Thursday, 14 November 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 185 citizens), Brownhill (from 59 citizens) and Chaney (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. We the undersigned express our concern over the sale of the Belconnen Mall due to the likely detrimental effect on the provision of community facilities presently existing in the Belconnen Mall. 1. In particular we seek guarantees that the present Child Care Centre and Community Facilities be retained by incorporating the same into the conditions of sale of the Belconnen Mall and that the services will receive the same real level of funding and support currently provided by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. 2. That a financial commitment to the building of Stage 4 of the Belconnen Mall listed under Section 14C in the Ordinance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority be undertaken. Stage 4 to consist of Community Facilities such as Community Hall, large glassed enclosed community park, exhibition space, health and fitness club, ice rink, amusement centre and office accommodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. by Senators Ryan (from 282 citizens) and Vigor (from 89 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Committee and parents of children associated with the J. B. Cleland Kindergarten deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-schools. This action will adversely affect in particular, low income and young families. It will affect the development of all children in pre-schools during their most formative years. Accordingly, we insist that at least the existing level of funding be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 117 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the 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; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 the Parliament will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Senator Vanstone (from 264 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils, essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement Action Programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus presently wasted organic garbage and sewerage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertilizer in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: That we recognise the Commonwealth Government's genuine concern for peace and justice. We, your petitioners, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice: 1. That we wish to express our concern about the planned Pacific Area Defence Equipment Exhibition (P.A.D.E.X.) to be held in Sydney next year, 1986. 2. That we believe that Australia should do more to encourage activities that will promote peace. 3. That we believe that exhibitions such as PADEX are a danger to world peace, encourage and fuel arms race situations between neighbouring countries. 4. That we believe that as 1986 is the United Nations ``International Year of Peace'' and PADEX is to be held in that year it indicates the flagrant disrespect the arms trade holds both the U.N. and international peace promoting groups. 5. That we believe as do the United States Department of State and Amnesty International that many of the countries invited to PADEX are ``gross violators of human rights'' and that these countries will use arms purchased via PADEX to oppress and persecute minority groups within their own national borders. 6. That we believe that for Australia to maintain any semblence of moral integrity the Commonwealth Government must publicly disassociate itself from this odious exhibition and condemn the principle of such an exhibition being held anywhere in the world. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice: 1. That they call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools' concerning proposed increases in State Aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. That they call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State Aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. That they call on the Senate and the government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to impliment all 1983 ALP election policies for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 10 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That standing order 64 be suspended for the remainder of the 1985 Budget sittings. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —Pursuant to my notice of intention yesterday, I now withdraw Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name relating to the Extradition (Republic of South Africa) Regulations (Amendment). Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I have resigned as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Senator Barney Cooney is now the Chairman of that Committee and he will take over the notices of motion which stand in my name on the Notice Paper. I express my appreciation to members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and its Secretary, Peter O'Keefe, for the support and assistance given to me while I have been Chairman. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-On behalf of all members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances-it is a most bipartisan committee, as everyone knows-I place on record in the Senate our appreciation of the very worthy services of Senator Coates as Chairman of the Committee. Since this Government took office in 1983 Senator Coates has been Chairman of the Committee. He has served very well. It is a rather more onerous task than most people would appreciate. An enormous amount of reading, understanding and application must be put in by the Chairman. Senator Coates has served the Committee and the Senate very well. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to prohibit the carrying out of operations ancillary to the recovery of minerals and drilling or mining generally in the Marine Park without parliamentary approval. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I withdraw General Business, notices of motion Nos 12, 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 34, 66, 68, 70, 74, 87 and 102, standing in my name, and, on behalf of Senators Sibraa, Reynolds and Foreman, I withdraw General Business, notices of motion Nos 13, 17 and 88. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I withdraw General Business, notice of motion No. 9, standing in my name, and, on behalf of Senators Boswell and Lewis, I withdraw General Business, notices of motion Nos 10, 16, 24, 32, 36, 59, 86, 94, 106, 41 and 42. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I withdraw General Business, notice of motion No. 11, standing in my name, and, on behalf of the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and Senator Sanders, I withdraw General Business, notices of motion Nos 35, 60 and 51. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: The Senate notes- (a) statements made by the Opposition spokesman on Education, Mr Shack, with respect to the creation of extra tertiary places on a full-fee basis for Australian students; (b) that such a move would create a two-tiered education system, one being based on merit and the other on wealth; and (c) that such a move would erode proper academic standards of admittance as those entrants from wealthy backgrounds would be able to buy their way past education quota requirements. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Child Care Act 1972, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Grimes, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill aims to achieve a fairer basis for funding child care centres. This Government has demonstrated a major commitment to the provision of child care in Australia. Since we were elected there has been significant growth in child care services. The number of places for full day care has increased from 37,580 in June 1982 to 63,535 in June 1985-an increase of about 70 per cent. Expenditure on children's services has increased from $65 million in 1982/83 to an expected $143 million in 1985/86. This rate of growth has been much faster than in other comparable programs and far in excess of economic growth. Notwithstanding our record of achievement, we were not satisfied with the level of community access to quality child care services. As a result, in December 1984 the Prime Minister announced this Government's commitment to the provision of a further 20,000 child care places over the next three years. It was a good time to re-assess funding mechanisms. The Child Care Act had been operating for over 10 years. Service providers and children's services organisations had found inequities in parts of the Act, particularly in the complex formula governing operational subsidy. There was also concern about the costs associated with maintaining child care centres. There were few, if any, incentives for service providers to keep costs down. Higher costs were subsidised by higher Government fee relief subsidies; and insufficient contribution was being made by families with higher incomes. Equity was a major concern in two senses. Firstly the Government was concerned that, despite the large growth over the last two years the Program still only reached about 7.5% of pre-school aged children. We believed that higher recurrent costs would make it difficult to continue to expand the Program beyond the additional 20,000 places we were committed to. Secondly, we were concerned to ensure that child care centres received funding on a consistent basis. Under the current funding system this is not the case. The Government decided to review the subsidy arrangements for full day care services. This review was announced by the Treasurer in the context of the May Economic Statement. Any review likely to come up with valuable long term administrative and policy change had to get to the roots of the problem. So the Government set a target of $30 million savings that it would like to achieve in a full year. But to be consistent with the Government's priorities these savings had to be found responsibly and within basic principles that reflected the need to maintain standards and quality of care and to maintain affordable child care particularly for low and moderate income earners. We were not prepared to surrender these fundamental principles. A comprehensive examination of child care funding was carried out and it became clear that it was not possible to achieve savings of more than about $10 million in a full year, without breaching the principles that had been set. I make no apology for that. The Government's purpose was to ensure that its commitment to the expansion of the child care places could be achieved, reaching as many people as possible, at a responsible cost. The changes to the subsidy arrangements provided by this Bill will ensure that the essential characteristics of quality services will be maintained and that services will be accessible to families particularly those on low incomes and with special needs. These changes are aimed at the long term future of the Program. The Government believes they establish a sound base for the expansion of the Program in the next three years and beyond. OVERVIEW OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES Before describing these changes I want to take this opportunity to review achievement under the Children's Services Program and to set the direction in which this Government will be taking the program. When the Child Care Act was introduced there were about 50 non-profit centres in this country. Today there are in excess of 800 and about 300 of these have been approved for funding by this Government since 1983. Under the Children's Services Program, but outside the Child Care Act, other services were funded to meet the child care needs of parents, particularly of working parents. 260 family day care schemes have been established, over 50 by this Government. Last year the Government put the funding of family day care on a firmer basis by increasing the operational subsidy by 20% and introducing an additional part time allowance of $3 a child. Expenditure on family day care has increased from $15m in 1982/83 to an expected $40m in 1985/86. There are 432 outside school hours care services, over 160 established by this Government. The Government regards out of school hours care as essential if child care provision is to respond to the needs of working parents. Last year the Government increased funding for these services by an average of 25%. Other services have developed under the umbrella of the Children's Services Program. These include special services to meet the needs of children who because of background, disability or where they live do not have ready access to standard child care. There are special services for Aboriginal and disabled children and children of ethnic origin and for those who live in remote and isolated areas. We are also intent on facilitating the access of Aboriginal, migrant and disabled children to centre-based care and family day care and special grants are available for this purpose. It is essential that child care is affordable for low and moderate income earners. The Government's commitment to making child care affordable is evidenced by the new fee relief system introduced in July 1984. This reform meant that families eligible under a national income test pay the same fees at the same income level. There are special provisions that ensure child care is affordable for families who have more than one child in care. Under the new arrangements fee relief will be extended and simplified to ensure that child care remains affordable. This means we are targetting a larger proportion of funds to meet income related need while continuing to subsidise all families through operational assistance. So that new services are distributed equitably and are located where they are most needed the Government last year introduced a planning model and established consultative machinery in each State. For the first time there is a rational basis for the planning and establishment of new places. There is also for the first time a long-term commitment by the Government. We will establish 20,000 new places over the next three years. This is currently estimated to cost $107 million. Over the last ten years a number of innovative programs developed under the Children's Services Program. The Family Support Services Scheme began in 1978 to stimulate the provision of services for families with dependent children. The Family Support Services Scheme continues to be administered by the Office of Child Care but it is now a separate program with its own budget allocation. Another important initiative was the Youth Services Scheme, which is now part of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP). The Children's Services Program therefore had a broad focus at a time when there were no other suitable auspices to advance important policy initiatives. With the establishment of other more targetted services, it is no longer necessary for the Children's Services Program to take initiatives across such a broad range. Accordingly we have been reassessing and focussing the objectives and direction of the program. The Children's Services Program will continue to provide funding to non-profit services that advance the developmental, social, emotional and intellectual needs of children while their parents are working, training for work or actively seeking work. The provision of an additional 16,000 full day care places gives added emphasis to this objective, as does the provision of an additional 4,500 out of school hours care places. We will also be responding to the needs of women at home and the provision of an additional 3,000 occasional care places reinforces this commitment. We will continue to ensure that all services are available to Aboriginal, disabled and migrant children and that, as appropriate, specific culturally relevant services are established for these groups. THE CHANGES Since coming to office we have taken significant steps towards achieving rationality and equity in the Program. The changes which are the subject of this Bill take this process further. They will mainly impact on centre based day care and will take effect from the beginning of April 1986. Operational Subsidy Currently operational subsidies average $30 a week and benefit all families irrespective of income. For example, families using child care centres who now pay the full price pay an average of $55 a week for full time care even though the actual cost of care is on average $85 a week. The current system is complex and leads to inequities, including market disparities in operational subsidies between centres. Another important concern is that small reductions in the number of children can lead to a big reduction in salary subsidies. Under the new operational subsidy arrangements set out in Clause 3 of the Bill, centres will get a subsidy of $16 a week for each approved place for children under 3 and $11 a week for each approved place for children aged 3 or more. This recognises the special needs of younger children and the higher costs of caring for them. These subsidies will be for services that operate for at least 8 hours and up to 10 hours a day and for at least 48 weeks a year. Additional grants will be provided to centres that are approved to operate for more than 10 hours. Current levels of operational subsidy will be reduced by about half, resulting in an average increase of $15 in a centre's full time fee to a new average of $70 a week. This does not mean that most users will pay this much more as the fee relief changes will ensure that full increases in fees will only be met by those families with higher incomes. The subsidy will be adjusted from time to time to reflect cost of living and wage increases. They will also be paid in advance in order to alleviate cash flow problems. Impact on Families The impact of the changes in operational subsidy will be reduced by changes in the fee relief system. These changes, while not requiring legislation, are an integral part of the new funding package. Higher costs resulting from the overall reduction in operational subsidy will largely be offset by greater fee relief subsidies for low and moderate income earners and by moderately increased fees to be paid by high income earners. In other words the balance of the Commonwealth's overall contribution to care has been redesigned to give increasing emphasis to income related need. Under section 12A of the Child Care Act the Commonwealth provides funds to centres so that families on low to moderate incomes pay reduced fees. These arrangements will be extended and simplified to ensure that child care remains affordable. Under the new fee relief system: the minimum fee will be increased by 5 cents an hour or $2 a week for full time care (40 hours a week); families with one child in care, whose incomes mean they pay more than the minimum fee, will pay 15 cents extra in fees for each extra dollar they earn above an assessed family income of $225 a week, until they are liable to pay the full fee. Previously the 15 cents rate applied only to families with an assessed family income of less that $467 a week; above that they paid 30 cents extra for each dollar earned; special arrangements for large families are also improved. The rate will be a uniform 20 cents for families with two or more children in care. The previous rate was 40 cents when assessed family income exceeded $467 a week; fee relief will not be offered for that part of a centre's fee in excess of $80 a week. This measure is an incentive to contain costs as centres will have to consider the additional burden on families if they want to charge a higer fee; additional assistance (Special Fee Relief) will continue, at the discretion of the centre, to families in exceptional circumstances. Special transitional assistance will be available in the first year only, to ensure that no family has to pay more than $25 a week more and to encourage centres to charge no more than $85 per week. Impact on Child Care Centres The combination of the new operational subsidy and other changes ensures the viability of centres. They will still be expected and able to operate on break-even budgets. The measures are designed to make administration much more simple for both the management committees of centres and the Government. This will save costs and centres will have a better idea of how much subsidy they will get each year. Impact on Women The Government's child care policy including the proposed changes is consistent with the Government's equal opportunity and affirmative action initiatives. The continuation and improvement of the fee relief system limits workforce disincentives and the 20,000 place commitment will result in increased access to child care. Impact on Quality The Government remains committed to providing quality care that promotes the developmental, social, emotional and intellectual needs of the child. It is for this reason that the Government has continued to provide a substantial operational subsidy irrespective of income and to provide higher subsidy for under three year olds in recognition of their need for a higher staff-child ratio. It is the responsibility of State governments to regulate child care and licence child care centres, and services funded by the Commonwealth have to comply with State government regulations. However, the Government is actively committed to funding and promoting quality child care. It is important that the Government is well informed on trends in quality and that funded services have access to professional advice and assistance on matters pertaining to programming, play activities, developmental needs of children and so on. For this reason I have asked the Australian Early Childhood Association to advise me on quality issues and to strengthen and extend their current role in providing advice and assistance to funded services. Capital, equipment and establishment grants provided under the Child Care Act will be continued and are a further indication of this Government's commitment to quality care. Financial Impact The measures provided in this Bill are expected to reduce the Government's subsidies to the Children's Services Program by $2.6 million in 1985-86 and $10.2 million in a full year. The additional administrative costs of implementing these measures are estimated to be $0.46 million in both 1985-86 and 1986-87. Child Care Objectives I have set out today, Mr President, not only to explain the purpose of this Bill, but also to provide Senators with a broader understanding of the background to the Children's Services Program and the reasons for the Government's decision to change the way in which subsidies for centres are provided. I have touched on some of the essential characteristics of the Program to which the Government is committed. Finally, I intend to outline the objectives of the Children's Services program in order to ensure that there is knowledge and understanding of the framework in which funding decisions are made. The Government's primary objective is to ensure that parents and children have access to quality children's services that are appropriate to their needs regardless of their income level, cultural background, disability or geographical location. Within this broad objective the Government's priorities are towards providing non-profit services that: promote the developmental, social, emotional and intellectual needs of children without substituting for the care they receive from their parents; are consistent with the Government's policies of equal opportunity and affirmative action, and are predominantly directed towards meeting the needs of children of working parents or parents who are undertaking vocational training to enter the workforce; encourage parent participation in management; are accessible for low and moderate income earners; focus on under school age children but also provide older children with care out of school hours and during school holidays; support parents at home with young children; assist those with special needs such as Aboriginal, migrant and disabled children and children in remote and isolated parts of Australia; and are accessible to the general community, SUMMARY Mr President, the measures in this Bill represent a fundamental redesign of child care funding arrangements. The new structure blends the objectives of equity, quality and affordability as well as simplifying the administration of the Program. In addition sensible cost controls are now contained in the structure. The Program is well placed to expand and respond to contemporary child care needs. