support the approach of Senator Harradine's Bill. I believe that it is up to parliaments to state the rules, not to have statutory bodies or departments exercising discretions in areas of this kind. I would be deeply concerned about these matters being determined by guidelines set, and changed from time to time, by a statutory body or a Minister of state. I think the composition of the committee speaks for itself. I do not propose to waste any more of the Senate's time in going into that matter. If the Senate supports my motion, I will move a subsequent motion so that the committee can be established in the ordinary way. For those reasons I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.58) —The Senate is considering a motion moved by Senator Durack to refer the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 and certain associated questions to a select committee. That means that the Bill will not be the subject of a vote in this debate, but its purpose and the way in which it is constructed need to be briefly considered if one is sensibly to decide whether it could usefully be sent to a Senate committee for report rather than be dealt with immediately in our normal legislative process. I clearly but briefly state that I support the Bill in principle; that is, I see a distinction on the one hand between creating an embryo in order to implant it in a woman's womb and on the other creating an embryo with no such intention but rather in order to carry out certain medical procedures or experiments on it. I see that distinction and believe that the first should be encouraged not simply because of the joy which a successful birth of a healthy baby might bring to a woman who, with her spouse, has exhausted all other possibilities of achieving a pregnancy but because it is especially gratifying that in a world where science, and even medical science, is so often perverted into destructive enterprises, in this instance very fine minds and considerable community funds and facilities are devoted and dedicated to creating children. I believe the second possibility should be discouraged because there is something inherently improper about the medical manipulation of non-consenting human life where the end and object in view is not the enhancement of that life at the very least by alleviating suffering or disability but, even better, by leading to a fuller development of that human life concerned. I emphasise `of that life' because the fact that such medical experimentation might save the lives of other humans is ethically beyond the pale. When one considers that the fate of such an embryo is not to develop progressively as it might otherwise have done to the stage of birth into the world, I believe the argument against is immeasurably stronger. I say that insofar as that distinction is valid and my evaluation of the two instances has force, Australian society should do what it can to encourage the one and discourage the other. Senator Harradine's Bill attempts to achieve the discouraging aspect by the creation of offences and the imposing of penalties if certain prohibited activities are undertaken. The penalties for contravention are severe-up to four years imprisonment or a $20,000 fine. In that situation, a person or institution involved in reproductive technology is entitled to know in advance precisely what behaviour might attract such penalties. Further, the normal rules as to onus of proof in any legal proceedings should be observed. I believe that Senator Harradine's Bill, as presently drafted, is defective in dealing with the position of a person who could be alleged to be in contravention of its provisions and subject to those severe penalties. The uncertainty brought about by imprecise drafting would, of course, not only be of importance at any trial but would also have an immediate impact on work in this field where prudence on the part of sponsoring organisations would lead to the adoption of the most cautious interpretation of his Bill. I have drafted amendments which seek to remedy these defects and imprecisions. I acknowledge the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in alerting senators to these matters and the assistance of its secretary, Mr Giles Short, in drafting my amendments, though I must emphasise that they are not amendments on behalf of the Committee. I waited for the whole of the winter recess for Senator Harradine to respond to that report by bringing forward some amendments of his own. However, in the absence of such response I put those amendments forward as my contribution to improving the Bill. The question remains whether those amendments should be moved at the Committee stage of the Bill-that is, after the Senate signals its adoption of the underlying purpose and scheme of the Bill by passing it at its second reading-or the amendments should become part of a submission to a Senate select committee insofar as that committee may be interested to see whether the Bill could be improved in the way suggested by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. My personal preference and earlier preference would be to press on with the Bill, at least to a second reading, so that any Senate committee would have some general guidance from the Senate as to whether the underlying principles should guide its recommendations. But there is an argument that even that might be premature in that senators would be advantaged in any second reading vote by having the benefit of a report canvassing the various issues. There is a better reason for sending this matter to a Senate select committee. I have said that the Parliament should be encouraging some and discouraging other activities of practitioners in this field. Given the tremendous boon to humanity of the creative aspects of this endeavour, of which we can be justifiably proud, it would be altogether lopsided if the elected representatives of the Australian people were to deal solely with a Bill which is concerned with proscribing activity by attaching penal sanctions. If there is to be such a legislative response to the destructive side of this endeavour-and, of course, that cannot be assumed as a recommendation of a select committee in the absence of an affirmative vote at the second reading of the Bill-it should be in the context of proposals and programs which are supportive and encouraging of the creative aspects of the embryo implantation program. I believe that a Senate select committee, in receiving submissions and getting into the field itself, can and should come up with a much more balanced set of recommendations as to how this national Parliament should respond to the advances in this reproductive technology. I have expressed my preference that the committee be guided by a second reading vote on the Bill. However, in the absence of that course of action preceding this vote on sending the reference, I will support Senator Durack's motion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.05) —I would like to congratulate Senator Harradine for bringing forward the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 in respect of which Senator Durack has moved a motion. I believe that all members in this chamber are in agreement on one area and that is that the in vitro fertilisation program should proceed. I certainly support the general thrust of Senator Harradine's Bill. He knows that I support him in his original intention of putting his private member's Bill before the chamber. Members of the Senate have great difficulty with the Bill because of the various legal and medical opinions that have been put before us. Some of those opinions say that the Bill does indeed interfere with the IVF program while others assure us that it does not. Dr Hennessey, the head of the Queensland Fertility Group, is reported in the Sunday Mail as having said that should Senator Harradine's Bill succeed it would not spell the end of Queensland's IVF program. Yet we have opinions from other people that it certainly would. Professor Correy from the University of Tasmania believes that it certainly would interfere in a very grave way with the IVF program in Tasmania. Mr Ian Johnston says that he has sought legal opinion and believes that the Bill would certainly interfere with the IVF program in Victoria. It is because of this conflicting legal and medical opinion that I support Senator Durack's motion that the Bill be sent to a Senate select committee. The main emphasis of Senator Harradine's Bill is that every embryo should end up being implanted and that no experimentation should be carried out on an embryo that could possibly lead to its detriment. We are told by the people involved in the IVF program that super ovulation is necessary. We know that the present success rate in an ideal situation in which three embryos are implanted is only 30 per cent. We are told that if one embryo is implanted the success rate would drop to 7 per cent and that certainly would be an unacceptable level. Some say that Senator Harradine's Bill does not allow for freezing at all. Senator Harradine says that it does allow for freezing in the short term to fit in with a woman's cycle. But he also says that he does not approve of long term freezing and I believe that this is one of the very difficult points that we have to face. In the case of long term freezing, embryos which are owned by two parents could, indeed, end up not being wanted by them for implantation. What does one do with them at that stage? Of course, there is a problem in that the sperm can be frozen while the ova cannot. Of course, once that difficulty is overcome, once the ova can be frozen, we will not have the problem that is facing us now in respect of discarding embryos. The ova will be able to be fertilised when they are defrosted. There would not be the problem of discarding that we have at the moment. An audit is presently being undertaken of all institutions which are involved in the IVF program to ascertain whether the guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council are being abided by. Professor Lovell, who is Chairman of the National Health and Medical Research Council, assured me that his legal advice was that Senator Harradine's Bill would interfere gravely with the IVF program. As I say, we have had so many conflicting reports in this regard that I believe the only course left open to us is to send the matter to a Senate select committee for it to undertake Senator Harradine's prime aim-that is, for the IVF program to go ahead. There is only one area in which I definitely oppose Senator Harradine's Bill, and that is where it says that every embryo ought to be implanted. I am assured that at the moment we are on the brink of being able to tell whether or not an embryo could have a genetic disease. At the moment we cannot tell whether mice and human embryos have genetic diseases, although we can tell with domestic animals. Apparently it is possible to tell with domestic animals that an embryo has no genetic disease and that it will be a perfect reproduction. With mice and humans that is not possible yet. Apparently we are on the brink of that knowledge. Senator Harradine's Bill says that no matter what comes of that knowledge every embryo must be implanted. I cannot accept the situation where a doctor must implant an imperfect embryo if he knows that a genetic disease may cause great problems for that child, and problems also would be foisted on the mother. It is a totally different situation when a child is born with some disability but for a doctor to set out and say that he is deliberately implanting an embryo, knowing that the child will be born with some genetic disease, is against every principle I can imagine. We do know that nature usually takes over in this situation. We know that naturally between 40 and 50 per cent of fertilised embryos are wasted prior to implantation. Often those are what we call blighted embryos, and nature is able to discard the majority of them. Of those embryos that are implanted, one in five miscarries. That is a much larger figure than the average person is aware of, but one in five miscarries quite normally. We also know that of those implanted some develop into other things apart from human foetuses, such as hydatidiform moles. Other forms do develop. So quite naturally a large percentage of fertilised embryos does wither and similarly ova and sperm, that are of course potential life, also wither unless they are united. It is because of the fact that nature itself does deal with the situation to a large extent that I believe it would be wrong for a doctor to implant deliberately an embryo that is not perfect, if he had the knowledge that he was implanting an embryo that had a genetic disease. We have only a very limited time to debate this Bill and as there is only an hour and a half left we do need to come to a vote. Senator Georges —We are not debating the Bill. Senator WALTERS —On the motion. I thank the honourable senator. We need to come to a vote on this matter today and it is for that reason that I make my contribution very short. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.15) —The problem we on this side face, and I face in particular, is that suddenly we have before us a proposition to refer the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill to a select committee. My understanding is that the Government has not had an opportunity to discuss the advisability of either doing that or proceeding directly to the Bill itself, debating it at the second reading and Committee stages. The understanding on our side is that each senator would then have a vote according to conscience; in other words, by decision we have freed ourselves from the party discipline for this vote. That means that every senator has an added responsibility to be familiar with the Bill, because normally we hide behind the party position and that is it. On this occasion we are going to have to bear the responsibility of how we vote, and I hope that how we vote is based on a clear understanding of the Bill and its consequences. I must admit that I would benefit from a debate in this place but I do not know whether I would benefit from a very prolonged inquiry, and rest assured that it would be prolonged if the Bill were to go to a Senate select committee. Senator Harradine —We could send it to your Committee. Senator GEORGES —I do not doubt that it could be sent to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare and we could extend our reference to cover human welfare. As it is we have problems completing our references before I retire from this place, let alone having a further extension with this very complicated and intense problem that Senator Harradine has presented to us. I have my doubts as to whether he properly understands what he is doing. I certainly do not, and that is why I think it is necessary to have a full debate. I am of the opinion that the second reading and Committee stages of the debate would be sufficient for us to establish whether or not the Bill should be supported. I have problems with the select committee concept because we would be giving to another committee a heavy responsibility in regard both to time and membership. That is why we ought not to support the motion until both sides of the House have considered it. No doubt members of the Opposition have because they put forward the motion, but we are now faced with the motion and have on our feet to come to some sort of decision. Normally we would ask for an adjournment and I do not know whether anyone as yet has taken up the problem that we face in order to determine whether we should seek an adjournment until we as a party decide what to do. Senator Harradine —The Minister has made it clear that the Government does not have a view on whether or not this goes to a committee. Senator GEORGES —We ought to have a view. Senator Harradine —The Minister made it clear, only as of yesterday, that the Government does not have a view and is not going to have a view on it. Senator GEORGES —It will have a view on it sooner or later, and I want to be involved in that view. I want to have some party discussion on this. This is not a matter of conscience; the actual Bill is but whether or not we send it to a select committee, whether we establish a committee, is not. Based on the amount of correspondence I have received we can estimate the number of people, organisations and submissions that would come before the committee. There would be many. It would be time consuming and the committee would be involved in a highly emotive debate. Senator Watson —What is wrong with that? Senator GEORGES —The particular committee that has just been referred to has been trying to decide whether we should keep- Senator Watson —We cannot sweep it under the carpet. Senator GEORGES —It is not a matter of shooting it under the carpet. The Senate, with its procedures, should be able to come to a decision since we have a conscience vote on the matter. I take it that those opposite have freed themselves from party disciplines. If they have not, it makes the matter a bit one-sided. If we have a prolonged debate, if necessary, and a conscience vote at the end of it we are bound to come to a reasonable decision in a much shorter time than we would by referring the matter to a committee. I get back to the point. Whether it should go to a committee has not been properly considered on our side. If it does, should it go to a select committee or a standing committee? It is a little unfair for us to be suddenly faced with this decision. I emphasise that the normal courtesy would be to ask for an adjournment so that we can consider this matter. I have just indicated that I have some problems with it. I am not averse to inquiries but I have just received a letter from the President of the Senate, who has indicated to chairmen of committees-I think that quite a number of people have received that correspondence-we should be careful of our expenditures especially in regard to travel, staffing, seeking advisers and other matters. Obviously the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has put pressure on Parliament by suggesting certain budgetary restraints. Now we are in the process of setting up another committee which will need supporting staff and personnel. Let us forget about the fact that we do not have sufficient senators to go on to an extra committee. We cannot come to an easy decision about the method of conducting such an inquiry without considering some of these matters. I take the opportunity of responding to the President's letter. I think it is quite wrong for the Minister for Finance to impose budgetary restraints on the Parliament in a way that truncates the ability of committees to do their work. I would be happier if the Minister for Finance looked at delegations which are constantly travelling overseas, even during the sittings of the Senate and the Parliament, and truncated their activities. I suggest that the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are two that can be looked at because within the restraints indicated by the President are restraints upon those two organisations. I find it a little hard to sit on a committee-those opposite are trying to set up another select committee-which cannot meet while the Senate is sitting; yet we have delegations overseas. Looking around the chamber, I can see that quite a number of people are missing. They are on delegations overseas, at great expense; and some have just returned from delegations overseas, at great expense. If we are to heed the President's message we ought to do so in a way that does not inhibit the work of the existing committees. One way to run in the face of the advice given by the President-and, I believe, the Speaker-is to set up another committee. Where will we get the staff for the committee? We can argue that that ought not to be a consideration if there is a need for an inquiry. I would agree. Maybe I am overemphasising the President's advice, in order to have my own way. But the advice cannot be ignored. Setting up the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare strained the resources of the Senate to the extent that the Committee has only four members. It is just as well that a quorum is only two members; otherwise we would have difficulty in organising meetings because of honourable senators' commitments. Let me explain how I became Chairman of the Animal Welfare Committee. The matter was discussed in the party room and someone said: `Why should we worry about animal welfare? Why do we not worry about human welfare?' I said: `Why do we not worry about both'? Senator Button said: `Ah, we have someone with an interest'. I was lumbered with being Chairman of the Animal Welfare Committee, which will keep me occupied until my retirement. To get back to the point I was making, the resources of the Senate are stretched and the resources of the Government in supplying the chairperson of the committee will certainly be stretched because I am certain that not many will race forward to volunteer to be the chairperson of this select committee. If the matter has to be referred to a committee, there are a number of standing committees to which it could be referred. The Government should have the opportunity to examine and debate the proposition. I do not know whether the Minister in charge of the House is in a position to guide us in this matter. I am not prepared to take the business of the House out of the hands of the person in charge. But I suggest that we have an opportunity to discuss this matter in the party room. The Opposition ought to concede us that right. This debate ought to be continued after we have had some discussion on the matter. Looking at the proposition for referring the matter to a select committee, I begin to imagine the stream of impassioned people who will appear before it, the argument and counter-argument, the distortion and the counter-distortion. I get correspondence from two sides. I get it from people who desperately desire to have children and fear that this legislation might cancel that opportunity. These people desire to give life. The others desire to make that difficult. I feel like Solomon with the sword or someone trying to cut the Gordian knot-if that is the correct analogy- Senator Teague —It was a baby in that case. Senator GEORGES —That might be a good analogy then. I find it extremely difficult to accept the proposition that we should have a lengthy inquiry of this sort, allowing all the fanatics to hit the deck in Canberra and put their points of view before a committee that has much work to do elsewhere. The Senate is in the position, without the discipline of party policy, to determine this issue. We ought not to fall into the trap of establishing another select committee. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.28) —I support the motion moved by Senator Durack to refer certain aspects of Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill to a Senate select committee. This Bill has generated tremendous media and community interest, as has been mentioned. It has resulted in a flood of letters, both for and against, to the offices of both senators and members. We have all taken a great deal of interest. I find it difficult to arrive at a black or white decision on certain parts of the Bill. I totally support the principle of the Bill that would stop now and in the future experimentation on human embryos that was not in the best interests of the community. By referring certain aspects of this Bill to a committee, those relating to the interpretation and meaning of certain words, we will overcome a great deal of litigation. I believe that the Bill as it stands would undoubtedly go before the courts and an adverse decision could result in a flood of genetic engineering practices which would be abhorrent to the great majority of Australians. Very few people realise the capabilities of genetic engineering practices, even within Australia. On the other hand, referring certain aspects of this Bill to a Senate committee may fulfil grave fears I have about the interpretation of wording, for example, that prohibits `any manipulation of the relevant human embryo or any procedures undertaken or, involving the use of a relevant human embryo'. Such provisions could end once and for all in vitro fertilisation programs in Australia. I emphasise the words `all programs'. The Wells report suggests that a number of IVF clinics have already received legal advice to close immediately should this Bill be put to the vote and passed. I think that is another argument in favour of its going before a Senate committee. While the problem of interpretation exists in the minds of the public, the medical fraternity, the church, the legal fraternity and perhaps even the designer of this Bill, I believe the Bill should be subjected to further scrutiny and examination by a Senate select committee before it is put to a vote. There is no way at the moment, I think, as Senator Georges has mentioned, that the Senate could effectively vote on the Bill as it now stands. Most authorities around the world that have examined the whole question of IVF procedures and experimentation have found that IVF is a legitimate and ethically acceptable procedure if employed in certain conditions. I think the Senate has to direct its attention to what those acceptable conditions are. I have yet to find one report that finds against the use of IVF as against genetic engineering per se. There is widespread acceptance therefore in the community of the use of IVF procedures for infertile couples where the husband and wife supply their own genetic material for the production of an embryo or embryos that will be inserted in the uterus of the wife with the aim of producing a successful pregnancy. I also acknowledge that there are groups within the same community who object even to such IVF for a number of reasons. Some consider it as unnatural conception and so reject it on legal grounds. Others reject it because the very nature of IVF is experimental and thus there is a risk of damage to either the foetus or the mother, or both. Yet others, who have hang-ups about children being adopted or being born of unnatural means, fear the risk of personality traumas in the children as they develop through childhood and adolescence to adulthood. A number of fears have been expressed in regard to the adverse effect of technological intervention in the reproductive process. These quite legitimate fears include: The possibility of genetic manipulation to produce a master race, a docile human being or a great athlete-the inventiveness of the human mind is quite extraordinary; the fear of casual experimentation on human embryos-for example, growing embryos in glass dishes until they grow to the foetus stage and are then subjected to experimentation; the fears and legal questions that arise out of the use of surrogate mothers; the fear of the cloning of human beings, which is very real-experimentation in this area should be prohibited; and the grave fears held by many concerning the creation of a genetic hybrid-that is, cross fertilisation of animal and human ova and sperm. Some of these are remote risks that can be adequately dealt with by watertight legislation. In spite of all these fears and the possible abuses of IVF, the program has the potential to be of tremendous value to human life. Because of the time constraints imposed upon speakers I wish to conclude at that point. I hereby give notice that I wish to participate fully in the debate on the Bill when it comes before the Senate after the select committee has delivered its report. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.34) —I rise briefly to support what Senator Georges has said. I think he was really seeking to have this matter adjourned because of the problem that we face-it is certainly a problem for me-in looking at this matter and particularly at the proposal that a select committee be set up to inquire into the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. I do not wish to deal with the argument itself but just to deal with the fact that, as Senator Georges said, the President of the Senate has indicated to all Senate committee chairmen that certain restraints must be followed as regards the financing of committees. I think we are all aware that there is a strain on everybody concerning attendance at Senate committees. It is a very important area of work. There has not been consideration of whether a standing committee of the Senate might be able to deal with this matter. I have not had a chance to consider whether, for example, the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Social Welfare or one of the other committees should look at this matter. I do not know whether the chairpersons of those committees have given consideration to it. Probably, like most of us sitting in the chamber at the moment, they do not even know that this proposal is being discussed at this time. Senator Durack —They should not be here if they do not know that this is being discussed. Senator CHILDS —They do not necessarily know that Senator Durack is proposing to set up a committee. As Senator Georges said, whilst in our party room we will be free to look at the argument and to vote subsequently, we certainly have not had the chance of considering which committee, if any, should consider this matter. In deference to the President too, I would like to hear any argument he might put. If there are financial restraints, that means either that extra money must be found or, alternatively, that there will be some attempt to skimp on the activities of existing committees. That is one of the things that I would be concerned about. Not that that alternative should not be addressed, but I would be resistant to skimping on the necessary works of committees. I would not like, for example, to have to limit the ability of committees to go to other States from time to time, as they have to do. These are the sorts of problems we will face if we do not allow ourselves the opportunity of examining the matter and deciding whether Senator Durack's proposal is the best possible way of dealing with the problem or whether there is an alternative. For that reason, I suggest strongly to all senators and particularly to Senator Durack that he should give us the opportunity of giving mature consideration to his proposal. In our case that would take place in the party room. I do not know whether there has been just a failure of communicaiton, but as far as I know the matter has not been raised with the Government Whip or the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in such a way that they were able to convey that proposal to the party room. For those reasons, I support the concern that Senator Georges has expressed. I think we would be very wise on this emotional issue to follow his suggestion. I think it would be unfortunate on an issue about which people feel very strongly if we commenced this debate on a discordant note. I suggest that if we have to vote on it in the next few minutes and if we do not have the opportunity to give further consideration to it we will start this debate in a very unfortunate way. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Mini- ster for Finance)(4.38) —As has already been indicated, the Government has no formally determined position on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. After consulting as many people as I was able to, my view-and the view of just about everyone to whom I spoke-is that there will be a free vote on it. I make that announcement with the concurrence of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who is not here. I am opposed to this motion, not because I am opposed per se to the referral of this Bill in particular to a committee, but because the motion seeks to establish a select committee. I think there are already far too many Senate committees. Far too many people have had their fads, their obsessions and there indulgences gratified by setting up a number of committees which have both strained the available resources and added substantially to costs. I do not accept the proposition, which was accepted by the previous Government, that the amount of money appropriated for Parliament is a matter for the Parliament to determine. It is a matter for the Executive to determine. As Minister for Finance I have pursued that policy and I will continue to do so. Parliament does not have responsibility for public expenditure; the Executive Government does. As long as that position- Senator Georges —I would like to open up a debate on that. Senator WALSH —That is my position, and that is the policy of the Government. I want to make that perfectly clear. To the extent that this adds to the demands for funds for the Senate and for Senate committees, I certainly give no guarantee that that demand will be met. Indeed, I believe that attention should be paid to the cost that the existing committees are incurring and whether the existence of all of those committees can be justified. Finally, I explicitly do not accept the proposition that the Parliament determines how much money the Parliament will get. The Executive Government has the financial responsibility, and in the end the Executive Government will determine that question. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.41) —It was my preferred position, as it was Senator Tate's preferred position, that we immediately proceed to the second reading debate. But it has been put to us-and it has been put to Senator Durack, obviously-that there are a number of senators who need a little more time to consider the conflicting statements that have been made to them about the effect of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill. I think it is only reason- able under those circumstances that some method is able to be provided to those people who have made those conflicting statements to put their statements to the committee and have them tested; thus the truth one way or the other will be known and the committee can report to the Senate. The evidence as taken down by Hansard will be available for examination by all members of the Senate. After all, we are dealing with a matter of major public importance. It is a matter which, if one likes, can be compared with the problems that were generated as a result of the application of nuclear technology in the 1940s to the creation of the atomic bomb. Just as in the 1940s the development of nuclear weapons posed a threat to mankind as a whole, in the 1980s human embryo experimentation poses a similar threat. I ask the Senate to listen to what was said by the world renowned academic, jurist and legal philosopher, the late Professor Julius Stone, who died not long ago, in a letter to me in May after I had presented the Bill to the Parliament in April. He stated: This area of research is par excellence one likely to produce problems for mankind as a whole, which we have no reasonable ground for expecting that we can resolve. He went on to urge the establishment of stricter limits than those proposed by either Warnock or Waller. A ground for pressing beyond the mere ethical duty towards legal controls lies, as he stated in a previous paper: . . . in the changing image of the scientist, away from that of the dedicated researcher working in a kind of saintly retreat from the world to the immediate applicator of scientific knowledge, the technologist increasingly becoming exposed to commercial objectives rather than to scientific `learning'. Senator Peter Baume —Who was that, Senator? Senator HARRADINE —Julius Stone. That is one of the problems in this instance. An example of the commercialisation, of course, is the establishment of the company IVF Australia, whose objective is to expose reproductive technology to market forces and to market it under lucrative royalty arrangements in the United States of America. It is not generally known, but it has appointed the head of a large United States multinational company, who rejoices in the name of Moses, to take this technology to the United States. That is one of the real reasons that a number of letters to senators have been generated, including from the most vulnerable of people, that is, the people who cannot have children. They are the most vulnerable. They have been told that my Bill will destroy their chances. I am happy to have that Bill exposed to the light of day. Let then come forward to a committee and let them prove to that committee whether it will destroy their chances. What could be fairer than that? Labor Caucus members have received a document prepared by Deane Wells. Deane Wells stated in that document that new biotechnologies are destined to change the world. Even on his premise, what more important subject can there be to be discussed by this national Parliament? If we have to cut corners, it is better to cut the corners in regard to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare than to cut the corners on matters that affect the heart of human nature. The main thrust of the paper by Deane Wells was that my Bill would handicap experimentation which could lead to a precise method of preventing the transmission of all hereditary disorders, and that the issue should not be dealt with by parliament but should be left to a national bioethics committee. That was the burden of the Wells paper. That is most significant in view of the fact that the major pressure today for human embryo experimentation is for the establishment of a precise filtering method for humans, designed to search for genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities, and to destroy those human embryos that are deemed to be imperfect or abnormal. Senator Georges —No, not quite that. Senator HARRADINE —Obviously, there are many concerns about the increasing pressures and strains on health budgets. Senator Georges —It is not that at all. It is pressure on the person who is born short because of chromosomes and the cruelty imposed upon that person. Senator HARRADINE —It is an interesting point that Senator Georges has made because he is admitting that the embryo has an interest. That is a very significant point by Senator Georges and one which obviously should be considered by the committee. I believe that it is evident that the original role of in vitro fertilisation as an infertility management program is not of prime importance to those with vested interests in human embryo experimentation. I repeat-I do not know how many times I have to do it-that the purpose of my Bill is to prevent human beings from being created in order to be destroyed or experimented on. I assert it would not halt IVF procedures undertaken primarily for the benefit of the individual human embryo. The purpose of the Bill is to stop the creation of a race of disposable laboratory human beings. I know there are conflicting opinions about the merits of certain parts of the Bill. I believe that the statement by Deane Wells comparing the work of the Parliamentary Counsel in this instance to that of a malevolent draftsman was quite unwarranted. If there are any imperfections in the Bill it is because of my instructions, not the contract draftsman's drafting work. Senator Peter Baume —It is criticism irrelevant to the question. Senator HARRADINE —Sure. As I say, I am perfectly happy to have the second reading debate now. However, a number of senators have said: `Wait a minute, there have been all of these matters raised. Let them at least be aired and dealt with'. Senator Durack has taken up those concerns. He has done what he felt he ought to do, not only on his behalf or on behalf of many other members of the Opposition, but also on behalf of quite a number of members of the Government. Under those circumstances I believe that the less I say, the better. I will leave my comments for the second reading debate at a later stage. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.51) —A number of colleagues have indicated their basic support for Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 and have indicated that they seek some method of bringing about a situtation in which the invitro fertilisation programs are given a greater degree of protection than many people believe will exist under Senator Harradine's Bill. I simply want to put on the record that I do not support this Bill. I do not support the thrust of Senator Harradine's Bill either in general or, indeed, in the particular. The second point I want to make is that the majority of my colleagues on this side of the chamber believe that this matter is best dealt with by being referred to a committee. Senator Durack has acted in accordance with the desires of a large number of honourable senators for that reference to be made. I make it clear that I personally do not support a reference of the Bill to a committee. I believe that the matter should have been brought on and debated at the second reading stage; the merits of Senator Harradine's Bill, Senator Tate's amendments and other issues should have been considered at this time. The Senate should have proceeded along those lines and, hopefully, Senator Harradine's Bill should have been brought to a vote and I would have hoped that the Bill would have been defeated at that stage. Nevertheless, I believe that the endeavour which will now be undertaken in terms of a committee, to the best of my assessment, will not in fact put any new facts on the record and will not in fact present any new evidence which is not already part of the public record; nor, indeed, do I believe will it substantially change the minds of those honourable senators who in fact have already taken considerable time and effort to come to some understanding of the proposals advanced in Senator Harradine's Bill. I simply put on the record that not all honourable senators on this side of the chamber are of one mind in this matter. However, equally we understand what I think the majority of our colleagues are seeking to do and want to do, and I have no doubt that the Senate committee will discharge its responsibilities in the proper and correct fashion that Senate committees have when these difficult things have been put to them. I do regard this as fundamentally not a scientific question but an ethical and moral question; an ethical and moral question about which I make no bones about the fact that I have made up my mind. I have very strong views on the matter. I think that Senator Harradine and his Bill are entirely wrong and I hope eventually that the Senate will be put in the postion where there will be an effective second reading debate to bring the matter to a conclusion and to dispose of the Bill in the way in which I think it ought to be disposed of. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.54) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to say a few words about this matter. All the parties in this House, it appears, have a free vote on this matter. I get the feeling about the place, despite what Senator Puplick says, that many honourable senators have yet to make up their minds about the matter. Honourable senators would like to inform their minds, and inform themselves, on the basis of proper evidence and proper discussions. In those circumstances, on a point that everyone here today has agreed upon as being a very important and serious point, particularly as there will be no party line to be adopted by anyone and where everyone has to make up his own mind, of course we want our minds informed. In those circumstances, why should we not have a committee? Why should we be told that there is not enough money to have a select committee? As senators in one of the two Houses which govern and which bring legislation into this Parliament for the good government of this country, why should we not ask for a committee so that we can exercise our minds on the sort of evidence brought before that committee and the sorts of submissions put before that committee? No matter how many committees there are, why should we not have another one when it is a matter as serious as this? Is the situation going to arise in this country where the Parliament cannot properly exercise its mind and where it has to choose between committees? Why should we not have all the committees we already have, plus another one? Why should we not go ahead as a parliament and do that? Senator Georges —You have just shown an interest, and that is highly dangerous, I would say. Senator COONEY —I am interested in the question of in vitro fertilisation. Of course I am. I am also interested in the question of where the Parliament sits in relation to the Executive. As I understand it, the Parliament is the supreme body that passes legislation. That is what we are going to do and why should we not have a committee to tell us how we are going to pass it? The committee should not tell us what to do, but is should provide evidence, submissions and thoughts whereby honourable senators can exercise their free minds on this. It is not very often that we can exercise a free mind in this place. When we have got that opportunity, why should we not take it and why should we not go ahead and properly exercise it? I reckon we should have a select committee. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.56) —in reply-I am very pleased at the consideration which the Senate has given to this matter. I think it does credit to the Senate that it is prepared to grapple with this very fundamental issue. I believe from the general support for my proposal that the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 be referred to a committee, that the Senate will agree to that. The committee can then set about its very important task of informing us better as a Senate when we come to make the final decision on whether to support Senator Harradine's Bill, or in what way or with what amendments it might be supported. I do not propose to prolong this debate by dealing with the matter again. That would only be repetition on my part. However, I would simply like to address the question that has been raised by Senator Georges and one or two other honourable senators about adjourning this debate. I do not think that would be justified because those who still want to give consideration to this matter-and many do-will be better able to do that if this committee is established. We would have the benefit of its report and no doubt the many expert opinions which will be expressed at that committee. The object I had in moving this motion was to achieve a better understanding by the Senate of these problems before we come to vote on it. As I said, I hope that the Senate will in fact proceed along that course. If it does, I then propose to seek leave to move a further motion to get the committee itself properly constituted so that it can commence this most important work as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Durack)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following provisions apply to the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985: (1) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (2) That the Chairman of the Committee be appointed by and from the members of the Committee. (3) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (4) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (5) That the quorum of the Committee be four members. (6) That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken. (7) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources. (8) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 30 April 1986. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a brief statement on a position taken by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Senator Walsh —By the Government. It is a Government position. Senator GEORGES —I have not finished saying what I intended to say. I seek leave to make a brief statement on the position taken by the Minister for Finance in relation to the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —This matter needs to be determined by the Parliament and, it appears, sooner rather than later. The matter ought to be raised in a formal way so that we can have discussions on the proposition that Senator Walsh put forward that the Government's policy is that the Executive has the right to impose budgetary restraints upon the Parliament. I do not doubt that the Government has a right, through the Minister for Finance, to give advice to the Parliament, but I do not believe-I think it ought to be debated out-that the Government should insist, because that would seriously limit the powers of the Parliament in a way that I do not think is generally accepted. I express concern because I was, for a short time, a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. It may seem strange that I should be a member of that Committee. Senator Durack —Why? Senator GEORGES —For a variety of reasons which I will not go into. What concerned me most was the attempt to separate out physically the Executive from the rest of the Parliament. There was strong opposition to that by members of the Committee. I hope that the Committee sustains its view. The statement which was made during an earlier debate by the Minister for Finance should raise concerns on both sides of this House, and the sooner it is determined the better. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-Firstly, may I express my amazement at Senator Georges, who sat here in 1975 when the Senate, in collaboration with a corrupt judiciary and vice-regal establishment, ultimately secured the dismissal of an elected Labor government. The appropriations for the Parliament will be decided by the Executive Government. The Executive Government means, of course, whatever party has command of a majority in the House of Representatives. It will certainly not be decided by the Senate. A policy which is frequently applied to government departments is that when a department makes a decision to take on some new function it is required to absorb within existing appropriations the cost of that additional function. I have not yet decided to apply- ultimately it will be a decision of the Government and not of me alone-but I will certainly consider applying that same principle to the decision that the Senate has just made. That is, any additional expenditure required because of the decision of this Senate to establish another select committee will be absorbed within existing appropriations. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That General Business be not further considered this day. Debate resumed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.05) —The Australian Democrats support the Interstate Road Transport Bill and allied Bill. We believe that it will bring stability to the industry, a stability that is sorely needed. It will provide a fair and equitable system of government charges which will be used for road maintenance, as is only right and proper. (Quorum formed). Heavy interstate road transport is vitally important to the Australian economy. We believe this Bill will help restore the damage done by the big rigs, because the fee is, by law, earmarked for the maintenance of roads used by interstate trucks. The contributors will benefit from better and safer road systems. In other words, truck drivers will see the results of their fees in safer and better roads. More importantly, the fast-track package aims to solve some of the safety problems of the long distance road freight carriers, because it provides for proper insurance to be carried by interstate trucks. It also provides for vehicle inspections when these trucks are registered. The legislation provides for a black box, or standard monitoring device, to be introduced by regulation. This is very interesting because it will allow the monitoring of the speed of a truck and other characteristics, such as the hours of operation, and gives a mechanical means of recording whether proper breaks are being taken by the drivers of these trucks. It will also allow people inspecting the record from the black box to determine whether speed limits are being observed. This latter point is of some concern to the industry as certain drivers allege that they have been falsely charged by police with speeding and such charges can lead to them losing their licences and their livelihood. The introduction of standard monitoring devices will put an end to any allegations of false charges. This is extremely important both for the truckies, who support the Bill, and for the police. Hopefully, the Bill will also enable uniform safety regulations to be implemented across Australia in co-operation with the States. Vehicle inspections are provided for in the legislation in accordance with the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry report. The introduction of vehicle inspections is supported by many industry groups. The Long Distance Road Transport Association of Australia wants all vehicles to be of acceptable standards. This will lead to a lowering of the accident rate. However, it is our belief that regulations need to be realistic and not petty and autocratic. We will look at these regulations very closely when the Government brings them down to make certain that the truckies are given a fair go. When the Inter-State Commission's report on its inquiry into cost recovery arrangements for interstate land transport is tabled in Parliament some time after 30 April 1986, the Australian Democrats will be taking its recommendations back to the road transport industry and making certain that justice is done. Further, should charges not based on the Inter-State Commission report be introduced, as the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) suggested in his second reading speech would be the case, these new charges will be examined very carefully by the Australian Democrats before they are passed. We will also be seeking a detailed explanation from the Government if the Inter-State Commission recommendations are not implemented. We will be looking into why the Inter-State Commission's proposed charges are not appropriate and why charges other than those recommended should be accepted if the Government moves other than for the Inter-State Commission's recommendations. Any regulations relating to either of these Bills will be looked at carefully. The Democrats will not support any unreasonable or ridiculous impost being placed on this vital industry or on the myriad of small businesses that make it up- individual truckies, right up to large organisations which handle the contracting out of business to truckies. Having applauded the Government for introducing this legislation, the Democrats will move an amendment to clause 27. The purpose of the amendment is to soften the draconian penalties for contravention of the safety provisions. Of course we are all in favour of safer roads. However, to have an automatic penalty of disqualification is quite absurd. Our amendment, while recognising the importance of safety, allows for two warnings over 10 years, or the disqualification of the person, either permanently or for a specified period. The original legislation did not have a provision for warnings. These can be issued only under normal court procedures. The wording of our amendment was arrived at after considerable discussion with both the Department and the Minister. It is absurd to place the whole industry in jeopardy or to take seriously a type of penalty which would put a person attracting that penalty completely out of business. The penalty, as it now exists, would make it very difficult for small operators; it would probably put them out of business. Because of its draconian nature, inevitably it would not be applied to the bigger operators. One of the main reasons for the fast-track package is to bring stability to an industry which has been plagued for many years by severe financial problems. A number of small businesses have gone to the wall, there have been bankruptcies and problems with insurance. The industry needs a package of this nature. The May report places great stress on the need for suitable financing arrangements for truck purchase and adequate consumer protection. Hopefully, this legislation is the forerunner of parallel legislation to be introduced into all States in which registration anomalies between State and Federal authorities will be removed, adequate financing arrangements will be provided, together with consumer protection, and speed limits will be standardised. It is envisaged that the speed limits for heavy trucks will be changed to match those for private cars so trucks will no longer be a slow hazard on the roads. These reforms, together with the increased safety provisions of this legislation, should go a long way to reduce the stress in the industry and eliminate fly-by-night operators who push their drivers into longer and longer hours and higher and higher speeds while neglecting essential safety, maintenance and insurance requirements. Once again the roads will be safe and efficient transport corridors. In the meantime, before the States introduce these measures, there is some ground for concern that this legislation will place an extra burden on an already overstressed industry. The registration fee of $1,400 and the extra administrative burden may well be the last straw for businesses already struggling for survival. We recommend that the annual registration fee be paid quarterly to minimise cash flow consequences. We also view with great concern the draconian penalties to be imposed when safety provisions, to be enacted by regulations, are not met. As I have said, we will move an amendment so that the courts will have discretion to admonish an offender rather than immediately disqualify him. New regulations may well prove costly to small businesses when they are first introduced. They may also at times be difficult to implement immediately. We are very disappointed with the handling of this legislation. It was initially recommended by the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry 23 months ago. The May committee of inquiry consulted with industry and its report of 18 months ago stressed the need for urgent action to alleviate the problems facing it. Since then the Government has, presumably, been planning the legislative package. However, since that time it has lost contact with the industry. It has failed to keep it informed adequately of the implications of the Bill and thus has caused great upset as rumours are spread and misconceptions have grown. Over the last week every second call to my office has been from discontented truckies who have not understood the provisions of this legislation. Senator Hill —Would it not be better to delay it until the fees are determined? Senator VIGOR —We will not support the Opposition in delaying the legislation because it is urgently needed and it is very important that the corresponding State legislation be introduced to complement it. If we do not pass the legislation now there will be a long hold up in this area. Senator Hill —The truckies who have been visiting you have been expressing concern about a fear of the unknown and what it might be. Senator VIGOR —The fee will be determined by an inquiry and the Parliament will have a chance to do something about that fee when the matter is raised. Even the States have not been kept fully informed. The Minister stated that it was only two months ago that the States saw this legislation and only one month since it was introduced into Parliament. There has not been enough time to examine it properly in the Parliament, let alone discuss its implications with the industry. However, we have looked at the legislation and we believe that there is nothing dramatically wrong with it that cannot be corrected by regulation. This is why we are giving this Bill to the Government at this stage. The long wait for the Government to take any action and the undue haste with which it has pushed the Bill through have worried the small operators who are already wary and stressed. Unlike the Opposition, we do not overreact by trying to hold up the Bill. For the misinformed carriers, the issue of this Bill has been one of road tax. The infamous road tax was seen as the cause of the upheaval in the industry in 1979 and the cause of the Razorback Mountain blockade. In fact it is nothing of the sort. Currently, many industry members are not aware that under the legislation there is choice of paying a fixed registration fee, a fee based on the actual distance travelled, the weight of cargo carried or the nature of the truck. They have been told that the fee is based on a per kilometre rate which immediately raises the bogy of road tax. The Government has insufficiently sold this Bill. A tale is going around that an operator can be disqualified for life if his monitoring device falls off. Yet, the maximum penalty in the Bill for tampering with a device is disqualification for three years. In fact, under our new system it will not happen that way because there will be the possibility of warning. The carriers have not been properly consulted and informed. We agree with the Oppposition on that. We believe that it is over-reacting to this. As this Parliament recognises, there is no secrecy, only no information. The legislation, which is part of a whole package which aims to alter the face of the road transport industry in Australia and which affects those involved so much, should not be quietly passed and, indeed, there is quite a lot of noise among the truckies. The low key approach which the Government has taken is, I believe, wrong, especially as the legislation could seriously affect people's livelihoods. Informed people can reach informed decisions and are not able to be preyed upon by unscrupulous people giving them wrong information. Yet, there remains good reason for concern among the carriers. The Minister for Transport said in his second reading speech: Accordingly I envisage the progressive implementation through proclamation of the two elements contained in this legislation. I expect the vehicle registration scheme to be proclaimed once substantial progress has been made on the implementation of the other parts of the fast-track package. Introduction of the operator licensing scheme will follow, and is expected to be proclaimed to complement equivalent State legislation. Thus, the legislation is not going to be proclaimed immediately. I think the Minister needs to answer why. It would be wrong to delay the legislation any longer as the industry has waited so long for the May report recommendations to be implemented. The interstate road transport industry can wait no longer. The Australian Democrats commend this Bill, with a simple amendment to the penalty provisions which I have foreshadowed, as a first step towards providing stability and security for the interstate road transport industry. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(5.23) —The Senate this afternoon is debating two Bills-the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. These two Bills provide for the registration of vehicles and the licensing of operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce. Funds collected by the registration scheme are applied for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by registered vehicles. The Interstate Road Transport Bill provides for an interstate vehicle registration scheme and trust fund while the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill provides for charges to be levied to recover the costs of road maintenance and upkeep. In addition, the Interstate Road Transport Bill makes provision for a federal system of licensing operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce. The federal interstate vehicle registration scheme is designed to remove the anomaly of vehicles solely engaged in interstate trade and commerce escaping the payment of reasonable registration charges which recover the costs of road damage. There are several provisions to these two Bills and I will list four of them. The first is the registration of motor vehicles engaged in interstate, State-Territory or Territory-Territory trade and commerce. The second is the collection of charges from registered vehicles to recover the costs of road damage. The third is the payment of vehicle registration charges into a trust fund. The fourth is the distribution of trust funds to the States and Territories for expenditure on roads used by registered vehicles. The importance of the road transport industry to Australian transport cannot be over emphasised. About 75 per cent of all freight is moved at some stage by this industry. Whilst I do not have any conflict of interest in relation to the two Bills being debated, I should say that I am a member of the Transport Workers Union, and have been for some time. In that respect, I have a keen interest in the passage of these two Bills. For all that, it is an industry that is not without significant problems. The road transport industry has more than its fair share of instability. For the first time, however, the Federal Government has clearly indicated that it is prepared to act to address long standing problems in the road freight industry. It is doing this in co-operation with the State and Territory governments and in full consultation with industry. The interstate road transport legislation is an integral part of the fast-track package proposed by the Federal Government. It is based on the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. A co-operative approach of working in consultation with States and industry is not new. It began with the establishment of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry in co-operation with States and Territories and in consultation with the industry. The States were consulted on the terms of reference and membership of the inquiry. As well, the industry was fully consulted on the terms of reference. The inquiry itself held 25 public meetings including five truck stop meetings. The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, sought public comment on the report when it was released. This led to further extensive consultation with the industry. Subsequently, the report and the fast-track reform package were both unanimously endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. This Council brings together the Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for transport. This expeditious endorsement of the fast-track package is consistent with calls for urgent action from respected industry groups and publications. Just allow me to illustrate. Mrs Kathy Robertson, Executive Director of the Long Distance Road Transport Association, has said: This report is far too good to sit on the shelf and collect dust. Mr Tony Hargreaves, Executive Director of the Australian Road Transport Federation, has said: The Federal Government is to be congratulated in moving quickly to seek implementation of the recommendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. Truckin' Life and Australian Trucking Action have both called for quick action. The passage of this legislation by the Federal Government will give the impetus to the States to introduce their parts of the fast-track package. In an industry which is national in scope, it is not unreasonable for States to look to the Federal Government to lead the way. It should be noted that the Federal interstate vehicle registration scheme will not be implemented until the States and Territories have made substantial progress in areas which fall within their responsibilities. As well, it is also fundamental that the States, Territories and industry are involved in the detailed preparation of necessary administrative arrangements. Therefore, the earliest opportunity at which the Federal registration scheme could commence is July 1986. The States will, by that time, implement a number of measures; namely, graduated truck driving licensing; improvements in inter-system railway cost recovery; improved finance arrangements for truck owners; removal of special fees inposed on out-of-state vehicles; and removal of the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas. Each of these is important, but I would like to make mention of just two. Firstly, graduated truck driver licensing is long overdue, given the size of trucks that are now on the roads. Such a system will allow drivers to gain experience before moving to the larger and more difficult to operate vehicles. This will add to safety on the road. The removal of the speed limit differential will also add to safety because there will be fewer problems with one of the major causes of injury and fatality associated with trucks. I refer to the overtaking of trucks which keep to a lower speed limit than that set for other vehicles on the road. Studies have shown that when the differential is removed there is a closer adherence by large trucks to the speed limit. It seems that if there is a differential the speed limit is broken, and broken greatly. However, for some reason, when the speed limit is the same for both trucks and other vehicles, the truck drivers adhere more closely to the speed limit. The fast-track package will be of major benefit to the road transport industry and to the Australian community as a whole. It is vital for the Federal Government to maintain the momentum for change, with the support of the States, industry associations and the relevant unions. It cannot be seriously suggested that the Government is acting with undue haste when it is now over two years since the inquiry was initiated, over one year since the inquiry reported and now over six months since the fast-track package was announced. I would now like to move to matters relating to the vehicle registration scheme. One of the elements of the fast-track package is the introduction of a registration charge to apply to interstate registered vehicles. The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommended that the charge be introduced to eliminate an unfair anomaly which presently exists. Interstate registered vehicles currently escape the payment of reasonable registration charges which recover the costs of road damage. The collection of the proposed charges is designed to close off what we might call a loophole which was created by section 92 of the Constitution. It is also designed to achieve equity in the level of cost recovery between interstate and intrastate vehicles. All charges from the registration scheme will be paid into a trust fund. All funds raised will be returned in their entirety to the States for expenditure on the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by interstate vehicles. The introduction of such a charge is consistent with national transport policy objectives; namely, that users should pay a reasonable charge for community facilities. Asking users to contribute toward road maintenance is not new. I made some inquiries about this and as far back as the year 1346 the first toll for highway repairs was levied in the British Isles. So it certainly is not new. The charge proposed by this legislation is a charge for the damage that interstate trucks cause to our roads. It is not a tax. The State that I represent, Queensland, has a number of major highways which are used by interstate carriers. I suppose one of the major ones is the Pacific Highway, which takes vehicles from Brisbane interstate over the Queensland-New South Wales border. However, another major highway is the one which runs up through the Darling Downs and out to Goondiwindi, then down to western New South Wales to markets in New South Wales and sometimes even Victoria. Therefore, some of the charges that will be collected will be returned to the State of Queensland. I am grateful that we will now be able to pay for the repair of some of that road damage with those charges. Of course other interstate road vehicles originate in other States and travel well up the eastern seaboard of Queensland, and some charges will be collected from those carriers and applied to the repair of road damage along that route. A great deal of interstate transport also goes out through the north west, to Mount Isa and to the Northern Territory. The proposed initial annual charge of $1,400 for a typical 38-tonne unit is based on the recommendations in the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The Inter-State Commission has been requested to bring this assessment up to date by reviewing the issue of cost recovery. The Commission is to recommend appropriate interstate charges, having regard to equivalent State registration charges and cost recovery charges achieved by competing rail services. It has been asked to report by 30 April next year. Even though it will not report until then it is not sensible to delay the passage of this legislation while awaiting the Inter-State Commission review. It should be remembered that the charge can be varied only by regula- tion and thus it is subject to parliamentary disallowance. Forty years of history has shown that the States are unable to tackle effectively cost recovery in relation to interstate transport. Previous attempts to introduce a system of road user charges have failed miserably as the legislation of the various States has proved to be inefficient and inequitable. It is for this reason that I look forward to the Bills being passed through the Senate. In conclusion I would like to say something about the comments made by Senator Vigor. Senator Vigor indicated that he will be moving an amendment relating to the powers of the courts to disqualify an operator by withdrawing his operator's licence. He suggested that the courts should have the power to admonish the operator as an alternative to immediate disqualification but that there should be a limit to the number of admonitions an operator can receive within a specified period. The proposal advanced by Senator Vigor provides greater flexibility for the courts to deal with an offence without having to move to the ultimate sanction of imposing a disqualification upon an operator. The Government accepts that this would provide some reassurance to the industry that a disqualification will not be unfairly imposed upon an operator. As the Australian Democrats support the Bills, with this amendment which will be moved in the Committee stage, the Government will be prepared to accept an amendment along the lines outlined by Senator Vigor. The legislation is most welcome and I look forward to it being passed through this House. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.37) —I wish to speak briefly on the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. As has been said by previous speakers, the Bills concern a major industry in Australia-an industry that plays a vital part in our economic well-being and an industry which I think it is fair to say has been somewhat troubled over the years. I am standing here today principally to express the concerns of part of my constituency in South Australia-a large number of the truck drivers, owners and small businessmen in this field who are genuinely concerned about the legislation going through the chamber today. They are not concerned with the report of the May Road Freight Industry Inquiry, which they have in the past endorsed, and they are not concerned about the package as a whole. When some time ago they learnt of and studied the package-we have heard today that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has had various meetings throughout Australia to explain the package to the trucking industry-they saw merit in the package and indicated support. Of course that package is not what appears in the Bills today; they are only a very small part of the package. The operators find in the Bills that apart from provisions dealing with safety, which the industry welcomes, the balance of the legislation seems to be largely to their economic detriment. I am speaking particularly about the imposition of an interstate registration fee at a level which people in the industry do not know. All they know is that after the legislation is passed, sometime in the future, if complementary State legislation is passed-I will speak about that later-they will have imposed upon them an interstate registration fee. As we know, intrastate registration fees exist at the moment, and I think they average out at around $1,500. An interstate fee is not imposed. This Bill proposes such a fee and provides two ways in which it can be determined. It can be either a fixed fee or a fee based on the mileage of the vehicle. The truck drivers do not know, as I said, what the fee will be. They fear that it might be a very large sum of money. The Minister for Transport said in his speech that the matter had been referred to the Inter-State Commission for advice on an appropriate fee for repair of roads, the maintenance of roads, resulting from damage by this industry. That Commission is to report to the Minister. It is not due to report until April of next year. The Minister may or may not adopt the report. He may determine another fee on his own initiative. The industry is being asked to endorse this Bill today and it does not know what fee will be imposed upon it. That causes it major concern. It is simply not good enough to adopt the Australian Democrats' position that they will allow this Bill to be passed today and then watch with interest to see what fee is imposed through regulation. If they do not like it, presumably, they will issue Press releases saying that they do not like it or take some other ineffective action of that kind. Of course, what the truck drivers are saying-those in my State certainly are-is that there is no need to pass this Bill today. It can be deferred while the Government consults with industry and with the States, while the States' complementary legislation is drawn and while the Inter-State Commission continues with its inquiry and reports back to the Government. Then the Government can introduce into the chamber a comprehensive package which will indicate what the fee is to be. If that were the situation truck drivers would have much more faith and comfort in what is being introduced. But, of course, the Government has determined not to go down that road. It has determined, rather to introduce a half package today; that is, the mechanics for the introduction of a new registration fee, a new tax upon this industry. The truck drivers in South Australia who have been attending public meetings-I attended one a week or so ago and I understand that further meetings were held in the south-east of South Australia last night and today-are not complaining about a fee which is the equivalent of an intrastate registration fee. They accept that because of section 92 of the Constitution and a whole series of cases, which you know well, Mr Acting Deputy President, such is not the case at the moment, and we do not have an interstate licensing fee. They can understand that there is some merit in lining up the industry on both an instrastate and an interstate basis. If they had some assurance that the fee was going to be only that charged for intrastate registrations they would be much comforted, but they do not get any form of guarantee of that in this Bill. They are concerned, I suppose, at the alternative method of fee calculation, a calculation on the basis of mileage, because that reminds them of the old road tax which they had to pay some years ago and which, as you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and other senators would know, in effect forced many out of business. They are afraid that once the new electronic black boxes are introduced into their vehicles there will be a perfect mechanism for governments in the future to go down the path that was followed once before on a State basis; that is require payment of a road tax calculated on mileage. They say that that is what this Bill is really all about. They say that in providing an alternative method the Government is reintroducing the concept of a road tax, a tax which they say they simply cannot afford. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, as was mentioned in a speech earlier today, has expressed concern to the Senate about this mechanism for determining fees-a mechanism that requires fees to be implemented by regulation. It has been said, particularly by Senator Archer, that there is no need for haste in this matter. We do not know the attitude of the States. I think it is a matter of regret that in the Minister's speech in the other place and so far today we have not heard the attitude of the States. Where are they with their so-called complementary legislation? Are the States agreeing with the package? In particular, what are the States saying about that part of the package which will force up the costs of railway transport upon which those in this industry are placing so much reliance? I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the package which the industry was sold and which the industry endorsed encompassed the proposition that rail freight rates would be forced up on a more accurate cost recovery basis. The trucking industry, not surprisingly, looking to its own interests, saw that this would make its cost recovery more economical, and it bought the package on that basis. But is that going to happen? Senator Archer in his speech earlier today referred to the situation in Tasmania. Will rail freight costs in Tasmania go up, as has been promised to the truckies in this total package, to facilitate their economic well-being? One must wonder. I think the trucking industry is entitled to learn from this debate what is the attitude of Australian National and what is the attitude of the States which still control their own rail systems. What is going to happen, for example, in Queensland? Can the trucking industry be told with certainty that the Queensland Government will put up the costs of rail transport in order to make the trucking industry more viable? It has not been said by this Government, and I suspect that this Government does not know the answer but suspects that, in the world of real politics, that simply will not happen. If that does not happen the whole package will collapse and the support for the total package that this Government was able to win from the trucking industry will not have been well founded. In fact, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the truck drivers will have been misled. If it is said that that is not so, that the package should be treated as a total package, why is this Government not prepared to introduce it into the Parliament on that basis? When it has the agreement of the States and Australian National, why is it not prepared to do it that way? Why has it, rather, introduced today simply the mechanism for the imposition of the new registration fees? That is why the truck drivers and members of the trucking industry who have been ringing Senator Vigor and me today are really concerned and worried. All they see coming out of the legislation before this chamber at the moment is the imposition of further fees and taxes upon their industry, upon their livelihood, which is tough enough as it is. What are they saying? They are saying: `Hold the legislation. Show us that the total package can be implemented'. There is no hurry. The Inter-State Commission, as I said, is not to report until April of next year. I say to the Government: Just hold the package back. Do not push the legislation through the Senate today. One must wonder why it is the wish of the Government to do so. One suspects that it is because the trucking industry is only now becoming aware of the potential cost to it of these Bills. The truck drivers are saying that if the Government were genuine it would be prepared to hold this legislation back until it could present to the industry legislation which implements the total package rather than simply that part which imposes new fees and taxes on the industry. That is what will be proposed in the amendment to be moved in the Committee stage by Senator Archer-the coalition amendment calling on the Government to delay the progress of this Bill until there is proper consultation with the industry and complete and proper consultation with the States in order that the trucking industry that I and others here represent may see that the package will be implemented as a whole and to the industry's benefit, rather than simply to its detriment. That is the call we make to the Government today and which we intend to make in the Committee stage. We do not believe it is too much to ask. We would have thought that the Democrats would be prepared to support us, because Senator Vigor today listed a series of concerns about the Bills. They should agree that the trucking industry is concerned about the Bills. We heard Senator Archer begin to list the number of ambiguities in the Bill that could be rectified if there were sufficient time. He mentioned in particular the broad description of general safety standards. What are they? Why cannot the industry be given details of them at this stage? What is the urgency when the Government knows that nothing further can be done until well into next year, in any event? In those circumstances why are the Australian Democrats not prepared to support this delay while a proper consultative process takes place? I do not know whether it is because, as Senator Colston said, the Government has indicated it will support the Democrats' amendment, and on that basis the Democrats can claim that they have had a small victory and are prepared to support this Bill to the detriment of the industry. I can only say that we are particularly disappointed that the Australian Democrats will not support us, after we have heard a speech by Senator Vigor which I would have thought would very much justify a delay in the progress of this legislation. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.45) —I, like Senator Colston, welcome this legislation because it tackles a problem which has been with us for too long. That is not the only reason, of course, that I welcome it, because it is also of particular relevance to the Northern Territory. As honourable senators will appreciate, there is a good deal of road transport within the Territory and between the Territory and the States. It is unfortunate that we do not have a railway north of Alice Springs, so we are dependent upon road transport a great deal. Senator Hill —You need a change of government. Senator ROBERTSON —We have been waiting since 1911, Senator. Perhaps we might have to wait a little longer. Senator Hill —We thought we were making some progress, though, before Labor was elected. Senator ROBERTSON —We thought we had when the previous Government offered us one, but that fell through at the time of the election. Of course, as has been indicated by others, we have some problems with shipping. The Australian National Line has a problem. State ships from Western Australia also have a problem. The problem is, of course, that there is so little back loading from the Northern Territory. This means that there is an increase in costs and makes the running of ANL ships and the constant running of the State ships uneconomical. The problems that have been observed over the years in the Northern Territory have been many and they have been brought to my attention by the owner-drivers of the Northern Territory and also by those who are in the business of operating. The first one is the fact that drivers are forced to drive for long hours. There is a number of reasons for this. The owner-drivers, of course, have to meet commitments. They find that they have to drive for long hours to make money so that they can repay the commitments on their gear. The drivers who are driving for operators are being pressured to drive for long hours so that the profits stay up. This has had the unfortunate effect in the Northern Territory that some of the drivers have had recourse to drugs. This in itself poses not only a danger to the health of the driver but also to road safety. I am pleased to see that road safety is one of the main features of the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985. I recall visiting a station in the Northern Territory when a large road train arrived with a gate attached to the bull bar. The owner of the station asked: `What happened with the gate?' The truck driver said: `What gate?' It was clear that he had been under the influence of drugs. I am not talking about hard drugs, but those which enable a driver to keep operating. He had not noticed that he had driven through the boundary gate-a fairly substantial piece of fencing-and had carried it into the station on the bull bar. This is very important because a man who will drive through a gate in that way will also perhaps drive into another vehicle on the road or put himself or others in danger. Some drivers have said to me that they rely on the noise of the stones from the verge of the road to wake them up when they are driving. As the vehicle wanders off the road, the stones come up, hit the mudguards and wake the driver. Quite clearly, this sort of situation is not good enough and it is one which is addressed in the Bill. Another problem that has been raised with me by owner-drivers in that over the years they have been held to ransom by some of the forwarding companies in regard to the buying of fuel, tyres and other equipment and the arranging of insurance. Some of the operators have required the owner-drivers to arrange their purchases through the forwarding companies. If they do not do so, they do not get work. The third problem that has been mentioned to me is road safety. Senator Colston has already referred to road safety and I do not need to dwell on it. The fourth problem that has been raised with me is the matter of the return to the owner-driver. The Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest, 85/167, in regard to the low returns to owner-drivers, states: One recent survey estimated their return to be $4.64 per hour in 1982-83. The pressure on operators has increased in recent years as their return remained constant while prices increased. As an example, it has been calculated that of the total charge of $8.00 for contract users (or $41.55 for casual users) for the transport of a 10 kg parcel from Sydney to Melbourne the long distance owner driver will receive 63c. The majority of the return ($5.92 at contract rates or $39.47 at casual rates) goes to the freight forwarders. So it is not surprising that the owner-drivers have complained about the poor returns to them and the difficulties they have in operating. The next problem that I have seen personally-I did not need to have it reported to me-is the damage caused to roads by heavy vehicles. I am pleased to see that this matter has also been addressed in one of the Bills. Again, this is of particular interest to people in the Northern Territory. I am sorry to see that Senator Hill has left the chamber because I am sure he could have influenced the Government of South Australia to give some attention to the condition of the road to the State border. I was also pleased to see the level and degree of consultation before the package and the legislation were drawn up. Some criticism was raised initially and Senator Hill raised some further criticism tonight. I am surprised at this. I will draw attention to that a little later, because it seems to me that there has been every endeavour to make contact with all of those involved and there has been every attempt to have consultation. I am pleased to see the level of agreement which has been reached. A great deal of the credit for this should be given to the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Morris, and his Department. The Minister stated: I cannot recall any other transport initiative which has generated and maintained such a degree of goodwill and co-operation between Federal, State and Territory Governments and all sectors of the industry. It is also interesting to note that an article in the Australian of 17 October had a headline which read, `Industry welcomes Morris package' and referred to the way in which the industry has welcomed it. I do not want to cover material which has already been covered by Senator Colston and others, but I would like to look at two aspects briefly, so that we can perhaps secure the passage of the legislation this evening. I refer briefly to the treatment of individuals and road safety implications. The legislation that we are debating is an integral part of the fast-track reform package and is based on the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. It is interesting to see that the package has been unanimously endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I mentioned earlier that I was surprised that Senator Hill said there had not been sufficient consultation. Since the establishment of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry two years ago, the constant contact between the Department and the industry and the comments which have been made by the Minister and by the newspaper-which obviously would have referred to the industry before it issued a headline such as `Industry welcomes Morris package'-clearly there has been broad support for this package, which is very pleasing to see. It is also interesting, and I think of merit, to note that the legislation will be proclaimed only when the States and Territories have made substantial progress with their parts of the fast-track package. The legislation provides for the registration of interstate vehicles and the licensing of operators but only, of course, to complement the schemes which will be introduced by the States and the Territories. Let there be no doubt that road safety is the only basis on which operator licences can be lost. It is unfortunate that some people have suggested that licences can be lost for other reasons. Special provision is made for all administrative decisions to be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Interstate vehicle operators licences can be removed only by a court. At its heart, the introduction of operator licensing is designed to improve the protection available to individual truck drivers, particularly those who are owner-drivers. Owner-drivers under current conditions end up having to carry a full responsibility for road safety violations, even where business pressure is being imposed by others. Operator licencing will ensure that those operators who call the shots will have to accept responsibility for their actions. The legislation calls for standard monitoring devices to be introduced. This is most essential because quite clearly the information on vehicle speed and the hours of driving can be obtained only from these sorts of devices. The legislation provides that the supplying of this information may be required. That is absolutely essential. Clearly, the Federal Government has paid particular attention to ensure that the rights of the individual are respected by the legislation. The Government would not proceed on any other basis. The legislation ensures a fairer deal for the owner-driver and other grass-roots operators who are trying to do the right thing. Those with the interests of the industry at heart will be better off if the legislation plays its part in weeding out what we might call the shonks. I have just a few words to say on road safety. I have indicated that in the Northern Territory this is particularly important because of the long distances travelled and the state of some of the roads. Interstate road transport legislation is a concrete expression of the Federal Government's commitment to assist State governments in reforming the road freight industry. For too long these deep-seated problems have been crying out for action but have been left to fester. The fast-track reform package for the road freight industry has a substantial impact on improving road safety. Of course, most of the safety recommendations made by the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry impinge on State and Territory government responsibilities. That is why I indicated earlier that the legislation will not be proclaimed until there has been this sort of discussion. My colleague Senator Colston spoke about driver licensing-the requirement for truck drivers to gain experience on smaller trucks before driving the big rigs. This will have a great advantage in road safety. People will not be able to pass a simple test, buy a large rig and put themselves on the road where they may be a danger to other people. Senator Colston also spoke of the removal of the speed differential between trucks and other vehicles and the effect that will have. In conclusion, I welcome the legislation and congratulate the Minister. The legislation will improve road safety. It will improve the lot of the owner-drivers. I believe it will lead to a more efficient industry and I think it has particular advantage for those of us in the Northern Territory because of the remoteness of our area and the long distances which have to be travelled. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.05) —I do not want to take up a lot of the Senate's time this evening on the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985, however there are a few matters that I would like to raise. I commence by saying that everyone I have spoken to agrees with the intent of this legislation. They agree that the safety problems in long distance heavy road transport have been serious and they agree that these problems need to be addressed. They also agree that some of those problems are adequately addressed in this legislation. As Senator Hill said, the complaints that have come about the rush to put this legislation through are not complaints that contain objections about any of the safety requirements. They are not complaints that contain objections about having to register vehicles. They are not complaints about getting over the situation that has existed for some time whereby interstate road transport people could pay a very nominal fee compared with what people in the trucking industry intrastate pay. They do not have those sorts of objections. However, they do have some concerns. Their concerns are raised in part by the speed with which the Government appears to want this legislation to pass through Parliament. I understand the argument about the damage caused to roads by heavy vehicles. I support that in some way or another they should, therefore, pay more towards the upkeep of roads throughout Australia. I also comment with respect to the amount of consultation that may or may not have gone on with respect to this legislation. We have been told by a number of speakers that the consultation has been terrific. We have been reminded of the `Industry Welcomes Package' headline in the newspaper. However, there have been other headlines in the newspapers that perhaps have not agreed with that. In the Advertiser today, the South Australia daily newspaper, there is quite a big headline which says `Minister attacks drivers for fear-mongering'. I regard the article as being most discourteous if it adequately reflects the comments of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). I draw certain parts of the article to the attention of the Senate. In part, the article says: A local transport drivers' group has been accused by the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, of `fear-mongering' over planned new legislation.' Dealing with that point in particular, I ask: If there has been so much consultation on this legislation, if such a large part of the industry is happy with this legislation and if nearly everybody in the industry is comfortable that this legislation should be passed now, why is the Minister concerned that certain people in South Australia do not want this legislation passed now? Those people want the legislation postponed and they want further consultation. I accept all the arguments that have been raised; that a degree of consultation has gone on. However, I submit that this article is indicative of the fact that the Minister has sensed that in certain pockets of the industry there is dissatisfaction with this legislation. If the Minister did not sense that, why did he respond in such a-`vicious' might be an excessive word to use-way if there is no concern? If these local transport drivers in South Australia do not have any support, why did the Minister bother to respond? The article goes on: Mr Morris said in Canberra that statements made by the president of the Professional Transport Drivers' Association of SA, Mr Barry Lewis, were at odds with the rest of the trucking industry. To put honourable senators in the picture, it continues: Mr Lewis was reported in The Advertiser commercial vehicles pages on October 5 as having serious concerns over the Interstate Road Transport Bill which has passed the House of Representatives and is to be debated in the Senate. -I ask again: If Mr Lewis does not have a point, if Mr Lewis has no support, why is a Minister bothering to respond in such a childish and vicious way by accusing this man, who is genuinely concerned with the industry in which he is involved, of fearmongering? I hesitate to suggest that part of the Minister's concern might be that Mr Lewis has, on a number of occasions, stood as a Liberal Party candidate for a Federal seat in South Australia. Perhaps being attacked in this way by the Minister is, in part, the price he pays for doing that. But even if that is not the case-I come back to my original point-why would the Minister bother to put out a Press release attacking these drivers for fear-mongering if they do not have any support? What is particularly interesting about this report of these drivers' fear-mongering is the Press release that the Minister put out a few days ago, which states: Mr Morris said he appreciated the delegation's support for much of the legislation, including the introduction of graduated driver licensing, uniform speed limits, greater consumer protection for owner operators and improved cost recovery for railways. There are many other paragraphs in this statement and none of them have anything like the tone that the acticle in today's Advertiser has. I can inform the Senate that I had a meeting with these transport drivers in Canberra on Monday of this week. It was a very difficult meeting to organise. We had organised to meet the drivers at 10.30 but, all of a sudden, the Minister showed a particular interest in what these people had to say. Therefore, they rang up and said: `At last we can get an appointment with the Minister, so will you postpone your meeting.' Naturally, being the semi-gracious person that I am, I agreed to postpone the meeting. I postponed the meeting to 11 o'clock. We sat around until 11 or 12 minutes past 11. I then rang the meeting room at which the Minister was meeting with these people and said `Look, I have some senators and members'-admittedly they were senators and members from the coalition side; there were none from the Government side-`and some members from the Liberal and National Party transport, aviation and communication committee here'. I was advised by someone who I understand was the Minister's Senior Private Secretary that these people were meeting with the Minister. I cannot imitate the gentleman's tone, but I gathered that he was not very appreciative of my pointing out that senators and members were waiting. I would identify this man as something other than `this man' if he had had the courtesy at the time to identify himself, which of course, he did not have. He then said: `But, of course these people are much better off with the Minister than with any meeting of old senators'. Senator Boswell —Old senators? Senator VANSTONE —That was a mistake. I had identified myself by saying: `This is Amanda Vanstone speaking'. I did not say `Senator Vanstone' because I think that normal courtesies on the telephone should be extended to people whether they are senators or not. However, I did hang up from that phone call in a semi-mild state of rage believing that I should go to the nearest bookshelf and buy a primer on politics for this staff member of the Minister so that he could add up the numbers in the Senate and see whether, at that stage, he could be confident in saying that these people were better off with the Minister than with any meeting of old senators. Naturally, being the youngest member of the Senate I took particular offence. I did not care for this reflection on the Senate either. Senator Boswell —You are doing a very good job, too. Senator VANSTONE —Thank you very much, Senator. We had to send these people away again. We were told by this gentleman that he had told someone about 10 minutes earlier that he needed half an hour. So senators and members came back from their offices to Senate Committee Room 3 at half past 11. At 11.40 I made yet another call, or tried to, but they had taken the phone off the hook. Perhaps I should withdraw that. I do not suggest that they had taken the phone off the hook; I suggest that the phone was off the hook and, therefore, I could not get through. I wanted to explain that these members and senators were awaiting yet again. Mr Acting Deputy President, you know as well as I do that we all have work to do. We are all happy to make time to meet representatives of various industries who come to see us and generally, on both sides of the House, we are happy to accommodate each other in seeing these representatives because we all have a concern to see that the legislation that is passed through the Parliament is passed with the concurrence and acceptance of as wide a range of industry representatives as possible. At 12 o'clock I went back to the House of Representatives Committee Room 4, I think it was, and the drivers were still there. Some people outside were more annoyed than I was. They were members of the Caucus communications committee. I was inclined to think that I should write to the Minister and explain to him that a person I now know to be his Senior Private Secretary should have been invited to stay for the meeting of the Caucus communications committee because he might have learnt something. He would have learnt that it would have been a courtesy not only to senators and members but also to the industry representatives who were there to ring where those representatives were meant to be going-namely, the meeting that I had organised-and indicate that there would be some delay. So on that basis we see a number of things. We see, on Monday of this week, the Minister who had only half an hour-he had another meeting after that and definitely could not stay after 11 o'clock-staying until 12 o'clock to meet with these industry representatives. He gave them an hour and a half. It was bad luck for the people who had the 11 o'clock appointment. They were shunted off somewhere else. Following that, the Minister put out a Press release which was in absolute glowing terms. Another paragraph reads: The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, said that he had had an amiable and productive meeting with representatives of the South Australian Professional Road Transport Association. The discussions, held yesterday, involved various provisions of the interstate road transport legislation currently before the Senate. In glowing terms he continues: We clarified several points in the legislation-particularly two misconceptions held by the Association, one regarding the level of the Federal Government registration fee and the other regarding safety provisions. It went on in the tone: The Minister is quite happy with the meeting he has had. Something happened between Monday and today because today the Minister attacked the drivers for fearmongering. This Minister, who had so much consultation with such a wide range of the industry, and was happy to put this Bill forward-he is happy to say that it should be passed now-decided that these people are fearmongering. I put it to the Senate that the reason the Minister issued whatever release he did today that warranted this headline was that he now understands the degree of concern there is in the industry for certain aspects of the Bill. I come back to my original point: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in the Senate that the South Australian members of the industry who are concerned about the Bill are trying to get out of paying any registration fee or disapprove of legislation being introduced that increases road safety; it is not that at all. They have a genuine concern that this legislation is being rushed through the Parliament and they do not believe they have been given adequate answers on what the registration fee will be. They do not believe that they have adequate answers in respect of what they regard are draconian provisions which can ultimately remove someone from the industry for life. I spoke with these representatives when the Minister issued the Press release in glowing terms-not his fear-mongering one. He arranged for me to have a copy of the Press release. I spent some time on the phone with the drivers because they were very agitated. They said that it was absolutely outrageous for the Minister to suggest-as this Press release suggests-that they had had a glowing and friendly meeting. They were not saying that there were any arguments or that there was any unpleasantness. They were saying that they did not believe that the Press release told the full story. To put it in a colloquial term, their noses were somewhat out of joint. Having seen the headline `Minister attacks drivers for fear-mongering' in the Advertiser today I imagine that their noses are even more out of joint. The Government does not pay the air fares for these people to come here and put forward their views. This money comes out of their own pockets. Senator Sir John Carrick —You should maintain your rage. Senator VANSTONE —That is right; I quite agree. Let me put three points in very clear perspective. I am talking about the Minister who has had loads of consultation, who all of a sudden wanted to snatch the meeting time that I had arranged with these representatives, who said that he could give them only half an hour but who gave them an hour and a half, who put out a Press release indicating the meeting with industry representatives was most amiable and that all of the problems had been solved and who, a few days later, put out another Press release attacking the drivers for fear-mongering. I should not have to say any more. I think that the Minister's behaviour in this regard has been roughly the same as that of the gentleman whom I spoke to on the phone-who was not courteous-and that is disgraceful. I understand that the Australian Democrats will not support the coalition in ensuring that this Bill is not passed and that there is further consultation. I hope that the comments I have made indicate that there should be more consultation. I do not care if someone says: `It is only South Australia'. We are sick of people saying that. If the industry in South Australia is upset about the legislation there should be further consultation. Senator Robertson has just said: `This legislation will be proclaimed only when the States have done their part'. If that is the case, if this legislation will be proclaimed and come into effect only after the States have done their part, why in anyone's name do we have to rush this legislation through the Parliament now? Why can we not wait and have greater consultation with the South Australian people who are concerned? Senator Hill —What is the attitude of each of the States? Senator VANSTONE —The honourable senator may well ask. I am not sure whether the Minister knows the attitude of each of that States. What is particularly interesting is the Democrats' attitude. I ask the honourable senators who are in the chamber and those who will later read Hansard to turn back their minds to the Democrats' jingle-I do not know whether it is still their jingle-of `let's keep them honest'. Even if at the very last minute concern is raised about a Bill-I do not care whether it is two minutes before it is due to be passed-and that Bill does not need to be passed for some very special reason, the honest thing to do is to go back to the people and allow more time for consultation. Why will the Democrats not support that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I cannot understand it. I am waiting for the next election in South Australia when, I will peruse the Democrats' advertisements in a closer way than I have perused them in the past. In future my comments on their advertisements will be very well informed and backed up with examples of where their behaviour does not match up to their slogans. The honest thing to do in this matter would be to have further consultation. I cannot express strongly enough why I believe this legislation should be postponed. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who is sometimes called other things, has often said: `This is a government that wants consensus'. Senator Hill —Consultation, we hear about. Senator VANSTONE —As Senator Hill says, we hear about consultation. Yet we have being rushed through the Parliament legislation which the Government Whip says will be proclaimed only when the States have done their part, much much further down the track. Senator Hill —With the support of the Democrats. Senator VANSTONE —It will be rushed through the Parliament with the support of the Democrats, as Senator Hill says. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I would not be doing my duty as a senator representing South Australia if I did not express the concerns of South Australian road transport people and make it very clear to the Senate that their concerns are not that safety requirements will be put on this industry. Their concerns are not that these trucks will have to be registered in a way that they have not been in the past. Their concerns are that something is up. The Minister is not explaining all. He has been inconsistent in his approach. First of all he had consultations. He then made time to have more consultations. He issued a friendly Press release and then issued a very aggressive one. I think road transport people have every right to be concerned. Senator Hill —Why all of a sudden has the Government joined with the Democrats to push it through today? Senator VANSTONE —Senator Hill has just asked why all of a sudden the Government is wanting to rush this legislation through the Parliament with the support of the Democrats today? If we had a crystal ball and if we could understand the negotiations that go on between the Government and the Democrats we might understand why it is happening. Senator Hill —The reason is that the industry is waking up. Senator VANSTONE —Senator Hill has again interjected. He said that the reason this legislation is being rushed through the Parliament is that the industry has woken up. As I said earlier when Senator Hill was not in the chamber, an article in today's Advertiser headed `Minister attacks drivers for fear-mongering' indicates that the Minister has begun to see that the South Australian road transport people have a point and that they have some concerns. If they do not have the numbers why does the Minister bother putting out a Press release attacking them? I think it is absolutely disgraceful. The Government has not said why this legislation needs to be passed. Honourable senators have spoken about safety, road redevelopment and using registration fees to do this but none of them has said why this should be done. That is a simple question and it is all we want answered. When this legislation will not be needed until next year, when it will not be proclaimed until each State has done its part and when we know from Press releases issued in the Minister's name that there are concerns about it, why does this Bill need to be rushed through the Parliament now? If this Bill is so good as certain parts of it are, it will stand up to a little more scrutiny and a little more consultation. But if it contains something with which the industry would not be happy the Government might have to change things. If the legislation is so good it will stand up to any consultation and a small delay. There is no need to rush this Bill through. Senator Peter Rae —This Government does not believe in real consultation. Senator VANSTONE —That is quite right. This Government does not believe in real consultation. Senator Peter Rae —That is why I asked a question and why I am going to speak on the adjournment. It is a con instead of consultation. Senator VANSTONE —Now that I hear Senator Peter Rae will speak on the adjournment about the lack of consultation and the fact that this may be a con, I think it is an inducement for me to conclude my remarks. I certainly hope I have made my point. South Australian road transport people are not happy with this Bill. They want further negotiation; they should be given the right to have further negotiation. This Government, which claims to be a consensus Government, should give it to them. The Democrats want to keep them honest. I do not think I can use in Parliament the word that Senator Chipp sometimes uses, but honourable senators know what I mean. They say that they are going to keep those-I delete the word-honest. I do not think that, in planning to assist the Government in rushing this legislation through, they are in any way living up to that slogan. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.30) —This afternoon I intend to make some remarks about a National Party Minister of the Queensland State Parliament, Mr Lester, often referred to as the Minister for walking backwards and more lately he has been referred to as the Minister for dunny doors. As honourable senators will be aware, earlier this year a dispute involving South East Queensland Electricity Board workers was high on the political agenda in Queensland. Certain SEQEB workers were sacked because they went on strike. The ultra right wing minority National Party Government in Queensland regards many workers as slaves. It does not accept that any workers have the right to strike. I interpose just to mention that today members of the National Party in the State Parliament in Queensland apparently went on strike. It seems that it is all right for them to do so. I return to the main point that I wish to raise. The striking SEQEB workers naturally received some help from their union which, in turn, received some financial assistance from community supporters. On 27 June this year Mr Lester was reported as saying that he had the names of 105 sacked SEQEB workers who were collecting the unemployment benefit. An article in the Brisbane Telegraph under the headline `SEQEB ``dole cheats'' 105 sacked men ``living high'' ', stated: Mr Lester has handed all the details to the Social Security Department to investigate. Mr Lester today said that the department had assured him that his allegations would be investigated. The Minister claimed some of the men were earning three incomes and worked as sub-contractors to SEQEB contractors while they collected up to $180 a week in unemployment benefits. Mr Lester claimed that each time the men signed Social Security forms they broke federal laws because they earned up to $150 a week tax free. He said they were given a $50 food basket each week and handed up to $100 in cash from the strike fund. The Brisbane Telegraph, referring to the 105 sacked SEQEB workers who Mr Lester said were allegedly illegally collecting the unemployment benefit, went on: He said the information had been supplied to him by `impeccable sources' and he had no doubt it was accurate. Mr Lester accused the former SEQEB employees of `living high on the hog illegally' and claimed they were given the $100 to `heckle'. `It's been revealed to me that as long as these people turn up and sign on two mornings a week before 7 o'clock to heckle, they're assured of $100 tax free,' Mr Lester said. `They're collecting their $180 legitimately. But what they're not telling the Social Security Department is that they're getting a food parcel and $100 cash. `If they were to declare that like they should their dole payouts would be reduced accordingly. The article continued: The Minister also alleged that a `great proportion' of the sacked workers were listed as sub-contractors for some SEQEB contractors. `In other words, they go and do their two days strike duty and get paid $100, they collect the dole and on the other days they're not doing anything they go out and work on a sub-contract basis,' he said. `They're getting it three ways.' Mr Lester, of course, had no facts to back up his statements. All of the information had been supplied to him by `impeccable sources'. When one remembers the `impeccable people' who have been lauded by the Queensland Government-Milan Brych, the cancer quack, Stephen Horvath of `hydrogen car' fame and Dr Shrian Oskar, the oil seeds con man-it is easy to understand the stature of Mr Lester's `impeccable source'. Whatever the case, Mr Lester is a dobber. In industrial relations, scabs and dobbers are equally detested and, incredibly, Mr Lester is the Queensland Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs. The point I wish to raise tonight is that Mr Lester did not have the courage to leave any trace of evidence that he actually supplied the names. The evidence seems to suggest that he may have supplied the list anonymously-an action of a person who is unwilling to stand by his convictions. The next day, 28 June, the Courier-Mail reported reaction to Mr Lester's admission that he was a dobber. The Trades and Labor Council General Secretary, Mr Ray Dempsey, succinctly put the view of his members. An article in the Courier-Mail stated: The TLC general secretary, Mr Ray Dempsey, in a telex to Mr Lester yesterday, said: `The TLC calls on you to provide the names of the 105 sacked workers you have defamed in your allegations of social security fraud. `Thanks to the cowardly and un-Christian attacks by yourself and your lord and master, the Premier, these men have been defamed as thugs, terrorists and now, as dole cheats and criminals. There seems little doubt that Mr Lester did send or cause to be sent a list to the Department of Social Security. An article in the Sunday Mail of 30 June stated: The Social Security Department is investigating claims by the Industrial Affairs Minister, Mr Lester, that sacked SEQEB workers are illegally collecting the dole. Federal Government sources confirmed this yesterday but they said the investigation was `a matter of low priority'. Of course, the Queensland Premier had to buy in, and he is reported to have said: If Lester says it, you can bet your life he's got something. The Premier, as he usually is, was wrong. A report in the Courier-Mail of 17 July under the heading `SEQEB men cleared of dole swindle' stated: A Social Security Department investigation has cleared 105 sacked SEQEB workers who a State Government Minister allegedly claimed were `dole cheats'. The Social Security Minister, Mr Howe, said this yesterday when he criticised Queensland's Employment and Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Lester, for making outrageous claims. The article continued: `The department found that almost half of those named-48 out of 105-were not receiving any social security payments. And of the remaining 57, there is absolutely no evidence that they are receiving any other income. The Courier-Mail reported some typical comments which were made when it was revealed that the SEQEB men were cleared of the charge which apparently had been laid against them by the Minister, Mr Lester. The Courier-Mail stated: The State Opposition Leader, Mr Warburton said Mr Lester deserved the sack for his cowardly attack, a `low' act which cast a slur over the dismissed employees. `Mr Lester used to be looked upon as a laughable type,' Mr Warburton said, `But I see nothing funny about him any more. `He is a dangerous person and a serious threat to any chance of restoring industrial relations stability in Queensland.' The Queensland Trades and Labour Council secretary, Mr Dempsey, accused Mr Lester of being a purveyor of `nasty, malicious, spiteful and vindictive bald-faced slander'. The SEQEB workers were, of course, outraged. They did not even know whose names were on Mr Lester's hit list. I therefore asked, under the freedom of information legislation, for a copy of the letter and a list of the names sent by Mr Lester to the Department of Social Security. In part, my request stated: The request is for a copy of a letter forwarded to the Department of Social Security or the Minister for Social Security. The letter was signed by the Queensland Employment and Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Lester, asking whether sacked SEQEB workers were receiving favourable treatment and attaching a list of about 100 names of such workers. Both the letter and the attached list are requested. This matter was mentioned on page 3 of the `Courier-Mail' on 17 July 1985. I received a reply, which stated in part: As to the copy of a letter signed by the Queensland Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations I would point out that no such document exists, however, I have enclosed copies of two notes which were attached to the list of names received by this department. So apparently a list of names was received-there was no letter to indicate that it was from Mr Lester-and the two notes received have been provided to me, but without the names. The letter that I received went on to say that the list would not be released. The reasons for that decision were given and whilst I do not necessarily agree with them I do not quibble with the non-release at this stage. However, the letter does establish that at least two anonymous letters were received by the Department of Social Security. The first of these hand-written notes reads as follows: Dear Sir, Enclosed is a list of names re people who may be receiving dole payments and $100 benefits. Some more names may be following. The other letter said: Dear Mr Wadeson, Here is the same list of names of people receiving $100 week from ETU strike fund who are probably on the dole. Where possible the wife's name has been added as they may be the dole recipient in some cases. It is interesting that the spouses' names were added as well. Both letters appeared to be in the same handwriting. The Mr Wadeson referred to was at one stage the Acting Director of the Department of Social Security in Brisbane. I think, though I am not absolutely certain, that he now works with the Department in Canberra. It is difficult to record the actual handwriting in Hansard so I seek leave to table photocopies of the two letters so that they may become public documents. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. The answer to Senate Question No. 560 reveals that these two notes were written on plain paper without a letterhead. The list of names was typed and it also was on plain paper without a letterhead. There therefore seems to be clear evidence that Mr Lester or someone on his behalf sent a list of names to the Department of Social Security. Of course he has never denied this. What is relevant is that apparently he did not have the courage to sign the letter himself and did not use his letterhead or a typewriter to communicate with the Department. Rather, he hid in the shadow of anonymity when he had to translate his rhetoric into action. Why he chose to do this is unknown but it does seem to show a lack of backbone. Many of us recall the phrase uttered in anger about Kerr's cur. Standing Orders do not permit me to adapt these words to Mr Lester's actions, but such an adaptation would be quite pertinent. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.43) —I rise this evening because in recent speeches in the Senate Senator Bolkus has seriously maligned two honest citizens of my State. I informed Senator Bolkus that I would be speaking tonight, in contrast to previous occasions when Senator Bolkus gave me no notice of his intention to speak. He has made a series of malicious unsubstantiated allegations against Donald Chisholm and Wendy McPherson. These allegations are totally and utterly false. This unwarranted attack is a vicious attempt to smear persons of the highest integrity through the privileged confines of this House. I challenge Senator Bolkus to make outside this chamber the allegations that he has made. I am sure that the courts would then be able to deal with these unfounded statements. I can only assume that some base political motive is behind Senator Bolkus's activities. The groundless assertion that Donald Chisholm is unsuitable as a candidate for public office points to a possible motive-raw political smearing. It is a straight out political smear quite out of keeping with the traditions and dignity of the Senate. I intend to show conclusively that Donald Chisholm is quite innocent of the improper allegations and charges that Senator Bolkus has made against him. Donald Chisholm is indeed eminently suitable for public office in South Australia and for public service in the State Legislative Council, for which he is a candidate. However that is a decision for the electors of South Australia later this year or next year; it is not a matter to be decided by Senator Bolkus. I will briefly mention the scurrilous allegations Senator Bolkus has put before the Senate. They are that Donald Chisholm was ineligible to receive a community employment program grant, that he was involved in the decision that gave him a community employment program grant, that he received the unemployment benefit while receiving income from a business he was operating and that somehow-it is quite unspecified-he has misled the Government. I have said in earlier speeches in the Senate that I will produce documents which refute all the matters raised by Senator Bolkus. I now have such documents in my possession and I intend to vindicate both Donald Chisholm and Wendy McPherson. Firstly, there is the matter of the community employment program grant under which Mr Chisholm was employed as a research and development officer with Adelaide Community and Educational Television, known as ACE TV. Senator Bolkus claimed that this involved the dishonest adoption of a mechanism of trusts to avoid the provisions of the CEP guidelines. According to Senator Bolkus, Mr Chisholm was not a person to whom CEP grant employment should have been offered; somehow he was outside the ambit of the program's guidelines. In 1984, when the application was made, the following guidelines were enforced by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which has administered the program from its inception. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a description of the eligibility criteria from the guidelines document. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SECTION 4-PARTICIPANTS 4.1 Eligibility Criteria. 4.1.1 Those eligible to be employed under CEP would be unemployed persons who have been continuously registered for full-time work with the CES and away from full-time education for the immediate past 3 months. 4.1.2 Priority will be given to such persons registered with the CES who have been: unemployed for the immediate past 9 months or who have never worked or who for other reasons (as assessed by the CES) are in need of immediate employment or who are especially disadvantaged in the labour market including Aboriginals Migrants with English language difficulties Disabled Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Let me quote the first of those priority criteria: Priority will be given to such persons registered with the CES who have been-unemployed for the immediate past 9 months . . . The CEP grant provided employment for a 12-month period. Prior to May 1984 Donald Chisholm had been continuously unemployed since October 1982-certainly a period of at least nine months. Donald Chisholm was registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service during the whole of that period. He was actively seeking paid employment. He complied with the CEP guidelines as a person eligible to participate in the program. Donald Chisholm commenced employment with ACE Television at the beginning of May 1984. I remind the Senate that it was not ACE Television which was responsible for determining who was eligible for inclusion in projects sponsored by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The only persons who have ever been eligible for employment under a CEP grant are those who have been recommended for interview by the Commonwealth Employment Service. Without a recommendation for interview from the Commonwealth Employment Service no one, but no one, could be eligible for employment under a CEP grant. That situation remains unchanged today. Mr Chisholm was so recommended. Donald Chisholm is a highly qualified man. He was looking for work; he had fulfilled the criteria by being registered and out of work for over nine months. The Commonwealth Employment Service was happy to recommend him for interview. For Donald Chisholm it was an opportunity to learn new skills and enhance his prospects for future employment. Donald Chisholm certainly was within the ambit of the community employment program criteria. His ability was known to the selection committee acting on behalf of the board of ACE Television. His suitability came out much further during the interview. He had a keen interest in public television, having been involved in trying to get it introduced in Adelaide since early 1980. Indeed, it would have been discrimination against Donald if he had not been considered for the job. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from Mr Richard Coy, President of ACE Television, which was delivered to my office today, setting out the chronology associated with Donald's appointment as Executive Research Officer for ACE Television. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- ADELAIDE COMMUNITY &EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION INC. Office: G.P.O. Box 870, Adelaide, S.A. 5000 Phone: 51 4423 17 Oct. 1985 To Whom it May Concern The circumstances surrounding the appointment of Donald Chisholm as Executive Officer of ACE-TV under a C.E.P. grant are set out below. The interviewing panel for the appointment of both positions under the C.E.P. grant was composed of Rick Coy President of ACE-TV, Cathy Robinson Executive Secretary ACE-TV and Ray Buttery Chairman of the Legal and Finance Committee. Mr Buttery was to supervise the project. On receipt of confirmation of the grant we contacted the C.E.S. and requested some suitable people be sent for interview. After the interviews were conducted the panel was agreed that none of the applicants were suitable. We were about to go back to the C.E.S. for some more people when Ms. Robinson pointed out that one of our hard working board members was out of work. Don Chisholm had been manager of the Birdwood Mill Museum but had been out of work for some time. I contacted the C.E.S. and asked them was Donald Chisholm registered as being unemployed. Their answer was yes. I then asked was he eligible for a C.E.P. grant. Their answer once again was yes. We then approached Mr. Chisholm and asked him if he would be interested in the position of Executive Officer. After due consideration he accepted the position and at the next Board Meeting resigned from the Board. He worked for ACE-TV for the full 12 months of the project finishing in May. There were no political considerations in the appointment. The panel, which incidentally represented a full scope of political views, was of the opinion that Mr. Chisholm was suitable for the position whereas the people sent from the C.E.S. were not suitable. I consider there was no impropriety in his appointment and he proved to be a satisfactory employee. Yours faithfully, G. RICHARD COY President ACE-TV Senator VIGOR — I thank the Senate. In the selection committee's opinion, Donald was the best applicant. Donald Chisholm and I took no part in the decision-making process relating to the appointment. The letter states that the appointment committee comprised Rick Coy, President of ACE Television; Cathy Robinson, Executive Secretary of ACE Television; and Mr Ray Buttery, Chairman of the Legal and Finance Committee. Mr Buttery was to supervise the project. Donald Chisholm had properly distanced himself from all these deliberations, and that is shown by the letter. This week I received from the office of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) a copy of the answer to question No. 412 asked by Senator Bolkus on 20 August this year. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- 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. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Minister states quite plainly that Mr Chisholm met the participant eligibility requirements of the program. Subsequent inquiries by a departmental officer found no trace of any impropriety. Senator Bolkus made certain claims about family trusts. These claims are a red herring. Senator Bolkus appears to have some type of blind spot. If one mentions the words `family trust' he may assume that something is wrong, underhand or even illegal. Maybe that is a reflection of his own thoughts. However, his whole view point is not sustainable. Donald could have been the beneficiary under a discretionary family trust but, clearly, he was not absolutely entitled to any benefits since the trust was discretionary. Donald Chisholm in fact received no payment under the trust mentioned by Senator Bolkus in the financial year 1982-83 and/or the financial year 1983-84. The trust mechanism is a legitimate procedure designed to distribute the income earned by a small business to members of a family. The trust concerned was established by Mr Chisholm's father, not by Donald Chisholm himself. The deed shows that this occurred on 13 October 1978. I have here a copy of the deed. The trustee was Glen Grove Pty Ltd, and the trust was called `D Trust'. Other beneficiaries include Mr Chisholm's former wife, his present spouse and his four children. I now refer to the tax returns for D Trust lodged in the financial years 1982-83 and 1983-84, sent to me by Mr Chisholm. I inform the Senate that the annual income of this trust was not inordinately large in either of those years. In 1982-83 the total net income was $4,358 and was distributed to the two youngest children of Mr Donald Chisholm. In the second year the net income was $4,875 and this was distributed as follows: Marcus Phillip Chisholm, $416; Roderick Russell Chisholm, $964; Wendy Anne McPherson, $3,495. D Trust is obviously not part of some mythical scheme to defraud the Commonwealth. It is a small scale family trust, similar to many which have been established throughout this country by families which operate small businesses. The trust was established long before Donald Chisholm sought the unemployment benefit. He did not receive income under the trust in 1982-83 or 1983-84. No impropriety was involved, and to suggest that there was is mindless, if not malicious. Unfortunately for Senator Bolkus, there is no evidence which even hints at any intention to mislead the Commonwealth. On 8 October Senator Bolkus said that Donald Chisholm had supplied misleading information which amounted to nothing less than a fraud on the Commonwealth. There is and there can be no evidence for this false proposition. Both Donald Chisholm and Wendy McPherson have been scrupulously honest and straightforward in their dealings with departments. Senator Bolkus, who parades an interest in civil liberties, has resorted to some very strange techniques. I would like to place on record a brief chronology of the events which clarify Mr Chisholm's circumstances. Donald Chisholm has not been in receipt of the unemployment benefit since May 1984. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from the Department of Social Security dated 11 October 1985 which confirms this. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY 116-118 Reservoir Road Modbury, S.A. 5092 (P.O. Box 619) Telephone 265 9511 11 October 1985 Mr Donald W. Chisholm Co P.O. Box 194, Birdwood 5234 Dear Mr Chisholm As requested, this is to confirm that Departmental records indicate that you have not claimed Unemployment Benefit since May 1984. Yours sincerely R. COOPER Manager Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. In fact, his benefit was terminated on 4 May 1984, prior to his starting work at ACE Television. Secondly, he was employed by ACE Television from 7 May 1984 to 6 May 1985. Prior to this, Mr Chisholm was in receipt of the unemployment benefit. I refer to his taxation return for the year 1983-84. He was unemployed in that year except from May when he was employed by ACE Television. From 1 July 1983 until just before he took up that position he was on the unemployment benefit. Thirdly, since ceasing work with ACE Television, Mr Chisholm has been registered for employment and he personally has not been in receipt of the unemployment benefit. However, his spouse, Wendy McPherson, has been claiming the benefit. He is listed as her dependant. Wendy McPherson first applied for the unemployment benefit at the end of April 1985-not 29 May 1985 as I believed previously. Wendy McPherson has used the freedom of information legislation to obtain her file from the Department of Social Security and has given me full access to it. In the records of the interview which was conducted on 1 May of this year she is shown as having declared Donald Chisholm as her spouse. She explained that as the hours of her part time employment had decreased she was seeking the unemployment benefit. Subsequently, proof of identity was provided to the Department by Donald Chisholm. His employment with ACE Television was declared to the Department, as was her part time work. Subsequent returns to the Department of Social Security accurately reflect the circumstances. The file is here. It shows no evidence of an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the Commonwealth. Donald Chisholm is actively involved in many community organisations. He is a hard working, honest citizen who has contributed much of his spare time to the improvement of public life in South Australia. I seek leave to have a list of the organisations to which Mr Chisholm belongs incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- DONALD M. CHISHOLM Membership of Organisations Freedom from Hunger Campaign, State Executive committee member (recently stepped down due to pressure of Legislative preselection) Australian Institute of Exporters, Fellow (member since 1961) Australian Small Business Association, Inaugural Member Bay to Birdwood Run, Committeeman and Chairman of Publicity and Promotions subcommittee (major Channel 10 Christmas Appeal) Adelaide Community and Educational Television, Inc., Public Officer and voluntary executive officer. Birdwood Park Committee (redeveloping local amenities and in this committee implemented a State Unemployment Relief Scheme (S.U.R.S.) with six unemployed people) Trakehner Society of Australasia Inc., President Mt Pleasant Pony Club, Public Officer Birdwood Cricket Club, President Birdwood Football Club, Vice President Torrens Valley Indoor Soccer Association, Patron Blumberg Food and Wine Club, Secretary. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate very much. Mr Chisholm is held in high regard in those community organisations with which he has worked. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard references and testimonials which have come into my possession. The first is from Mr Murray Byrne, MLC, a former Minister for Tourism in Victoria. The second is from Mr Richard Coy, Director of the Salisbury Education Centre in South Australia. The last is a letter from Pastor Reg Kotzur of the Birdwood Lutheran Church. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- DONALD MICHAEL CHISHOLM I have known Donald Chisholm since he assumed the position as General Manager of the Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement approximately 18 months ago. Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement came into being 12-13 years ago as a unique concept to preserve living examples of Australian pioneer life for posterity. It has accomplished this to an amazing degree and has established not only an Australian reputation for leadership in the folk museum field but an international one as well. It is without doubt the premier folk museum in this country and has been the inspiration for numerous other similar attractions. Its management has at all times provided guidance and assistance to other projects wishing to emulate it. At the time Mr Chisholm took over the management of the Settlement its fortunes were unfortunately at their lowest ebb since its inception due to an encephalytis outbreak in the Murray Valley which had depleted the tourist trade in the area. In addition the Settlement was experiencing liquidity problems. Due to an outstanding combination of business acumen, managerial skills, promotional flair and a firm sense of purpose Mr Chisholm was able to reverse the fortunes of the Settlement from an $55,000 loss on its operations to a $55,000 profit in a period of just on 12 months. During the same period the Settlement reached an all time record of 213,000 visitors setting attendance records for each of 8 individual months. Mr Chisholm is an original thinker and from his personal experience has formed very valuable ideas on the role, development, funding and purpose of folk museums in this country which he has expressed not only to me in my role as Minister of Tourism but to a Parliamentary Committee, Government Departments and business consultants. He is always ready to share his knowledge and experience with the managements of other historical and tourist projects. It would be most opportune for Mr Chisholm, who is one of the leaders in his field in this country, to have the benefit of study overseas. This experience would be invaluable for sharing between similar attractions to the Swan Hill Pioneer Settlement and my Ministry with which he has worked in close co-operation. MURRAY BYRNE. M.L.C. Minister of Tourism Director, G. Richard Coy, P.O. Box 433, Salisbury 5108 Phone (08) 258 8477 Courier R2/35 10.10.1985 To Whom it May Concern Re Donald Chisholm I have known Donald Chisholm for a number of years and I worked with him on a project when he was the Manager of the Birdwood Mill Museum. He was also on the Board of a Community organisation that I was associated with and was an employee of that organisation for a period. I have always found Donald to be a hardworking and industrious man who puts his heart and soul into any project that he is associated with. I do not share his political views entirely, but I am sure that he is a great assset to the Democrats. He would not only be hardworking but is a man of integrity and honesty. I feel that Donald would always stick by his principles and he would be reliable and straightforward in his dealings with all his colleagues and members of the electorate. I have no hesitation in putting my name to a testimonial for Donald and I hope that any difficulties that he is experiencing will not be long lasting because he deserves better. G. RICHARD COY, Director, Salisbury Education Centre Box 2, Birdwood, SA 5234 10 October 1985 Senator David Vigor, 10 Pitt Street, Adelaide 5000 Dear Senator, Since there have been some unfortunate accusations brought against Donald Chisholm I wish to bring to your notice some of the community acitivities with which he has been involved in the Birdwood area. Donald has been a keen encourager of youth, especially of those who worked at the Birdwood Mill on occasions. He was a coach for the Junior football team for twelve months displaying an interest in the individual. During the past month Donald lead a group of volunteers who rebuilt a wooden bell tower of ancient design for the Birdwood Lutheran Church. Together they gave some 200 man hours of effort to complete the structure which was well made under his supervision. He did not seek any remuneration for his services given. He displayed a keen and friendly interest with the people working on the project. The Congregation is very grateful for his voluntary assistance. Yours sincerely, REG J. KOTZUR Pastor Birdwood Lutheran Church Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The third letter is particularly enlightening. I will read the last paragraph: During the past month Donald lead a group of volunteers who rebuilt a wooden bell tower of ancient design for the Birdwood Lutheran Church. Together they gave some 200 man hours of effort to complete the structure which was well made under his supervision. He did not seek any remuneration for his services given. He displayed a keen and friendly interest with the people working on the project. The Congregation is very grateful for his voluntary assistance. This is typical of the way in which Donald is viewed in the community. Donald Chisholm is not a member of that church. His time and skills were freely given. He is a person of the highest integrity who is rightly held in high esteem in the community. I hope that I have been able to redress the calumny that has been launched in this place against him. I conclude my remarks by making a few comments about privilege. The privilege of the Parliament and the unfettered ability to raise matters of public concern carries with it an onerous responsibility which I recognise. Misuse of this privilege for private and party vendettas against individuals outside this Parliament who have no right to reply calls into question the suitability of such people who make the attacks to hold public office in this place. I am concerned by the unjustified attack made by Senator Bolkus based on little more than a cursory glance at the available evidence-newspaper articles, gossip, innuendo and inaccurate rumours. Unlike this place, courts of law require both parties to present their version of the events before a decision is made. If senators hide behind the protective shield of privilege afforded by membership of this House and use the media in unscrupulous smearing of people and organisations, the Senate will unfortunately be held in disrepute in the eyes of the Australian people. In taking up the defence of Donald Chisholm, I have shown that he is a man of high integrity who has been besmirched. I will rise to the defence of any citizen whose affairs are unjustly and improperly raised in this Parliament. The electors of South Australia, I believe, will be the final arbiters in this case. Senator Bolkus will have to face them at the next election. I trust that he is willing to face the constituency and answer the question as to why he attempted the character assassination of Donald Chisholm in this place. I seek an apology from Senator Bolkus, which I believe is the only decent thing he could do under the current circumstances. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.03) —I wish to refer again to the consultation process with regard to the unmanning of lighthouses and, in particular, the Swan Island lighthouse at the north-east of Tasmania in Banks Strait. This has been the subject of some questioning during Estimates committee hearings, speeches on the adjournment and other matters since the whole question of unmanning of lighthouses was raised as a result of a proposition put forward by the Department of Transport that a large number of lighthouses around the Australian coast should be unmanned. There was reaction to save one of the most important lighhouses in Australia to be manned-I think without any doubt the most important to be manned-namely, Maatsuyker Island lighthouse. It was saved by the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. Soon after the change of government, on 19 May 1983 the present Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, said: I have called a halt to the demanning program until such time as there has been an opportunity for full public inquiry and examination of all the issues and aspects I have mentioned. I was pleased to learn . . . the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure . . . decided to undertake a public inquiry into what I see as a very important problem. Subsequently the Standing Committee on Expenditure did conduct an inquiry. At page 78 of the report, recommendation 11.10 reads: The Committee . . . recommends that: (a) the rate of unmanning or reduction in the level of manning of lightstations be appropriate to the employment security of those in the lightkeeper's service and without forced retrenchment; (b) after taking into consideration State government and community reaction to the Expenditure Committee Report, the Minister for Transport develop and announce in the House a Program for the unmanning of the 8 lightstations listed in Finding 28 . . . I emphasise those words: `After taking into consideration State government and community reaction to the Expenditure Committee report'. Sub-paragraph (b) of recommendation 11.11 reads: (b) in the development of the Program the following decision-making mechanism be employed: (i) consultation between Commonwealth departments and agencies . . . to determine the initial Commonwealth parameters; (ii) referral of that position to a committee comprising relevant Commonwealth departments and State government agencies and other organisations such as the Australian Lighthouse Association. The committee would take the initial Commonwealth position as given and explore alternatives for continued manning . . . Those recommendations were accepted by the Minister, and it was announced that they had been accepted by the Minister. Earlier this year during an Estimates committee hearing I raised the question of what was happening with regard to the Swan Island lighthouse. I eventually managed to extract from the Government an admission that the automated equipment had already been purchased and was in storage in Hobart, it thereby apparently anticipating the consultation process and anticipating the result of it by making provision at very considerable expense for fully automatic equipment to take the place of the manned lighthouse at Swan Island. On 12 May 1985 the Minister made this statement in response to statements which I made: The Prime Minister has given a firm commitment to the Premier of Tasmania that we will consult with the Tasmanian Government before any decisions were taken that might affect the staffing of Tasmania's lighthouses. We remain committed to that undertaking. When the Government has more specific plans beyond those announced to the Parliament last year, that consultative process will be initiated. What he had said the previous year was that the consultative process would be with the State Government departments and, as recommended by the Expenditure Committee, with the community organisations. Included in the community organisations and government interests is the State Government of Tasmania, which is strongly opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island. The port authorities of Tasmania are opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island. The Professional Fishermen's Association is strongly opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island. The National Trust of Tasmania and the Heritage Commission are opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island. Yacht clubs and the Tasmanian Yachting Association are opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island. The Tasmanian aero club, Munro Aviation and others who frequent that area are opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island because it has an important landing strip. A variety of other people, including members of the Australian Lighthouse Association, have conducted a long campaign of public awareness creation and a campaign for the preservation of the manning of this lighthouse, for a variety of public interest purposes. The search and rescue organisations, both Commonwealth and State, and those who rely for assistance in search and rescue operations upon manned lighthouses and the observations which come from them are opposed to the unmanning of Swan Island. Finally, the meteorological observations which are available are of great value to those who rely on forecasts before going to sea, including fishermen and others. The Minister or his Department-I raised this matter during Question Time today-yesterday informed people that a meeting will be held next Wednesday in Launceston for consultation. I rang the State Minister in charge and found that he did not know that the meeting was to be held. I inquired of some of the other interested community groups and found that they did not know that the meeting was to be held. However, I received a complaint from the Australian Lighthouse Association, which is headquartered in Melbourne, that it had sought assistance to be able to attend the consultative process which is to be held in Launceston next Wednesday and had been told that it pays its own way or it does not attend at all. The Association was also told that there would be no meeting at any other time or at any other place and that there would be no way in which it would be consulted if it did not attend Launceston. If that is consultation, it is an extraordinary consultation. On the face of it, it is an attempt to ensure that a decision already taken to purchase automated light gear for Swan Island is carried through without there being any inconvenience caused by people putting up good arguments as to why it should not take place. As I have said, there is a very wide cross-section of community interests from the State government and various departments, including the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment at the Commonwealth level, as I understand it, and environmental interests as well as the interested organisations I have already mentioned that are concerned that this lighthouse, situated where it is, will be unmanned. We urgently need an assurance either that full consultation will take place at convenient locations or that the Government will immediately rectify the situation and notify the people who have expressed interest in attending that the meeting is on and that the Government will provide the funds necessary for them to be able to take part. Consultation should take place at reasonable locations, such as Hobart, Launceston or Melbourne, although if it is held at Launceston that is probably the least convenient of places to have it. It is the furthest from the centre where most of the people concerned are located. Finally, I make the point that, even though the equipment has now been purchased for this lighthouse, it does not mean that the lighthouse has to be unmanned. It was argued that this does not mean that it has to be unmanned, but the cost of buying this new equipment was the stated reason why the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee concluded that this ought to be one of the lighthouses which ought to be unmanned. The new equipment has now been purchased and therefore the case has changed. The priority has changed and the Government's reasoning, as well as the Committee's reasoning, no longer applies. What the Government should do is consult, and consult properly, on the basis of a recognition of the fact that the cost which was likely to be involved in any case has now been incurred and that the lighthouse can retain its manned status with its new equipment already purchased for it. I hope that Senator Gietzelt, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, of whom I asked a question earlier today, and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is in the chamber tonight, will ensure that something is done tomorrow. After tomorrow it will be too late for any arrangements to be made in relation to next Wednesday. It is for that reason of urgency that I have raised the matter again tonight and pointed out in more detail than I could at Question Time today the facts of this matter. I thank the Senate. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(7.13) —I will see that the matters raised by Senator Peter Rae are referred to Senator Gietzelt so that he can prepare an answer for him, tomorrow if possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.14 p.m. until Tuesday, 5 November 1985, at 11.30 a.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 54) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) On what occasions did a Federal Minister or members of a Federal Minister's staff travel abroad between 1 April 1983 and 1 February 1985. (2) What places and organisations were visited during the travel abroad. (3) On what date did each Minister depart from Australia and arrive at each of the places visited during the travel abroad and on what date did each Minister and associated staff members return to Australia. (4) What private sightseeing deviations or trips were undertaken in conjunction with the official travel. (5) Was each Minister accompanied by his/her wife or nominee. (6) What were the names and classifications of persons associated with the Minister's travel abroad referred to in parts (1), (2) and (3). (7) What sum was spent for each individual in respect of each visit abroad for (a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) other associated and incidental expenditure and (d) total expenditure. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7). The details sought are shown in Table 1. For completeness, details of official travel by other Party Leaders are also included. (4) The details sought are shown in Table 2. Table 1 Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A THE HON. R. J. L. HAWKE, AC, MP, PRIME MINISTER Visit 1-1983 2.6 Canberra 3.6 Pt Moresby 5.6 Jakarta 8.6 London 9.6 Paris 11.6 Geneva 15.6 Washington 17.6 New York 17.6 Toronto 18.6 Newport 20.6 Honolulu 2.6 Pt Moresby 3.6 Jakarta 6.6 London 8.6 Paris 9.6 Geneva 11.6 Washington 15.6 New York 17.6 Toronto 17.6 Newport 18.6 Honolulu 21.6 Canberra Pt Moresby: Call on the Governor-General of Papua New Guinea; Meeting with the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea; briefing by National Planning Committee. Jakarta: Calls on the President and Vice President of Indonesia; visit to the National Heroes Cemetery; meetings with the President and Foreign Minister of Indonesia; Visit Australian Language Centre, Joint Live-stock Research and Development Project, Ciana; meeting with representative of Association of Australian University Graduates in Indonesia. London: Calls on Her Majesty the Queen, Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. Mrs Hawke Mr G. Evans, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Dr R. Garnaut, Senior Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser Mr G. Freudenberg, Consultant Dr J. Feldman, Physician Mrs J. Sinclair, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Ms J. Willis, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms J. Saunders, Assistant Private Secretary Ms J. O'Brien, Assistant Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) *441,086 16,105 143,342 600,533 *5,440 44,414 . . 49,854 Paris: Meeting with business representatives and the International Energy Agency. Luncheon with the French President. Discussions with the French Prime Minister and Secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Geneva: Address to ILO Conference and discussions with ILO officials and representatives of Red Cross and the Commonwealth Trade Union Council. Washington: Meetings with President Reagan, Vice President Bush and prominent officials including Presidents of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. New York: Meetings with editors of Time/Life Inc, and the Wall Street Journal. Discussions with the Sec-general of the UN. Toronto: Meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister. Newport: Visit to Australian Expo and America's Cup team. Honolulu: Meeting with Commander-in-Chief, Pacific. Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A Itinerary Depart Arrive Organisation Visited/ Purpose Persons Accompanying Cost to 31 January 1985 Minister/ Spouse Staff $A $A THE HON. R. J. L. HAWKE, AC, MP, PRIME MINISTER Visit 2-1983 18.11 Canberra 20.11 Darwin 22.11 Bangkok 25.11 New Delhi 27.11 Goa 29.11 New Delhi 18.11 Darwin 20.11 Bangkok 22.11 New Delhi 25.11 Goa 27.11 New Delhi 30.11 Canberra Thailand: Discussions with Thai Prime Minister and the Thai Minister for Foreign Affairs. Call on King and Queen of Thailand. India: Attend Second Executive Session, Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting-New Delhi and Commonwealth Heads of Government retreat-Goa. Mrs Hawke Dr J. Feldman, Physician Mr G. Evans, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Mr R. Hogg, Senior Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser Mr D. Buckingham, Speech Writer Mr C. Parks, Journalist Mr A. Sutton, Private Secretary Mrs J. Sinclair, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Ms S. Massey, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms J. Nicholson, Secretary/Typist Ms V. Hodgson, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *167,831 757 20,873 189,461 *781 17,529 . . 18,310 Visit 3-1984 29.1 Canberra 31.1 Hong Kong 4.2 Osaka 7.2 Seoul 11.2 Beijing 12.2 Shanghai 14.2 Singapore 15.2 Kuala Lumpur 29.1 Hong Kong 31.1 Tokyo 4.2 Seoul 7.2 Beijing 11.2 Shanghai 12.2 Singapore 14.2 Kuala Lumpur 15.2 Canberra Hong Kong: Call on Governor of Hong Kong. Tokyo: Discussions with the Prime Minister of Japan and the Japanese Finance Minister. Meetings with senior officials. Attend Imperial audience. Osaka: Meeting with Japanese business leaders. Seoul: Discussions with Korean Prime Minister and Korean President. Meetings with other Korean Ministers. Beijing: Call on Chinese Premier and Chinese Communist Party Secretary-General. Shanghai: Visit Baoshan Iron and Steel Complex. Singapore: Call on President of Singapore and discussions with Singapore/Australia Business Council. Meeting with Prime Minister of Singapore and other Ministers. Kuala Lumpur: Discussions with the Prime Minister of Malaysia and other Malaysian Ministers. Mrs Hawke Mr G. Evans, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Dr R. Garnaut, Senior Adviser Mr D. Buckingham, Speech Writer Dr J. Feldman, Physician Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Mrs J. Sinclair, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr P. Simonds, Private Secretary Ms S. Massey, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms J. Willis, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms G. Farrow, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *211,963 4,765 90,984 307,712 *9,971 34,086 . . 44,057 Visit 4-1984 6.8 Canberra 9.8 Port Moresby 6.8 Port Moresby 9.8 Canberra Attend the opening of the Papua New Guinea National Parliament; attend Second Session of Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (CHOGRM) Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Dr R. Garnaut, Senior Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser on International Relations Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Dr J. Feldman, Personal Physician Ms J. Willis, Assistant Private Secretary Ms V. Hodgson, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *47,012 189 2,504 49,705 *140 2,765 . . 2,905 Visit 5-1984 25.8 Canberra 26.8 Nadi 29.8 Funafuti 30.8 Nausori 30.8 Nadi 25.8 Nadi 26.8 Funafuti 29.8 Nausori 30.8 Nadi 30.8 Canberra Attend Tuvalu Forum Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser/International Relations Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Dr J. Feldman, Personal Physician Ms J. Willis, Assistant Private Secretary Ms H. LeNevez, Secretary/Typist (Messrs Walsh, Barron and Ms Willis arrived Funafuti 28.8) (a) (b) (c) (d) *34,213 870 8,039 43,132 *120 1,641 . . 1,761 DR R. GARNAUT 4.1 Sydney 5.1 Manila 8.1 Tokyo 8.1 Seoul 10.1 Hong Kong 11.1 Jakarta 11.1 Singapore 12.1 Kuala Lumpur 13.1 Singapore 4.1 Manila 5.1 Tokyo 8.1 Seoul 10.1 Hong Kong 10.1 Jakarta 11.1 Singapore 11.1 Kuala Lumpur 12.1 Singapore 14.1 Sydney Discussions prior to the Prime Minister's visit Nil Costs included in the Prime Minister's visit MR D. BUCKINGHAM 25.1 Sydney 27.1 Singapore 29.1 Bangkok 25.1 Singapore 27.1 Bangkok 29.1 Hong Kong Nil Costs included in the Prime Minister's visit Then joined the Prime Minister (Visit 3) MR D. BUCKINGHAM (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) Visit 1-1984 11.4 Sydney 13.4 Tokyo 16.4 Seoul 16.4 Hong Kong 17.4 Jakarta 18.4 Singapore 12.4 Tokyo 13.4 Seoul 16.4 Hong Kong 16.4 Jakarta 17.4 Singapore 19.4 Sydney Attend Trade Conference in Seoul; discussions in Jakarta and Singapore Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,638 1,173 . . 4,811 DR R. GARNAUT (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) Visit 1-1984 4.3 Melbourne 5.3 Hong Kong 9.3 Beijing 10.3 Hong Kong 4.3 Hong Kong 5.3 Beijing 10.3 Hong Kong 11.3 Sydney Follow-up on China-Australia steel production proposal Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,916 478 . . 4,394 Visit 2-1984 29.4 Sydney 2.5 Denpasar 2.5 Jakarta 29.4 Denpasar 2.5 Jakarta 3.5 Sydney Attend Regional Trade Officials Meeting, Bali Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 2,623 519 . . 3,142 MR R. D. HOGG (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) 1984- 31.3 Melbourne 4.4 London 14.4 Tel Aviv 16.4 Athens 1.4 London 4.4 Tel Aviv 14.4 Athens 17.4 Melbourne Attend CIRCOM 4th International Symposium on Participatory Development through Community Co-operative Interaction; discussions with Greater London Enterprise Board Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 5,844 2,702 . . 8,546 MR D. BUCKINGHAM, OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Visit 2-1984 12.8 Melbourne 14.8 Kuala Lumpur 14.8 Singapore 17.8 Jakarta 17.8 Singapore 18.8 Brunei 20.8 Singapore 12.8 Kuala Lumpur 14.8 Singapore 14.8 Jakarta 17.8 Singapore 17.8 Brunei 18.8 Singapore 21.8 Sydney Attend a meeting of Regional Trade Officials Nil . . . . . . . . 2,966 1,593 . . 4,559 MS S. MASSEY, OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Visit 1-1984 5.9 Sydney 6.9 London 6.9 London 6.9 Antwerp Accompanying Mrs Hawke Nil . . . . 4,406 1,171 Touring by car 6-14 Sept. 15.9 Brussels 15.9 London 17.9 Perth 15.9 London 17.9 Perth 17.9 Sydney . . . . . . 5,577 THE HON. LIONEL BOWEN, MP, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, AS MINISTER FOR TRADE Visit 1-1983 1.8 Sydney 5.8 Tokyo 6.8 Anchorage 6.8 Seattle 7.8 Vancouver 7.8 Ottawa 9.8 Toronto 13.8 Washington 13.8 San Francisco 15.8 Honolulu 2.8 Tokyo 5.8 Anchorage 6.8 Seattle 6.8 Vancouver 7.8 Ottawa 7.8 Toronto 9.8 Washington 13.8 San Francisco 13.8 Honolulu Tokyo: Conduct bilateral trade discussions. Canada/USA: Conduct bilateral trade discussions and negotiations on 1983 meat export quota. Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mrs P. Baker, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 11,193 5,916 6,954 24,063 14,884 8,034 . . 22,918 Visit 2-1983 11.10 Sydney 12.10 Tokyo 14.10 Seoul 14.10 Tokyo 15.10 Hong Kong 12.10 Tokyo 12.10 Seoul 14.10 Tokyo 14.10 Hong Kong 16.10 Sydney Representing Australia at the funeral of Korean officials killed in Rangoon bombing. Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,851 1,273 810 5,934 3,634 683 . . 4,317 Visit 3-1983 2.12 Sydney 2.12 Singapore 4.12 Bahrain 6.12 Kuwait 9.12 Cairo 11.12 Larnaca 15.12 Riyadh 16.12 Singapore 2.12 Singapore 2.12 Bahrain 4.12 Kuwait 6.12 Cairo 9.12 Larnaca 11.12 Riyadh 15.12 Singapore 16.12 Sydney Bahrain, Kuwait, Cairo: -Bilateral trade discussions. Larnaca: Sign Australia-Cyprus Trade Agreement Riyadh: Attend meeting of the Australia/Saudi Joint Commission Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr G. Crough, Private Secretary Mrs P. Baker, Personal Secretary Miss H. Bayliss (a) (b) (c) (d) *214,176 884 13,184 228,244 *80 4,816 . . 4,896 Visit 4-1984 4.5 Sydney 9.5 Los Angeles 13.5 Washington 14.5 New Orleans 15.5 San Francisco 4.5 Los Angeles 9.5 Washington 13.5 New Orleans 14.5 San Francisco 17.5 Sydney Los Angeles: Discussions on offsets and export trading corporations. Washington: Meeting with trade Ministers to discuss multi-lateral trade issues. New Orleans: Visit Australian Pavilion at Expo 84. San Francisco: Discussions on computer related innovations. Mrs Bowen Mr G. Crough, Senior Private Secretary Mrs P. Baker, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,576 5,084 699 25,359 16,454 5,776 . . 22,230 Visit 5-1984 3.6 Sydney 4.6 Hong Kong 6.6 Beijing 8.6 Anshan 9.6 Nanjing 12.6 Beijing 12.6 Fuzhou 13.6 Guangzhou 13.6 Hong Kong 3.6 Hong Kong 4.6 Beijing 6.6 Anshan 8.6 Nanjing 9.6 Beijing 12.6 Fuzhou 12.6 Guangzhou 13.6 Hong Kong 14.6 Sydney Conduct bilateral trade discussions and open inaugural meeting of Australia-China Senior Executive Forum. Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Hussin, Private Secretary Mrs B. Fahey, Electorate Assistant (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,789 1,132 5,798 13,719 15,725 1,524 . . 17,249 Visit 6-1984 17.6 Sydney 20.6 Auckland 17.6 Auckland 20.6 Sydney Attend Australia-New Zealand Businessmen's 2nd Joint Conference; Ministerial discussions Mrs Bowen Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr G. Crough, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,932 . . 32 1,964 1,832 463 . . 2,295 Visit 7-1984 13.9 Sydney 14.9 Los Angeles 18.9 Rio de Janeiro 19.9 Rome 22.9 Bucharest 23.9 Zurich 25.9 Prague 25.9 Vienna 28.9 Rome 13.9 Los Angeles 15.9 Rio de Janeiro 19.9 Rome 19.9 Bucharest 22.9 Zurich 23.9 Prague 25.9 Vienna 25.9 Rome 30.9 Sydney Rio de Janeiro: Meeting with Brazilian Trade Minister to discuss international trade. Rome: Sign agreement on economic and technical co-operation with Italy. Bucharest, Praque: Bilaterial trade discussions. Mrs Bowen Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Ms E. Durham Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 23,635 3,861 2,910 30,406 16,786 3,816 . . 20,602 Visit 8-1984 2.11 Canberra 3.11 New Delhi 2.11 New Delhi 4.11 Canberra Attend the funeral of the Prime Minister of India-Guest of Government Mr J. Armstrong, Assistant Private Secretary Ms T. Reading, Secretary/Typist +(a) (b) (c) (d) 20 . . 46 66 40 464 . . 504 +Accompanied Governor- General on Special Purpose Aircraft MR B. BURDEKIN Visit 1 19.8 Washington 25.8 New York 30.8 Jeddah 1.9 Riyadh 3.9 Kuwait 4.9 Bahrain 19.8 New York 26.8 Jeddah 30.8 Riyadh 1.9 Kuwait 3.9 Bahrain 5.9 Sydney Discussions on behalf of the Minister for Trade and make preparatory arrangements for Minister's visit. Nil Costs included in Minister's Visit 1 (above) MR B. BURDEKIN (Representing the Minister for Trade) Visit 2-1984 25.4 Sydney 7.5 Rome 9.5 New York 12.5 Washington 14.5 New Orleans 26.4 Rome 7.5 New York 9.5 Washington 12.5 New Orleans 14.5 San Francisco Discussions in Italy and preparatory arrangements for Minister's forthcoming visit prior to joining the Minister for Trade in Washington. Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 321 2,097 . . 5,315 (Joined Minister on 15 May to return to Australia on 17 May) Visit 3-1984 16.10 Sydney 23.10 London 23.10 Brussels 26.10 Geneva 29.10 London 17.10 London 23.10 Brussels 23.10 Geneva 26.10 London 31.10 Sydney London: Discussions with Trade Commissioner's staff. Brussels: Discussions with European Community Commission. Geneva: Discussions on matters concerning the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Nil . . . . . . . . 4,402 2,100 . . 6,502 SENATOR THE HON. JOHN BUTTON, AS MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE Visit 1-1984 3.1 Melbourne 5.1 Bangkok 8.1 Amsterdam 11.1 London 11.1 Toulouse 12.1 Paris 13.1-23.1 on leave 24.1 Rome 25.1 Zurich 26.1 Vienna 31.1 Davos 4.2 Stuttgart 8.2 Stockholm 8.2 London 11.2 Singapore 4.1 Bangkok 6.1 Amsterdam 8.1 London 11.1 Toulouse 11.1 Paris 12.1 London 24.1 Zurich 25.1 Vienna 26.1 Davos 31.1 Stuttgart 4.2 Stockholm 8.2 London 9.2 Singapore 12.2 Melbourne Bangkok: Discussions with official of Thai Reserve Bank and other Government officials. The Netherlands: Talks with Philips Industries. U.K.: Discussions and meetings with British Government officials and aerospace industry officials. France: Discussions with French Industry Minister, Airbus Industrie and with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Italy: Meet Italian Industry Minister and discuss Davos Symposium. Switzerland: Discussions with Swiss banking and investment interests. Attend Davos Symposium. Austria: Meeting with Austrian Minister and parliamentary officials. West Germany: Visit Daimler Benz A G Sweden, Singapore Discussions with Government Ministers and officials. Ms D. O'Neil (spouse) Mr P. Clark, Assistant Private Secretary Ms P. Smith, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 17,852 13,324 3,373 34,549 19,503 6,131 . . 13,372 MS O'NEIL 5.1 Melbourne 6.1 Amsterdam Joined Minister in Amsterdam 22.1 Rome 24.1 Melbourne MS SMITH 5.1 Melbourne 6.1 Amsterdam Joined Minister in Amsterdam Visit 2-1984 4.5 Melbourne 5.5 Singapore 6.5 Penang 7.5 Kuala Lumpur 12.5 Tokyo 4.5 Singapore 5.5 Penang 6.5 Kuala Lumpur 8.5 Tokyo 13.5 Melbourne Singapore: Discussions with officials prior to conference. Malaysia: Attend conference ``ASEAN, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA'' Japan: Visit technology companies and conduct meetings with Government officials. Dr G. N. Evans, Senior Private Secretary Mr N. Gruen, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,386 4,342 2,421 13,149 8,680 3,075 . . 11,755 Visit 3-1984 7.11 Melbourne 9.11 Denpasar 7.11 Denpasar 9.11 Darwin Bali: Attend Australia Indonesia Business Co-operation Council Meeting. Mr P. Clark, Assistant Private Secretary Ms J. Phillips, Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,876 453 . . 2,329 3,222 561 . . 3,783 MR G. BILNEY, MP (REPRESENTING THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE) Visit 1-1984 13.3 Adelaide 13.3 Perth 13.3 Singapore 17.3 Bangkok 13.3 Perth 13.3 Singapore 13.3 Bangkok 18.3 Sydney Attend ESCAP Preparatory Meeting of Ministers of Industry; 4th General Conference of UNIDO. Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,324 1,172 - 4,496 SENATOR THE HON. DON GRIMES, AS MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY Visit 1-1984 14.4 Sydney 18.4 Athens 20.4 London 24.4 Dublin 24.4 London 27.4 Copenhagen 1.5 London 4.5 Rome 15.4 Athens 18.4 London 20.4 Dublin 24.4 London 24.4 Copenhagen 27.4 London 1.5 Rome 6.5 Sydney Ministerial discussions on reciprocal social security agreements and general social welfare matters of mutual concern to the countries visited. Mrs N. Burns, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,184 8,742 209 19,135 5,206 2,791 - 7,997 Mrs Burns 18.4 Athens 24.4 London 27.4 Copenhagen 1.5 London 18.4 London 24.4 Copenhagen 27.4 London 1.5 Rome 4.5 Rome-proceeded on 4 weeks leave at private expense 1.6 London 3.6 Sydney THE HON. RALPH WILLIS, MP, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Visit 1-1983 27.5 Melbourne 29.5 Rome 4.6 Geneva 7.6 Paris 9.6 Stockholm 9.6 Frankfurt 11.6 Geneva 13.6 London 13.6 Sheffield 14.6 London 16.6 Singapore 28.5 Rome 29.5 Geneva 4.6 Paris 7.6 Stockholm 9.6 Frankfurt 9.6 Geneva 11.6 London 13.6 Sheffield 13.6 London 15.6 Singapore 17.6 Melbourne Geneva : Attend 69th Session of International Labor Organisation Conference and address the International Labour Conference. Paris : Meetings with officials of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Stockholm : Discussions with Swedish Labour Market Board. London : Discussions with officials of Manpower Resources Commission. Singapore : Call on Secretary-General of the National Trade Union council (formerly Minister for Labour). Mrs Wills Ms N. Gardner, Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,100 10,364 4,522 33,986 7,284 3,517 - 10,801 Visit 2-1983 24.10 Sydney 25.10 Auckland 29.10 Tonga 30.10 Auckland 24.10 Auckland 25.10 Tonga 29.10 Auckland 30.10 Sydney Tonga : Attend 8th South Pacific Labour Ministers' Conference. Discussions with Tongan Labour Minister officials. Ms H. Connors, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,848 869 40 2,757 1,848 497 - 2,345 Visit 3-1984 8.6 Melbourne 10.6 Rome 17.6 Geneva 19.6 Brussels 19.6 New York 22.6 Ottawa 23.6 Toronto 23.6 Hamilton 23.6 Buffalo 25.6 New York 28.6 Washington 28.6 Cincinatti 28.6 St Louis 30.6 Los Angeles 9.6 Rome 10.6 Geneva 17.6 Brussels 19.6 New York 19.6 Ottawa 22.6 Toronto 23.6 Hamilton 23.6 Buffalo 23.6 New York 25.6 Washington 28.6 Cincinatti 28.6 St Louis 28.6 Los Angeles 2.7 Melbourne Brussels : Attend 70th Session of International Labour Organisation Conference Discussions with officials of European Trade Union Council. Canada : Discussions with Ministry of Employment and Immigration and with officials on occupational safety and health. Washington : Discussions with Secretary of Labor and with Council of Economic Advisers and Congress Budget Office. Cincinatti : Discussions with officials on occupational safety and health. Mrs Willis Mr D. McKenzie, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 18,483 9,260 176 27,919 6,572 3,236 - 9,808 Mrs Willis 16.6 Melbourne 18.6 Honolulu 20.6 San Francisco 16.6 Honolulu 18.6 San Francisco 20.6 Ottawa (joined Minister) Visit 4-1984 15.9 Sydney 23.9 Tokyo 25.9 Seoul 25.9 Hong Kong 16.9 Tokyo 23.9 Seoul 25.9 Hong Kong 26.9 Sydney General : Lead a Tripartite trade mission to Japan and Korea. Japan : Ministerial discussions with Labor Minister and officials; Prime Minister; Japanese Trade Unions; Japanese Institute of Labor and Economic Planning Agency. Inspect Nissan factory, Toshiba Electronics, Nippon Kokan Steel. Meet representatives of Japanese steel mills. Korea : Meeting with Korean President, Labour Minister and employers. Inspect trade training facilities. P. Medlock, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,344 4,413 715 9,472 3,782 1,909 - 5,691 THE HON. P. J. KEATING, MP, TREASURER Visit 1-1983 4.6 Sydney 9.6 Amsterdam 11.6 Geneva 15.6 Washington 18.6 New York 18.6 Newport 18.6 Boston 20.6 Honolulu 5.6 Amsterdam 9.6 Geneva 11.6 Washington 15.6 New York 18.6 Newport 18.6 Boston 18.6 Honolulu 21.6 Canberra Ministerial discussions. Accompanied Prime Minister at meetings and official functions. Mrs Keating Ms B. Ward, Private Secretary Ms J. Kell, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 18,472 4,364 346 23,182 3,634 5,338 - 8,972 MRS KEATING 18.6 New York 10.7 Amsterdam 19.6 Amsterdam 12.7 Sydney MS WARD AND MS KELL 7.6 Sydney 9.6 San Francisco 7.6 San Francisco 9.6 Washington Joined Minister on 11.6 Visit 2-1983 22.9 Sydney 23.9 San Francisco 24.9 Newport 25.9 Washington 27.9 Newport 28.9 Washington 3.10 Paris 4.10 Frankfurt 8.10 London 22.9 San Francisco 23.9 Newport 24.9 Washington 25.9 Newport 27.9 Washington 29.9 Paris 3.10 Frankfurt 4.10 London 10.10 Sydney Attend International Monetary Fund/International Bank of Reconstruction and Development Annual Meeting, in Washington also IMF/IBRD Development Committee Meeting. Represented Australia at final race of America's Cup challenge. Mrs Keating Mr A. Cole, Senior Private Secretary Ms P. Furnell, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 12,836 8,543 1,894 23,273 131 81 - 212 Mr Keating returned $7,515 after the visit, paid to him by the International Monetary Fund for fares ($6,154) and accommodation ($1,361) to attend the meeting in Washington MRS KEATING 27.9 Sydney 28.9 London 3.10 Paris 5.10 Amsterdam 8.10 London 28.9 London 28.9 Paris 3.10 Amsterdam 5.10 London 10.10 Sydney Visit 3-1984 10.2 Sydney 11.2 London 13.2 Paris 15.2 Moscow 15.2 Vienna 16.2 Paris 19.2 London 11.2 London 11.2 Paris 13.2 Moscow 15.2 Vienna 15.2 Paris 16.2 London 21.2 Sydney Attend Ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operative and Development in Paris Ministerial discussions; Attend funeral of Mr Andropov (was not notified of funeral prior to departure for Paris). Attend official functions. Mrs Keating Dr B. Hughes, Consultant Ms D. Sella, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,314 3,787 362 29,463 11,790 3,258 - 15,048 DR HUGHES 16.2 Paris 22.2 London 24.2 Singapore 16.2 London 23.2 Singapore 25.2 Adelaide MS SELLA 11.2 London 16.2 Paris 18.2 London 11.2 Paris 16.2 London 20.2 Sydney Visit 4-1984 23.4 Sydney 24.4 London 30.4 Amsterdam 3.5 Paris London 24.4 London 24.4 Amsterdam 30.4 Paris 3.5 London 5.5 Sydney Attend Annual Meeting of Asian Development Bank, Amsterdam; Ministerial discussions and official functions. Mrs Keating Ms B. Ward, Private Secretary Ms J. Kell, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,366 4,532 650 21,548 12,776 4,055 - 16,831 MS WARD AND MS KELL 24.4 London 28.4 Amsterdam 3.5 Paris 3.5 London 24.4 Amsterdam 28.4 Paris 3.5 London 5.5 Sydney Visit 5-1984 18.9 Sydney 18.9 Los Angeles 20.9 Toronto 25.9 Washington 29.9 New York 29.9 Los Angeles 18.9 Los Angeles 18.9 Toronto 20.9 Washington 25.9 New York 29.9 Los Angeles 1.10 Sydney Attend Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting and International Monetary Fund/ International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Annual Meeting, International Monetary Fund Interim Committee Meeting and International Monetary Fund/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Committee Meeting in Washington. Mrs Keating Mr A. Coles, Senior Private Secretary Ms B. Ward, Private Secretary Ms A. Henderson, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) 11,971 4,020 8,911 24,902 19,446 8,083 - 27,529 Mr Keating returned $6,842 after the visit, paid to him by the International Monetary Fund for Fares ($6,842) and accommodation ($1,850) to attend the meeting in Washington. MS WARD On Leave 25.9 THE HON. MICHAEL J. YOUNG, MP, SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE 1984 16.6 Sydney 21.6 London 24.6 Hong Kong 17.6 London 22.6 Hong Kong 25.6 Sydney Attend Meeting of Commonwealth Action Group on Cyprus; Ministerial discussions Mr G. Dodds, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 7,683 5,870 180 13,733 6,780 2,213 - 8,993 SENATOR THE HON. PETER WALSH, AS MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY Visit 1-1983 19.11 Sydney 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Barstow 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Camarillo 21.11 Los Angeles 22.11 New York 23.11 London 24.11 Manchester 25.11 London 28.11 Paris 29.11 Copenhagen 29.11 Aarlborg 30.11 Copenhagen 30.11 Malmo 2.12 Stockholm 2.12 London 19.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Barstow 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Camarillo 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 New York 23.11 London 23.11 Manchester 24.11 London 25.11 Paris 28.11 Copenhagen 29.11 Aarlborg 29.11 Copenhagen 30.11 Malmo 30.11 Stockholm 2.12 London 4.12 Sydney Los Angeles: Visit Solar One (McDonnell Douglas solar thermal power station) Barstow: Visit ARCO Megawatt Photovoltaic Power Plant Visit ARCO Photovoltaic Manufacturing Plant New York: Television interview with ``Business News'' Address at Mining Club Visit World Trade Centre Sellafield: Visit British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (reprocessing and waste management installations) London: Meeting with Secretary of State for Energy Meeting with Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment Discussions with representatives Sussex University Science Policy Research Unit Paris: Meeting with officials of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development Copenhagen: Visit Nibe Moellerne, (windmill manufacturer) Visit Danish Wind Technology Visit Vestas Ltd Visit the site of a privately-owned Danregn windmill Malmo: Visit Sydkraft windpower station Stockholm: Meeting officials of Swedish secretariat for Future Studies Visit Oskarshamn Power Company Visit Waste Management Facility Discussions with Swedish Energy Minister Mrs Walsh Mr I. Henderson, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 15,276 4,622 2,539 22,437 5,024 2,367 . . 7,391 Visit 2-1984 13.10 Sydney 19.10 Beijing 21.10 Shanghai 23.10 Tokyo 23.10 Tokai Mura/ Oarai 25.10 Tokyo 26.10 Osaka 27.10 Hong Kong 14.10 Beijing 19.10 Shanghai 21.10 Tokyo 23.10 Tokai Maura/ Oarai 23.10 Tokyo 25.10 Osaka 26.10 Hong Kong 27.10 Perth Beijing: Briefing with Embassy Meeting with Minister for Geology and Mineral Resources Meeting with Vice Minister of Ministry of Petroleum Industry. Meeting with president of China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Meeting with Vice Premier Meeting with Vice Minister of Ministry of Coal Industry Meeting with Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade Press Conference Meeting with China National Chemical Import and Export Corporation Visit China National Petroleum Corporation Roundup meeting with Minister for Geology and Mineral Resources Shanghai: Meeting with President of Tongji University Briefing by Shanghai Economic Commission; Shanghai Capital Construction Commission and Bureau of Marine Geological Investigation Meeting with Vice Mayor of Shanghai People's Municipal Government. Briefing by South Yellow Sea Branch of China National Offshore Oil Corporation Visit Baoshan steel complex Tokyo: Briefing with Mission Meeting with Minister for International Trade and Industry Meeting with Power Industry Representatives Meeting with Steel Industry Representatives Meeting with Science &Technology Minister Tokai Mura: Visit Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel Company's PWR Fuel Assembly Plant Visit Japan Atomic Power Company's Tokai No. 2 BWR Nuclear Power Reactor Visit Japan Atomic Energy Resource Institute Waste Safety Testing Facility Visit Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation's (PNC) facilities and Exhibition Hall Oarai: Inspect PNC Joyo Experimental Fast Breeder reactor Tokyo: Press Conference Meeting with Mitsubishi Corporation Meeting with Japan National Oil Corporation Meeting with Mitsui Corporation Attend Koala Arrival Ceremony at Marita Airport Kobe: Visit Kakogawa steel works of Kobe Steel Ltd Meeting with Nippon Brown Coal Liquefaction Corporation and visit to Coal Liquefaction Pilot Plant Hong Kong: Rest day Mrs Walsh Dr C. Emerson, Assistant Private secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,059 2,865 2,725 14,649 3,480 1,157 . . 4,637 THE HON. BILL HAYDEN, MP, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS Visit 1-1983 6.4 Canberra 8.4 Jakarta 10.4 Pt Moresby 6.4 Jakarta 9.4 Pt Moresby 10.4 Amberly Jakarta Discussions: President Vice President Foreign Minister Ministers for Defence & Security, National Development Planning, Trade, Information. Speaker of the Parliament Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. McKenzie, Electorate Assistant # No transport Charges; Special Purpose Aircraft used (a) (b) (c) (d) 120# 1,352 1,797 3,269 40# 357 . . 397 Official functions: Lunch-CSIS Lunch- Ambassador Dinner- Foreign Minister Reception- Ambassador Official visit: Australian English Language Training Centre Port Moresby Discussions: Prime Minister Ministers for Foreign Affairs & Trade, Provincial Affairs, Public Service, Industrial Development, and Primary Industry. Official functions: Lunch-PNG Government Dinner-High Commissioner Visit 2-1983 24.4 Brisbane 25.4 Manila 26.4 Bangkok 27.4 Singapore 28.4 Kuala Lumpur 28.4 Singapore 24.4 Manila 25.4 Bangkok 26.4 Singapore 27.4 Kuala Lumpur 28.4 Singapore 29.4 Sydney Manila Discussions: President Foreign Minister-Rev. Fr. Gore Bangkok Discussions: Prime Minister Foreign Minister. Official Function: Foreign Minister Singapore Discussions: Prime Minister, First Deputy Prime Minister Foreign Affairs Minister Kuala Lumpur Discussions: Prime Minister, Foreign Minister. Official lunch- Foreign Minister Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms. D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,750 1,261 1,893 6,904 6,994 916 . . 7,910 Visit 3-1983 4.5 Canberra 4.5 Sydney 5.5 London 6.5 Brussels 12.5 Paris 14.5 Vienna 15.5 Salzburg 15.5 Zurich 17.5 Hong Kong **by rail #transit stop 4.5 Sydney 5.5 London 5.5 Brussels 6.5 Paris 12.5 Vienna** 14.5 Salzburg 16.5 Zurich 16.5 Hong Kong## 18.5 Sydney Brussels Discussions: President, European Economic Community; Vice President, EEC; Commissioner, EEC; Secretary-General, NATO; Foreign Minister, Belgium. Paris Meetings: Governing body, International Energy Agency Ministerial Council, OECD; European Heads of Mission. Discussions: US Secretary of State; Foreign Minister, West Germany; Foreign Minister, France; Foreign Minister, Japan. Secretary of State, France; Minister for Energy, New Zealand; 1st Secretary, French Socialist Party Vienna Discussions: President Foreign Minister Officials Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency; Director General, UN Office. Official Function: Lunch-Foreign Minister Official Visit: Opera Mrs Hayden Mr D. Ritchie, Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 14,381 9,993 6,486 30,860 10,217 5,486 . . 15,703 Visit 4-1983 26.6 Sydney 26.6 Singapore 29.6 Bangkok 1.7 Hanoi 2.7 Vientiane 3.7 Bangkok 5.7 Hong Kong **transit stop 26.6 Singapore 26.6 Bangkok 29.6 Hanoi 1.7 Vientiane 2.7 Bangkok* 3.7 Hong Kong 6.7 Sydney Bangkok Meeting: ASEAN plus Foreign Ministers Discussions: US Secretary of State, Malaysian Foreign Minister, Indonesian Foreign Minister, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister, Canadian Foreign Minister, New Zealand Foreign Minister, PNG Foreign Minister. Audience with the King Official Function: Dinner-Prime Minister Hanoi Discussions: President of the Council of Ministers, Foreign Minister and Officials Official Visit: Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum History Museum Official function: Dinner-Vietnamese Government Dinner-Ambassador Vientiane Discussions: Prime Minister, Acting Foreign Minister, Chairman, Luang Prabang, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Provincial Administrative Committee Official visit: Lao-Australian irrigation project Luang Prabang Hong Kong Discussions: Acting Governor; Chairman, Orient Overseas (Holdings) Ltd; Executive Director, Hong Kong Bank; Far Eastern Economic Review; Asian Wall Street Journal Guangzhou Official visit Discussions: Officials, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Nanning Official visit: Sino-Vietnam border Discussions: Officials (border briefing) Guilin Official visit Discussions: Local officials Beijing Official visit Discussions: Premier Foreign Minister Officials Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 24,639 3,515 3,311 31,465 7,382 2,474 . . 9,856 Visit 5-1983 15.7 Sydney 17.7 San Francisco 22.7 Washington 27.7 Tokyo 29.7 Seoul 30.7 Hong Kong 31.7 Guangzhou 1.8 Kunmig 1.8 Nanning 3.8 Guilin 6.8 Beijing 7.8 Hong Kong *transit stops 15.7 San Francisco* 17.7 Washington 23.7 Tokyo 27.7 Seoul 29.7 Hong Kong 30.7 Guangzhou 31.7 Kunming 1.8 Nanning 1.8 Guilin 3.8 Beijing 6.8 Hong Kong 8.8 Sydney Washington Meeting: ANZUS Council Discussions: Vice President; Secretary of State; Director, Arms Control &Disarmament Agency; Secretary of Defense Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs; Assistant to President National Security Affairs. Official functions: Dinner-Secretary of State; Dinner-Australian &New Zealand Ambassadors; Lunch-Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence Tokyo Discussions: Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Minister of International Trade &Industry; Chairman, Democratic Socialist Party; Chairman, Socialist Party. Official function: Lunch for Japanese businessmen Seoul Discussions: President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Ministers for Energy &Resources &Commerce &Industry Non-government personnel Korean industrialists Official visit: Panmunjom Truce Village, National cemetery, Joint Security Area, Folk village Official function: Dinner-Foreign Minister Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,047 11,518 14,272 44,837 13,918 7,290 . . 21,208 Guangzhou Official visit Discussions: Officials, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Nanning Official visit: Sino-Vietnam border Discussions: Officials (border briefing) Guilin Official visit Discussions: Local officials Beijing Official visit Discussions: Premier Foreign Minister; Officials Visit 6-1983 22.9 Sydney 23.9 Athens 23.9 Rome 25.9 Latina 27.9 Rome 30.9 New York 2.10 Boston 2.10 Toronto 3.10 Niagara Falls 3.10 Buffalo 5.10 New York 5.10 Atlanta 7.10 New Orleans 7.10 San Francisco 8.10 Honolulu 8.10 Hilo 10.10 Honolulu 23.9 Athens 23.9 Rome 23.9 Latina 25.9 Rome 27.9 New York 30.9 Boston 2.10 Toronto 2.10 Niagara Falls 3.10 Buffalo 3.10 New York 5.10 Atlanta 5.10 New Orleans 7.10 San Francisco 7.10 Honolulu 8.10 Hilo 8.10 Honolulu 11.10 Brisbane Italy Audience: The Pope Discussions: Italian officials, Director-General, MFO Sinai Observers New York Meeting: UN General Assembly Discussions: Foreign Minister, France; Foreign Secretary, Britain; Foreign Ministers for Portugal, Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Vietnam, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Sweden, Mexico, India, Pakistan and China; US Assistant Secretary of State; Prime Minister, New Zealand. Georgia Discussions: Mayor Andrew Young Atlanta Louisiana Official visit: World Trade Centre Discussions: Board of Commissioners, Port of New Orleans; International Trade Mart Officials; US National Parks Service Hawaii Visit organised by United States Information Agency Mrs Hayden Mr D. Ritchie, Private Secretary Ms Y. Tully, Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 18,921 12.202 1,767 32,890 14,519 8,137 . . 22,296 Visit 7-1983 20.11 Canberra 20.11 Darwin 22.11 Bangkok 23.11 Rangoon 24.11 Pagan 24.11 Rangoon 25.11 Bangkok 26.11 Jakarta 26.11 Medan 28.11 Lake Toba 28.11 Medan 28.11 Singapore 20.11 Darwin 20.11 Bangkok 22.11 Rangoon 23.11 Pagan 24.11 Rangoon 24.11 Bangkok 25.11 Jakarta 26.11 Medan 26.11 Lake Toba 28.11 Medan 28.11 Singapore 29.11 Sydney Bangkok Audience: The King Discussions: Prime Minister; Foreign Minister; Secretary-General, National Economic and Social Development Board Official function: Lunch/Speech-Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce Rangoon Discussions: Deputy Prime Minister; Foreign Minister Official visit: Shedagon Pagoda Pagan (village water supply aid project) Official function: Dinner-Foreign Minister Jakarta-Sumatra Discussions: Foreign Minister; Governor, North Sumatra Official visit: Medan; Prafta Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,624 2,665 1,842 15,131 7,366 2,726 . . 10,092 MR COSTELLO AND MS HOLGATE 18.11 Sydney 18.11 Bangkok 20.11 Joined Minister Visit 8-1983 17.12 Sydney 17.12 San Francisco 17.12 Dallas 20.12 New York 20.12 San Francisco 17.12 San Francisco 17.12 Dallas 17.12 New York 20.12 San Francisco 22.12 Sydney New York (via Dallas) Ministerial Meeting: Commonwealth Action Group on Cyprus Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 7,159 3,298 407 10,864 9,518 1,146 . . 10,664 MS MOUSTAFINE On leave from 20.12-Recalled to duty for one day: 30.12 New York 30.12 Washington 30.12 Washington 30.12 New York on leave MS TAUNTON on leave from 20.12 Visit 9-1984 21.1 Canberra 21.1 Darwin 22.1 Singapore 24.1 Cairo 25.1 Luxor 25.1 Abu Simbel 26.1 Cairo 27.1 El Gorah 27.1 Cairo 27.1 Tel Aviv 31.1 Jerusalem 31.1 Tel Aviv 1.2 Damascus 2.2 Amman 2.2 Bahrain 2.2 Singapore 21.1 Darwin 21.1 Singapore 22.1 Cairo 24.1 Luxor 25.1 Abu Simbel 25.1 Cairo 26.1 El Gorah 27.1 Cairo 27.1 Tel Aviv 27.1 Jerusalem 31.1 Tel Aviv 31.1 Damascus 1.2 Amman 2.2 Bahrain 2.2 Singapore 3.2 Amberley Cairo Discussions: President; Foreign Minister; Defence Ministry; MFO Sinai Official visit: Abu Simbel Israel Discussions: Prime Minister; President; Minister of Defence; Leader of Opposition Official visit: UNRWA, West Bank Ramallah training centres; Kalandia Camp; Hassadah Hospital, Ein Kerem; Yad Vashem Martyrs' and Heroes' memorial. Official functions: Lunch-UNRWA/Mayor of Bethlehem and others; Lunch-Speaker of Knesset Damascus Discussions: President; Foreign Minister Amman Discussions: Crown Prince; Foreign Minister Official dinner: Foreign Minister Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Dr M. T. Fish, Physician Ms D. McKenzie, Electorate Assistant (a) (b) (c) (d) *247,728 7,147 10,401 265,276 *80 7,889 . . 7,969 Visit 10-1984 21.2 Sydney 22.2 Singapore 24.2 Brunei 25.2 Manila 26.2 Baguio 26.2 Manila **transit stop 21.2 Singapore** 22.2 Brunei 24.2 Manila 25.2 Baguio 26.2 Manila 27.2 Sydney Brunei Discussions: Foreign Minister; Independence banquet Official functions: Various (to celebrate independence) Manila Discussions: President; Prime Minister; Acting Foreign Minister; Cardinal Sin; Non-Government personnel Official visit: Baguio; Banaue Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 38,598 1,206 2,279 42,083 575 167 . . 743 Visit 11-1984 11.4 Brisbane 12.4 Tokyo 13.4 Kurashiki 14.4 Takamatsu 15.4 Matsuyama 15.4 Hiroshima 15.4 Miyajima 15.4 Hiroshima 18.4 Tokyo 19.4 Hong Kong 12.4 Tokyo 12.4 Kurashiki 13.4 Takamatsu 14.4 Matsuyama 15.4 Hiroshima 15.4 Miyajima 15.4 Hiroshima 15.4 Tokyo** 18.4 Hong Kong 20.4 Sydney Tokyo Officials visit: Okayama, Ehime and Kagawa Prefectures Hiroshima Meetings: Governor, Okayama Perfecture; Governor, Ehime Prefecture; Chief Auditor (representing the Governor) Kagawa Prefecture; Mayor and other officials, Hiroshima Conference: (April 15-18) Annual ministerial meeting of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Mrs Hayden Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,928 2,444 11,254 20,626 6,362 1,553 . . 7,915 MS MOUSTAFINE AND MS HOLGATE On leave in Hong Kong 18/4 to 20/4/84 **transit stop Visit 12-1984 11.5 Sydney 15.5 London 18.5 Paris 20.5 Nice 21.5 Paris 23.5 Amsterdam 26.5 Budapest 30.5 Moscow 1.6 Samarkand 1.6 Bukhara 2.6 Tashkent 3.6 New Delhi 4.6 Bangkok 12.5 London 15.5 Paris 18.5 Nice 20.5 Paris 21.5 Amsterdam 23.5 Budapest 26.5 Moscow 30.5 Samarkand 1.6 Bukhara 1.6 Tashkent 2.6 New Delhi 3.6 Bangkok 5.6 Sydney London Discussions: Prime Minister, Minister of State, Foreign and Colonial Office; Minister for Overseas Development France Ministerial meeting: OECD Discussions: Deputy Secretary of State, US; Secretary of the Treasury, US; Foreign Secretary, UK; Foreign Minister, Belgium; Foreign Minister, Spain; Finance Minister, France; Economics Minister, West Germany; Finance Minister, Austria; Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, West Germany; Minister for Commerce and Banking, Iceland; Minister for Economics and Finance, Spain; Minister for Economics, Switzerland; Federal Executive Councillor, Yugoslavia Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,043 14,287 3,336 37,666 12,640 9,787 . . 22,427 The Netherlands Audience: The Queen Discussions: Prime Minister, Minister for Economic Affairs (Deputy PM); Minister for Development Co-operation; Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee; Leader of the Labor Party (former PM) Official visit: Parliament; Rijks, Van Gogh and Frans Hals Museums; Leiden; Canal systems Official function: Dinner-State Secretary Budapest Discussions: President, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Secretary-General, National Council of Trade Unions Secretary (International Affairs), HWSP Central Committee; Officials Meeting: Hungarian Chamber of Commerce Official visit: Monument to Hungarian Heroes; Commonwealth War Cemetery, Szemendre Visegrad Official function: Dinner-Foreign Minister Moscow Discussions: Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister, Officials, Orthodox Church Patriarchate Official visit: Moscow-Leningrad river/canal system; Bolshoi Theatre; Tretyakov Gallery of Russian Art; Pushkin Museum of Fine Art Official functions: Meeting with Australian community; inspection of embassy apartments Dinner: Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Soviet delegation Tashkent Discussions: Chairman, Council of Ministers, Uzbek SSR Official visit: Uzbek SSR War Memorial; Uzbek SSR Exhibition of Economic Achievements; Tashkent Metro system; Institute of Nuclear Physics; Astrakan manufacturing combine Bukhara, Samarkand Meetings: Bukhara City Soviet; Samarkand City Soviet Official visit: Avicenna Museum; Bukhara historical monuments; Samarkand historical monuments Bangkok Discussions: Foreign Minister Official visit: Thai-Cambodian border; UNBRO Centre at Aranyaprathet; Refugee Holding Centre, Khao-I-Dang, Evacuation Site 1 Military briefing: Wattana Nakorn Visit 13-1984 11.7 Canberra 14.7 Jakarta 11.7 Jakarta 14.7 Canberra Jakarta Meeting: ASEAN plus Foreign Ministers Discussions: President, Foreign Minister; Malaysian Foreign Minister; US Secretary of State; Singaporean Foreign Minister; PNG Foreign Minister, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Population and Environment, Chief of the Armed Forces Official function: Dinner-Foreign Minister Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms H. LeGood, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *67,359 +189 1,096 68,644 60 1,840 . . 1,900 + Guest of Government Visit 14-1984 15.7 Canberra 15.7 Ohakea 18.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 15.7 Ohakea 15.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 18.7 Canberra Wellington Meeting: ANZUS Council; Prime Minister, NZ; Prime Minister Elect, NZ; Minister for Defence, NZ; Minister for Foreign Affairs, NZ; US Secretary of State Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms H. LeGood, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,813 189 1,096 18,098 *60 688 . . 748 Visit 15-1984 30.7 Sydney 3.8 Bangkok 9.8 Geneva 10.8 Belgrade 12.8 Dubrovnik 15.8 Belgrade 16.8 Bangkok 30.7 Bangkok 4.8 Geneva 9.8 Belgrade 10.8 Dubrovnik 12.8 Belgrade 15.8 Bangkok 16.8 Sydney Thailand Meeting: The King Discussions: Prime Minister; Foreign Minister Inauguration: Australia- supported computer project of Thai Narcotics Control Board Official visit: Opium crop substitution project, Chieng Mai (Australian exchange teachers; Thai-Australian Ceramics; Dating Project; Sukhothai Historical Park Project; Geneva Conference on Disarmament Discussions: President, I.C.R.C. Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees Director, UN Centre for Human Rights President, CD Secretary General, CD Yugoslavia Discussions: Foreign Minister Federal Presidency Officials Foreign Ministry Officials, Croatia Officials, Vojvodine Officials, Bosnia Official visit: Novi Sad; Dubrovnik (International Festival); Zagreb Mexico Discussions: President; Foreign Minister; Deputy Minister of Finance Official function: Lunch-Foreign Minister; Reception- Ambassador Costa Rica Discussions: President; Foreign Minister; Minister for Energy and Mines; Presidential Candidates Aries &Aguilar Official function: Lunch-President; Reception-Foreign Minister Honduras Discussions: Minister of the Presidency; Foreign Minister; Head of the Armed Forces; Leaders, trade union movement; US Ambassador Official function: Dinner-Foreign Minister New York Conference: United Nations General Assembly 39 Discussions: US Secretary of State; Prime Minister, New Zealand; Foreign Ministers of Turkey, Indonesia, Venezuela, Jordan, Hungary, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Argentina, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and Portugal; US Ambassador to UN; Leader KPNLF; UN Secretary General; C.A.G. Cyprus Mrs Hayden Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,349 12,687 5,550 34,586 12,806 3,380 . . 16,186 Ms Moustafine and Ms Taunton returned via Singapore, arriving in Australia on 17 August Visit 16-1984 5.9 Sydney 6.9 Rome 9.9 Lisbon 9.9 Madrid 10.9 Miami 13.9 Managua 15.9 San Salvador 18.9 Mexico City 21.9 San Jose 22.9 Tegucigalpa 24.9 San Pedro Sula 24.9 Miami 3.10 New York 4.10 San Francisco 6.10 Honolulu **rest stops 6.9 Rome 6.9 Libson 9.9 Madrid 9.9 Miami 10.9 Managua 13.9 San Salvador 15.9 Mexico City 18.9 San Jose 21.9 Tegucigalpa 22.9 San Pedro Sula** 24.9 Miami 24.9 New York 3.10 San Francisco 4.10 Honolulu** 7.10 Sydney Lisbon Discussions: President; Foreign Minister, Minister for Defence, Finance Minister, Ambassador Queiros de Barros, Members, Socialist Party Nicaragua Discussions: Co-ordinator of the Government Junta, Foreign Minister, Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, Acting President, Supreme Electoral Council; Minister for Development &Agrarian Reform, Leader, Co-ordinadora Democratica Archbishop of Managua Editor, La Prensa Official visit: Sugar Industry, Timal Official function: Lunch-Minister for Development; Reception-Foreign Minister El Salvador Discussions: President; Foreign Minister, Minister for Defence, Head of the Armed Forces Leader, Arena Party Archbishop of San Salvador US Ambassador Representatives, ICRC Representatives, ICM Representatives, UNHRC Representatives, Tutela Legal Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Mr L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 15,947 fares cars 14,579 charter 55,808 33,459 119,793 8,339 13,734 . . 22,073 Ms Holgate proceeded on leave at the end of the visit, returning to Australia on 5 January 1985 THE HON. STEWART WEST, MP, AS MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Visit 1-1983 31.7 Sydney 4.8 Honolulu 5.8 Tokyo 7.8 Singapore 9.8 Jakarta 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 9.8 Galang Island 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 10.8 Singapore 14.8 Kuala Lumpur 17.8 Bangkok 31.7 Honolulu 4.8 Tokyo 6.8 Singapore 7.8 Jakarta 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 9.8 Galang Island 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 9.8 Singapore 10.8 Kuala Lumpur 14.8 Bangkok 18.8 Sydney Indonesia: Attended meetings with: the Foreign Minister Department of Justice Director of Immigration Refugee Task Force Governor of the Institute for National Defence Visited refugee camp, Galang Island Singapore: Met Singapore Foreign Minister Malaysia: Met with the Minister for Education United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) representative for Malaysia Acting Prime Minister Also visited Sungei Besi and Pulan Bidong refugee camps Thailand: Met with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Minister for Interior, Secretary General for National Security UNHCR Regional Co-ordinator for South East Asia Visited Khao-I-Dang refugee centre on the Thai border and other processing centres Mr M. Ross, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,379 4,044 4,075 16,498 5,118 2,379 . . 7,497 Visit 2-1984 1.8 Sydney 1.8 Los Angeles 4.8 Washington 8.8 Mexico City 10.8 San Salvador 12.8 San Jose 12.8 Miami 14.8 Buenos Aires 15.8 Santiago 15.8 Easter Island 16.8 Papeette 1.8 Los Angeles 1.8 Washington 4.8 Mexico City 8.8 San Salvador 10.8 San Jose 12.8 Miami 13.8 Buenos Aires 14.8 Santiago 15.8 Easter Island 15.8 Papeete 17.8 Sydney Lead Australian Delegation to the United Nations International Population Conference. Mexico: Ministerial discussions on the South American refugee/human rights situation. Mr M. Ross, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,885 2,673 7,275 20,833 7,766 1,268 . . 9,034 THE HON. KIM C. BEAZLEY, MP, AS MINISTER FOR AVIATION Visit 1-1983 3.9 Sydney 5.9 Auckland 5.9 Wellington 3.9 Auckland 5.9 Wellington 5.9 Sydney Attend Annual Australia/New Zealand Defence Ministers' Meeting Mrs Beazley Miss S. Grant, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,988 117 67 2,172 994 126 . . 1,120 Visit 2-1984 10.1 Melbourne 11.1 Singapore 17.1 London 20.1 Washington 23.1 New York 24.1 Montreal 25.1 Ottawa 25.1 Vancouver 27.1 Seattle 30.1 Honolulu 10.1 Singapore 12.1 London 17.1 Washington 20.1 New York 23.1 Montreal 24.1 Ottawa 25.1 Vancouver 25.1 Seattle 27.1 Honolulu 31.1 Sydney In Singapore held discussions with Civil Aviation officials and operators Honolulu: Meet Commander-in-Chief Pacific and other senior U.S. Military Officers. General: Military discussions and inspection of international airports and associated facilities. Mrs Beazley Mr D. Wallace, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 21,429 10,692 1,121 33,242 6,821 3,191 . . 10,012 Visit 3-1984 6.9 Sydney 6.9 Beijing Participate in the inaugural CAAC/Qantas service to China Mrs Beazley Mr S. Hickman 40 5 4,696 4,741 20 140 . . 168 Beijing-Guangzhou-arranged by Chinese Government 12.9 Guangzhou 13.9 Sydney MRS BEAZLEY 15.9 Hong Kong 16.9 Sydney Fares and accommodation met by Qantas and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) THE HON. CHRIS HURFORD, MP, AS MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION Visit 1-1983 4.5 Sydney 6.5 Manilla 4.5 Manila 7.5 Sydney Represented the Treasurer at the Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank Mr T. Burton, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 2,974 797 33 3,804 2,874 222 . . 3,096 Visit 2-1984 9.4 Canberra 9.4 Sydney 10.4 San Francisco 14.4 Washington 16.4 Boston 17.4 Los Angeles 19.4 Honolulu 9.4 Sydney 9.4 San Francisco 10.4 Washington 14.4 Boston 16.4 Los Angeles 17.4 Honolulu 20.4 Sydney San Francisco: Discussions Executive Vice President World Banking Division Bank of America Senior Vice President and Senior Economist Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Washington: Officials of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Vice President/Treasurer, and Vice President/Economic, Federal Home Loans Mortgage Corporation International Meeting Fund Interim Committee meeting and Development Committee meeting Boston: Senior Vice President, Stewart Design Group Director, Centre for Urban Studies, Harvard University Ottawa: Chief, Construction Division, Department of Regional Industrial Expansion President, Canadian Construction Association Deputy Minister, Public Works Los Angeles: Address to Australia/American Chamber of Commerce Honolulu: Rest Day Mrs Hurford Mr L. Early, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,500 4,121 77 20,698 6,835 1,775 . . 8,610 MR EARLY 13.4 Washington 16.4 Ottawa 16.4 Toronto 13.4 Ottawa 16.4 Toronto 16.4 Los Angeles Visit 3-1984 4.10 Sydney 7.10 Beijing 7.10 Qinhuangdao 9.10 Shenyang 9.10 Liaoyang 11.10 Dalian 11.10 Beijing 13.10 Shanghai 13.10 Hong Kong 17.10 Bangkok 20.10 Kuala Lumpur 20.10 Kuching 23.10 Brunei 25.10 Kota Kinabalu 27.10 Kuching 29.10 Singapore 1.11 Jakarta 1.11 Singapore 4.10 Beijing 7.10 Qinhuangdao 7.10 Shenyang 9.10 Liaoyang 9.10 Dalian 11.10 Beijing 11.10 Shanghai 13.10 Hong Kong 13.10 Bangkok 17.10 Kuala Lumpur 20.10 Kuching 20.10 Brunei 23.10 Kota Kinabalu 25.10 Kuching 27.10 Singapore 29.10 Jakarta 1.11 Singapore 2.11 Sydney Ministerial discussions, China; Lead Housing and Construction Trade Mission to Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore; Promote Australian Construction Industry in Indonesia Mrs Hurford Mr T. Burton, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,604 5,803 25,682 41,089 5,003 2,625 . . 7,625 MRS HURFORD 27.10 Kuching 28.10 Singapore 27.10 Singapore 29.10 Sydney THE HON. BRIAN HOWE, MP, AS MINISTER FOR DEFENCE SUPPORT Vist 1-1983 1.8 Melbourne 2.8 London 6.8 Amsterdam 11.8 Stockholm 13.8 Oslo 16.8 Copenhagen 18.8 Athens 19.8 Singapore 2.8 London 2.8 Amsterdam 6.8 Stockholm 11.8 Oslo 13.8 Copenhagen 16.8 Athens 19.8 Singapore 20.8 Sydney Amsterdam: Discussions with State Secretary of Foreign Affairs Director General of Materiel, Defence Fokker Netherlands BV RDM BV, Rotterdam: discussions on Walrus Submarine Project Commissioner for Defence Minister of Economic Affairs Vad der Giessen de Nord, Ship Builders Hollandse Signall Apparaten Nevesbu Stockholm: Defence Ministry Defence Materiel Administration FFV SAAB-Scania Kockums Oslo: Discussions with Representatives of the Ministries of Industry, Trade and Defence, the Secretary of State Konigsberg Vapenfabrikk Raufoss Ammunisjons Fabrikker Athens: Met Minister for Defence and officials about association with Australian Aircraft Corporation in basic trainer aircraft project. Mr P. Madden, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,805 5,427 984 16,216 65 3,092 . . . . Visit 2-1984 28.7 Melbourne 29.7 London 30.7 Milan 30.7 Pisa 31.7 Rome 3.8 Vienna 7.8 London 7.8 Montreal 9.8 Ottawa 10.8 Montreal 12.8 New York 14.8 Washington 15.8 Chicago 16.8 Seattle 17.8 San Francisco 29.7 London 29.7 Milan 30.7 Pisa 30.7 Rome 31.7 Vienna 3.8 London 7.8 Montreal 7.8 Ottawa 9.8 Montreal 10.8 New York 12.8 Washington 14.8 Chicago 15.8 Seattle 16.8 San Francisco 19.8 Melbourne London: Discussions with Minister Pattie on Australian/U.K. joint project. Meeting and Defence Ministry and defence industry representatives; visit Westland helicopters. Rome: Negotiations with Mr O. Mekine on joint project. Meeting with Italian Defence Ministry concerning joint project. Vienna: Stand-in for the (then) Minister for Industry &Commerce (Senator the Hon. John Button) at UNIDO Conference. Ottawa, Montreal: Meetings with Defence Ministry and defence industry representatives and contractors. New York: Visit Sikorsky helicopter plant. Washington: Meetings with Secretary of Defence, other officials and departments. Seattle: Inspect Boeing aircraft plant. San Francisco: Visit to Todd shipbuilders and other defence industry contractors. Mrs Howe Mr R. Forward, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,322 8,900 4,237 33,469 6,889 3,629 . . 10,518 THE HON. PETER MORRIS, MP, AS MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT Visit 1-1983 29.5 Canberra 29.5 Sydney 30.5 Brisbane 2.6 Honiara 29.5 Sydney 29.5 Brisbane 30.5 Honiara 2.6 Brisbane Attend South Pacific Regional Shipping Council, Honiara Mr L. Jacob, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 728 215 120 1,063 628 257 . . 