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.10) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE BILL 1985 The Home and Community Care Bill 1985 establishes the framework for a Home and Community Care Program. The Bill authorises the Commonwealth to pay financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory under agreements with the Commonwealth for the provision of home and community care services. The companion of this Bill, which I will introduce shortly, is the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. That Bill will amend four existing Commonwealth Acts to ensure that the Home and Community Care Program operates as intended. The four Acts are: the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970; the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956; the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969; and the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969. The Home and Community Care (or HACC) Program established by the Home and Community Care Bill 1985, which contains the Agreement in the Schedule, will be a joint Commonwealth/State program. The financial assistance provided under the Bill will assist State and local governments and community organisations to provide a comprehensive range of home and community based care designed to provide basic maintenance and support services. Services are to be targetted at aged or disabled people either directly or through their carers to prevent their unnecessary or premature admission to long-term residential care. When this Government came to office, it had before it an array of reports done over the last 10 years at both the federal and State levels. These reports all recommended a change in the balance between institutional and community based services for aged and disabled people. Important among these was the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, ``In a Home or at Home: accommodation and home care for the aged'' (the McLeay Report), completed in 1982. Arguments for improving the planning and delivery of community based services have been given by organisations in the field and by aged and disabled people whose views have in many cases shaped the various reports to governments in this area. These arguments are compelling. Many people doubt their continuing ability to provide for the needs of aged or disabled family members at home. In the past, families have felt that they have no option but to encourage or seek institutional care for their relatives, even when this may be quite an inappropriate solution. The existence of services to provide on-going support should be of help to all Australian families. In the long run this should mean that nursing home beds will be used only when this is the most suitable option. It will lead to the development of a continuum of services with assessment and referral services being developed as an integral part of that overall system. What little statistical evidence we have in this field demonstrates the need to develop a comprehensive range of home based services for aged and disabled people. The 1980 Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey on Disability revealed that around 325,000 people over 65 years were severely or moderately handicapped and that over 70% of this group live in the community. That 325,000 represents 42% of the total moderately and severely handicapped population. Other data shows that only about 10% of aged people living at home regularly receive help from formal health or welfare agencies. It was clear to successive Governments that administrative arrangements in this area were cumbersome and unco-ordinated. Some services were administered and funded by the Commonwealth, while others were administered by, and cost-shared with the States. Additional complexity was caused by the split in administration of related programs between two Departments at the Commonwealth level and two or more Departments at the State level. The Government has already acted to remove this artificial barrier to effective and efficient planning and administration of services by bringing together all major welfare related service activities into one Department. However, while the planning and delivery of services remains fragmented and unco-ordinated, it can legitimately be argued that needs are not being met under the existing arrangements. On 21 August 1984 a joint press statement was issued by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Neal Blewett, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Arthur Gietzelt and myself as the then Minister for Social Security, to introduce the HACC program. Since then, there have been extensive negotiations with the States, and talks with service providers and other appropriate non-government organisations and service users on the shape and content of the Program. The views of these governments, organisations and individuals have been taken into account in formulating the Home and Community Care Program and the supporting Commonwealth/State Agreement. A feature of the new HACC program will be to ensure that service providers and users are involved in the future development of home and community care. The two main objectives of the Program are: to promote the provision of a comprehensive and integrated range of home and community care designed to provide basic maintenance and support services (both directly and through their careers), to persons within the target population and thereby to assist them to retain their independence in the community and avoid their premature or unnecessary admission to long-term residential care; and to expand and develop home and community care services through the joint co-operation of the Commonwealth, the States, local governments and community organisations representing both service providers and users under a single cost-shared arrangement. Services in a State funded under four existing Commonwealth Acts will be subsumed in the Program once the State enters into a Home and Community Care Agreement with the Commonwealth. Those Acts are: the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969, under which the Commonwealth cost-shares with the States the provision of home care services and senior citizens' centres, and cost-shares with organisations the salaries of welfare officers of senior citizens' centres; the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969 under which, in the three participating States, the Commonwealth cost-shares the provision of home based paramedical services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy; the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956 which provides for Commonwealth subsidy to home nursing organisations not exceeding the contribution of State or local governments to the home nursing service; and the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970 under which the Commonwealth provides various levels of assistance to organisations delivering meals to the aged or to invalid pensioners. The Program will provide financial assistance for recurrent or capital purposes to assist States, local governments and non-government bodies to maintain or expand appropriate services funded under one of the four existing Commonwealth Acts, or to develop agreed new service types. Services which may be funded under the Program will be included in the following 11 Sub-programs: home help or personal care (or both); home maintenance or modification (or both); food; community respite care; transport; a community paramedical service; community nursing; assessment or referral (or both); education or training for service providers and users (or both); information; and co-ordination. Financial assistance under the Program will be by way of grants to the States and the Northern Territory. In line with its responsibility for day-to-day administration under the jointly established Program, the State will either apply the financial assistance directly or will pay it to local governments or non-government agencies to be applied to services under the Program in the local area. In the first two years of the Program, Commonwealth grants have a number of components and will, in part, be matched by contributions from each participating State and the Northern Territory. The base grant consists of the Commonwealth's expenditure under the four existing Acts in the State in respect of the 1984/85 financial year indexed by a figure calculated in accordance with the formula contained in the Agreement, plus other amounts as agreed between Ministers. The State will be required to contribute and have local governments and community organisations contribute to the Program an amount equal to that spent in attracting matching Commonwealth funds under the four existing Acts in respect of 1984/85, indexed under the same formula contained in the Agreement, plus other amounts as agreed between Ministers. Commonwealth above the base funding in 1985/86 in participating States will comprise the State's share, on a resident population basis, of- the unmatched Commonwealth $10 million made available in 1984/85 and carried over to 1985/86; and an additional $25 million provided by the Commonwealth. These funds must be matched by the State on the basis of $1 State for every $3 Commonwealth. Total Commonwealth outlays in 1985/86 under the Program, including funding under the four existing Acts, is estimated to be $117 million. In 1986/87 Commonwealth above the base funding in participating States will comprise $30 million, again distributed on a resident population basis, matched by a State contribution on a resident population basis, matched by a State contribution of $1 State for every $2 Commonwealth. This injection of significant new funds in this year and next will encourage the expansion of existing services, and the introduction of new service types not previously able to be funded under the more restrictive provisions of the present legislation. In turn this will have a flow on effect in subsequent years. Total Commonwealth expenditure on home and community care services in 1984/85, 1985/86 and 1986/87 is estimated to be $317.6 million. Total State expenditure for that period is estimated to be $247.2 million, giving an estimated total Commonwealth/State expenditure of $564.8 million over 3 years. Commonwealth financial assistance in 1987/88 to a participating State will be up to 20% increase in money terms over the 1986/87 level. The exact percentage increase is to be agreed between Ministers subject to a State agreeing to increase its outlays by the same percentage. In future years, for the life of the Agreement Commonwealth financial assistance will represent a 20% increase in money terms over expenditure in the preceding year unless otherwise jointly agreed, and subject to the State agreeing to increase its outlays by the same percentage. The Home and Community Care Agreement is to be a continuing one but subject to a joint review at least every three years. If, following a review, the Commonwealth and State Ministers cannot agree on the continued operation of the Agreement, then for the two years following the failure to agree, the Commonwealth and State will provide sufficient funds to maintain the activity level of services previously funded under the Program. The actual funding amounts would be determined in accordance with the formula in the Agreement. The Agreement provides that the Commonwealth and State will jointly approve new services, the allocation of funds between all services and significant variations to such allocations, having regard to the views of local governments, service providers and service users on the needs and priorities under the program. All participating States will establish administrative mechanisms to enable service providers and users to participate in the identification of gaps in existing service delivery, the development of priorities and the evaluation of the effectiveness of services funded under the Program. Any agreed Commonwealth/State planning machinery will also, of course, need to take account of developments in related health and welfare services, particularly in the area of long-term residential care. In developing and strengthening the range of services, the priority under the HACC Program will be to provide access to ongoing care to that large number of frail aged and younger disabled people who need help but who have had little or no support in the past in receiving the services they, and their carers, require to stay at home. For this reason the prime HACC target group embraces those people whose essential requirement is for longer term basic maintenance and support services to enable them to remain in the community rather than be placed in possibly inappropriate and unnecessary institutional care. Services such as accommodation services or aids and appliances are excluded from the Program. Services of these kinds are provided under other Commonwealth/State programs. A number of services which have been provided under the existing four Acts have initially been designated as no growth areas under the HACC Program. The services so designated as compared with those for the prime HACC target group tend to meet short term and often intensive needs. Moreover, they tend to reflect a rather limited view of using support services as a means of assisting the hospital system to reduce average length of stay. The services included in the no growth category are post acute care, palliative care, services primarily for families in crisis and services designed specifically for a particular disability group. Services for these groups will be maintained at the existing level of activity subject to review over the next 3 years to determine the most appropriate source of funding. This does not mean, however, that people who suffer from a particular disability such as Multiple Sclerosis or a psychiatric disorder will be excluded from receiving services under the Program. On the contrary, such people requiring basic support as will be provided through the HACC Program will, of course, be eligible, but the new Program is not a vehicle for the provision of specialist services or for other services which have traditionally been the function of other Commonwealth or State services. Many people within the HACC target population will require more than one service. In the past, services have been delivered in a fragmented way with no co-ordination at a local level. It is our intention over the next 3 years to develop through the HACC Program, mechan- isms for achieving better co-ordination of ser- vices and for establishing the level of service needed and being provided to any one individual. The co-ordination mechanisms established may vary from State to State and from area to area but must be able to determine the hours of service for each client. Such information is basic to establishing a picture of how resources are being used; whether the package of services being provided to the individual is appropriate or whether other options including other services, medical treatment or residential care may need to be considered. The Commonwealth has also foreshadowed with the States its desire to assist in the development of a national data base to enable effective monitoring of the Program. Currently there is no nationally comparable data service provision, nor on any standards for services, and very little information on the efficiency and effectiveness of alternative methods of service delivery. During preliminary discussions the States have indicated a willingness to work with the Commonwealth to develop standard definitions and to establish a national data collection. As a significant proportion of services are in fact provided by local governments or the voluntary sector, the Commonwealth will seek to involve service providers in this developmental process. The development of standards for services is an extremely complex issue which will again require input from service providers and users. National Program Guidelines will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and their operation in each State and the Northern Territory will be agreed by Ministers. These guidelines will cover the administration of the Program, financial arrangements, eligible services and organisations, and provide for input from service providers and users on Program needs and priorities. The National Program Guidelines will be supported by more detailed Sub-Program Guidelines for each of the 11 Sub-programs to which I have earlier referred, with the latter guidelines being agreed jointly between Ministers. Under the HACC Program the government is providing for a considerable increase over the level of funds provided in the past. The financial arrangements in the third and subsequent years will provide for a sensible and planned scheduling of new initiatives in a way which will ensure better financial planning by the Commonwealth and States, and which will enable new projects to be approved throughout the life of the Agreement. Thus the Commonwealth and States will be able to co-operatively plan and develop services in the knowledge that there is a continuing commitment from both parties to provide financial support. Three States, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, as well as the Northern Territory, have to date signed the Home and Community Care Program Agreement. Negotiations are continuing with the remaining States to facilitate their involvement in the Program. The issue in these continuing discussions is not the principle of the Home and Community Care Program which has been endorsed by all State Governments. It revolves around associated matters such as long term financing, the scope and boundaries of the Program and the extent of Commonwealth involvement in joint programming arrangements. It is generally accepted that many matters relating to the Program will need to be addressed and resolved over time. A first priority must be to gain a picture of the nature, scope and coverage of present programs. An understanding of these important aspects of the programs is sadly lacking. However, we will be developing a National Home and Community Care data base as an initial strategy to achieve improvement. The first 3 years are seen as developmental ones for the Program. The present design and any jointly agreed administrative arrangements with States will reflect the Commonwealth's commitment to see that Program objectives are achieved in the most cost-effective way. Future developments will be determined when the Commonwealth, the States and the community are in a position to assess whether this new approach to the planning and delivery of needed services is successful. Service providing organisations and members of the community will naturally be concerned to know how the introduction of the Program will affect them. For that reason and in co-operation with the States, letters will go to all community organisations in receipt of Commonwealth and/or State funds to advise them of the impact. The Home and Community Care Program signals a new approach to the planning of community services in Australia, an approach which will hold out the possibility of achieving a more caring and equitable society. Services which are appropriately planned, distributed and financed provide an essential complement to other social policies in achieving social equity and needed support to ensure that our society functions properly. The introduction of broad enabling legislation and Agreements with State Governments provides the basis for the Commonwealth and States jointly to demonstrate their commitment, through cost-shared programs, to improving the quality of life for the aged and disabled who are being cared for at home. Let me emphasise again the features which mark the proposed change in approach. Firstly, the inflexibility built into the present four legislative programs will be removed. The introduction of flexible agreements allows the scope and nature of the Program to alter as community requirements change and Government priorities alter. Secondly, a joint approval process means that both Commonwealth and State Governments are involved in a partnership. Such an approach provides a mechanism to promote national priorities, to ensure that jointly agreed objectives can be achieved, and to see that State and regional differences can be recognised. Thirdly, there is a recognition that community services are not the monopoly of governments. Over the first 3 years, machinery is to be established to ensure that service providers and users are offered an on-going opportunity for involvement in priority setting. This will allow service users a vital opportunity to become involved in the planning and delivery of services which affect them. The Office for the Aged and the Office of Disability will play an important role in assessing whether this objective is achieved. I thank State and Territory Ministers for their co-operation to date and look forward to increased opportunities to develop the total Program over the coming years. I commend the Bill to the Senate. HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 I foreshadowed this Bill in my second reading speech on the Home and Community Care Bill 1985. As I explained in that speech, the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 amends four existing Commonwealth Acts. The four Acts are- the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970; the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956; the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969; and the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969. The Bill aims to ensure that the transition from funding under those Acts to the Home and Community Care Program is as smooth as possible. For an explanation of the Program, I refer honourable senators to my second reading speech on the Home and Community Care Bill 1985. The Bill provides that the four Acts cease to apply in the States which sign the Home and Community Care Agreement. Services previously funded under the four Acts will then be funded under the Home and Community Care Program. The Bill also provides that in States which have not yet agreed to participate in the Program, financial assistance under the four existing Acts will continue to be provided in respect of existing services at a level sufficient to enable those services to be maintained at their 1984/85 activity level. No new services or expansions to existing services will be approved. Funds for this purpose are only available under the Home and Community Care Program. The amendments contained in the Bill are designed both to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements, and as an indication of the Commonwealth's commitment to the Home and Community Care Program and to working co-operatively with participating States. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) Consideration of Orders of the Day relating to Government Papers; and (b) General Business, Orders of the Day No. 130 (Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1985); and No. 173 (Postal Services Amendment (Continuance of Postal Services) Bill 1985). Resumption of second reading debate. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff) agreed to: That General Business Orders of the Day Nos 25, 119 and 137 be discharged from the Notice Paper. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 11 of 1985, relating to Entitlements of Members of the Parliament and made under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, be disapproved. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(10.13) —We are debating a motion of disapproval by Senator Harradine for Determination No. 11 of the Remuneration Tribunal Committee of 1985. This determination is largely to do with the travel rights of members of parliament but the objections of Senator Harradine, I believe, are based on the words at page 81 of the determination, which says: . . .for the purposes of this entitlement `nominee' means a person with whom the senator or member has established a bona fide, stable domestic relationship: The Remuneration Tribunal's report, I might add, does not use the term `de facto relationship', which is the term used by Senator Harradine. As I indicated in the brief time I spoke to this last night, I oppose the disapproval moved by Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine, in his speech last night, spoke largely on his objections to the Remuneration Tribunal's report. He said that it reduces the capacity of this House and this Parliament to scrutinise this piece of del- egated legislation. We have heard this argument from Senator Harradine before. The Tribunal has heard it before and rejected it. I would have expected that, if one wanted to carry this to its logical extreme, this would mean, in fact, that the Remuneration Tribunal would have to bring down a determination on each and every item and number each and every item to give each and every senator and member in this place the opportunity to oppose individual items which they may have some objection to. I point out that the report of the Remuneration Tribunal is a report on a package of conditions. The Remuneration Tribunal has reported consistently this year and last year and for many years before, in this form. It has been a satisfactory form in the past. That is the manner in which reports of this kind are brought down in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and everywhere else. I think the fact that Senator Harradine has both introduced legislation at another time and now has moved this motion for disapproval demonstrates he has the capacity to scrutinise this delegated legislation. Senator Harradine expresses the view that a determination such as this is anti-marriage and anti the family. He is entitled to that view. I know he holds that view very strongly because I have heard him speak on the matter many times. We have heard other honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives speak on that matter. We have seen the media in this country have a field day in regard to this determination. It is not a view that I happen to share. The determination uses the words-I point out again advisedly: `nominee' means a person with whom the senator or member has established a bona fide, stable domestic relationship. Unfortunately, I think Senator Harradine and other members of parliament have in the past made emotive remarks to the effect that members of parliament will take their floosies overseas on trips, et cetera. I do not believe that is a rational and sensible way to debate an issue such as this in this place. I merely make the point-this is a personal view-that there are people in this community who have bona fide stable domestic relationships or, if we want to use Senator Harradine's term-who have de facto relationships for a variety of reasons. One reason people may have such relationships may be from personal convictions. Those convictions clearly are not Senator Harradine's and clearly are not those of some other people in the community. However, they may be deeply and firmly held personal convictions. I do not think it is up to us as individual senators to denigrate those views in the way they have been denigrated sometimes in this place. Secondly, the simple fact is that people may live in such relationships for reasons of necessity, as they see it. That necessity may arise out of concern for a third party. It may happen, for instance, that two people become divorced. Their remarriage may have a detrimental effect on a third party. It may be out of concern for that third party that such people will live in de facto relationships. I do not think, if this is so, that they necessarily should be condemned for that. In the past, under previous divorce legislation in this country, many people lived in such relationships. Indeed, I have had correspondence from one former conservative member of this Parliament on this very matter. There were many people who lived in such stable relationships for a very long time because it was impossible for them to do otherwise. One former member of Parliament-not a member of my Party-wrote to me saying I could use his name and circumstances in a debate such as this. I will not do so. I do not think it is necessary for me to do so. For years that person served this country in this Parliament well but lived under the cloud that someone would discover that out of necessity he and his partner were living in what people choose to call a de facto relationship. I put it to the Senate that a long-standing, stable, loving and supportive relationship-a relationship involving mutual support one for the other over many years-is hardly a relationship which is anti the family. I put it to honourable senators that that is a better example of stable family life in this country than perhaps a relationship which, although coming under the heading of `legal' in Senator Harradine's terms, may be turbulent, destructive and involve physical and mental violence and which, as many of us have seen in our lives outside this Parliament, may involve the destruction of human beings mentally and physically. In this country there is a recognition, not only in the Remuneration Tribunal's report but in other reports, in legislation and in other spheres, public and private, that people live in such relationships and that they may be stable, bona fide, long-standing and loving relationships. They are recognised. Indeed, we recognise them in Federal legislation. For instance, if this motion is carried, if Senator Harradine's disallowance goes through, a member of parliament living in one of these relationships that worry some people so much would not be able to take that person overseas. However, if that member of parliament lost his seat and became unemployed the couple would immediately be declared to be in a bona fide domestic relationship by the legis- lation of this Parliament and would be cons- idered to be in a de facto relationship, if you like. There is hardly a consistency there, although I accept that there is a difference in that in one case we are providing a benefit and in the other we are taking it away. It is for those reasons that I personally do not see the necessity to change this determination. Finally, I cannot see any reason in the world at this late stage for throwing out this determination and the whole package of decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal because of Senator Harradine's deeply felt-I accept that-and cons- cientious objection to the words on page 81. If we are to live in a tolerant society, a society which recognises that there are differences between people, this sort of determination will occur. If people object to this sort of determination I think they should object to it on the basis of their convictions and not use the derogatory terms that have been used inside and outside this place, in the media-- Senator Harradine —By whom? Certainly not by me. Senator GRIMES —I remember an interjection by Senator Harradine about Ministers taking their floosies overseas with them. Senator Harradine —By whom? Senator GRIMES —By the honourable senator. Others here can remember it too. Senator Harradine —When? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator lost his temper one day in a debate. I will find the Hansard for him. Senator Harradine —You find it and show me. Senator GRIMES —If he did not say it I apologise, but I am absolutely convinced that he did. The suggestion that what the Remuneration Tribunal is doing is striking at family stability and at the recognition and existence of marriage in this country is just not something that I believe has been sustained, certainly not in this debate, although I dare say it will be asserted in Senator Harradine's reply, as it has been in his previous contributions. It is for that reason that I do not believe this Parliament should vote for this disallowance. That is why I and, I believe, my colleagues, will oppose the disallowance. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.24) —The Opposition does not support the motion moved by Senator Harradine. We accept that Senator Harradine has raised an issue of principle which could well be the basis of separate legislation. The effect of the motion would be the rejection of all senators' and members' entitlements, if only on a temporary basis, when this clearly is not what Senator Harradine has in mind. The Opposition does not find the vehicle suggested by Senator Harradine to be the appropriate one in the circumstances. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.25) —in reply-Neither the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, nor Senator Archer has addressed himself adequately to the two matters of principle which I described to the Senate last night as being most important in motivating me to move for the disapproval of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 11 of 1985. Members of the Senate will recall that yesterday I indicated that the two issues of concern-the two matters of great principle-were the rights of the Parliament to exercise untrammelled scrutiny and control of delegated legislation and the need for the Parliament to uphold its own laws and its own view on marriage. Those were the two questions of principle which I put forward last night as being the basis for this disapproval. Neither of those bases has been undermined by the opposition of Senator Grimes and Senator Archer. In fact, Senator Grimes's whole address was based upon an irrelevancy, and that irrelevancy is what is his view or my view or anybody else's view of marriage. I was talking about the need for the Parliament to uphold its own view about marriage, which is expressed in legislation. I say to Senator Grimes that I have never been one of those who have attempted to emotionalise or personalise this subject, and he knows it. I invite him to show me where I have done that. If I have done it I will apologise, but I sincerely cannot recall ever personalising this question. Indeed, I have been asked by reporters whether I knew which member of parliament had taken which de facto partner overseas. I have stated repeatedly that that is not the question. The question is a matter of principle. Senator Grimes —With respect, I did not accuse you of doing that, nor would I. I was talking about the emotive language that was used. I did not say that you would do anything like that. Senator HARRADINE —As far as I know, I have never used the word `floosie'. I have used the accurate term `de facto'. I do not know what other word can be used on that question. Senator Grimes mentioned that the determination does not use the word `de facto'. I agree that the determination is rather intriguing in its wording. If it does not mean de facto in the normal sense of that word, what does it mean? The determination states: . . . for the purpose of this entitlement `nominee' means a person with whom the senator or member has established a bona fide, stable domestic relationship . . . Either that is a de facto or it extends to a homosexual partner. It does not say. Unless one says that it is a de facto, one is really saying that it extends to homosexual partners. I do not know whether the Tribunal means that or whether it does not mean it. We are really talking about de facto relationships as distinct from de jure relationships; that is, those which are undertaken in accordance with a contract which is part of the law of the Commonwealth and the States. I do not use that term other than to distinguish it from de jure relationships. In regard to what Senator Grimes has said, quite clearly I understand that there are persons who are in such relationships as described by him. There are other persons in other de facto relationships who are not as described by him. But it is not for me or for him to judge who is in a satisfactory de facto relationship or who is not in a satisfactory relationship. It is a question of what the law of this Commonwealth says about marriage. What does the law of the Commonwealth say about marriage? It describes and defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition of marriage contained in our Commonwealth laws. It also states that marriage and family life have been basic to the strength of our society for a long time. The Parliament, in the Family Law Act, has placed great stress on their importance. They are not my words. They are the words contained in Regulation 39 (5) (a) under the Marriage Act which an authorised celebrant must give to persons intending marriage. So the Parliament has told authorised marriage celebrants to say to persons intending to get married that the Parliament has placed great stress on the importance of marriage and family life. Senator Coates —It is not compulsory. Senator HARRADINE —No, it is not compulsory. I will come to that in a moment, Senator. That is what we have told persons intending to get married. So we are talking about the law of this nation. We are not talking about a person's personal options or preferences. As Senator Coates said, it is not compulsory. Senator Grimes has said that there are a variety of personal reasons for people not getting married. The interesting thing is that the senior private secretary to the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, sent a letter to Dr Parker, the Secretary of the Queensland Council of Churches, stating that Mr Young had in mind a particular class of de factos. I quote what Mr Young's senior private secretary said: where a single or separated member has not married because of personal preference or legal or social circumstance. What are the legal or social circumstances? It could well be that there is a party who is legally married to the member of parliament. If we do not disapprove of this, what we are virtually saying is that despite the law we will now confer an entitlement for the member of parliament to take his or her de facto overseas and not his or her spouse. That is what I am saying about where this really leads us, if we analyse what we are saying. I again emphasise that I am not interested in who has a de facto and who has not. As a matter of fact, I received a letter from a constituent which pointed out that a freedom of information search had unearthed which members of parliament had de factos and who did not. For the benefit of honourable senators I read what I said to that constituent: Your letter 18 April 1985 enclosing FOI material and names of members of parliament who have travelled overseas accompanied by their de factos at public expense has been brought to my attention. I have made it perfectly clear that it is not my desire to know or be informed of the personal details of members of parliament in this regard. This attitude has been constantly expressed by me in public debate and I do not wish to receive the information you have supplied. I therefore return the attachments to your letter of 18 April herewith. I am surprised that the point of the argument has been missed entirely. The point of concern is not who or how many members of parliament have availed themselves of the decision of the Government or of the Tribunal. The attempt of the Government and of the Tribunal to act as legislative pace setters in this area and to grant equality of status to de factos compared with married spouses, whether or not they carry with them an eligibility for financial subsidy by the taxpayer, involve a matter of great principle and strike at the existing legislative recognition of marriage. No doubt I may have lost some votes by expressing that point. But so far as I am concerned, and I make it perfectly clear-- Senator Grimes —I do not think he ever voted for you. Senator HARRADINE —As a matter of fact, it was not a he. I make it perfectly clear that that is not the point. I respect the viewpoints of other people and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives understand that. I also acknowledge that there are people in the community living in de facto relationships which have been recognised by the Parliament. As Senator Grimes would know, that recognition initially devolved-this is what I found from research that I carried out last year-from the necessity to recognise de facto relationships in the social security area, particularly in respect of pensions. If the law did not recognise such relationships in this area two people living in a de facto situation would each be able to receive the single pension and thus have a greater total pension than would a legally married couple. Of course, other pieces of legislation are based on that line of reasoning. In almost all cases the community has made a tolerant gesture to those who have not yet grasped the breadth, beauty and importance of the institution of marriage to society. Nothing that I say here should be taken as an expression of opposition to that sort of tolerant and understanding gesture by society. Senator Coates —You don't have to be paternalistic about it. Senator HARRADINE —I hope I am not being paternalistic. But we are dealing here with the question of whether or not the Parliament should uphold its own laws relating to marriage and whether or not the Parliament and parliamentarians should adopt their responsibility to give a lead in areas of public policy which underpin the law. I pass to the question of the capacity of this Parliament to scrutinise. I believe that the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise this question has been circumvented by the decision of the Tribunal to lump this matter of great public importance in with its determination dealing with stamp entitlements, charter aircraft, cars to and from the Parliament, et cetera. I cannot accept what Senator Archer says, nor what Senator Grimes inferred, that in agreeing to this motion of disallowance we would reject all members' and senators' entitlements. The plain fact is that we will not. Let me explain to the Parliament what the effect of this disallowance motion would be. It would have the effect of disallowing determination No. 11. The entitlements under that determination would then be those which were made in 1984. One would go back to the 1984 determination in respect of those entitlements. A number of honourable senators have been concerned that if this determination is disallowed we will not be able to get our fares paid to and from Canberra, our daily allowance, or whatever. That will not be the case. In fact, there are very few issues or problems that would arise if this determination were disallowed. The only area where there would be a possible problem is in the amounts available for charter aircraft and drive-yourself vehicles, and also in the area of members and senators from the Northern Territory going to Christmas Island. They are the only anomalies that would arise. They could be immediately rectified by the Tribunal which, in accordance with its own Remuneration Tribunal Act, can of its own accord or at the request of the Minister make a particular determination. I hope it is very clear that there will not be the dramatic effect that is thought to be the case. I know that a number of members of parliament consider that that is not so, but that is the advice I have received. Therefore, by disapproving this determination of the Remuneration Tribunal Review we will be saying two things to the Remuneration Tribunal. First, we will be saying: `We, the Parliament, will not permit you, the Tribunal, to exercise delegated authority in such a manner as to circumvent the rights of Parliament to adequate scrutiny and ready control over your delegated authority'. Secondly, we will be saying: `We, the Parliament, do not accept that you, the Tribunal, should set yourself up as a legislative pacesetter by conferring equality of status for de factos by comparison to legally married spouses in regard to members of parliament without the right of the Parliament readily to determine that issue'. So far as the first point is concerned, I am surprised that members on both sides of the Parliament who have expressed their views very strongly about the need for this Parliament to scrutinise delegated legislation are not supporting this motion, which is designed to do that. Why are they not supporting it? Can they not see that this is an opportunity to press the Tribunal to exercise its delegated authority in a proper manner and not to deny us the right to proper scrutiny? Senator Coates —Perhaps our opinion is that it is doing it in a proper manner. Senator HARRADINE —Is it? Senator Coates says that perhaps it is the opinion that the Tribunal is acting in a proper manner. Let me explain to Senator Coates that it is virtually impossible, as honourable senators can now see, to have this matter properly determined. The whole point is that one cannot reject part of this determination. It is not as though the Tribunal has to put its decisions on all the questions in one determination. It does not do that now. It puts, say, salaries and allowances in a separate determination. Senator Coates —The Act requires that. Senator HARRADINE —No, it does not require it. This is an important point and the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances should recognise it. It is also important for the other committees of this Parliament. Sub-section 7 (4) (b) refers to significantly related matters; that is, significant in relation to matters which are contained in sub-section 7 (1), which deals with allowances for members of parliament in the performance of their functions. It says that the Tribunal shall inquire into specifically related matters and determine or report on them. As I said last night, the letter of the Special Minister of State of 31 January 1985 referred to nine significantly related matters. My clear advice is that any of those significantly related matters could have been dealt with by way of a separate determination. The Tribunal chose not to do so and, therefore, it has made it very difficult for the Parliament to make a decision about this matter of great principle. I am disappointed that those people who have expressed their view to the thousands of Australians who have objected to this decision and who have been affronted at the decision of the Tribunal to place de factos on the same status as legally married spouses have not stood up and made that very clear. Let me ask them how they will make that an issue to be determined by the Parliament. How will that be done? There is no answer. Senator Robertson —It is not to discriminate against a member or senator in the matter. I think you are looking at it from the wrong end. You should look at it as the right of the senator or member. Senator HARRADINE —Does the honourable senator mean the right to move for the disallowance? Senator Robertson —I mean his right in terms of taking the person he wants to take overseas. Senator HARRADINE —Am I hearing correctly? Is it a question of the right of the senator or member to take the person he or she wants to take overseas? Is that what the Tribunal says? Senator Robert Ray —No, but it should say that. Senator HARRADINE —That might be Senator Robert Ray's view, but it may not be the view-- Senator Robertson —I think the vote will indicate that it is a view that is fairly widely held. Senator HARRADINE —Is that Senator Archer's view? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! This is not Question Time. Senator HARRADINE —I would be interested to know. Senator Robertson said, before I asked what was Senator Archer's view, that the Senate's attitude on this question will be indicated by the vote; that is, the Senate will vote on this issue because it believes that anybody can be taken overseas by a member of parliament. Senator Robertson —That is not what I said. That is woolly thinking. Senator HARRADINE —What did Senator Robertson say? Senator Robertson —I am talking about the rights of the individual senator. That is what we ought to be discussing. Senator HARRADINE —I agree but it cannot be discussed here in a manner which will properly determine the issue. Senator Robertson —But that is what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to impose what you feel on other people. Senator HARRADINE —That is not the point. The Parliament has a view about marriage. That view is expressed in the Marriage Act. The last time that we discussed the Marriage Act I challenged the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to amend the Marriage Act if he thought that that definition was not the view of the Parliament. I point out for the benefit of Senator Robertson that Senator Button himself said on 11 October 1984: I have accepted that the issues in this Bill- that is, my Bill- have to be addressed by this Parliament. That can be done in one way or another, be that by his Bill or to move to disallow the regulations. I tried to use the Bill and the attempt was unsuccessful because the Bill still languishes on the Notice Paper. Now I have gone the other way that Senator Button suggested; that is, moved to disallow this determination. Now, so that the issue is not properly addressed, the excuse is used by the Opposition and some members of the Government that if we do this, disaster upon disaster, it will affect other entitlements of members of parliament. If we do not do it this time and have the issue clearly before us, I give an undertaking that I will ensure that the next time a Remuneration Tribunal determination is made, if it fails to address the issue, I will seek to have it disapproved and press ahead with a private member's Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 12 November. GROUP B Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $503,265,000. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.55) —When consideration of these Estimates was adjourned, I think it was the day before yesterday, Senator Peter Baume was asking questions about the attitude of the Department of Social Security to overpayments and fraud. He made the very valid point that there was a considerable difference between the situation whereby someone was overpaid because of departmental error or failure of administration and fraud. He was concerned that the departmental officers' attitude to overpayments, and particularly to overpayments due to fraud, was cavalier. I think that was being a bit harsh, although he may have been describing what he perceived as the attitude of the officers who were present at the Committee. Senator Peter Baume —That was all it was, yes. Senator GRIMES —Yes. The Department takes a very serious view of overpayments and particularly of fraud. The Department is continuing to take initiatives in this area to ensure that fraud and overpayments do not occur. But there are conflicting requirements in providing assistance for the needy quickly and avoiding overpayments. Sometimes those conflicting requirements create great difficulties. In recent times the Department has stepped up efforts in the area of benefits control. It has upgraded the level of management provided for debt recovery in the States and created a new section in the Central Office to co-ordinate recovery and prosecution. The latest development was holding an intensive workshop last October which had the aim of developing a national strategy to attack the prevention, identification, investigation, calculation and recovery of overpayments. A follow-up meeting will be held late this week to develop a draft action plan. After the draft action plan has been developed it is intended that the final action plan will be put to Cabinet for approval. This is a difficult area. I can remember some of the difficulties one faced as Minister for Social Security. For instance, there were some horrific cases of attempts at fraud. One of the most difficult I can remember was a woman over the age of 70 who, at that stage, managed to perpetuate the biggest individual fraud on the Department. Prosecution of someone of that age and sex made for a very difficult and delicate situation. One finds other cases of the single mother who is having difficulty. In the past she worked part time for a small income which she did not declare, certainly incorrectly. Gradually she worked more and more until she found herself on a treadmill and did not want to declare things in case she got into trouble for what she had done previously. In this regard, various Ministers of Social Security I think have thought of taking the New Zealand example and having an amnesty, although an amnesty in such circumstances would be very difficult in this country. The Department does take serious action for fraud. The Government's attitude is that if people defraud the Commonwealth of revenues, be they taxation, social security or anything else, they should be prosecuted unless there are very good reasons not to prosecute them. In fact, that policy is followed through. I have drawn officers' attention to Senator Baume's view that the attitude in the Estimates Committee seemed a bit cavalier. I am sure that that will be taken on board. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.00) —I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). I am not going to pursue that matter any further. There are only a couple of matters in relation to the Department of Social Security that I would like to raise with the Minister. The first one is a fairly brief matter. There has been some concern expressed that the introduction of disability services legislation may be delayed. This relates to the payment of certain benefits to certain beneficiaries. Can the Minister give us some indication of the timing of this legislation, as it is of interest to some of our constituents? Perhaps the Minister can respond to that first and I will then raise the other matters. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.01) —That comes under my Department of Community Services, but that does not matter. The disability legislation is in preparation at the moment. My intention-I am sure that intention will be carried out-is that new legislation will be introduced in the autumn session. It will be presented to this Parliament and certainly more than adequate time will be given to allow organisations, disabled people and members of Parliament to discuss the implications of that legislation. It is my hope that it will be innovative legislation and that it will, in fact, set an environment whereby we can achieve what we all want to achieve, one in which the disabled have much more say in their own affairs and a much greater capacity to live fuller lives. The time-table is well on the way and, in fact, I expect to receive the first draft report on the legislation within the next few weeks. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.02) —I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). I want to raise two matters relating to child care arrangements. The Minister will recall that he answered a question yesterday which related to the concerns of the Municipal Association of Victoria about some of its centres. I listened to his answer with considerable interest and a little sympathy. The issue that has been put to me, which I think requires some response, concerns the belief of some of the councils that expectations were raised of certain events that occur and that those expectations have not been met. I was interested in meeting officers of the Prahran City Council yesterday. I think the Minister has also met officers from that Council, so that he will be aware of the concerns they have expressed. The Council offered documents, which included extracts from correspondence with the Office of Child Care. I will quote some of the extracts from the correspondence. The November 1984 extract stated: I would emphasise that the funding enables services to operate on a break even basis provided of course the conditions and guidelines are adhered to. I acknowledge that there is the proviso about adherence to conditions and guidelines. The Council advises me that further correspondence in February 1985 from the Director of the Office of Child Care stated: Funded child care services are required to operate on a break even basis. The Council's extract goes on to say: The fee is approved at the level which allows the service to break even. They are incomplete sentences but I take it that the Council has not displayed any bad sense and that they are accurate quotations. The Council then quotes from the Melbourne Herald of 12 August 1985 in which Senator Grimes is quoted as saying: The Government wants services to remain viable and does not believe that this should require councils to contribute towards operating costs as long as they are reasonable. I thought the Minister's answer yesterday was a fairly reasonable answer but it does not move us away from the problem that the budget which the Prahran City Council has shown to me indicates that in fact the funding will not be on a break even basis and that that Council will have to find $70,000 a year, an amount which it asserts it is unwilling to find at present. The argument seems to be about what is a reasonable level of costs. I ask the Minister whether or not the statements that were made by the Office of Child Care and the statements in the Herald reported as having been made by the Minister were accurate and whether, in fact, that was the intention of the Government. If that is the case, the issue comes down to how one tries to reconcile the proposed budget which has been put in by the Prahran City Council with the goals that have been laid down by the Government. The situation at the moment, as the Minister indicated yesterday, is that we are faced with the prospect of these centres, having been built, now not opening because the Council asserts that it is unwilling to entertain that kind of operating subsidy. I asked the Minister by way of interjection yesterday whether or not there were restrictions on the payment of fees and the Minister said, I think, only for those people obtaining fee relief. The Council indicated that by increasing fees it could not break even. That may or may not be true, but the situation we are faced with is a series of expectations which have been raised from within the Minister's Department and by the Minister, in good faith, and the Prahran City Council-which is only one of a number-proceeding in good faith and now reaching a situation where it now believes it is faced with a situation to which it cannot respond. I ask the Minister whether the scenario I have set out is broadly correct? If it is broadly correct, what is going to be done to resolve the situation. In the end it is the parents with children who stand to be the losers. Obviously the Council sees itself as being a loser. How is it going to explain to its ratepayers that it has a child care centre which it now cannot operate? How is the Federal Government going to explain to the same ratepayers, who are its electors, that a child care centre is not operating because the Council asserts that certain promises have not been met? What are the parents to do? I am not in a position to apportion right or wrong. I simply ask how to resolve it. I wish to refer to another child care centre to raise another problem. I will lead into this problem by saying that the second reading speech in respect of legislation introduced by the Minister this morning-amendments to the Child Care Act-contains the statement that an extra 20,000 places will be provided at a cost of $107m. If one does some simple arithmetic that works out at more than $5,000 per place. This just illustrates the fact that child care is a very expensive undertaking. I do not think there is an independent school in Australia whose fees, leaving outboarding expenses, would be $5,000 per year; yet the average cost of child care for Australian families is $5,000 according to the Government's own projections. Senator Jessop —You are not talking about boarding fees? Senator PETER BAUME —Leaving boarding fees to one side; just the fees for tuition. It is a very expensive undertaking. I have been advised by a fellow senator from New South Wales, my cousin Senator Michael Baume, that the Barrack Heights child care centre situated in the Illawarra region, has a budget for next year which involves no increase in staff-the same numbers of staff-but which has provided for a 21 per cent increase in costs mainly because of increased pay and conditions for employees. I am advised that the wages costs are expected to rise from $127,000 to $153,600. Of that increase, $5,000 comes from a move to a 38-hour week and $1,300 comes from forecasts of extra leave for teachers, but the rest is made up of increases for the automatic indexation of staff salaries. The point I am rising with the Minister is that- Senator Grimes —What was the name of that centre? Senator PETER BAUME —Barrack Heights child care centre, which I think is in the Illawarra region. I have noticed that officers of the Department have just come into the chamber; so I will therefore repeat that it is anticipated that its budget will increase by 21 per cent at a time when inflation is increasing by more or less 7 per cent, and that most of that 21 per cent increase is going to be as a result of salary increases and not as a result of an increase in the number of staff employed. The concern that has been expressed is for the cost pressures this will put on the centre or on the parents, or if it is going to be taken up by the Government, the pressures this is going to put upon the capacity of the Government to offer as many child care places as are needed. That level of increase may in fact limit the Government's capacity to increase places. I do not see either of these as matters of partisan politics. The first is a concern about how a council such as the Prahran City Council is to proceed from here, whether the assurances it believes it has received are correct, and what the Minister proposes to do to overcome the problem. The second question is what underlies the situation where there is a very significant increase in costs at the child care centre in the Illawarra, against the background that there are around 200 children unable to obtain child care places in that area and parents are concerned that at that level of increase it will not be possible to provide extra places for their children. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.11) —To pick up Senator Peter Baume's final point, the parents' dilemma is the Minister's dilemma. The dilemma is how the Minister and the Government will provide child care places with cost increases at that level. One of the reasons we have introduced the new child care funding arrangements is that costs have been increasing at such a great rate. Because of the lack of incentive for cost control we were reaching the situation where the capacity of the Government to provide more places, which everybody recognises are needed, was severely impeded. I will deal first with the case of the Victorian councils, which are members of the Municipal Association of Victoria. There are indeed some 42 child care centres involving 38 councils in Victoria. The Federal Government and the Victorian Government came to an agreement with those councils last year that we would open new child care centres in Victoria. It was agreed that the councils would be the sponsoring bodies and that, as Senator Peter Baume said, funding would be provided on a break-even basis for those councils. I emphasise that that arrangement was made under the existing funding system. The Victorian councils, which in some cases were to contribute land and buildings, were to be funded on the same basis as every other council and child care organisation in the country. They were not to receive any different treatment. The statements quoted by Senator Baume and the Prahran Council are perfectly true and accurate. They are not being unfair. The Council said that funding would be on a break-even basis, with the proviso, as Senator Baume said, that the conditions were reasonable. I suppose the first indication of the problem in the specific case mentioned by Senator Baume is that the cost per place in the Prahran Council's child care centre is $130 a week, and that is very high compared with costs elsewhere in Australia. It is not so high in Victoria, where we have the problem that all those council child care centres are relatively high cost centres. However, the costs of the Prahran centre are much higher than elsewhere. The reasons why costs are high in Victoria vary a little, but they are high because local councils put on extra staff such as cooks and gardeners, and they have full time co-ordinators. We believe that is one area where these councils can cut back their costs to the level of those in other child care centres throughout Australia-for example, those in Senator Baume's State of New South Wales, where the quality and standards are satisfactory. If councils such as the Prahran Council insit on sticking to those standards and do not reduce them, I do not believe that they can expect the Federal Government to top up their funding as compared with other child care centres throughout Australia in order to provide those extra benefits which they, not us, choose to provide. I was a little disturbed when talking to the Prahran Council to hear it implied that it would rather employ less well qualified people, or juniors even, than cut costs in the provision of a cook or a gardener or other extras. That is the problem we face. That is the problem we have to resolve. We have a situation of centres that have been built but not opened. We have had a couple of centres that have been opened but the Municipal Association of Victoria, as I was told yesterday, is considering asking them to close after Christmas. That is a terrible situation. There are people in Victoria who want child care places. Obviously, the Government will have to consider the situation if that arises, either providing alternative places or providing alternative sponsors. That is a problem we can face only when the crunch comes. I hope we can resolve the problem by talking to the Municipal Association of Victoria, as I will be doing in the next few weeks. My officers are talking continually to the Association. Already we have made concessions to the MAV on this matter. I hope that common sense will prevail and that these services will be provided. I honestly do not understand how the expectation can arise that the Commonwealth will pick up the tab for whatever the councils want. They are saying literally that the Commonwealth will pick up the tab for what ever they want. The Commonwealth has always said it would provide funding on a break-even basis, with the proviso that the basis for the municipal councils in Victoria would be the same as the basis everywhere else. The 20,000 places will cost $107m. That is almost all capital expenditure. In recent years, particularly with the co-operation of the New South Wales Government, we have managed to cut down capital costs through the introduction of standard plans for child care centres and modern factory building methods. We are trying to do that in all the States. The simple fact is that child care is expensive. In Australia we have quality child care provided at a reasonable cost on a comparison internationally. We have child care which is accessible in places where we have been able to put up centres. However, the simple fact is that we still cover only 7 1/2 per cent of kids. Eventually, at the end of 1988 we will cover 10 per cent, but we have a fairly long way to go. I have not got any details on the Illawarra centre mentioned by Senator Baume. Senator Peter Baume —I was using that as an example. Senator GRIMES —The 21 per cent increase in wage costs and so on for this year seems to me to be very high indeed. I have asked the officer in charge of the Office of Child Care to get details for Senator Baume as soon as possible. The fact is, however, that if costs escalate at the rate they have been escalating, then we and the parents will be severely limited in the number of new child care places we can put in. I will give one example. We have been requested to provide co-ordinators for all child care centres, whatever their size. That would cost about $20m and would not provide one new child care place. That is not my priority. It is not the Government's priority. I do not think it should be the priority of people in children's services at the moment. They not only have to consider those already in child care centres but those many people outside who would like to have extra places. That is our concern. We will continue, I believe, to provide accessible, economical, good quality child care services in this country, but we can do so only by watching costs and being careful about the planning. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.19) —I thank the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his response. There is no need to prolong this matter much longer. However, as I listened to the Minister's answer it seemed to me that the difficulty which faces the Prahran Council is that there does not seem to be any agreed standard provision package. The argument then appears to be what is a proper standard for the provision of child care. I ask the Minister whether any attempt is being made now to develop and promulgate what might be called a common standard of child care? It appears that the Prahran City Council would not have gone into this exercise, which was not a Council initiative, except that it was asked by the Commonwealth and the State so to do. It was approached by the Commonwealth and the State in August 1984 with an offer based on the various documents which I indicated earlier. Because of a communications block, people have a different appreciation of what is meant by the term `proper levels of provision'. I understand that the Council received a subsidy from the Victorian Government of $175,000, which helped it to build the centre, but it also added $100,000 of ratepayers' money and provided $60,000 to purchase the site. So already it has a significant investment, the Victorian Government has a significant investment and the Commonwealth Government has an investment in what it hopes to achieve. It all seems to be foundering now on some common appreciation of what is an appropriate level of provision. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.21) —I dare say that is so but I point out, again to use an example in Senator Baume's own State, that in the western suburbs of Sydney the Penrith Council and the Fairfield Council have combined with the State Government to build child care centres and run those centres. There has been a very great expansion in that area, and we have not had this problem there. How we go about assessing the situation is that the budget put forward by the Prahran Council or any other council is considered by the Office of Child Care in conjunction with the Council. Guidelines are set down for the provision of assistance, at the highest level, for reasonable costs. Those guidelines are available. The Council knew that they were available. As I said, other councils and community groups all over the place run child care centres, and they do not run up the costs that the Prahran Council ran up in this case. I think it is up to the Prahran Council to ask itself: Why are our costs so high? In particular, why are they so much higher than those of other councils? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Are the health and other requirements of the Victorian Government higher? Senator GRIMES —No; in fact, the Victorian Government's requirements are not that rigid. One of the problems that Prahran Council and some of the people in Victoria are worried about is that the Victorian licensing requirements are such that it would be possible-if we let people do so, but we will not-to hire juniors to run child care centres and that sort of thing. The Victorian Government is correcting that at the moment. There are sometimes problems with awards in Victoria, as the former Minister will well remember, not only in this area but also in the nursing homes area. It gets down to the fact that we cannot load our assistance for children's services in a State such as Victoria just on the basis of a council's self-imposed high standards. We can certainly assist people where there are unavoidable high costs but I believe that the Municipal Association of Victoria has a fair way to go. It should make concessions to the Federal Government just as the Federal Government has made concessions to it. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $658,437,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.24) —I wish to raise two matters under the estimates for the Department of Health. The first relates to the National Acoustic Laboratories. I apologise to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for this but the estimates for the Department of Health were examined at the same time as the estimates for another department were examined by a different committee of which I was a member and I could not be in both places at once. I ask the Minister whether I can provide him with some detailed questions about the costings of the NAL's operation. I have three questions. I ask whether it would be possible to pass them on to the NAL and have the information provided. There is some concern that the amounts provided in the Budget Papers-I think $13.1m was said to be the cost-represent an incomplete costing. I remind the Minister that his Government has seen fit to move to program budgeting for some departments in an attempt to reveal rather more accurate and comprehensive costings for certain programs. It is desirable that we obtain this information in order to understand the NAL operations. So I ask the Minister to provide answers to the three questions, which I do not have to hand now. The only other matter I wish to raise under the estimates for the Department of Health concerns a question that I asked during the Minister's absence. It was taken on notice by Senator Ryan but to date I have had no answer to it. It concerns the exclusion of the Australian Institute of Health from eligibility to apply for research grants into the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. I refer the Minister to a document entitled `Information for Applicants: The Commonwealth AIDS Research Grants Scheme'. The document was issued in July 1985. Under the heading `Eligibility', the document says: Researchers in tertiary education or research institutions, including the research schools of the Australian National University, Commonwealth or State agencies, excluding the Australian Institute of Health . . . it goes on to indicate certain other people- may apply for grants. The real question is: Why has it been determined that this research institute should be excluded from even being eligible to apply for funds under the AIDS research scheme? The problem we face with AIDS is a very serious and real one and surely we should be seeking to have the highest quality applicants from whatever source. Yet it has been seen fit to exclude, specifically and by name, the Australian Institute of Health from a capacity to apply for grants under this program. I ask a question of Senator Ryan. I know that the question was passed on to Dr Blewett by Senator Ryan's office but no answer has yet been provided. I am at a loss to understand why that should be. I ask whether the Minister can advise me on that matter. I will see whether I have those NAL questions to hand. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.28) —Certainly I will find out the answers to the questions on the National Acoustic Laboratories. I am also fascinated to know why the Australian Institute of Health is being excluded from acquired immune deficiency syndrome research. In fact, while Senator Peter Baume was speaking I was on the phone to find out why, and I will satisfy both our curiosities as soon as possible. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.28) —I would like to inquire into a couple of matters concerning the provision of health facilities in the Australian Capital Territory. I am wondering why the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has resisted having two members of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly on the newly restructured Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, especially when his colleague the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) found it to be quite reasonable that a component of the membership of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority should come from the House of Assembly. That is a general question. My second question also concerns the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. When can they expect to benefit from the uniform food labelling regulations that were adopted by the National Health and Medical research Council in October 1982? That is a fair while ago and we have not yet seen an ordinance introduced in this area. I would like to get from the Minister some time scale for the introduction of these measures, which we believe are extremely important for the health and welfare of people within the Australian Capital Territory. I have another question but those are the two on the Australian Capital Territory. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.30) —Perhaps I can help Senator Vigor as to the first question. The new Australian Capital Territory Health Authority is a very broad-ranging authority. It will cover health in the Australian Capital Territory. It was decided by not only the Minister but the Government that that seven-member Authority would consist of members from a broad-ranging group in the community. As I think Senator Vigor will know, announcements have been made or are about to be made that people in the community can nominate themselves and others and from those who are nominated the seven-member Authority committee will be chosen. I do not know that I can specifically say why in this case we did not say `Right, the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly can pick two members' as the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, did. I suppose one reason would be that the interests and the areas covered are so diverse that Dr Blewett, in the light of his experiences and my experiences with the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission in the past, did not want too much local political mud flying on the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. But I only surmise that. I will get a more detailed response from Dr Blewett for Senator Vigor. As to the food labelling question, I do not have the answer here and neither do the officers who are here with me, but I will certainly get the details of the timetable for Senator Vigor. We do not have a full range of officers from the Department of Health at the Committee of the Whole stage, as is usual in the Senate, and therefore I do not have the expertise here to answer the question immediately. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.32) —I make an inquiry of a more general nature at this stage. Firstly, I wish to applaud the Government's commitment to making extra staff resources available in the area of evaluation of medical devices and drugs. I would like to find out a little more about the current state of the program for monitoring the distribution and for flagging reports of injuries which are due to drugs and devices within Australia. I am particularly interested in when the proposed computer register system is expected to be fully operational, what is the range of records that will be held on the data base and what is the availability of this information to people within the community. I also ask: Will this be extended to looking at the area of accidents and injury prevention in the more general sense, particularly of child accidents, which are not currently fully monitored? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.33) —As to the computerisation of the records and central records on drug reactions, accidents and devices, I know that it is in the process but I do not know the timetable. I will find that out for Senator Vigor. The area of child accident prevention, strangely enough, comes under my Department. The Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia, which was established by the previous Government, is an independent group which comes within my portfolio. One of its projects at the moment is to develop the proper recording of accidents among children in this community. In this area, as in other areas of health and welfare, as Senator Walters in particular and I both know, the collection and correlation of statistics in this country has been appalling. All governments have been conscious of this. The previous Government and this Government, through the Australian Bureau of Statistics and also, in the case of drug reactions, through the Department of Health and, in the case of children's accidents, through the Child Accident Prevention Foundation, have tried to correct that situation. The Foundation also has projects concerned with specific children's accidents in sport, the prevention of accidents, the safety of playgrounds, et cetera. I will provide Senator Vigor and any other honourable senator who wishes it with all the literature I have on the latest activities of the Foundation. The Foundation regularly distributes its annual reports and occasional reports. I think it is important that we all know what is happening in these areas. I will certainly provide that information. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.35) —I thank the Minister. This is an area about which many people in the community are concerned. I would like to get some type of estimate of the money that is being allocated by the Government and the priority that is being given by the Government to the area of child accident prevention. If the Child Accident Prevention Foundation is the only body, what are the current budgets and priorities in this area? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.36) —The Foundation is clearly not the only body. The Foundation was set up by a grant of $2m, I think, in 1979 or 1980. It raises money itself; it has considerable investment income. Clearly, that is not the only area of accident prevention in which the Government is involved. All the hospitals and State health departments are involved. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has a long-standing accident research group going. I will see whether, within reason, we can get out details of the various amounts of money which are allocated by the Federal Government to the various bodies. Provided it will not tie down several public servants for several weeks, I will see whether I can get the information for Senator Vigor. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.37) —I now put on the record the information I seek from the National Acoustic Laboratories. Firstly, the amount budgeted for recurrent expenditure in 1985-86 on the supply, fitting and maintenance of hearing aids, including the itemisation of budgeted recurrent expenditure on batteries, salaries, administration, research and development relating to design, supply, fitting and any other expenditure not included in the above categories; secondly, the amount budgeted for recurrent expenditure in 1985-86 for all other activities of NAL, including itemisation of budgeted recurrent expenditure on research into noise measurement, the effects of noise on people and any other expenditure not included in the above categories; thirdly, the total amount budgeted for recurrent expenditure in 1985-86, which I suppose will be the addition of the first and second items, including the itemisation of any amounts not included in the answers to those questions; fourthly, the total amount budgeted for capital expenditure in 1985-86; and, fifthly, the total capital amount expended to date, including any amount budgeted for 1985-86, on all current capital projects, including the central laboratory at Chatswood, New South Wales and the frequency modulation hearing aid. I add that information has been sought previously by different inquiries and other interested parties on these matters, but the full story of NAL expenditure has never come out. I have reason to believe that both this Government and the former Government, of which I was a part, were and are unaware of the degree to which government funds have been wasted by NAL. The information I seek will put this assertion to the test and will enable us to test it very simply. There has already been an inquiry into NAL which indicated that although it has a central acoustics laboratory unequalled in the world, it does not have the appropriate research staff to take advantage of those special facilities. We are also aware of another matter of concern; that is, the development of the FM hearing aid. Evidence given to one of the inquiries stated that the total program for developing the hearing aid would cost $1.1m. Yet documents obtained recently under the freedom of information legislation show that the cost of developing and producing the first 1,500 of these hearing aids will be closer to $4.2m. Such a blow-out needs to be explained. We have the disgraceful situation in which the radio transmitter hearing aids are not available in Australia. Dr Mark Ross, a leading United States audiologist, was amazed, on a recent visit to Australia, that they were not yet in use here. It is alleged that they are so superior to the older hearing aids that it is like comparing an old 78 rpm record player with a modern hi-fi player. I would be pleased if the NAL would comment on that problem. It seems to me that NAL must take responsibility for the unavailability of these modern hearing aids. It has taken an inordinately long time to develop the Australian version of this hearing aid. NAL awarded a contract to the Plessey group in 1978 for the development. It missed three deadlines and then several further deadlines. Things are obviously not right either within NAL or within the Plessey group to whom the contract was given. I would like to find out why, and these questions are the first step. I finish by referring to questions relating to the new Chatswood offices, including the Central Laboratory at Chatswood. This is required because that was a matter which came before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. It appears that evidence that was given to that Committee and on which that Committee made its decision is already out of date and the costings given to the Public Works Committee now bear very little relationship to the emerging cost of the project. If I make those questions available to the Minister, I would be grateful to receive the answers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.41) —I will certainly get those answers. I know that Senator Baume knows that I do not have the details now. I return to a previous question asked by Senator Baume about the exclusion of the Australian Institute of Health from receiving funds for acquired immune deficiency syndrome research. I will read the answer that was provided as a result of the question asked of Senator Ryan. There are separate appropriations for the Australian Institute of Health, division 326, and as such it is considered more appropriate to meet the needs of the AIH through these appropriations rather than the appropriation for AIDS, in the same manner that staff costs associated with the AIDS program are met from the Department's salaries vote. I assume that that means that the Department does not want AIH to double dip. If I were the shadow Minister for Community Services I would consider that answer to be pathetic. As the Minister for Community Services, equally I consider that answer to be pathetic. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), as a result of my comments, has undertaken to scrutinise carefully applications for AIDS funding. As everyone knows, he is concerned to get the best value for each dollar allocated to AIDS research. He will look at the application by the Australian Institute of Health for extra funds for AIDS research. As a result of the question-I suspect it is as much as a result of the answer-that situation might change. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.43) —I think the answer is pathetic, and I thank the Minister for his comments. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.43) —I would like to ask the Minister several questions about an area in which I will declare an interest. I am sure the Minister would agree that my husband has some expertise in this area. I ask: Is it a fact that the Medicare Benefits Review Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry to consider an extension of the scope of Medicare benefit arrangements to provide benefits to cover midwifery services rendered by non-medically qualified people? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.44) —I certainly do not know, but I will find out very quickly. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.44) —I wonder whether the Minister could find out because I have a number of questions. I can assure him that that is the case. I would like him-- Senator Grimes —Would you like to give me the questions? Senator WALTERS —There are a number of questions associated with that. Is it the intention that this inquiry should include the provision of services of midwives for confinement in the home? Does the Minister want all the questions that I would like to put to him? Senator Grimes —Yes, either now or they can be put on notice, but I will certainly get answers for you. Senator WALTERS —I would like to ask some further questions following the Minister's answers. Senator Grimes —I will try to get the answer to the first one now, if you can put the others on notice. The CHAIRMAN —I think it might be helpful if you listed your remaining questions, Senator Walters. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.45) —I will have to obtain that information from the Minister's Department. As is usual, as I said before, we do not have a full range of advisers present. That is the usual practice during consideration of the appropriations in the Committee of the Whole. We do have a full range of advisers at the Estimates committee hearings. If the honourable senator puts the questions on notice, I will get the answers very quickly. I just do not know whether the Medicare Benefits Review Committee is undertaking an inquiry. I will find out the answer, but whether I can find out any further details within the short time that the appropriations are being considered, I do not know. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.45) —Is there no one in the gallery who could-- Senator Grimes —There is no one present who knows the answer, I am afraid. Senator WALTERS —The Minister may be able to give me some of the answers to the further questions that I want to ask. As the home confinement is commonly regarded by most responsible authorities as a dangerous procedure in terms of both maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, should the Government be seen to encourage such practices? That is a question that I am sure the Minister could answer. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.46) —Senator Walters is certainly leading me into dangerous fields. My personal view is that in this day and age midwifery is not necessarily desirable. I know that that is not the view of all of my medical colleagues. I do not think the fact that the Medicare Benefits Review Committee is looking-and I am sure it is doing so, if Senator Walters says it is-at the extension of midwifery to midwifery provided by non-medically qualified people indicates that the Government is approving of extension of home deliveries. I do not think the mere fact that a committee is looking at such a thing, when there is a movement in the community towards home birth, means that the Government approves of it, any more than the fact that the daughter of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had her child at home means that it is Government policy that people should have children at home. But I will certainly obtain a comment from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) on that question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.47) —I understand the Minister's difficulty, but I ask him: Is it not a fact that such reliable statistics in terms of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality do not exist? If the Minister can assure me that these do exist, I would like him to give them to me, but if they are not available, I would like to ask some other questions. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.48) —I am sure that they do not exist in this country because there have been so few home births in this country in recent times-in the last 20 or 30 years-that I suggest statistics would be meaningless, except perhaps in regard to the Aboriginal community, where other circumstances apply. I am sure there are statistics from the United Kingdom, where home births have been much more common than they have in the past. But I certainly could not imagine that there would be any reliable statistics in this country in modern times. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.48) —I agree with the Minister. Therefore, I ask: Does he believe the Government would authorise such payment to midwives and therefore encourage home deliveries in the absence of these statistice? Would it not be better for the statistics to be available before any decision was taken in the area? As I said, I understand the Minister's difficulties. Would it not be responsible of the Government at least to defer any encouragement of home deliveries? I have some figures and the Minister may be aware of them because he would possibly know that Tasmania, at least, makes some attempt to compile statistics through Professor Correy's efforts, because he is very interested in the area, particularly in trying to get some statistics. In 1983-I stress that these are only the reported cases-there were 34 home deliveries in Tasmania and there were six perinatal deaths. The figures indicate that there were nine perinatal deaths-that is deaths occurring after 28 or more weeks of pregnancy-for every 1,000 deliveries in Tasmanian hospitals. I calculate that six prenatal deaths out of 34 home deliveries amounts to between 170 and 180 deaths out of 1,000. Those are the only figures that I can get in the whole of Australia. Senator Peter Baume —Where was that? Senator WALTERS —Tasmania. Professor Correy has gone to a lot of trouble-- Senator Grimes —Well-- Senator WALTERS —No doubt the Minister would acknowledge that Australia-wide he has figures-- Senator Grimes —I do not think Joe would like the way you are using his figures. Senator WALTERS —I think the Minister would find that he would agree with the way I am approaching this matter. However, as these are the only figures that we have in Australia I would like to refer to some United States figures because I think it is important that we find out what are the Government's feelings in this area. In Iowa in 1975-I am sorry that the figures are so old; I cannot get any later figures-there were 18.4 perinatal deaths per thousand hospital deliveries and 63.6 perinatal deaths per thousand home deliveries. In Kansas City between 1972 and 1976 there were 22.3 perinatal deaths per thousand hospital deliveries and 95.3 per thousand perinatal deaths in home deliveries. I am stressing what I believe to be the dangers of home deliveries, and I am sure that the Minister would agree with me in that respect. In the event of home confinements not being a passing fad, will the Government conduct an appropriate cost-benefit analysis in terms of the need for flying squad services and additional hospital intervention costs, given the high transfer rates, before making a decision? I think the home birth statistics indicate that there is a 12.18 per cent hospital transfer component in regard to home deliveries. Even if one does not accept these figures, the transfer rate is still very high. I would be very grateful if the Minister could find out as much detail as he can. Evidence has been taken from the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and from the Australian home birth groups. I am very concerned that the outcome of the committee of review be fully understood by the Government and that prior to any agreement that home birth deliveries be accepted by Medicare for Medicare benefits purposes, statistics should be made available so that women can be made aware of the tremendous problems that they will face if they decide to have their deliveries at home. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.54) —I appreciate Senator Walters's concern. I would have some concern myself, although I must express some caution about her use of statistics. Senator Walters talked of 34 home births in Tasmania in 1983 with six perinatal deaths. But there are home births and home births. I dare say that one could take the example of the royal family and point out that in recent times there has been a frequent number of home births and the number of deaths has been very low. However, the situation in that case, of course, is that preparations are made for home births. The situation is very different under a system in which home births are the norm, where the mothers are carefully screened and the facilities are available. We can compare this with a place like Tasmania where I would suspect that most of the 34 people who had their births at home were in fact ill-prepared. I know that in a couple of cases there was no antenatal care at all. I certainly accept what Senator Walters says, that the perimortality rate is high. However, I think to quote the figures in that way probably does not help the cause of those who would suggest that most births should be held in hospital. I think that this is a very selective use of statistics. The Government, certainly to my knowledge-I am in the Cabinet and on all the relevant committees-is not at the moment considering encouraging or, I suppose, discouraging home births. I do not know that we have made any decision at all. The Medical Benefits Schedule Review Committee is in the process of considering this matter as a result of a request from, I assume, the home birth people and will be making its recommendations next February. The Government and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will then have to consider the situation. As Senator Walters has accurately said, the Medical Benefits Review Committee is considering this. It considers all sorts of things as a result of requests by various individuals and organisations. She has said that evidence has been taken from the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and others. I am sure that the Committee will take a close look at this matter. I do not think the Senate or inexpert people like me should make decisions on the basis of statistics such as the ones presented by Senator Walters. I think we should be looking at the facts and the expert advice and then make our decisions. That is when the Government will make its decision. It is certainly not in the process of making its decision now. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.57) —As the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) would know, I am not asking the Government or him to make a decision based on the statistics that I have given. I have indicated that we do not have adequate information in respect of Australia. I am asking the Minister to make sure that we have adequate statistics before the Goverment agrees to act in a certain way. The Minister indicated that the 34 home deliveries would have been pretty dicey. He would no doubt be aware that midwives in Tasmania are not permitted to attend home deliveries unless a doctor agrees to be on call so that he can act should there be any trouble and the mothers have been screened for home delivery. Senator Grimes —Oh no, that is not so. I have knowledge of some of these things. Senator WALTERS —Let me just finish. I am just saying that that is the State requirement. That is not to say that some of those 34 women did not choose to avoid all that and decide to have a home delivery. If a midwife were in attendance she would be against-- Senator Peter Baume —Once they are in labour it is a bit late. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Peter Baume said, once they are in labour it is a bit late to get a doctor to oversee or supervise the midwife or even to call a midwife. However, I do not doubt for one minute that some of those 34 ladies may well have gone outside the accepted procedure. However, midwives in Tasmania are not permitted to attend organised home deliveries without the supervision of a doctor. So the majority of those cases would have been screened for home deliveries. Senator Grimes —I do not want to enter into this, but I doubt whether that is true. Senator WALTERS —The Director of the Institute of Health Economics and Technological Assessment, Mr Paul Gross, has made some very startling predictions about health costs and medical practice in Australia in the next decade. Mr Gross says that health costs could double in the next six years reaching $30 billion or $1,800 a head compared with $17 billion or $1,100 a head this year. What are the Government's predictions? Does it forecast an increase in the dimensions seen by Mr Gross? If it does, how does it intend to fund the increase? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.00) —First of all, as for Paul Gross's predictions, as long as I have been in this Parliament and before, Paul Gross has been making predictions. I put it to the Committee that his predictions are as accurate or as inaccurate as anybody else's I have ever heard. In fact, some of them are grossly inaccurate. I do not know of the particular predictions Senator Walters referred to, but I will draw the attention of the Minister for Heath (Dr Blewett) to them, if he has not seen Mr Gross's latest predictions. The Department of Health does not make predictions that far ahead, and never did, nor does the Government, because it is not possible. We try to recognise that health costs increase, particularly with the increasing costs of technological advances. Sometimes, as in the case of cat scanners and magnetic resonators and all these things that suddenly appear, the costs overcome the system very quickly, no matter which government is in power. I will refer that matter of predictions to the Minister and see whether we can get some sort of answer, but I do not expect him to answer that far ahead. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.02) —I would remind the Minister that it is only a period of six years. I do not think that is an extraordinarily long time for predictions to be made by the Department. I am surprised that it does not make predictions in that framework, but if I am told that it does not, very well. I turn to another matter. We are told in the Estimates Committee that the Health Insurance Commission was implementing a policy of permancy for its staff. How far has this progressed, how many staff have been given permanent status, and does the policy apply to all members of staff? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.02) —It certainly applies to all members, except those who are hired as temporaries, but I am afraid I just do not know how far it has advanced. I will obtain that information. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.03) —The Minister for Health announced in September that the Department of Health was considering establishing a health maintenance organisation scheme in Australia. Can the Minister say how far that has gone and whether the Government is taking any notice of the American experience in which, after all these years, only 6 per cent of the population has joined? Has the Minister any information on that either? Could he find out for me what is happening? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.04) —The Department, as Senator Walters says, is looking at the possibility of health maintenance organisations in this country and that study is proceeding. I cannot give her any details of for how many months or days that study will continue. Certainly I would be shattered if the Department did not take into account the American experience, because that is where HMOs developed and have continued. As a personal comment, may I say that health maintenance organisations in the United States seem to work perfectly satisfactorily where one has a large population willing and able to contibute to the organisation and in a fairly confined space, as in Kaiser-Permanente in California and some of the others. I would see great difficulties in the development of health maintenance organisations in a diverse and sparsely populated country such as Australia. As I say, the study is proceeding, but has not yet been completed. When it has been completed the Minister will make an announcement. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.05) —The Estimates Committee was told that the number of hospital beds being used was dropping each year because of better health care at the primary level. When I asked for figures showing the extent of hospital admission waiting lists in each State, I was told that the Commonwealth did not have the information, but would seek it from the States. The Committee has since advised the Department that the data was urgently requested, but it has not been given to us. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me that information. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.06) —I would be grateful too. We have sought that information from the States urgently, but the information has not come through. As soon as it does come through, we will provide it. I do not know that it has come through from any State as yet, knowing what the States are like. I understand that we have information from the Australian Capital Territory, although that is a small list. As at 1 October, for Royal Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals the waiting lists are as follows: General surgery-Royal Canberra 84, Woden Valley 86; obstetrics and gynaecology-Royal Canberra 74, Woden Valley 155; orthopaedics-Royal Canberra 116, Woden Valley 106; ear, nose and throat-Royal Canberra 72, Woden Valley 40; neurosurgery-Royal Canberra 148, Woden Valley 12; urology-Royal Canberra 24, Woden Valley 16; plastic surgery-Royal Canberra 136; thoracic surgery, Royal Canberra 4, Woden Valley 30; eye surgery-Royal Canberra 113, Woden Valley 43. There is then an item for general practice-13 at Royal Canberra. What is a general practice waiting list? It sounds an odd one. I suppose there are general practitioner beds in the Royal Canberra Hospital. I did not know that, but obviously there are. Paediatrics-Royal Canberra 28; dental-Royal Canberra 29, Woden Valley 85. The total number of people on the waiting list at Royal Canberra is 841 and at Woden Valley 573. I have not a further breakdown which, I admit, would be useful. The average waiting time in weeks at the Royal Canberra is 7.7, at Woden Valley 8.2. That is the information from the Australian Capital Territory and we are seeking information from the other States. Senator Walters —That is 1,414 out of a population of what? Senator GRIMES —It is 400,000, including the south-east region of New South Wales. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Motion (by Senator Walters) agreed to: That the Estimates of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs be recommitted. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $160,346,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.08) —I do not think the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) will answer this question if he is of the same mind as he was in the Estimates Committee, but I hope he may have changed his mind. Senator Grimes —I am in a much better mood today. Senator WALTERS —He sounds in a better mood today, so I thought I would ask him. An officer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs told the Estimates Committee that some countries co-operated more than others in the provision of information about terrorists entering Australia. I asked a question which the Minister in attendance at that Committee hearing refused to have an officer answer-namely, which countries are least co-operative in this matter, thus giving rise to doubts about immigrants from those sources? Will the Minister now answer the question I asked in the Estimates Committee hearing? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.10) —Despite the fact that I am in a more tolerant mood today, I do not believe I should answer any such question. I do not accept the honourable senator's proposition that because a country refuses to co-operate adequately as far as the protection of terrorists is concerned there is a greater risk that migrants from that country will be terrorists. Obviously, in those circumstances we would have other careful means of checking on who is, and who is not, a terrorist. If I start answering questions by saying that country X and country Y are the least co-operative, people will say: `Why don't you tell us which country is the most co-operative?'. They would then draw their own distinctions about which countries are in between. If I had the information and disclosed it I may be putting the actions of our security people at risk. I do not see how I would be performing a useful service to this country or the Parliament by answering such a question. The matter was referred to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) after the Estimates Committee meeting and he is of the same view as I am. If I am asked by the Parliament to answer that question I will; otherwise I am not willing to do so. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $72,276,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure, $160,000,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $718,056,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.12) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) put out a 28-page glossy publication entitled `The Accord-The First Two Years', a copy of which was received in my office on 21 October. Can the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) tell me how many copies were produced, to whom they were distributed and what was the cost? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.13) —Initially 3,000 booklets entitled `The Accord-The First Two Years' were printed. They were first printed at the time of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. There was then a very great demand for them, which is unusual. Senator Walters —Could you give me the date of that? Senator GRIMES —It was produced in September for the ACTU Congress. There was a very great demand for the document and in October 30,000 additional copies were made. The cost of production for art work was about $15,420, including $3,400 for overtime worked to cope with changes made after the Budget. The cost of the initial print run was about $4,600, plus some overtime. The additional 30,000 print run cost $23,800. The total cost of 33,000 booklets, including printing and art work, was around $43,800. Therefore, each booklet cost about $1.30. The cost of each booklet in any future print run will fall to about $1. I think that answers all of the questions asked by Senator Walters. Senator Walters —The publication was undated, as I indicated. Was it printed in September? Senator GRIMES —I assume that that is right. Initially 3,000 copies were printed and I assume that that was in September at around the time of the ACTU Congress. The booklet was later updated in light of the demand for booklets and a further 30,000 were printed. That is as I read the answer which I have been given. I am sure that that is right, but I will check it for the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.16) —If the publication was printed in September this year, why does it boast a December 1984 inflation rate of 5.1 per cent? Why would it not have more up to date figures? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.17) —I do not know about the details in the document. I also received a copy of it but as yet I have not read it. A similar document was produced for the 1983 Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. I will seek a response from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on why his inflation figure is different from another inflation figure. I understand that in the light of the Budget the publication was updated after it was first printed. However, I will have to seek the details of the answer from the Minister. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.18) —It amazes me that I was more interested in reading the publication than the Minister. Senator Robert Ray —I will bet it depressed you. It was pretty damning of the previous Government. Senator WALTERS —I noticed that the Government had to resort to using the figures for December last year to make it look good. The Government makes great play of the number of jobs that have been created in the past 2 1/2 years. Has the Government done any research on the number of jobs lost that can be attributed to Government policies and decisions in that time? If so, what are the figures? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.18) —I do not have an answer to that question. Frankly, I think it is a silly question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.19) —With the change of Minister we will obviously not get very far. Can the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) tell me how many of the jobs created have been in the public sector? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.19) —I do not have that information offhand. Even the officials cannot immediately put their fingers on it. The figure is determinable and I will supply it later if that is satisfactory. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.19) —The number of industrial disputes in Australia declined significantly in the months leading up to the 1983 election. This was probably due to obvious reasons. Can the Minister give me an indication of the present trend? How many disputes occurred in the 12 months to the end of June 1983, 1984 and 1985? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.20) —That comes in the same category. Those figures are available, of course; indeed, they are on the public record. But I will see whether Senator Walters can be supplied with the answer later. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.20) —I refer to labour on-costs such as workers compensation, leave loading, payroll tax, long service leave, et cetera. Can the Minister tell me by how much they have increased the average weekly wage since the accord came into effect in 1983? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.20) —I am not sure whether the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations produces figures that cover all labour on-costs. It does produce figures that cover some. Whatever has already been pulled out will be made available. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.21) —Did the Minister say that he will attempt to get those for me? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.21) —Yes, to the extent that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations analyses labour on-costs. I am not sure whether it takes into account and does assessments of all labour on-costs or only some. But to the extent that the Department analyses labour on-costs or tries to estimate them, that information will be made available. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $588,503,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.22) —I raise a matter which is of concern to some of my constituents; namely, the inordinate delays in hearing matters put to taxation boards of review. A case which has been put to me is from a constituent who has been involved in a jojoba plantation. The details do not matter very much. My constituent has gone into a scheme. The Commissioner of Taxation has made a certain determination. The taxpayer feels aggrieved and wishes to have that decision reviewed. It has emerged that 53,000 cases are awaiting review and the review boards are hearing something like 600 to 800 cases a year. On that basis my constituent's case might come up for determination in something like 55 years from now. On the basis of the old idiom, justice delayed is justice denied, my taxpayer has a real concern. He may or may not have a case of merit. That is not for me to worry about. But he feels that he is in danger of suffering financial disadvantage. Processes are laid down by which he may appeal for review and he is unable to use them. They are blocked off because of such delays. I acknowledge immediately that the situation did not arise just this year. It has built up. However, I suggest to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that it may well have worsened in recent years. But, in any event, whatever the cause of the delay may have been and for however long it may have developed, I suggest that it is a very real barrier to justice being done in taxation areas. In relation to this person we have had communications with the Australian Taxation Office. I am in possession of a letter from the Australian Taxation Office dated 25 September 1985 and addressed to this person, whose name I will not give. The letter states: Dear Sir, Income tax: Request for reference to a board of review Years ended 30 June 1982 and 1983 Reference is made to your recent enquiry to the office of the Hon. Senator Peter Baume requesting further advice concerning your 1982 and 1983 objections. At the outset it must be advised that, due to heavy workloads in our Appeals and Advisings Branch, it has not yet been possible to give effect to your request to refer the Commissioner's decision on the objections to a Board of Review. It goes on to explain: . . . before formal transfer of a reference to a Board of Review it has been the practice for some time to review the decision originally reached on the objection in the light of any additional information which the taxpayer may choose to supply . . . I interpose that that may be all very well. But a right of review is conferred upon the taxpayer and it should be a right which the taxpayer can, in fact, exercise. The letter goes on to state: In adopting this course and in fairness to other taxpayers who have also requested a reference to a Board of Review, cases are dealt with in the order in which they are received and it has not yet been possible to give your reference this attention. Some further time must necessarily lapse before this can be done. It is my understanding that in the meantime the taxpayer is obliged to lodge a significant portion of the money which is under dispute with the Government even before the review is heard. The point I want to make to the Minister-I am not saying that it has arisen as a result of any administrative errors of this Government-is that if, in fact, something over 50,000 cases are awaiting hearing, if, in fact, the number being heard each year is small and if there is going to be a significant delay, taxpayers are not actually able to exercise their rights. It would not really matter if the number actually awaiting review were only 10,000. It would not really matter if the number being disposed of each year were, in fact, double what I have mentioned-maybe not 800 but 1,600-that would still be a five-year delay. Whatever the delay is, it is not fair. I therefore ask the Minister, not why did it occur but what can be done to get prompt hearing of these matters and to get the taxpayers the chance for a prompt exercise of their rights under taxation law? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.28) —Firstly, I will deal with the letter from which Senator Baume quoted. Of course, I have not actually seen a copy. That appears to be related to normal practice where the Australian Taxation Office asks the taxpayer whether he wishes to supply any additional information prior to the case going to the board of review. I think it is a very sensible procedure. On the matter of the backlog, I do not have the precise figures with me but from my recollection the backlog is of the order Senator Baume mentioned. It is continuing to increase, up to this stage. It is not quite as bad as it seems: I am advised that when one case is settled a large number of other cases frequently drop out because they are so close to being identical that they are resolved by the settlement of one case. The Government is addressing the other question of the length of the backlog and the fact that, I think, it is still increasing, up to this stage. A submission has been prepared, and I expect it to be considered fairly soon, in which the question of both the number of boards and the composition of boards will be addressed. I expect an announcement to be made about that within the next few weeks, although I cannot guarantee it because it has not yet been considered by Cabinet. I am also told that, independently of the Cabinet submission, some new procedural practices have been adopted by the Taxation Office and the boards of review which it is expected will deal with the claims more efficiently and more quickly than has been the case in the past. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.29) —I would be grateful if the Minister could advise me of any new administrative arrangements which are in place or are proposed to be put in place. I would be grateful also if, when a decision is made on the matter which I think the Minister said is the subject of submission at present, I could be advised of the outcome of that as well. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.30) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) will make a public statement, I expect. Senator Peter Baume —Could the Australian Taxation Office also let me know, in view of the fact that I have raised it here? I do not always see its public statements. Senator WALSH —I think the Treasurer should be able to do that. As to the other question, I think the Australian Taxation Office can provide written details of the new procedures which have been adopted. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.31) —The point which Senator Peter Baume has just raised is really the tip of an iceberg which exists, as I think the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will acknowledge, right through the administration of the Australian Taxation Office. Indeed, as I understand it there are very considerable problems in dealing with backlogs of work and in dealing with the welter of legislation which the Government is bringing forward as a result of its recent tax package. In the light of the lack of information which has been forthcoming from the Government about its proposed timetable for putting down legislation for debate in the Parliament on the new tax package, and in particular I mention the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the legislation on negative gearing-it now being almost five months since the announcement was originally made-I ask whether the Government is in a position to give us a timetable as to legislation and, indeed, some kind of indication as to when the Parliament will be dealing with it. I might just outline the case for that because I think it is important to recognise that the legislation that the Government intends to put in place as a result of the tax package is very complex. I think that the Government recognises that. Also, there are many uncertain areas in the legislation. The statement that has been made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) really gives us very little indication of what will be taxed and what will not be taxed. I instance the capital gains tax because I think the Minister will acknowledge that during Question Time in this place and during questions addressed to the Treasurer in the House of Representatives, we quite frequently get interpretations of what will be covered by the legislation, but it is always subject to the qualification that the Government has not yet finalised its view about these things. The degree of uncertainty that is growing in the community on these various matters, I hope the Minister agrees, is becoming very widespread. Indeed, if we are to wait another five or six months before we get the legislation on the tax package before we have a chance to even assess what it is that is going to be subject to tax, it is going to be an intolerable situation for the conduct of business by ordinary businesses out there in the market-place. The point that I wanted to make following that is that I believe there is a need, as a matter of policy and of administration, for any government to be able to provide detailed legislation on its intentions in the tax area. I think we can draw the distinction between legislation that is drawn to outlaw loopholes in law that become evident through the increasing use of tax avoidance devices and things of that kind. Should statements be made at a particular time, it is reasonable that there might be some delay in the actual preparation of legislation, but at least people are put on notice that that loophole will be closed. That is an entirely different situation from the situation which we face now. The Government, having announced a total new tax regime in many areas, has not clearly indicated what is going to be subject to tax. Indeed, that is still going to be the situation, as I understand it, for some months to come. I think the Government should appreciate that distinction and make sure that in future when it is setting out changes to the whole tax structure, as opposed to some parts of the legislation, it brings in the legislation with its package. I recall a major change to the tax regime that resulted from the Ligertwood Commonwealth Committee on Taxation recommendations as far back as 1964. If my memory proves me correct, I think it was 22 October 1964 that the Government introduced a whole package of changes, where the statements made in the Parliament were done at the same time as the legislation affecting the changes was introduced. Indeed, that was fairly quickly followed by statements from the Taxation Commissioner as to how the law would be administered thereafter. I believe that is the ideal way for the Government to handle situations of this kind. Indeed, it is an extraordinary imposition on the community for people to face taxation on various types of new defined income, as the Government now has done through its tax package, and have no clear indication as to whether certain transactions and certain kinds of income will be subject to tax. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.36) —I suppose in an ideal world what Senator Messner said would be correct. I do not think it is accurate to say that people do not know what is going to be taxed and what is not going to be taxed. In general that is well known. In very fine detail it is probably not known, but there is nothing unique about that, even for tax laws which have been enacted. Indeed, the fact that it is not always unequivocally clear in fine detail is one of the major reasons why we have so many appeals going to taxation boards of review, a question which Senator Peter Baume raised a couple of minutes ago. I ask Senator Messner not to take this as a definitive answer, but to the best of my knowledge the fringe benefits legislation will be introduced before this spring Budget session ends and the rest of the legislation will be introduced in the autumn session. I will see whether the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has anything to add to that. To the best of my knowledge that is the case. Senator Messner —Do you mean the entertainment tax as opposed to fringe benefits? Senator WALSH —Yes, I think that is part of the fringe benefits tax. I lodge the caveat: Do not take that as a definitive answer. It is not without precedent for legislation to be many months behind an announcement. Senator Messner has mentioned that it sometimes happens when loopholes are closed. There is at least one other occasion not relating to the closing of a loophole that I can remember, and that was the announcement in July 1982 of major changes to the depreciation allowance for plant, which was announced by the last Government. That legislation was not, in fact, enacted by that Government at all; it was enacted by the present Government in the autumn of 1983. Likewise, a range of tax amendments and concessions announced with the 1982 Budget, not related to the closing of loopholes, was not legislated in 1982 at all. It was legislated by this Government in March or April 1983. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.38) —I raise a matter that is of some concern to me. It has been reported to me that the Australian Taxation Office mislays or loses at least 10 per cent of its files each year. That seemed an amazing figure. Can the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) place a figure on the actual loss rate of tax returns, documents and files? Even if it is one-tenth of that figure, what type of steps are being taken to improve the capture and retention of such important information within the Office? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.39) —I do not know where Senator Vigor heard that. I think common sense should tell us that it is not true. I am advised that the Australian Taxation Office does not believe it loses any files at all. It acknowledges mislaying files from time to time. The Taxation Office also believes, being suspicious, I suppose, that some taxpayers claim to have lodged returns when in fact they have not. I guess in that sort of circumstance there is no way of actually determining with certainty whether the Taxation Office has lost a file or whether taxpayers, in what they perceive to be their own interests, claim they have done something which in fact they have not done. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.41) —As I understand it, one of the problems under the existing taxation Act is that a document is presumed to have been received by a taxpayer if it has been posted by the Australian Taxation Office but that the same type of presumption does not apply in the other direction. Apparently, under the tax legislation if something has been posted by the Office it is deemed to have been received by the taxpayer but the taxpayer does not have the same presumption in his favour. In the light of current statistics concerning the number of documents lost in the post and with the current industrial problems in Australia Post, I ask whether the Government is planning to do anything about the situation. Lost mail may be one of the reasons for the comment about mislaid documents. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.42) —In regard to documents despatched from the Australian Taxation Office, I suppose it cannot guarantee that such documents have actually been delivered because the possibility of their being mislaid or even stolen in transit exists. However, independent records are kept of documents which have been put into the Australia Post bags. I understand some special postal arrangements are available to the Taxation Office. So although I guess one cannot guarantee with certainty that documents have been delivered, one can be as certain as one can be in an uncertain world that they have been posted. The other point related to the assertion that a taxpayer's claim to have posted a document is treated differently from the Tax Office's claim. To be realistic I think we must acknowledge that the individuals working in the Taxation Office could not conceivably have any personal motive for making inaccurate claims, whereas from time to time taxpayers do have a personal incentive to do so. Without wishing to cast aspersions on individuals, one must assume that on average the officials of the Taxation Office are more likely to be telling the truth at all times than are taxpayers. In regard to the final question, I do not know whether the procedures in the Taxation Office are under review or whether consideration is being given to making them more effective. I will see whether the Treasurer has any response to that. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.43) —My next question relates to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Bureau in its recent advertisements for field interviewers required that applicants have a driver's licence and access to a car. I ask: Is this the result of Government policy or is it an administrative decision of the Bureau? Will the Government examine this apparent discrimination against one sector of the community, particularly as it relates to the unemployed, who may not be able to get the job because at the time of their application they may not run a car? My next question, also concerning the Bureau of Statistics, relates more to its central operation. The Bureau in its latest annual report mentions that it is reliant on obsolete computer equipment and that there are long delays in getting its central computing installation fully operational. The report also mentions the need for a more extensive application of small scale technology. We often get reports on surveys up to two or three years after the event and sometimes the information may no longer be politically or socially relevant. We can get printouts of statistics but in most cases these are not available for on-line electronic interrogation. Is the Government examining how to make more efficient use of available resources within the Bureau of Statistics? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.45) —I have a definitive answer to Senator Vigor's first question. That was an administrative decision. I will see what response the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can provide to the other questions. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. today, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.46) —It is imperative that the new electoral boundaries in Queensland be discussed in the Senate. At stake are not only the democratic rights of the citizens of Queensland but also Australia's international reputation. Madam Acting Deputy President, from time to time issues raised in the Senate proceed to a vote. When that occurs my vote is equal to yours and your vote is equal to anyone else's; that is, the vote of any senator is worth the same as that of any other senator. In a democracy we expect that a similar situation should prevail for those who elect governments. Each citizen's vote should be equal to those of his or her fellow citizens. In a democracy there is nothing more basic than a person's right to vote. As well, there is nothing more fundamental than the value or worth of one person's vote being equal to that of another person's vote. Sadly, this situation does not exist in Queensland. Even before the redistribution which was announced last week, Queensland citizens did not have equality of voting, yet now the situation is worse. The latest piece of electoral legislation and the boundaries which have been drawn up under it must represent the greatest electoral dishonesty in Queensland's political history. Citizens of Queensland have been shocked by the new electoral boundaries, even though over the years the Queensland people have become almost immune to the manipulation of boundaries to achieve certain electoral results. But on this occasion the minority National Party Government has gone too far. The people will not accept such blatant cheating. They want a fair go, a fair go so that the people of Queensland have an equality of votes; a fair go for any party to be able to form a government if it gains a majority of votes; a fair go so that any party which does not obtain majority electoral support cannot govern in its own right. They want an electoral system of which they can be proud, not one which will tarnish Australia's image overseas. Before the latest redistribution in Queensland, the electoral system was grossly malapportioned. In other words, the number of electors in the various electorates deviated from the principle of one vote one value. The malapportionment was due to a zonal system which segregated voters into different geographic groups and placed different values on votes cast in different zones. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the zonal system following the 1977 redistribution in Queensland together with the number of seats and the average number of voters per seat in the various zones. The data in this table and in another, to which I shall refer later, have been checked by the statistics section of the Parliamentary Library. Senator Messner —We have not seen it. Senator COLSTON —I will show it to the honourable senator. The table records that Queensland electors were segregated into four zones. One is termed south-east, another provincial cities, the third is named western and far northern and the fourth is termed country. The table also reveals that the value of a vote in the western and far northern zone was almost double that of a vote in an electorate in the south-east zone which includes the State capital, Brisbane. What is not shown in the table is that the ratio of the highest to the lowest enrolment was 2.3:1. One vote, one value seemed to be an unheard of principle. The deliberate malapportionment brought about by the 1977 redistribution called out for correction, but anyone who hoped that a future redistribution would lead towards an equality of voting was disappointed. I now return to my request to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- QUEENSLAND ZONAL SYSTEM-1977 REDISTRIBUTION Zone Number of seats Average number of voters per seat South-East... 47 16,368 Provincial Cities... 13 15,952 Western and Far Northern... 7 8,586 Country... 15 11,515 Total... 82 14,750 Note: The average number of voters is based on data for the 1977 election. Senator COLSTON —Since the 1983 State election the National Party has, for the first time, governed without the assistance of a co-alition partner. After that election it had 43 members of the 82-member Parliament. This included the two Liberals who set aside their principles, if any, and switched to the National Party immediately after the election. It was against this background of a narrow majority that the National Party Government this year introduced its Electoral Districts Bill. Amongst other things, the Bill determined that the same zonal system would continue and increase the number of seats in the State House by seven. There were, perhaps, a few optimists in Queensland who thought that the 1985 redistribution would result in a fair electoral system, a system which would allow the fair go that I mentioned only a short time ago. The optimists were wrong. As my colleague Senator Jones pointed out to me and even remarked in the Senate, the remarks of the Premier during the debate on the Electoral Districts Bill should have been a warning of what was to come. I seek leave now to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the zonal system following the 1985 redistribution in Queensland together with the same data as shown in the previously incorporated table. Leave granted. The table read as follows- QUEENSLAND ZONAL SYSTEM-1985 REDISTRIBUTION Zone Number of seats Average number of voters per seat South-East... 51 19,357 Provincial Cities... 13 18,292 Western and Far Northern... 8 9,386 Country... 17 13,131 Total... 89 17,116 Note: The average number of voters is based on 31 December 1984 data used by the Redistribution Commission. Senator COLSTON —This table indicates that the 1985 redistribution has resulted in a greater degree of malapportionment than that of the 1977 redistribution. A vote in the western and far northern zone is now worth more than twice as much as a vote in the south-east zone and almost twice that of the provincial zone. The gap between the average number of voters in the south-east zone and the country zone has widened considerably. Whilst the principal effect of the zonal system is to produce a malapportioned electoral system it could also be regarded as a gerrymander in its own right. By gerrymander, I mean a system where boundaries are drawn in such a way as to serve a partisan advantage. The Queensland zonal system reduces the value of some citizens' votes and increases the value of others. Almost all of the electorates where the value of a vote has been enhanced are held by the ruling National Party. That cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a mere coincidence. The continued use of the zonal system, together with its unequal weighting of electors is nothing but a disgusting exercise in self-preservation on the part of the National Party in Queensland. I shall read to the Senate a quotation from a member of the Queensland Parliament about a zonal system but not mention the name of the speaker until the end of the quote. The grammatical error in the quotation appears in the original Hansard. It states: Truly, these are grave days for the people of Queensland, not so much because of the enemy without as because of the enemy within. Little do the people realise the grave injustice that is silently being inflicted upon them. In a most subtle way their freedom to select the Government they want to represent them are being taken away from them . . . In this legislation the people are being given the right of voting, admittedly, but the odds are so greatly against them that to achieve the results they desire is impossible because the predetermined zones and the numbers set out will mean nothing but that the majority will be ruled by the minority. The Speaker was not the Leader of the Queensland Opposition, or the Leader of the Liberal Party. The speaker was no other than the now Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He said this as a backbencher on 29 March 1949 when the zonal system was being debated in the Queensland Parliament. How relevant and how prophetic his words seem today. Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight one aspect of that quotation. The 1985 redistribution is not a subtle subversion of representative democracy in Queensland; it has all the subtlety of a head-on collision. I mentioned earlier that a grossly malapportioned system has resulted from the 1985 redistribution. I also suggested that the zonal system could be regarded as a gerrymander in its own right. If so, there are two dimensions of gerrymander in the redistribution because a further system of gerrymander overlays the zonal system. We are looking at boundary distortion and manipulation to advantage one party at the expense of others. Perhaps the most blatant manipulation of boundaries occurred with the small Aboriginal community of Wujal Wujal in far north Queensland. Wujal Wujal was transferred by the Act to the western and far northern zone from the provincial city zone electorate held by the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Tenni. The reason for making Wujal Wujal a landlocked island wholly surrounded by Mr Tenni's electorate, but not part of it, was the community's apparent audacity in failing to give the Minister political support. Just over 66 per cent of Wujal Wujal voters cast their votes for the Australian Labor Party at the last State election. I am aware that the South African system of apartheid has many sympathisers amongst the National Party. They must be pleased with this neat piece of electoral isolation. Wujal Wujal is a vivid example of Queensland-style apartheid. There are many examples of manipulated boundaries, some of which would make Governor Gerry of Massachusetts, the father of gerrymandering, blush. However, I shall leave examples of those because of the limitations of time on this debate. It is also worth mentioning, however, that there is a degree of malapportionment within the provincial city zone. Five different areas are treated separately: Bundaberg, central Queensland, Townsville, Cairns and Mackay. The average enrolments in each of these areas vary. Of the 13 electorates in this zone the highest enrolment is 20,837 and the lowest 15,959. It is perhaps of no suprise that the electorate with the lowest enrolment is Barron River, currently held by Mr Tenni. Lest it be thought that I have been overstating this case, honourable senators should allow me to quote from the publication Inside Canberra, dated 8 November 1985. Whilst I do not agree with all the claims made, they are an indication of how bad one commentator sees the situation to be. The publication states: Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's new electoral boundaries give him a hard core of nearly 50 seats out of the 89 in the Queensland Parliament. The Liberals have a hard core of 10 to 12 and were pleasantly surprised not to be wiped out. Labor could only count on 31 seats (or 35 per cent of the total) with its 1983 election figure of 45 per cent. It is now polling only 40 per cent and would drop to just above 20 seats. It would need 55.5 per cent of the vote to win a majority of seats in Queensland. Referring to what it stated as zonal malapportionment, the article continued: It gives Labor very few chances of winning the swag of new seats in the fastest growing area of Queensland-the conurbations running north, south, east and west of Brisbane along the major highways. Even though I know of no conurbation running east of Brisbane, this is a sound assessment. I now turn to the damage an electoral system like this has on Australia's international reputation. During the year, Australia has emphasised its long held repugnance of the lack of political rights for a vast number of black South Africans. Although we are a nation of only 15 million people, we do not hesitate to criticise other countries who do not afford basic human rights to their citizens. Indeed, we should not hesitate to do so. But will other countries take us seriously if we are seen to use an electoral system which denies electoral justice to a great section of the citizens of the third most populated state in Australia? We could be told, and rightly so, to go home and clear up our own backyard. This afternoon I have outlined certain aspects of the malapportioned and manipulated electoral boundaries in Queensland. I have not indicated what action the Federal Government should take other than to condemn what has occurred in Queensland. I have, however, on a previous occasion publicly stated that the Federal Government must take urgent action to ensure that the principle of one vote, one value for all legislatures in Australia is enshrined in legislation or in the Constitution. That is another matter which I expect will be debated some time in the future. Democracy, although the best form of government, is a fragile system. Unfortunately, the redistribution in Queensland is not doing anything to uphold that fragile system. It adversely affects the democratic rights of citizens in that State. It also has the potential of eroding the high international reputation that Australia enjoys. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(1.01) —I have listened with interest to Senator Colston's comments and I do not want in any way to enter into a defence of what most of us would believe is indefensible. But I am reminded of certain lines, the author of which I cannot remember. The merit of the lines is in the words that are spoken and not in the author, so I will remind the Senate of them. The lines are: Tell me not, in mournful numbers, Life is but an empty dream! For the soul is dead that slumbers, And things are not what they seem. I ask Senator Colston to consider a subject that I will raise today, that is that any parliament elected in a democratic way by one vote, one value still does not achieve everything. That may not be all; things are not always what they seem in a democracy. I draw Senator Colston's attention to a speech by Lord Hailsham entitled `How free should we be' in which he drew a distinction between what he chose to call a centralised democracy and a different sort of democracy that believed in freedom under law. He said: The clue to the difference between the two doctrines lies in a simple contrast. One asserts the right of the bare majority to do what it will. It believes it right that such a majority should impose on the entire community whatever laws or whatever structures it pleases, guided only by what it conceives to be the general good. The other denies that very right. On the contrary, it asserts that minorities and individuals have rights and interests which cannot be overridden by a majority however large and it will go on to claim that all government, whether popular or authoritarian, is subject to inherent limitations which it can only ignore at its peril. Senator Colston wanted a copy of that speech. I would be happy to provide it for him. My comments today centre on the roles of and relationship between the Parliament and the media. Being a politician, albeit a relative novice in the area, I have a strong desire to win elections and see the policies that I believe in put into practice. That would be achieved much more easily if politicians on my side of this chamber were, in a sense, bedfellows of the media. But I do not believe that it would ever be appropriate to allow that situation to arise. I am quite sure that the relationship between politicians and the media is now, and should remain, one of tension and mutual suspicion. Complicity between those who have power and those who tell the country about how that power is exercised is always a danger to any democracy. The journalist's job is to tell people things. It is to tell people what is happening in parliament; to acquire information, analyse that information and convey it, in whatever form he chooses, to the journal, radio station or television program he works for. Politicians do not always believe that when this activity takes place it is in their interests. Where media coverage is to eventuate, politicians understandably would like it to take place on their terms, in their way and, if possible, under their control. This, of course, is not in the interests of any democracy. Frequently we hear politicians blanketing their policies under the guise of their being in the public interest. Much damage has been done to democracy by politicians claiming to do things in the national interest simply because that individual politician, his party or his government, wishes to get a certain matter through the Parliament and therefore claims this blanket coverage of being in the national interest. We must rely on the media to be our watchdog, to provide a peephole under the blanket, to use a magnifying glass to tell the country exactly what is happening under the guise of public interest. Rudyard Kipling, I am led to believe, invented the saying about newspapers that was once put in Stanley Baldwin's mouth. He said that they have power without responsibility; the prerogative of the harlot through the ages. I am not at all sure that that is a fair comment, but it is one I think we should bear in mind. The media has a role in informing the public what happens in the Parliament. Comments such as Kelly's and observations by satirists such as Ian Warden, amusing though he may be, sometimes I think ignore the reality that the media is a part of our political equation and they cannot stand outside it without responsibility. Nor should they come so close that they become bedfellows with the politicians as I have said. But I think we should acknowledge that we are in the same arena more frequently than we do. The Canadian experience with the introduction of television to the coverage of Parliament brought to light many of the misgivings, perceptions and realities of parliamentary democracy in the electronic age that we now live in. Madam Speaker Lapointe of the Canadian Senate, speaking in Canberra in 1978, said: One of the most effective arguments heard in Canada for televising Parliament's business was that the time had come to take Parliament to the people. For too long its debates and crises had been filtered through the mouths and eyes of others. Not all those others were impartial, detached or objective observers. Programme editors, for example, decided which interviewers, commentators, academics or politicians would monopolize the screen to portray their version of events. Programme editors, we know, are not responsible to any electorate. In my view, the media often appears only too willing to pass adverse judgment of Parliament and, perhaps, this chamber in particular. In the wake of the 1983 National Economic Summit the noted political journalist, Paul Kelly, wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald. He said: The national Economic Summit is like a shot in the arm for a political reporter who has sat in the gallery for the past decade watching the decline of Parliament. The truth is that in two days the summit meeting has produced not only a fruitful debate about the economy, but offers the prospect of bringing parties closer together. This is something that has not happened in the Parliament for many years. It is a measure of the decay of our parliamentary system and is also a condemnation of the quality of our Parliamentarians. That is a comment from some time ago. Various senators and members and, indeed, members of the public may have read Ian Warden's article in the Canberra Times on Monday entitled `Knitting in the Land of Nod'. For those who have not read it I can tell them briefly that it was a cry of delight that he was to be relieved from the tedium and boredom of reporting Senate Question Time. He said that the `authentic voice of the Senate was just a dreary lullaby'. We should congratulate Ian Warden for pointing out what he sees as a problem that this chamber faces if it is to continue to have the credibility that it now has in the public eye. But, at the same time, I think it is fair to point out to Mr Warden that this house of review is not meant always to have the glitter of the gladiators in another place. With respect to those gladiators I could say, perhaps, that they are like wrestlers with a pre-staged outcome-every blow and kick being choreographed many days before the performance takes place. Senator Puplick —And the result fixed. Senator VANSTONE —And the result fixed as Senator Puplick says. I can offer some reasons for what I believe is a real decline in the role of Parliament, not just one that is perceived by the media. There is the growth of much more disciplined parties than we have seen in the past; there are increased expectations of bureaucracy, there is the growing role of outside groups which, as we all know, are outside the arms of government; and there are the media, the trade unions, the multinational business corporations and the National Farmers Federation. I could go on but I will not. Of course, there is also the advance of complex international technologies. Professor Reid, now His Excellency, has identified a few more of these problems. He says: The problems of Parliament also arise from its inherent division; not only is it divided by the federal constitution into two nominally powerful, and often conflicting, Houses: each constitutent House accommodates competing factions-each of which is usually divided between leaders and led . . . and, following the Westminster style of government, both Houses grant important priorities in debate and decision-making to executive Ministers of state. This has been cited as a problem that has facilitated the decline of Parliament. Professor Reid goes on to identify seven things that the Senate has done to ensure that it achieves, in one way, more than the House of Representatives in terms of survival. He writes: Where the House of Representatives has failed the Senate has succeeded. The first thing he points to is that since 1932 the Senate has borne the Parliament's responsibility for the scrutiny of the expanding volume of regulations and ordinances. He further points out that since 1970-71, the Senate has been bearing most of the burden of providing a parliamentary oversight of the Executive. He mentions, thirdly, the Senate's role in estimates of expenditure. He refers to the Senate's reference of Bills to small committees. It would be, perhaps, inappropriate for me to comment at this stage on how few Bills are actually referred to committees. He says that only in the Senate is there an attempt to subject annual reports of commissions, boards and instrumentalities to systematic committee scrutiny and only the Senate has shown a willingness to submit its own administration to a parliamentary inquiry. When he wrote the article I think it was true that only the Senate had produced a record of its voluminous precedence. In addition to the matters that I have raised about the decline of Parliament and what the Senate has done to bolster its own role, I should make some comment about the role of the chamber. One of the most frequent criticisms that I hear from visitors to this place is how few people are in the chamber. I believe that this lack of interest in the chamber is dangerous. If the chamber is occupied only by people who wish to make their speeches and then depart a certain sense of debate is lost. I offer the opinion that too few of those who are quick to pass judgments on those in this chamber recognise that members of parliament, both the House of Representatives and Senate, now spend a much larger portion of their working time in ways which have very little to do with the concept of parliament as the great forum of the nation. Instead of a parliamentarian being his or her constituent's representative in Canberra, he or she has become an interpreter of government policy back to the electorate and a mediator between the electorate and various manifestations of government. Perhaps it is unkind to suggest that the media all too readily accept the system as it is. It provides for them an easy target, namely the limited number of members of the Executive and the back bench members who, being a somewhat nomadic flock, are perhaps more difficult to capture to portray adequately the reality of the back bench to the public. Nonetheless, this is a goal that I believe the media should take upon themselves. In June or July, Australia was treated to a number of full page advertisements by a gentleman known as Mr John Leard. These advertisements received an enormous amount of coverage. The media said finally someone was prepared to stand up and say the things about Australia that our lazy politicians should have been saying all along. Mr Leard got much more space than he actually paid for in the media comment that followed. As a consequence of that comment, I chose to inquire from the library what sort of speeches had been made on four of the topics that Mr Leard used in his advertisement. It may interest senators to know that on the question of the national debt, in 1983-84, 47 senators had addressed the matter and in 1985 until late May 32 had. With respect to deregulation of the labour market, the figures were six and 18 respectively. On the question of government expenditure, in 1983-84, 20 senators had addressed the matter and in 1985, 20 again. Several weeks ago a debate on youth unemployment received very little coverage in the media. I believe it should have. It is my view that the media and the Press gallery in the Senate have a responsibility not only to report those things which have some glitter about them and are of a starring nature, but also to criticise Parliament when the speeches are so boring that no one can be bothered to listen. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(1.16) —I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words on the Irian Jayan refugee situation. As honourable senators are aware, some 10,000 West Irians crossed the rugged jungle border from Irian Jaya into Papua New Guinea almost two years ago. Despite the fact that this number represents almost one per cent of the total Melanesian population of Irian Jaya and was well in excess of the relatively few border people who normally cross back and forth, the Australian Government at first tried to claim that the situation was normal. It was not long before we were insisting that it was a bilateral problem between PNG and Indonesia. One would have thought that the arrival of eight West Irian canoe people on Australian soil in the past few months would have been ultimate proof that we cannot keep on ignoring what is happening inside Irian Jaya or that we can keep on escaping our international responsibilities when an obvious violation of human rights is being perpetrated in our immediate region. The media coverage and Government statements on the situation of the refugees have tended to concentrate on what is to happen to the refugees. For example, will they stay in PNG? If they are to return, how soon will they do so? Will some have to go to a third country? If so, which countries? There can be no lasting solution to these questions until the immediate causes of the flight of thousands of people from the country is recognised. The first question we must ask in any discussion about the refugees is: What is happening inside Irian Jaya to cause such mass migration? Ever since the Indonesians took control of the territory from the Dutch in the early 1960s, the picture has been one of subjugation of a people. The so-called act of free choice in 1969, though recognised by the United Nations, was simply manipulated by Jakarta to ensure that West Irian remained part of Indonesia. The Melanesian people have been continually subjected to programs to change their culture, to bring them out of the Stone Age, as one Indonesian Minister so paternalistically put it. In addition, people such as Arnold Ap have been shot in cold blood for the subversive activity of trying to preserve the Melanesian culture. Indonesia has embarked on the transmigration of Javanese into West Irian and intends to settle some 900,000 people in the province. Many of these transmigrants will be placed along the border in the north and south areas. There are already stories of forced acquisition of land by the Government to make way for the transmigrants. The local people, faced with the loss of their land, are also faced with being a minority in their own land. Not surprisingly, they are increasingly prepared to support the armed resistance which is generally referred to as the OPM as it tries tactics to resist transmigration. It is a great irony that the transmigration program, which has been implemented to dilute the Melanesian population, is having the effect of strengthening West Papuan nationalism. These are the issues that must be understood before we consider solutions to the refugee problem. The harsh and insensitive nature of the Indonesian regime has led to a mixture of spontaneous and organised resistance from the local population. The OPM has existed inside the territory since 1960. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not a single, centrally organised movement but it seems certain that the different groups around the country have a common aim. The last 20 years have been marked by spontaneous uprisings in specific areas in response to particular policies and actions of the Indonesian Administration. The Indonesian response to this resistance has been mainly a military one. Claims about Indonesian military operations in Irian Jaya are difficult to confirm but those of us familiar with the sad fate of the East Timorese have little difficulty in believing accounts of gross cruelty by Indonesian troops inside Irian Jaya. However, these military responses have not stopped resistance. If anything, West Papuan nationalism seems to be growing. It is primarily because of the indestructibility of West Papuan resistance that the Indonesian Government has intensified its official transmigration programs. As I have said, it is a mistake to see the future of the refugees or the border problem as the basic issues. The refugees are simply the visible sign of what is happening inside Irian Jaya. We can only guess what is happening to people who live far from the border, who have been forced off their land or forced into resettlement villages to make way for the transmigrants. Various claims have been made about the reasons why over 10,000 Irianese have fled into PNG. Some certainly fled in fear from the Jayapura area following the Indonesian military responses to the abortive OPM uprising in early 1984. Further south, people crossed because of harrassment or fear of harassment by the Indonesian forces. In part, this harassment went hand in hand with the implementation of the transmigration program. Some may have crossed to make a statement about the seriousness of what is happening in the territory or to draw international attention to the situation. At least some have crossed to avoid being caught in the OPM-Indonesian fights. What can clearly be said is that people, particularly Melanesian village people, do not leave their land without strong reasons for doing so. It must be remembered that 96 refugees died of starvation in the camps rather than go back to the other side of the border. Those who claim that the refugees fled in response to OPM propaganda, fail firstly, to acknowledge the experience that these people