885 Visit 2**-1984 10.5 Canberra 11.5 Sydney 11.5 Los Angeles 14.5 New York 17.5 London 20.5 Paris 23.5 Oslo 23.5 Hamburg 24.5 Stuttgart 28.5 Athens 10.5 Sydney 11.5 Los Angeles 11.5 New York 14.5 London 17.5 Paris 20.5 Oslo 23.5 Hamburg 23.5 Stuttgart 24.5 Athens 29.5 Sydney London/Paris/Oslo/Athens Attend: Bilateral land and sea transport discussions London: International Maritime Organisation, General Council of British Shipping. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development Ministerial Council. Oslo: Europe Conference of Ministers of Transport. Stuttgart: Visit Test Laboratories of Daimler Benz AG. Mrs Morris Mr P. Reece, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,544 276 77 22,382 6,658 2,361 . . 9,019 MRS MORRIS 20.5 Paris 25.5 London Joined Minister 20.5 London 25.5 Athens MR REECE 24.5 Stuttgart 25.5 London Joined Minister 24.5 London 25.5 Athens ** Private arrangements were made during three weekends spent in transit during the periods of official travel. These did not entail any additional cost to the Commonwealth. THE HON. JOHN BROWN, MP, AS MINISTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND MINISTER FOR SPORT, RECREATION AND TOURISM Visit 1-1983 31/10 Sydney 1/11 Singapore 5/11 Rome 12/11 Sydney 13/11 Hong Kong 20/11 Athens 20/11 Frankfurt 23/11 London 23/11 New York 25/11 San Francisco 29/11 Los Angeles 3/12 Tokyo 31/10 Singapore 2/11 Rome 7/11 Sydney 13/11 Hong Kong 14/11 Athens 20/11 Frankfurt 20/11 London 22/11 New York 23/11 San Francisco 25/11 Los Angeles 30/11 Tokyo 4/12 Sydney Singapore: Visits to Singapore Sports Council and sports facilities, Sports Medicine Centre and Sports Museum; Meetings with President and senior officials of Sports Council, Singapore Olympic Council and Swimming Coach Mr Neo Chwee Kok, reps of travel industry, and Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Italy: Tour of Parliament; Meetings with President of Lower House, President of Italian/Australian Friendship Society, Senior Office Bearers of Constitutional Affairs Committee and Committee of Industry and Commerce, President of the Senate, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Foreign Trade, Board of Management of CIT; attend reception for Delegation members. Greece: Meetings with Prime Minister, President of the Parliament, Parliamentary Whip of Opposition New Democracy Party, President of Greek Tourist Organisation, Minister for the Interior. Germany: Meeting with ATC rep, Senior Official of Lufthansa; attend press conference. London: Visit ATC Office; meetings with Minister for Sport, Minister for Tourism, High Commissioner, AIS and Customs Officials, British Airways Chief Executive, Qantas Officials; attend press conference. New York: Visit Meadowlands Sporting Complex; attend press conference with Consul-General and ATC; participate in radio interview. San Francisco: Meetings with Senior Vice President of Qantas, Tourism groups; visit Napa Valley. Los Angeles: Meeting with ATC, Australian Olympic Committee Official, President of Los Angeles Olympic Committee; host reception for officials. Tokyo: Visit Ishikawa Project; attend reception with Ambassador and AIS; meetings with Travel Groups and ATC; open ATC Travel Centre and press conference; attend reception with ATC. Ms J. Murray (spouse) Mr E. Klein, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 34,744 12,754 2,224 49,722 14,392 5,417 - 19,809 Visit 2-1984 13/3 Sydney 16/3 Auckland 13/3 Christchurch 16/3 Sydney New Zealand: Meetings with Prime Minister; Minister of Lands and Minister of Forests; Minister of Transport; Minister of the Environment; Minister of Tourism; Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Recreation and Sport; Officers of the Tourism and Publicity Department. Mr W. Peel, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) 1,832 194 551 9 3 - Visit 3-1984 17/7 Sydney 18/7 Athens 20/7 Rome 22/7 Milan 26/7 London 27/7 New York 13/8 Los Angeles 13/8 San Francisco 18/7 Athens 18/7 Rome 20/7 Milan 22/7 London 26/7 New York 27/7 Los Angeles 13/8 San Francisco 15/8 Sydney Italy: Meetings with President of ENIT, President of IRI (Overseas Department), Director-General of CIT, Director of Tourism (Lombardy), Director of Transport (Lombardy), President Industry Confederation, Mayor of Florence, Mayor of Milan. London: Meetings with Secretary of State for Sport and Recreation, Secretary of the MCC, sporting personalities. USA: Attend Olympic Games in Los Angeles; meetings with President and Officials of International Olympic Committee, Officials of the LA Olympic Committee, Officials of Olympic Committees from Canada, Sweden and other countries, foreign dignitaries visiting LA, Australian IOC members, Co-ordinator Olympic Tennis Committee, various LA Olympic sponsors associated with presentation of Games, Australian Team Members, Chairman of N. W. Ayer Inc. and various promotional groups. Ms J. Murray (spouse) Mr E. Klein, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 29,472 15,646 4,194 49,312 6,946 6,589 - 13,535 THE HON. NEAL BLEWETT, MP, MINISTER FOR HEALTH Visit 1-1983 23.9 Melbourne 26.9 Rome 28.9 Paris 1.10 London 1.10 Montreal 8.10 Ottawa 12.10 New York 12.10 San Francisco 24.9 Rome 26.9 Paris 28.9 London 1.10 Montreal 1.10 Ottawa 8.10 New York 12.10 San Francisco 14.10 Sydney Attend 7th Commonwealth Health Ministers Meeting, Ottawa; Ministerial discussions. Mrs Blewett Mr W. Bowtell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,100 6,968 445 26,513 6,567 3,193 . . 9,760 MRS BLEWETT 28.9 Paris 30.9 Manchester 28.9 Manchester 30.9 London MR BOWTELL 14.10 New York 21.10 Amsterdam 14.10 Amsterdam 22.10 Sydney On recreation leave-at own expense. Visit 2-1984 4.5 Melbourne 6.5 Rome 11.5 Geneva 14.5 Oslo 15.5 Frankfurt 17.5 Prague 18.5 Vienna 19.5 Belgrade 20.5 Dubrovnik 22.5 Belgrade 24.5 Athens 5.5 Rome 6.5 Geneva 11.5 Oslo 14.5 Frankfurt 15.5 Prague 17.5 Vienna 18.5 Belgrade 19.5 Dubrovnik 20.5 Belgrade 22.5 Athens 25.5 Sydney Attend World Health Assembly, Geneva; Discussions on reciprocal Health Care Agreements with Yugoslavia and Greece. Ministerial discussions. Mrs Blewett Mr P. Baulderstone, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,717 6,288 2,135 25,140 5,683 2,085 . . 7,768 Visit 3-1985 17.1 Sydney 22.1 San Francisco 23.1 Atlanta 29.1 New York 31.1 Washington 5.2 London 7.2 Hong Kong 17.1 San Francisco 23.1 Atlanta 23.1 New York 29.1 Washington 1.2 London 6.2 Hong Kong 8.2 Sydney Discussions concerning national drug abuse policies and acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Discussions on reciprocal Health Care Agreements with United Kingdom. Ministerial discussions. Mr W. Bowtell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,923 8,011 2,033 19,967 6,572 2,908 . . 9,480 MR BOWTELL (returned) . . 10.2 Sydney THE HON. BARRY O. JONES, MP, AS MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Visit 1-1983 11.11 Melbourne 22.11 Tokyo 26.11 Seoul 26.11 Tokyo 12.11 Tokyo 22.11 Seoul 26.11 Tokyo 27.11 Melbourne Attend Meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operative and Development Ministerial Discussions. Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,803 3,228 1,580 11,611 . . . . . . . . Visit 2-1983 6.12 Sydney Antarctica 13.12 Christchurch 13.12 Auckland 6.12 Christchurch 13.12 Auckland 13.12 Sydney Visit Antarctic bases. Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,136 113 39 1,288 . . . . . . . . Visit 3-1984 6.1 Melbourne 7.1 Los Angeles 10.1 San Francisco 11.1 Denver 11.1 Chicago 13.1 Washington 16.1 New York 17.1 Ottawa 19.1 Montreal On leave 25.1 London 6.1 Los Angeles 7.1 San Francisco 10.1 Denver 11.1 Chicago 11.1 Washington 13.1 New York 16.1 Ottawa 17.1 Montreal 19.1 Baltimore 27.1 Melbourne San Francisco: President, Genentech Incorporated Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (University of California). Denver: Agrigenetics Corporation Boulder Solar Energy Research Institute, Boulder Chicago: United Oil Products, Des Plaines, Illinois Fermilab (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory), Batavia, Illinois Washington: President National Academy of Sciences Met officials of Science Foundation Discussions with Dr R. Nader and also had talks with President of the National Academy of Engineering; and the Director, Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs, State Department and the Director of the International Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. New York: Discussions with Chairman of Agrigenetics Corp Vice President of IBM and President of National Science Board Visited IBM Research Laboratories. Ottawa: Discussions with President of the National Research Council of Canada, Minister of Science and Technology and with Vice President of MITEL. Consultations with Minister for International Trade, the Science Council of Canada and Ministers for Economic Development, Science and Technology. Montreal: Visited GAMMA Institute Baltimore: Had talks with officials of National Bureau of Standards and William D. Carey, Exec Director American Association of the Advancement of Science. Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,720 2,319 545 12,584 . . . . . . . . THE HON. GORDON SCHOLES, MP, AS MINISTER FOR DEFENCE Visit 1-1983 1.6 Sydney 3.6 Wellington 3.6 Bay of Islands 5.5 Auckland 1.6 Wellington 3.6 Bay of Islands 3.6 Auckland 5.6 Melbourne Ministerial discussions Annual ANZ Defence Ministers Meeting Ms L. Turner, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,085 386 62 1,533 985 33 . . 1,018 Visit 2-1983 14.6 Canberra 14.6 Townsville 16.6 Pt Moresby 16.6 Tari 16.6 Mendi 17.6 Wewak 18.6 Lae 19.6 Rabaul 19.6 Pt Moresby 14.6 Townsville 14.6 Pt Moresby 16.6 Tari 16.6 Mendi 16.6 Wewak 17.6 Lae 18.6 Rabaul 19.6 Pt Moresby 19.6 Brisbane Discussions with Ministers Visit 12 CE Workshop Visit Moem Barracks; Visit Papua New Guinea Defence Academy and Bomana and Bitipaka war cemeteries. Mr J. Shaw, Journalist, Ministerial Media Group (a) (b) (c) (d) 20* 248 854 1,122 20* 813 . . 833 *Special Purpose aircraft costs met by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Visit 3-1983 12.7 Sydney 13.7 San Francisco 21.7 Washington 21.7 San Francisco 22.7 Honolulu 12.7 San Francisco 13.7 Washington 21.7 San Francisco 21.7 Honolulu 23.7 Sydney Attend ANZUS Council Meeting; Ministerial discussions and briefings. Mr T. Rowe, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 7,662 5,889 162 13,713 6,010 2,491 . . 8,501 Visit 4-1984 16.4 Melbourne 20.4 Bangkok 22.4 Hong Kong 26.4 Kuala Lumpur 26.4 Singapore 28.4 Penang 28.4 Singapore 16.4 Bangkok 20.4 Hong Kong 22.4 Kuala Lumpur 26.4 Singapore 28.4 Penang 28.4 Singapore 29.4 Melbourne Bangkok Ministerial discussions Visit Military Technical Training School, Royal Thai Air Force base; Briefings at Wattana Nukom, Head Quarters Division Force, and Refugee Holding centre. Ministerial discussions Kuala Lumpur Ministerial discussions- Singapore Tour of Tengah Air Base, 35 Squadron, 92 WGDET and Rifle Company. Call on Governor; Chief Minister; visit RAAF Centre HQIADS. Mr R. Mills, Senior Private Secretary Mr S. O'Connor, Journalist, Ministerial Media Group (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,969 3,610 5,155 13,734 78 3,313 . . 11,207 Visit 5- 18.6 Melbourne 19.6 Honolulu 19.6 Los Angeles 24.6 Washington 24.6 Pittsburgh 24.6 Penn State 24.6 Pittsburgh 26.6 Washington 1.7 London 2.7 Cairo 3.7 El Gorah 3.7 Cairo 4.7 Bahrain 18.6 Honolulu 19.6 Los Angeles 20.6 Washington 24.6 Pittsburgh 24.6 Penn State 24.6 Pittsburgh 24.6 Washington 26.6 London 1.7 Cairo 2.7 El Gorah 3.7 Cairo 3.7 Bahrain 5.7 Melbourne Ministerial discussions USA Call on Commander in Chief-Pacific. Meeting with Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Discussions with defense officials. Britain Call on Secretary of State for Defence, Minister of State for Armed Forces, and Chief of Defence Staff. Call on Chief of Defence Procurement. Egypt MFO Briefing. Mr R. Mills, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 14,636 10,114 15,229 39,979 6,840 . . . . 8,976 Visit 6-1984 15.7 Canberra 15.7 Ohakea 18.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 15.7 Ohakea 15.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 18.7 Canberra Attend ANZUS Council Meeting Mr R. Mills, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,793* 189 33 17,015 20* 163 . . 183 THE HON. MICHAEL DUFFY, MP, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS Visit 1-1984 12.6 Melbourne 13.6 Honolulu 19.6 Los Angeles 19.6 Toronto 21.6 Ottawa 24.6 New York 26.6 Washington 29.6 Paris 2.7 Dublin 4.7 London 6.7 Singapore 12.6 Honolulu 13.6 Los Angeles 19.6 Toronto 19.6 Ottawa 21.6 New York 24.6 Washington 27.6 Paris 29.6 Dublin 2.7 London 5.7 Singapore 7.7 Melbourne Talks with Government officials and visits to private companies involved in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. Mrs Duffy Mr. M. Fleming, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,817 9,911 87 29,815 6,885 3,426 . . 10,311 MR FLEMING 21.6 Ottawa 22.6 New York 21.6 New York Travelled at private expense and rejoined Minister in Washington on 24.6 THE HON. BARRY COHEN, MP, AS MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT Visit 1-1983 26.9 Sydney 28.9 San Francisco 1.10 Los Angeles 5.10 London 5.10 Glasgow 6.10 Barra 6.10 Glasgow 7.10 Perth 8.10 Aviemore 11.10 Inverness 11.10 Glasgow 11.10 London 14.10 New York 16.10 Honolulu 26.9 San Francisco 28.9 Los Angeles 2.10 London 5.10 Glasgow 5.10 Barra 6.10 Glasgow 6.10 Perth 7.10 Aviemore 8.10 Inverness 11.10 Glasgow 11.10 London 11.10 New York 14.10 Honolulu 17.10 Sydney San Francisco: Asian Art Museum, Californian Association of Science, San Francisco Marina and Zoo. Los Angeles: Visit Los Angeles office of the Australian Film Commission, Warner Bros Studio, Australian American Chamber of Commerce. London: Tate Gallery, Meetings with Ministers for Environment and for Industry and Technology, British Council, Great Britain Arts Council, Visit Victorian and Albert Museum, Visit Australian Book Fair. Perth: Countryside Commission. Inverness: 3rd World Wilderness Congress. New York: 49th Parallel Gallery. Mrs Cohen Mr S. Sergi, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,101 5,767 1,597 27,465 7,484 3,596 . . 11,080 MR SERGI 6.10 London 6.10 Glasgow Visit 2-1984 9.4 Sydney 12.4 Tokyo 15.4 Beijing 17.4 Xian 18.4 Chengdu 20.4 Wolong 20.4 Chengdu 22.4 Chonging 25.4 Wuhan 26.4 Shanghai 27.4 Hong Kong 10.4 Tokyo 12.4 Beijing 15.4 Xian 17.4 Chengdu 18.4 Wolong 20.4 Chengdu 21.4 Chonging 24.4 Wuhan 25.4 Shanghai 26.4 Hong Kong 28.4 Sydney Tokyo: Meetings with Japanese Ministers-Education/Environment. Beijing: Visit Ministery of Culture, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Urban and Rural Construction and Environmental Protection. State Council. Wolong: Giant Panda Reserve. Mrs Cohen Mr P. Conway, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,346 3,726 1,761 13,833 4,500 977 . . 5,477 Visit 3-1984 3.7 Sydney 3.7 Wellington 5.7 Mt Cook 5.7 Christchurch 6.7 Auckland 3.7 Wellington 3.7 Mt Cook 5.7 Christchurch 5.7 Auckland 6.7 Sydney Attend 13th Meeting of Council of Nature Conservation Ministers Mr M. Danby, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,185 623 32 1,840 1,317 201 . . 1,518 Visit 4-1984 24.7 Sydney 27.7 Athens 31.7 Rome 2.8 Paris 2.8 Manchester 2.8 Liverpool 6.8 London 8.8 New York 10.8 Washington 11.8 Baltimore 16.8 New Orleans 16.8 Los Angeles 25.7 Athens 27.7 Rome 31.7 Paris 2.8 Manchester 2.8 Liverpool 2.8 London 6.8 New York 8.8 Washington 10.8 Baltimore 11.8 New Orleans 16.8 Los Angeles 18.8 Sydney Athens: Meeting with Minister for Culture and Science. Rome: Meeting with Minister for Cultural Affairs, Deputy-Minister for Foreign Affairs. Visit Pigorini Museum, Museum of Musical Instruments, Capatolini Museum. Paris: Meeting with Minister for Culture. Visit Museum of Popular Arts and Traditions. Liverpool: Liverpool Garden Festival. London: Meetings with Minister for Arts and Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. New York: Meeting with Minister for Environment. Visit Museum of Modern Art and Metropolitan Museum of Art. Washington: Visit Foundation of Australian American Bicentennary Committee, US State Department, US Environment Protection Agency and American Folklife Centre. New Orleans: Attend Expo 84. Mrs Cohen Mr S. Sergi, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 22,993 10,808 4,235 38,036 7,288 3,056 . . 10,344 THE HON. A.C. HOLDING, MP, MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS Visit 1-1984 27.7 Melbourne 28.7 Rome 1.8 Geneva 4.8 Strasbourg 4.8 Zurich 8.8 London 28.7 Rome 28.7 Geneva 1.8 Strasbourg 4.8 Zurich 4.8 London 10.8. Melbourne Geneva: Briefings for Working Group in Indigenous People. (WGIP). Address to United Nations WGIP. Appointments with United Nations Representatives Director International Labor Organisations United Nations Centre for Human Rights Chief International Instruments Chief Prevention of Discrimination Chief of Racial Discrimination Task Force Representative of World Council of Churches Former Chairman of WGIP Norwegian Observers of WGIP. Strasbourg: Meeting with representatives of the Council of Europe. London: Meeting with official of British Museum and Commission for Racial Equality. Mr K. Wilson, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,775 5,277 134 16,186 6,388 2,372 . . 8,760 THE HON. TOM UREN, MP, AS MINISTER FOR TERRITORIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Visit 1-1984 16.4 Sydney 16.4 Auckland 19.4 Rotorua 19.4 Auckland 16.4 Auckland 16.4 Rotorua 19.4 Auckland 19.4 Sydney Attend Local Government Minister's Conference Mr M. Gallagher, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,122 189 32 1,343 1,022 37 . . 1,059 SENATOR N. BOLKUS (REPRESENTING THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS) Visit 1-(Extension of private visit)-1985 7.1 Baltimore 7.1 Miami 7.1 San Salvador 13.1 Managua 13.1 San Salvador 7.1 Miami 7.1 San Salvador 7.1 Managua 13.1 San Salvador 13.1 Los Angeles Attend the inauguration of President Ortega of Nicaragua Ms K. Hunter (Spouse) (a) (b) (c) (d) 300 399 . . 699 . . . . . . . . (Recommenced private travel) SENATOR THE HON. SUSAN RYAN AS MINISTER F0R EDUCATION AND YOUTH AFFAIRS Visit 1-1983 19.10 Sydney 20.10 London 23.10 Dublin 29.10 Paris 31.10 Copenhagen 1.11 Oslo 4.11 Stockholm 5.11 Amsterdam 6.11 Singapore 20.10 London 20.10 Dublin 23.10 Paris 29.10 Copenhagen 31.10 Oslo 1.11 Stockholm 4.11 Amsterdam 6.11 Singapore 7.11 Sydney Attend Australia/Ireland Bicentennial Conference; Attend United Nations Economic Scientific and Cultural Organisation General Conference; Ministerial discussions Mr W. Lang, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,768 2,836 8,425 22,029 6,680 1,614 . . 8,294 AS MINISTER FOR EDUCATION Visit 2-1985 22.1 Sydney 23.1 Christchurch 25.1 Queenstown 25.1 Christchurch 22.1 Christchurch 23.1 Queenstown 25.1 Christchurch 25.1 Melbourne Attend Australian Education Conference Dr A. Thomas, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,145 207 33 1,385 1,045 88 . . 1,133 SENATOR THE HON. GARETH EVANS, QC., AS ATTORNEY-GENERAL Visit 1-1983 16.6 Melbourne 23.6 London 26.6 New York 30.6 Washington 30.6 San Francisco 3.7 Brisbane 17.6 London 23.6 New York 26.6 Washington 30.6 San Francisco 2.7 Brisbane 3.7 Melbourne United Kingdom: Discussions with: Minister for Trade and senior officials Minister of State (Foreign Office) Secretary of State (Home Office) Attorney-General Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs USA: Discussion with: Assistant Attorney-General (Baxter) Assistant Attorney-General for Administration Associate Deputy Attorney-General Chairman, Federal Trade Commission Partners of Wald, Harkrader and Ross Attorney-General of the United States Australian Ambassador Legal Advisor State Department President of Legal Services Corporation Assistant Attorney-General (McGrath) Mrs Evans Mr C. Maxwell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,523 4,970 360 21,853 7,295 2,027 . . 9,322 MR MAXWELL 26.6 Washington 30.6 San Francisco 26.6 San Francisco 2.7 Brisbane Visit 2-1984 20.4 Melbourne 21.4 Christchurch 22.4 Mt Cook 24.4 Te Anau 28.4 Rotorua 28.4 Auckland 20.4 Christchurch 21.4 Mt Cook 22.4 Te Anau 24.4 Rotorua 28.4 Auckland 28.4 Melbourne Attend New Zealand Law Society Conference and present a paper on human rights legislation Mrs Evans Miss S. Tongue, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 216 199 65 2,424 . . 381 . . 1,098 MISS TONGUE 20.4 Sydney 21.4 Auckland 28.4 Rotorua 29.4 Auckland 20.4 Auckland 21.4 Rotorua 28.4 Auckland 29.4 Sydney Visit 3 27.6 Melbourne 27.6 Sydney 30.6 Tokyo 30.6 Osaka 3.7 Shanghai 4.7 Xian 7.7 Beijing 7.7 Hong Kong 27.6 Sydney 28.6 Tokyo 30.6 Osaka 30.6 Shanghai 3.7 Xian 4.7 Beijing 7.7 Hong Kong 8.7 Melbourne Japan: Visited Tokyo University Law Faculty Discussions with Minister of Justice and Justice Iko (Constitutional Lawyer) and Mr N. Matsunaga, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Visited the Japanese Supreme Court, Ministry of International Trade and Industry and the Cultural Affairs Agency China Visited East China Institute of Politicial Science and Law and a juvenile reformatory Opened Australian Consultate-General Had talks with Minister of Justice, the Procurator-General and the President of the Supreme Peoples Court, the China Law Society and the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade Mrs Evans Mr C. Maxwell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,672 2,064 3,392 14,128 4,287 422 . . 4,709 THE HON. J. S. DAWKINS, MP, AS MINISTER FOR FINANCE Visit 1-1983 31.7 Sydney 4.8 London 7.8 Paris 8.8 Geneva 10.8 Bonn 10.8 Geneva 10.8 London 10.8 Montreal 12.8 Ottawa 13.8 Montreal 13.8 Quebec 13.l Montreal 15.8 New York 17.8 Washington 18.8 San Fransisco 1.8 London 4.8 Paris 7.8 Geneva 8.8 Bonn 10.8 Geneva 10.8 London 10.8 Montreal 10.8 Ottawa 12.8 Montreal 13.8 Quebec 13.8 New York 15.8 Washington 17.8 San Fransisco 20.8 Sydney Ministerial discussions Ms K. George (spouse) Mr M. Delaney, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 17,351 12,087 350 29,788 6,567 3,873 . . 10,440 Visit 2-1984 2.2 Sydney 3.2 London 9.2 Paris 10.2 Oslo 16.2 Paris 18.2 London 18.2 Frankfurt 19.2 Berlin 19.2 London 3.2 London 3.2 Paris 9.2 Oslo 10.2 Paris 16.2 London 18.2 Frankfurt 18.2 Berlin 19.2 London 21.2 Sydney Attend Conference of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris: Ministerial discussions Berlin: Represent Australia at Film festival. Ms K. George (spouse) Mr G. Gardner, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 17,533 11,906 2,114 31,553 6,722 3,692 . . 10,414 MS GEORGE 2.2 Sydney 3.2 London 18.2 Paris 18.2 Frankfurt 19.2 Berlin 3.2 London 3.2 Paris 18.2 Frankfurt 18.2 Berlin 19.2 Paris Travelled privately thereafter. THE HON. JOHN KERIN, MP, MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY Visit 1-1983 30.4 Sydney 1.5 London 5.5 Geneva 7.5 Brussels 9.5 Geneva 9.5 Frankfurt 11.5 Singapore 1.5 London 1.5 Geneva 5.5 Brussels 7.5 Geneva 9.5 Frankfurt 10.5 Singapore 12.5 Sydney Lead Australian Delegation to United Nations Sugar Conference; Ministerial discussions. Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,944 4,382 347 13,673 7,090 1,111 . . 8,201 Visit 2-1983 17.6 Canberra 18.6 Sydney 21.6 San Fransisco 24.6 Washington 1.7 New York 1.7 Detroit 2.7 Windsor 3.7 Toronto 5.7 Ottawa 6.7 Winnipeg 6.7 Regina 6.7 Vancouver 6.7 San Fransisco 17.6 Sydney 18.6 San Francisco 21.6 Washington 24.6 New York 1.7 Detroit 1.7 Windsor 2.7 Toronto 3.7 Ottawa 5.7 Winnipeg 6.7 Regina 6.7 Vancouver 6.7 San Francisco 8.7 Sydney Attend 9th Ministerial Session of World Food Council; Ministerial discussions with United Nations Officials, Ministerial discussions with Canadian Minister, officials and industry representatives. Dr Verrier (Spouse) Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,707 6,714 1,739 28,160 6,328 2,795 . . 9,123 Visit 3-1983 29.7 Brisbane 2.8 Pt Moresby 29.7 Pt Moresby 2.8 Sydney Attend meeting of Australian Agricultural Council. Mr A. Gleeson, Private Secretary Ms M. Conley, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) 714 376 32 2,416 918 . . Visit 4-1983 3.11 Canberra 3.11 Sydney 6.11 London 7.11 Canberra 8.11 London 9.11 Rome 11.11 Baghdad 13.11 Kuwait 16.11 Bahrain 16.11 Dubai 16.11 Shiraz 18.11 Tehran 19.11 Bombay 3.11 Sydney 4.11 London 7.11 Canberra 8.11 London 8.11 Rome 10.11 Baghdad 11.11 Kuwait 13.11 Bahrain 16.11 Dubai 16.11 Shiraz 16.11 Tehran 18.11 Bombay 20.11 Sydney Ministerial discussions; Attend Food and Agriculture Conference. Dr Verrier (spouse) Mr A. Gleeson, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,619 4,329 2,155 27,103 6,388 2,349 . . 8,737 DR VERRIER 3.11 Sydney 9.11 London 4.11 London 9.11 Rome (rejoined Minister) MR GLEESON 3.11 Sydney 6.11 London 4.11 London 6.11 Rome Returned with Minister via Middle East Visit 5-1984 12.4 Sydney 13.4 Tokyo 16.4 Seoul 16.4 Tokyo 13.4 Tokyo 13.4 Seoul 16.4 Tokyo 17.4 Sydney Attend Conference on Participation of Developing Countries in International Trading System, Ministerial discussions. Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (Japan and Korea only) (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,657 562 426 5,645 4,658 612 . . 5,270 17.4 Sydney 19.4 Auckland 17.4 Wellington 19.4 Sydney Ministerial discussions. Mr A. Gleeson, Private Secretary Visit 6-1984 12.5 Sydney 16.5 Tokyo 20.5 Beijing 21.5 Kunming 24.5 Chengdu 25.5 Guilin 26.5 Guangzhou 28.5 Hong Kong 29.5 Singapore 13.5 Tokyo 16.5 Beijing 20.5 Kunming 21.5 Chengdu 24.5 Guilin 25.5 Guangzhou 26.5 Hong Kong 28.5 Singapore 30.5 Sydney Ministerial discussions; observe Yummen Riverstock and pasture development project at Xiaoshao. Dr Verrier (spouse) Mr J. Tanzer, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,684 4,178 4,892 18,754 402 151 . . 554 MR TANZER 29.5 Singapore 29.5 Jakarta 1.6 Bali 28.5 Jakarta 29.5 Bali 2.6 Sydney Visit 7-1984 27.6 Sydney 28.6 London 30.6 Geneva 1.7 Paris 28.6 London 28.6 Geneva 30.6 Paris 3.7 Sydney Ministerial discussions; attend International Sugar Agreement negotiations. Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,488 1,162 . . 7,688 540 56 . . 596 MS MCKAY 1.7 Paris 6.7 London 6.7 London 8.7 Sydney (Ms McKay on leave 2-6 July) THE HON. A. S. PEACOCK, MP, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION Visit 1-1983 20.6 Melbourne 27.6 London 27.6 New York 1.7 Washington 5.7 New York 6.7 Los Angeles 21.6 London 27.6 New York 27.6 Washington 1.7 New York 5.7 Los Angeles 8.7 Melbourne London: Lead Liberal Party delegation to the International Democrat Union/European Democrat Union Meeting. London, Washington, New York: Held discussions Mr B. Jeffriess, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,195 11,222 572 21,989 7,615 4,248 . . 11,863 Visit 2-1984 5.8 Brisbane 8.8 Port Moresby 5.8 Port Moresby 8.8 Cairns Attend opening of Papua New Guinea National Parliament. Mrs Peacock Mr P. Woolcott, Private Secretary, Grade 2 (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,376 187 64 1,629 507 61 . . 568 Visit 3- 19.12 Sydney 20.12 Bombay 23.12 Addis Ababa 24.12 Bombay 24.12 Singapore 20.12 Bombay 20.12 Addis Ababa 23.12 Singapore 24.12 Singapore 25.12 Sydney Speak to Ethiopian officials, foreign aid authorities and view refugee camps. Mr P. Woolcott, Private Secretary, Grade 2 (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,878 383 39 5,300 4,778 270 . . 5,048 SENATOR THE HON. D. L. CHIPP Visit 1-1984 7.7 Melbourne 11.7 Singapore 15.7 Frankfurt (Period 25 to 30.7 in Ireland) 31.7 London 6.8 Athens 6.8 Singapore 10.8 Jakarta 7.7 Singapore 12.7 Frankfurt 15.7 London 31.7 Athens 6.8 Singapore 6.8 Jakarta 11.8 Melbourne Investigation of matters concerning placement of cruise missiles, export of Australian uranium and environmental matters dealing with acid rain and water pollution. Mrs Chipp (a) (b) (c) (d) 14,503 9,131 149 23,783 . . . . . . . . KEY (a) Travel (includes vehicle hire) (b) Accommodation and meals (c) Associated and incidental expenditure (d) Total expenditure * Travel by Special Purpose aircraft TABLE 2 The following Ministers have advised of sightseeing deviations or trips taken in the course of official overseas travel: Minister Date Details The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP (Prime Minister) June 1983 Attended last session of Prudential Cup cricket match Aust v NZ-London Nov. 1983 Visited Newport Harbour to inspect Australian 12 metre yachts challenging for the Americas Cup-Rhode Island Jan./Feb. 1984 Visited Katsura Imperial Villa-Kyoto Visited UN Memorial Cemetery-Seoul Visited the Temple of Heaven and Fragrant Hills Temple complex-Beijing Visited the Old City of Shanghai and Museum-Shanghai Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh (as Minister for Resources and Energy) Oct. 1984 Sightseeing at the Great Wall, Ming Tombs, Summer Palace and Forbidden City-Beijing Nov. 1984 Sightseeing in London, Los Angeles and Paris The Hon. W. G. Hayden, MP (Minister for Foreign Affairs) May 1983 Visited Spanish Riding School, Vienna and conducted sightseeing during weekend transit to Salzburg Sept./Oct. Stayed at Latina near Rome (23-24 September) with brief visits to Naples and Pompeii during the period. Toured the New England area of the United States during the weekend of 1-2 October Nov. 1983 Sightseeing in Sumatra during weekend visit (26-27 November) Jan. 1984 Visited the Sound and Light show and the Valley of the Kings during visit to Egypt. Toured the Old City of Jerusalem during visit to Israel August 1984 Sightseeing in the Colmar area during weekend stop (5 August) and around Korcula (19 August) Sept. 1984 Sightseeing around Old Lisbon on 8 September. Inspected Mayan ruins at Copan, 23 September Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC (as Attorney General) June/July 1983 Visited Oxford on 18 June April 1984 Visited Christchurch, Mount Cook and Te Anau 20-24 April June/July 1984 Sightseeing-Shanghai 1 July Visit to entombed warrier site Xian 4 July Sightseeing-Beijing afternoon 5 July The Hon. John Kerin, MP (Minister for Primary Industry) May 1983 One day in Geneva-no official duties Nov. 1983 Minister's wife spent 4 days in Britain while Minister travelled to Australia and back for emergency Caucus meeting May 1984 Mr J. Tanzer broke journey at own expense June/July Ms McKay spent 6 days in Paris at private expense The Hon. Stewart West, MP (as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) July-Aug. 1983 Short visit to the National Museum in Kuala Lumpur (14 August) Aug. 1984 Visit to the Mexico City National Museum (9 August) The Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP (as Minister for Science and Technology) Jan. 1984 The Minister took 5 days leave in London at private expense at the completion of the official intinerary. This leave was approved by the Prime Minister The Hon. Michael Duffy, MP (Minister for Communications) June 1984 Travel by Senior Private Secretary 22-24 June New York-Washington. All costs met privately The Hon. Tom Uren, MP (as Minister for Territories and Local Government) Apr. 1984 One coach trip to Rotorua arranged as part of the Conference Footnote The table does not include rest days that are the entitlement of Ministers, Members and Public Servants travelling overseas on official overseas travel; nor transit stops necessitated by airline scheduling. (Question No. 341) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) Does the Commonwealth Government provide funds to the Royal Newcastle Hospital. (2) Does the Commonwealth Government issue guidelines or otherwise control the quality of health care at the Royal Newcastle Hospital. (3) Did a teacher named Dr Bruce Palmer die at home in Newcastle in late 1983 after a heart attack; if so: (a) what was the age at death and what was recorded as the cause of death; (b) in the days before his death did he twice visit the Royal Newcastle Hospital or another hospital in Newcastle where he was diagnosed as suffering from indigestion, and discharged; and (c) were any tests made as to the chest pains of which he complained. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Not directly. The Commonwealth Government provides funds to the New South Wales Government in respect of public hospitals. (2) No. The quality of health care in public hospitals is a State health authority responsibility. (3) The following details were provided by the Royal Newcastle Hospital through the New South Wales Health Department: `(a) The age at death was 34 years. There is no record as to the cause of death as Dr Bruce Palmer did not die at this hospital. (b) Dr Palmer visited Royal Newcastle Hospital twice on the day prior to his death where he was diagnosed as suffering from muscular pain involving the chest wall. (c) A chest x-ray and ECG was performed, neither of which revealed any abnormality. It would appear that on both occasions, satisfactory physical examinations were performed.' (Question No. 342) Senator Cooney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: (1) What number of people aged between 75 and 80 years have had major surgery in Victoria in the 12 months to date. (2) What number of people aged 80 years and over have had major surgery in Victoria in the 12 months to date. (3) What number of the surgical procedures referred to in (1) above were paid by Medicare. (4) What number of the surgical procedures referred to in (2) above were paid by Medicare. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: PUBLIC HOSPITALS The following information has been provided by Health Department, Victoria, in relation to Victorian public hospitals during the period 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985. This is the most recent 12 months period prior to the date of the honourable senator's question, for which the information is available. (1) Major surgery was performed on 5,306 persons between the ages of 75 and 79 years. (2) Major surgery was performed on 5,221 persons aged 80 years and over. (3) Of the total in (1) above 3,698 persons were treated as Medicare patients, that is free of charge for both medical/surgical services and for accommodation. Medical/surgical services rendered to the remaining 1,608 persons, except for compensable patients, would have attracted Medicare benefits but these private patients would have been responsible for accommodation charges, usually covered by private insurance benefits. (4) Of the total in (2) above 3,703 persons were treated as Medicare patients, that is free of charge for both medical/surgical services and for accommodation. Medical/surgical services rendered to the remaining 1,518 persons, except for compensable patients, would have attracted Medicare benefits but these private patients would have been responsible for accommodation charges, usually covered by private insurance benefits. Notes-1. In respect of public hospitals major surgery is defined as any principle procedure code beginning with `5' as contained in Chapter 5 of `International Classification of Procedures in Medicare', 9th Edition, WHO, 1976. 2. The figures provided will slightly underestimate the actual level of surgery performed in public hospitals because a small proportion of total cases (5 per cent) will not have received diagnosis/procedure codes at time of analysis. PRIVATE HOSPITALS In private hospitals in Victoria during the period 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985: (1) Major surgery was performed on 1,136 persons between the ages of 75 and 79 years. (2) Major surgery was performed on 1,031 persons aged 80 years or over. (3) and (4) Medical/surgical services rendered to all patients, except compensable patients, in (1) and (2) above would have attracted Medicare benefits but these private patients would have been responsible for accommodation charges, usually covered by private insurance benefits. The commonwealth also pays to private hospitals a subsidy of $40, $30 or $20 per occupied bed day depending on their classification into categories 1, 2 or 3. Notes-1. In respect of private hospitals major surgery is defined as an item in the table of medical services in respect of which a fee greater than $400 was specified on 1 November 1982 in relation to New South Wales. (Question No. 390) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 June 1985: (1) What will be the effective rate of assistance for advanced metal working machine tools in 1985-86 and 1986-91 as a result of the Government's decision of 30 May 1985. (2) What will be the effective rate of assistance for standard machine tools for 1985-86 and 1986-91 as a result of the Government's decision of 30 May 1985. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Detailed estimates of effective assistance afforded metal-working machine tools over the period of the new bounty arrangements introduced by the Government from 1 July 1985, are not available. The Industries Assistance Commission has however provided as a guide only, the following provisional estimates of effective assistance for metal-working machine tools resulting from the new bounty arrangements: (1) for advanced metal-working machine tools, the average effective rate in 1985-86 corresponding to the bounty rate of 40 per cent is some 55 per cent. From 1 July 1986 until 30 June 1991, the bounty rate of 35 per cent implies an average effective rate of the order of 45 per cent. (2) for standard metal-working machine tools, the average effective rate for 1985-86 will be around 35 per cent (corresponding to the initial bounty rate of 30 per cent), falling to an average of some 25 per cent thereafter when the bounty rate is 25 per cent. The above estimates have been made on the assumption that all other factors, apart from the bounty, remain unchanged from the time the new bounty arrangements were implemented. The estimates are average rates only, and as such effective rates will, of course, vary between manufacturers of machine tools. The effective rate of assistance afforded the production of a particular machine tool will be affected by a number of factors, including the amount of value added in-house by the manufacturer (the bounty now being paid on the basis of factory cost in-house value-added), the tariff rates applicable to imports of components and other materials used in machine tool manufacture. (Question No. 451) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) When the decision was made to discontinue funding of Kindergarten and Pre-school education after December 1985, was the Commonwealth Government under the misapprehension that all Pre-school education in Queensland was provided by the State Government. (2) Are in excess of 18,000 children in Queensland enrolled in community-run Kindergartens which are supported by Government funding but not directly controlled by the Government. (3) Does the Minister agree in view of the fact tht these community-run Pre-schools have relied on 25 per cent of their funding coming from the Pre-School Block Grants Scheme that the withdrawal of the Commonwealth Government from this scheme will mean that these Pre-schools will have to impose major increases in fees. (4) What effect will the Commonwealth Government's decision have on families of low income and single parent families in Queensland. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Pre-school education is a responsibility of the State Government, from which the requested information may be obtained. (3) and (4) The Commonwealth's decision to terminate the pre-school block grant was conveyed to States early, to enable them to review the assistance given to pre-school education well in advance of the 1986 school year. I understand that the Queensland Government's Budget for 1985-86 includes adequate provision to offset the termination of Commonwealth funding for pre-schools. (Question No. 493) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Do any vehicles in the Commonwealth car fleet currently use Liquefied Petroleum (LP) gas for fuel; if so, what proportion of the Commonwealth car fleet operates on LP gas. (2) Will the Government convert Commonwealth cars currently using petrol to LP gas. (3) Would the running costs of the overall fleet be reduced by conversions to LP gas; if so, by how much. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services operates a fleet of some 8,300 passenger vehicles and of these 114 use LP gas as a fuel. (2) There are no plans to convert Department of Local Government and Administrative Services vehicles, currently using petrol, to LP gas. (3) Some savings in running costs for the overall fleet could be achieved depending upon the cost of conversion, the expected economic life of the vehicle, its location and the relative cost of fuel and LP gas. A recent analysis has indicated that high kilometerage (over 50,000 kms per annum for a medium size 4 cylinder sedan) is necessary to recover conversion costs. Whilst some chauffeur driven pool vehicles and some Australian Federal Police pursuit and patrol vehicles cover the required high kilometerage, LP gas conversions have not proceeded for several operational reasons, including loss of space and reduction in engine performance. (Question No. 532) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs proposing to establish an interim body to temporarily replace the National Aboriginal Conference. (2) Has the Minister asked the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Regional representatives for their views on what they want to see as a representative and advisory structure for their region. (3) Has the Minister been advised that the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Regional representatives desire a separate and complete representational consultative and advisory structure for the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula region. (4) What action does the Minister propose taking to comply with this request. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. I announced on 30 June interim arrangements under which the Government will consult with Aboriginal organisations and communities until a replacement consultative organisation has been established. (2) Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Regional representatives have made representations to me in respect of a representative and advisory structure for their region. (3) Yes. (4) The views of Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Regional representatives will be considered along with others when final recommendations are presented by Miss Lois O'Donoghue, CBE, AM, following further consultations which are proposed. Senator Walsh —On 10 September 1985 (Hansard, 10 September 1985, page 320), Senator Brownhill asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the decision by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) to picket the Mudginberri abattoir took the dispute out of the arbitration system. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not correct to say that it was the AMIEU decision to picket that took the dispute out of the arbitration system. The decision to take the matter to the Federal Court was made by the employers, with considerable support from the National Farmers' Federation. This decision was the reason the dispute was taken out of the arbitration system. The use of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act in the Government's view does not resolve disputes. The Government's position is that it does not, in any way, condone the tactic of a secondary boycott. However, the Government does not believe that such action is so different in nature from other forms of union action in support of their industrial claims that it should be singled out to be dealt with under the Trade Practices Act, rather than through the established industrial channels. The Government maintains that provisions such as s. 45D only serve to exacerbate a dispute and resort to them may result in a worsened industrial relations climate not only between the parties but in the relevant industry as a whole. The Government considers that the proper forum for resolution of disputes is in the conciliation and arbitration system. Senator Button —On 10 September 1985 (Hansard, page 327) Senator Watson asked, without notice, the following question: (1) What measures have been taken by the Government to encourage General Motors-Holden's Ltd or a consortium to produce six-cylinder engines in Australia. (2) Have any limited imports of the Nissan six- cylinder engine for GMH commenced. (3) Is there any possibility that a six-cylinder engine plant will be established in Australia in the future, following the substantial fall in the Australian dollar, which makes importation of the engine less attractive than previously. In my answer to the honourable senator's question on 10 September 1985, I stated that I would be seeking a more comprehensive answer from the Automotive Industry Authority and would be advising, subject to commercial confidentiality, the honourable senator in due course. The Authority has since advised me that it is unable to divulge any information regarding the discussions that have been held with various companies over the manufacture of six-cylinder engines in Australia as the discussions are not only highly confidential but also raise issues of a commercially sensitive nature. With regard to the limited imports of Nissan six-cylinder engines, I have been informed that General Motors-Holden's Ltd have imported some engines which are currently being tested locally. It is a matter of public knowledge that GM-H will be using imported Nissan six-cylinder engines from January 1986, to allow them to conform with the requirements associated with the introduction of lead free petrol. However, even with the importation of this engine, GM-H are still required to achieve 85 per cent local content under the Government's automotive policy. Senator Gareth Evans —On 11 October (Hansard, page 1088) Senator Robertson asked me a question about Ambassador Morrison's visit to East Timor. I undertook to provide further information on the details of Ambassador Morrison's visit. That information is as follows: Ambassador Morrison arrived in Dili, East Timor, around midday on 7 October. He had meetings with Governor Carrascalao, the Chairman of East Timor's Provincial Assembly, Mr Valente, the Commander of the Territorial Forces, Colonel Rahardje, the Apostolic Administratior, Msgr Belo, the Chairman of East Timor's Provincial Court, Judge Siregar and health and education officials. The Ambassador visited Comarco Prison on 8 October. He was provided with a briefing by the Prison Commandant and was taken on an escorted tour of the prison. The Ambassador did not seek to speak with Cancio da Sousa Gama nor any other specific prisoner. The Ambassador noted, however, that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross have good access to the prison and are able to conduct confidential interviews with prisoners, without any prison or government officials being present. On 9 October, the Ambassador travelled by road to Manatuto, some 65 kilometres east of Dili. He departed Dili early in the afternoon of 9 October. Other Embassy officials held meetings with Government health, public works and agricultural officials as well as officials of the Catholic Church. Two Embassy officials also visited Viqueque, Los Palos, Baucau and Atauro Island and travelled by road from Dili to Kupang in the neighbouring province of Nusa Tenggara Timur (West Timor). Ambassador Morrison had no contact with the Fretelin Armed Forces Commander during his visit. (Question No. 505) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) How many pensioners, who lost their pensions following the introduction of the assets test on 21 March 1985, have appealed against the decision. (2) How many appeals have been successful. (3) How many of the appeals in (1) and (2) are, or were, from primary producers. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) At at 20 September 1985 there had been 2,074 appeals lodged under the assets test. That figure included persons who had either lost their pensions or who had their rate of pensions varied. (2) As at 20 September 1985 there had been 446 appeals conceded by the department, 514 had been settled as the revaluation of property by the department was accepted by the pensioner and 31 had been upheld by the department following a recommendation from a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. (3) Statistics indicating the occupation of an appellant are not kept by the Department of Social Security. (Question No. 514) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How many light aircraft accidents were reported in Australia in the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to date in 1985. (2) How many of these accidents resulted in fatalities, and how many people were killed in each year referred to in (1). (3) What were the makes and models of aircraft involved in each of the years mentioned. (4) What was the ratio of twin-engined light planes to (a) light aircraft accidents and (b) light aircraft fatalities during those years. (5) What safety procedures are required before a light aircraft enters Australian airspace. (6) Who undertakes safety checks, and how regularly are they made. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) 1983, 234. (b) 1984, 190. (c) 1985, 119 as at 18 September 1985. (2) 1983-21 fatal accidents, 49 fatalities; 1984-18 fatal accidents, 31 fatalities; 1985-8 fatal accidents, 22 fatalities as at 18 September 1985. (3) See following tables. (4) (a) 1983-38 light twin aircraft accidents, 16.2 per cent; 1984-37 light twin aircraft accidents, 19.5 per cent; 1985-20 light twin aircraft accidents, 16.8 per cent as at 18 September 1985. (b) 1983-7 light twin aircraft fatalities, 33 per cent; 1984-5 light twin aircraft fatalities, 27 per cent; 1985-1 light twin aircraft fatality, 12.5 per cent as at 18 September 1985. (5) Australian aircraft are required to be certificated to standards appropriate to their weight, intended operational category and complexity. The certification is undertaken by the holder of a certificate of approval granted by the Department of Aviation. International aircraft operated by contracting states to the International Civil Aviation Organisation observe similar requirements. (6) Safety checks are undertaken by maintenance organisations who hold a certificate of approval, licensed aircraft maintenance engineers and persons authorised for specialist tasks. The frequency of the checks is an approved period determined by the aircraft manufacturer and the Department of Aviation. The inspection period may vary according to the aircraft type and operating experience. Registration Make and model of aircraft Year of accident VH-BFL... Aerocdr 100 180... 1983 VH-BBM... Airparts 24 A4... 1983 VH-KSF... Airparts 24 950... 1983 VH-JSK... Amer Air AA-5B... 1983 VH-IFI... Amer Air 5 A... 1983 VH-FXO... Amer Air 5 B... 1983 VH-IFY... Amer Air 5 A... 1983 VH-MBA... Auster 3 F... 1983 VH-DEX... Beech A23 A... 1983 VH-UML... Beech C23... 1983 VH-UMF... Beech C23... 1983 VH-SHP... Beech C23... 1983 VH-BZQ... Beech E33... 1983 VH-CFK... Beech V35... 1983 VH-DDC... Beech 35 C33... 1983 VH-FWL... Beech 36... 1983 VH-BKM... Beech A36... 1983 VH-BFB... Beech A36... 1983 VH-DAJ... Beech A36... 1983 VH-EUM... Beech A36... 1983 VH-FIV... Beech 58... 1983 VH-ADB... Beech 58... 1983 VH-CTU... Beech 58... 1983 VH-EZE... Beech 58... 1983 VH-EZB... Beech 58... 1983 VH-DUK... Beech A60... 1983 VH-HFS... Beech 76... 1983 VH-FDG... Beech 95 B55... 1983 VH-FDT... Beech 95 C55... 1983 VH-KTE... Beech 200... 1983 VH-AAZ... Beech 200... 1983 VH-ADP... Bellanca 8 GCBC... 1983 VH-UOO... Bellanca 8 KCAB... 1983 VH-KPQ... Cessna 150 G... 1983 VH-RNJ... Cessna 150 G... 1983 VH-RZS... Cessna 150 G... 1983 VH-KMJ... Cessna 150 E... 1983 VH-KUR... Cessna 150 G... 1983 VH-RZA... Cessna 150 M... 1983 VH-WWM... Cessna 150 M... 1983 VH-PQX... Cessna 150 L... 1983 VH-RWM... Cessna 150 B... 1983 VH-IER... Cessna A150 L... 1983 VH-BUE... Cessna 152... 1983 VH-BUQ... Cessna 152... 1983 VH-BTF... Cessna 152... 1983 VH-MRP... Cessna 152... 1983 VH-WSU... Cessna 152... 1983 VH-INH... Cessna 172 N...1983 VH-SHV... Cessna 172 G... 1983 VH-TDH... Cessna 172 N...1983 VH-TEU... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-SYO... Cessna 172 M... 1983 VH-WYK... Cessna 172 M... 1983 VH-ESO... Cessna 172-P... 1983 VH-DDV... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-CSG... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-DKK... Cessna 172 E... 1983 VH-IQG... Cessna 172 M... 1983 VH-IMY... Cessna 172 M... 1983 VH-DOX... Cessna 172 F... 1983 VH-MNW... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-MCJ... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-UNR... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-WCW... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-JRC... Cessna 172-P... 1983 VH-WXK... Cessna 172 N... 1983 VH-WRX... Cessna 172-P... 1983 VH-UGP... Cessna 172 M... 1983 VH-BXG... Cessna 172N... 1983 VH-IRO... Cessna 177 RG... 1983 VH-GCW... Cessna 180 D... 1982 VH-WFZ... Cessna 180 D... 1983 VH-RBE... Cessna 180... 1983 VH-BDN... Cessna 180... 1983 VH-BDN... Cessna 180... 1983 VH-SLT... Cessna 180 D... 1983 VH-PLA... Cessna 182 H... 1983 VH-PJV... Cessna 182-R... 1983 VH-MJZ... Cessna 182 Q... 1983 VH-DFQ... Cessna 182 G... 1983 VH-AKM... Cessna 182 E... 1983 VH-PUH... Cessna 182 A... 1983 VH-TLD... Cessna 182 Q... 1983 VH-AIV... Cessna 182 Q... 1983 VH-KMM... Cessna 182 H... 1983 VH-BXW... Cessna 182 C... 1983 VH-KDW... Cessna 182 Q... 1983 VH-KRI... Cessna 182 K... 1983 VH-MIG... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-PKM... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-DKL... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-THC... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-IRL... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-FYP... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-KFS... Cessna 182-Q... 1983 VH-IQN... Cessna 182 P... 1983 VH-TMJ... Cessna R182... 1983 VH-SDG... Cessna R182... 1983 VH-UPI... Cessna 185 A... 1983 VH-IVG... Cessna A185 F... 1983 VH-KQE... Cessna A188 A1... 1983 VH-KVK... Cessna A188 A1... 1983 VH-KZI... Cessna T188C... 1983 VH-KVA... Cessna T188 A2... 1983 VH-EVQ... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-IEV... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-UWH... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-TZS... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-EJV... Cessna A188B... 1983 VH-PGO... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-EVV... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-IBQ... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-KZC... Cessna A188B-A1... 1983 VH-EJU... Cessna A188B A1... 1983 VH-MQT... Cessna T188C... 1983 VH-DPU... Cessna P206 D... 1983 VH-DVT... Cessna P206 B ... 1983 VH-TIR... Cessna U206 F... 1983 VH-SMP... Cessna 210 L... 1983 VH-AEC... Cessna 210... 1983 VH-BKD... Cessna 210 N... 1983 VH-DBU... Cessna 210 B... 1983 VH-BEV... Cessna 210 L... 1983 VH-MDG... Cessna 210 M... 1983 VH-SRJ... Cessna 210 L... 1983 VH-PZO... Cessna 210 L... 1983 VH-FOC... Cessna 210 L... 1983 VH-FOC... Cessna 210 L... 1983 VH-SWM... Cessna P210 N... 1983 VH-DTJ... Cessna 310 L... 1983 VH-EOZ... Cessna 310 L... 1983 VH-DVN... Cessna 310 R... 1983 VH-RIX... Cessna 310 Q... 1983 VH-PSB... Cessna 310 K... 1983 VH-DIL... Cessna 402... 1983 VH-ENO... Cessna 402... 1983 VH-ARQ... Cessna 404... 1983 VH-MQZ... Cessna 421... 1983 VH-BNK... Cessna 501... 1983 VH-BDK... Conaero LA4 200... 1983 VH-DUE... Czech L40... 1983 VH-ADW... De Hav 82... 1983 VH-ADW... De Hav 82... 1983 VH-KBX... De Hav DH 82-A... 1983 VH-KLH... De Hav 82 A... 1983 VH-BIN... De Hav 82 A... 1983 VH-CLY... De Hav 114 2D/A1... 1983 VH-UPD... De Hav C1 TMK10... 1983 VH-IDU... De Hav C2... 1983 VH-MWW... Embraer 110 P2... 1983 VH-ITA... Evans VP2... 1983 VH-FMK... Expermtl Acro... 1983 VH-SNZ... Govt A/C N22-B... 1983 VH-LTJ... Gulfstream 695 A... 1983 VH-CJP... Mitsu MU2B 30... 1983 VH-MLU... Mitsu MU2B-60... 1983 VH-CIV... Mooney M20 F... 1983 VH-MOP... Mooney M20 J... 1983 VH-PFQ... Partenavia P68 B... 1983 VH-IYL... Partenavia P68 B... 1983 VH-AJX... Partenania P68-C... 1983 VH-FWB... Piel 100... 1983 VH-SBQ... Piper 18 150... 1983 VH-DCQ... Piper 23-250... 1983 VH-DBF... Piper 23 160... 1983 VH-WAB... Piper 23 250... 1983 VH-FOE... Piper 24 400... 1983 VH-KLM... Piper 24... 1983 VH-PIK... Piper 25-235... 1983 VH-PPP... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-FAU... Piper 25 235/A1... 1983 VH-FOO... Piper 25 235/A1... 1983 VH-PPP... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-FAL... Piper 25 235/A1... 1983 VH-WSM... Piper 25-235/A5... 1983 VH-FAW... Piper 25 235/A1... 1983 VH-FUM... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-WNY... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-CPU... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-CDU... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-BMF... Piper 25 235... 1983 VH-TUG... Piper 25 235/A6... 1983 VH-CJV... Piper 28 R200... 1983 VH-EHK... Piper 28 R201... 1983 VH-RQQ... Piper PA28-161... 1983 VH-TVH... Piper 28 140... 1983 VH-RSM... Piper 28 140... 1983 VH-CHI... Piper 28 R180... 1983 VH-CHI... Piper 28 R180... 1983 VH-PFB... Piper 28 R180... 1983 VH-BUJ... Piper 28 235... 1983 VH-CHC... Piper 28 R180... 1983 VH-PFB... Piper 28 R180... 1983 VH-PRF... Piper 28 R201... 1983 VH-MHR... Piper 28 161... 1983 VH-RUA... Piper 28 140... 1983 VH-BZA... Piper 28 161... 1983 VH-CTF... Piper 28 140... 1983 VH-SVG... Piper 28 140... 1983 VH-CHR... Piper 28 140... 1983 VH-SWB... Piper 28 R200... 1983 VH-EVL... Piper 28 235... 1983 VH-AAS... Piper 28-161... 1983 VH-PZM... Piper 28 151... 1983 VH-KIE... Piper 28 R180... 1983 VH-DRD... Piper 30... 1983 VH-DIC... Piper 30... 1983 VH-DVX... Piper 31 350... 1983 VH-IRT... Piper 32 260... 1983 VH-UAM... Piper 32 R300... 1983 VH-STV... Piper 32 300... 1983 VH-EMD... Piper 32 R300... 1983 VH-UAM... Piper 32 R300... 1983 VH-AOP... Piper PA32-R301... 1983 VH-PWI... Piper 32 300... 1983 VH-RHF... Piper 32 RT300... 1983 VH-RHT... Piper 32 R300... 1983 VH-FSO... Piper PA34-200... 1983 VH-BRV... Piper 36-285... 1983 VH-TKZ... Piper 36 375... 1983 VH-KKT... Pitts S1-S... 1983 VH-IWC... Pitts S1... 1983 VH-WEB... Pitts S2 A... 1983 VH-SCM... Rockwell 114... 1983 VH-WJC... Rockwell 685... 1983 VH-EZI... Rutan VARI EZE... 1983 VH-EZM... Rutan VARI EZE... 1983 VH-EVH... Transav PL12... 1983 VH-SUO... Transav PL12... 1983 VH-BWG... Victa 100... 1983 VH-MUA... Victa 115... 1983 VH-CAP... Victa 115... 1983 VH-TUB... Volmer VJ21... 1983 VH-AGA... Aerocdr 500 A... 1984 VH-MXD... Airparts 24 950... 1984 VH-IXL... Airtract AT301... 1984 VH-SZV... Amer Air 5 A... 1984 VH-ESC... Amer Air 5... 1984 VH-WXH... Amer Air 5 B... 1984 VH-XXY... Avnspier Robin-R2160... 1984 VH-JBN... Ayers S2R... 1984 VH-PDI... Beech H18... 1984 VH-ENU... Beech E33... 1984 VH-CFK... Beech V35... 1984 VH-CFH... Beech V35... 1984 VH-CEA... Beech 35 C33... 1984 VH-TYZ... Beech 36... 1984 VH-WHH... Beech A36... 1984 VH-FEL... Beech A36... 1984 VH-FEO... Beech D55... 1984 VH-TTL... Beech E55... 1984 VH-BGC... Beech 58... 1984 VH-DTU... Beech 58... 1984 VH-ETV... Beech 58... 1984 VH-WGS... Beech 58... 1984 VH-TGC... Beech 65 A80MK2... 1984 VH-MFS... Beech 76... 1984 VH-HBJ... Beech 77... 1984 VH-HBI... Beech 77... 1984 VH-ATB... Beech 95 C55... 1984 VH-FEM... Beech 95-B55... 1984 VH-WSW... Beech 95 C55... 1984 VH-UOO... Bellanca 8 KCAB... 1984 VH-IGT... Britnor 2 A20... 1984 VH-ISI... Britnor 2 A21... 1984 VH-NTC... Britnor BN2-A21... 1984 VH-KZE... Cessna A188... 1984 VH-DIV... Cessna 150 L... 1984 VH-KUB... Cessna 150 G... 1984 VH-RXL... Cessna 150 G... 1984 VH-KMJ... Cessna 150 E... 1984 VH-TDX... Cessna 150 M... 1984 VH-BFA... Cessna 150 M... 1984 VH-DNE... Cessna 150 L... 1984 VH-WWU... Cessna 150 M... 1984 VH-WYK... Cessna 172 M... 1984 VH-RLT... Cessna 172 H... 1984 VH-KZG... Cessna 172-N... 1984 VH-IVO... Cessna 172 N... 1984 VH-WSL... Cessna 172 N... 1984 VH-DJE... Cessna 172 G... 1984 VH-DYM... Cessna 172 M... 1984 VH-POS... Cessna 172-N... 1984 VH-RWQ... Cessna 172-N... 1984 VH-WXX... Cessna 172 M... 1984 VH-TEF... Cessna 172 N... 1984 VH-SAA... Cessna 180 K... 1984 VH-SHX... Cessna 180 J... 1984 VH-WAM... Cessna 182 A... 1984 VH-FRV... Cessna 182 Q... 1984 VH-DJN... Cessna 182 G... 1984 VH-CJC... Cessna 182-A... 1984 VH-CKJ... Cessna 182 Q... 1984 VH-LMG... Cessna 182-N... 1984 VH-EIL... Cessna 182 Q... 1984 VH-WMF... Cessna 182 Q... 1984 VH-EGZ... Cessna 182 M... 1984 VH-KLJ... Cessna 182-A... 1984 VH-EFN... Cessna 182 L... 1984 VH-UCX... Cessna 182 L... 1984 VH-RFG... Cessna 182 B... 1984 VH-KRH... Cessna 182 K... 1984 VH-DZL... Cessna 182-D/A1... 1984 VH-UCN... Cessna R182... 1984 VH-SFS... Cessna A185-F... 1984 VH-DGP... Cessna A188 A2... 1984 VH-EVU... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-FZD... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-SHK... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-SHK... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-UJR... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-EVV... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-TDJ... Cessna A188B... 1984 VH-WJR... Cessna A188B A1... 1984 VH-MXH... Cessna A188B-A1... 1984 VH-MXJ... Cessna T188C... 1984 VH-HAM... Cessna T188C... 1984 VH-AZC... Cessna U206 G... 1984 VH-TSR... Cessna U206 E... 1984 VH-FRT... Cessna U206 G... 1984 VH-EKJ... Cessna U206 F... 1984 VH-WTJ... Cessna U206 F... 1984 VH-RHK... Cessna 210... 1984 VH-EJC... Cessna 210 L... 1984 VH-MGI... Cessna 210 M... 1984 VH-EDE... Cessna 210 L... 1984 VH-PKR... Cessna 210 M... 1984 VH-FYR... Cessna 210 L... 1984 VH-TFC... Cessna 210-N... 1984 VH-KWW... Cessna 210 L... 1984 VH-FOK... Cessna 210 N... 1984 VH-AOI... Cessna 210-N... 1984 VH-MDI... Cessna 210 M... 1984 VH-OBH... Cessna T303... 1984 VH-FFA... Cessna 310 R... 1984 VH-KUX... Cessna 337 G... 1984 VH-BYB... Cessna 340 A... 1984 VH-RZY... Cessna 401 A... 1984 VH-UBZ... Cessna 402 B... 1984 VH-CWG... Cessna 402 B... 1984 VH-CJA... Cessna 402... 1984 VH-ADK... Cessna 421 B... 1984 VH-FSA... Cessna Citation 500... 1984 VH-AOW... Conaero LA4-200... 1984 VH-WAP... De Hav 82 A... 1984 VH-PFL... De Hav 82 A... 1984 VH-ATJ... De Hav 82 A... 1984 VH-FAS... De Hav 82 A... 1984 VH-AQU... De Hav DH 84... 1984 VH-RJK... De Hav C1 A1... 1984 VH-IDH... De Hav C2... 1984 VH-HFG... De Hav Sea Fury-308... 1984 Not Reg... Evans VP1... 1984 VH-FJ1... Fuji 200 180... 1984 VH-MSM... Maule M5 235C... 1984 VH-ERS... Mooney M20 F... 1984 VH-MIY... Mooney M20-J... 1984 VH-CGJ... Mooney M20 F... 1984 VH-ERD... Mooney M20 F... 1984 VH-ERY... Mooney M20 F... 1984 VH-UUG... Partavia P68-8... 1984 VH-FAO... Partavia P68 B... 1984 VH-PNZ... Partavia P68 B... 1984 VH-FPI... Piper 18 150... 1984 VH-ECN... Piper PA 19... 1984 VH-IAC... Piper 23 250... 1984 VH-BOO... Piper 24 400... 1984 VH-EHR... Piper 25 235... 1984 VH-KLZ... Piper 25 235... 1984 VH-CCS... Piper 25 235... 1984 VH-MYE... Piper 25 235/A1... 1984 VH-BSB... Piper 25 235/A1... 1984 VH-MYE... Piper 25 235/A1... 1984 VH-SPE... Piper 25 235... 1984 VH-WGC... Piper 25 235... 1984 VH-RQN... Piper 28 R201... 1984 VH-KKQ... Piper PA25-236... 1984 VH-PZC... Piper 28 151... 1984 VH-CNS... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-FSD... Piper 28 R201... 1984 VH-PPB... Piper 28 180... 1984 VH-MTU... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-DWV... Piper 28 180... 1984 VH-TVJ... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-PZQ... Piper 28 161... 1984 VH-SVQ... Piper 28 181... 1984 VH-AJW... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-PXU... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-PDB... Piper 28 235... 1984 VH-RVL... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-MGG... Piper 28 140... 1984 VH-IMT... Piper 28 235... 1984 VH-TON... Piper 30... 1984 VH-KFD... Piper 31... 1984 VH-SBK... Piper 32 R300... 1984 VH-BMH... Piper 32 300... 1984 VH-JGH... Piper PA32-301... 1984 VH-TLT... Piper 32 300... 1984 VH-RPB... Piper 32 300... 1984 VH-CST... Piper 32 300... 1984 VH-MVT... Piper 32 300... 1984 VH-ISB... Piper 32-300... 1984 VH-SVM... Piper 34 200T... 1984 VH-STN... Piper PA34-200T... 1984 VH-ALQ... Piper 36 375... 1984 VH-FET... Piper PA36-300... 1984 VH-FEQ... Piper PA36-300... 1984 VH-HAV... Piper PA38-112... 1984 VH-IGZ... Pitts S1... 1984 VH-IGZ... Pitts S1... 1984 VH-SZA... Pitts S2 A... 1984 Not Reg... Quickie Q2... 1984 VH-REV... Reims R172 E... 1984 VH-EDZ... Reims 172 H... 1984 VH-WBW... Rockwell S2R... 1984 VH-MML... Rockwell 685 685... 1984 VH-PWL... Smith 600... 1984 VH-ULB... Stits SA6B... 1984 VH-RWT... Thorp T18... 1984 VH-BPR... Transav PL12... 1984 VH-IVH... Transav PL12... 1984 VH-BNV... Victa 100... 1984 VH-MGO... Wittman W8... 1984 VH-EOF... Airparts 24 A4... 1985 VH-NRK... Avnspier Robin-R2160... 1985 VH-WBU... Ayres SR2... 1985 VH-ABD... Bede BD4... 1985 VH-UMM... Beech C23... 1985 VH-ILO... Beech V35 B-MK2... 1985 VH-DYS... Beech V35 MK2... 1985 VH-ILM... Beech D55... 1985 VH-KNE... Beech D55... 1985 VH-RLE... Beech 58... 1985 VH-EZB... Beech 58... 1985 VH-FDR... Beech 65 A80-8800... 1985 VH-BGY... Beech 76... 1985 VH-FDP... Beech 95 A55... 1985 VH-IGT... Britnor 2 A20... 1985 VH-DGZ... Cessna 150 L... 1985 VH-SPG... Cessna 152... 1985 VH-TNX... Cessna 152... 1985 VH-PLX... Cessna 172 G... 1985 VH-WHK... Cessna 172 N... 1985 VH-DXE... Cessna 172 M... 1985 VH-RGT... Cessna 172 K... 1985 VH-WND... Cessna 172 N... 1985 VH-CRB... Cessna 172-B... 1985 VH-RXN... Cessna 172 M... 1985 VH-MAE... Cessna 172 M... 1985 VH-DNV... Cessna 172 F... 1985 VH-TSQ... Cessna 172 N... 1985 VH-PVO... Cessna 172-N... 1985 VH-KGA... Cessna 172 N... 1985 VH-DZA... Cessna 172 A... 1985 VH-TCB... Cessna 172 M... 1985 VH-SAA... Cessna 180 K... 1985 VH-EYA... Cessna 180 A... 1985 VH-APW... Cessna 180 K... 1985 VH-EKH... Cessna 182 N... 1985 VH-PLF... Cessna 182 H... 1985 VH-PLF... Cessna 182 H... 1985 VH-TGJ... Cessna 182 Q... 1985 VH-EKF... Cessna 182 N... 1985 VH-WPC... Cessna 182 F... 1985 VH-DFR... Cessna 182 Q... 1985 VH-DBT... Cessna 182 E... 1985 VH-KRH... Cessna 182 K... 1985 VH-KMM... Cessna 182 H... 1985 VH-SMV... Cessna R182... 1985 VH-KPA... Cessna 185 B... 1985 VH-SWE... Cessna A185 E... 1985 VH-KVK... Cessna A188 A1... 1985 VH-KQA... Cessna A188 A1... 1985 VH-IEQ... Cessna A188B A1... 1985 VH-PLU... Cessna A188B A1... 1985 VH-PQT... Cessna U206... 1985 VH-APH... Cessna U206 G... 1985 VH-HOC... Cessna 210-N... 1985 VH-RSD... Cessna 210-N... 1985 VH-RQD... Cessna 210 M... 1985 VH-KOM... Cessna 310 N... 1985 VH-EDK... Cessna 310 L... 1985 VH-KVY... Cessna 310 L... 1985 VH-TWQ... Cessna 310 R... 1985 VH-TMP... Cessna 404... 1985 VH-UOP... Cessna 404... 1985 VH-LAD... Cessna 404... 1985 VH-DAY... Champion 7 KCAB... 1985 VH-EJX... Conaero LA4 200... 1985 VH-AWY... Conaero LA4-200... 1985 VH-BFW... De Hav DH82-A... 1985 VH-IME... De Hav DHC2... 1985 VH-AAY... De Hav C2... 1985 VH-SJX... Evans VP2... 1985 VH-WFE... Gates 35 A... 1985 VH-SLK... Grumman 164 A... 1985 VH-CCT... Grumman 164 A... 1985 VH-MVO... Mooney M20 J... 1985 VH-WOO... Piper 18 150... 1985 VH-AMX... Piper 22 160... 1985 VH-JEN... Piper PA23-250... 1985 VH-AVE... Piper 23 250... 1985 VH-EMG... Piper PA 23-250... 1985 VH-TPE... Piper 25 235... 1985 VH-TOX... Piper 25 235... 1985 VH-PZW... Piper 28 151... 1985 VH-PIH... Piper 28 180... 1985 VH-PZH... Piper 28 161... 1985 VH-WIN... Piper 28 R200... 1985 VH-UMB... Piper 28 161... 1985 VH-IJK... Piper 28 161... 1985 VH-MAM... Piper 28 140... 1985 VH-PMW... Piper 28 151... 1985 VH-RUZ... Piper 28 151... 1985 VH-KIE... Piper 28 R180... 1985 VH-PPL... Piper 28 140... 1985 VH-RBT... Piper 30... 1985 VH-TOD... Piper 30... 1985 VH-UOY... Piper PA30... 1985 VH-WJK... Piper 31 350... 1985 VH-AOX... Piper 31 350... 1985 VH-PNB... Piper 32 R300... 1985 VH-MGQ... Piper 32 300... 1985 VH-CXX... Piper 32 TR300T... 1985 VH-MAR... Piper 32 300... 1985 VH-WSZ... Piper 32 300... 1985 VH-KGR... Piper 34 200T... 1985 VH-AOQ... Piper 34-200T... 1985 VH-FLA... Piper 38-112... 1985 VH-UAL... Piper 38 112... 1985 VH-MHO... Piper 38 112... 1985 VH-DDS... Pitts S1... 1985 VH-KGZ... Stevens AKRO... 1985 VH-LLL... Rawlins RW Rand KR2... 1985 VH-CXR... Ryan STM... 1985 VH-IGV... Smith 600... 1985 VH-UQG... Socata 880 B... 1985 VH-KGZ... Stevens ARKO... 1985 VH-MVC... Stod Ham Glasair SH2... 1985 VH-MLJ... Transav PL12... 1985 VH-SLA... Wittman W8... 1985 VH-MAD... Zenith CH200... 1985 (Question No. 553) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) How many hectares of rural land, State by State, have been or are already quarantined because of unacceptable residues of organo-chlorine insecticides. (2) What regions of Australia are the most affected by insecticide residues. (3) What industries or farming activities are the most affected by such insecticide residues. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The quarantining of rural land deemed unsuitable for agricultural production is a matter for individual State Departments of Agriculture. I am therefore not able to provide details as to how many hectares of rural land may have been subject to quarantine because of unacceptable levels of organo-chlorine residues or the regions which might be most affected. I have requested my Department to approach the respective State Government departments for the details sought by the honourable senator. (3) As organo-chlorine residues may persist in soil for many years and because they are fat soluble, the most affected farming activities may be cattle production and dairying where under severe conditions of soil contamination, residues may arise in meat and milk following grazing. Residues may also be taken up by some crops and may occur in fish but I am not aware that these are areas of concern. (Question No. 560) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Was the `covering unsigned note' referred to in answer to Senate Question on Notice No. 411 (see Hansard, 12 September 1985, p. 512) written or typed on plain paper or paper with a letterhead. (2) Was the note written or typed. (3) If the note was on letterhead paper, what was that letterhead. (4) How many names were forwarded and was that list written or typed. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) The covering unsigned note was handwritten on plain paper, without a letterhead. (4) The list of 98 names was typed and on plain paper without a letterhead. Senator Grimes —On 12 September 1985 (Hansard, pages 503-4), Senator MacGibbon asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the changes made to the administrative procedures for detecting fraud and overservicing. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: At a hearing before the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee on 27 March 1985 I announced the Government's decision to transfer all of the existing surveillance and investigation functions of the Department of Health to the Health Insurance Commission. In summary the reasons for the changes were: The need to limit duplication and waste between the Department and the Health Insurance Commission in such areas as data handling, contact with the medical profession and fraud investigation; to give effect to the desirable principle that all operational aspects of Medicare should be brought together in the one organisation; to eliminate the need for unnecessary and therefore wasteful transfer of data between the two organisations; to establish the foundation of new approaches to addressing abuses of Medicare benefits arrangements. This decision has brought the payment and surveillance and investigation functions under one roof, with consequent savings and increase in administrative efficiency. I also made it perfectly clear that the decision was not in any sense to be interpreted as diminishing this Government's total commitment to deal severely with any medical practitioner involved in schemes deliberately to defraud the Commonwealth. I would add that subsequent to my statement to the Public Accounts Committee, the Government, after discussion with the medical profession, has announced that it will introduce legislation during the current Sittings to amend the penalty and disqualification provisions of the Health Insurance Act which will deal more effectively with the problem of medical fraud.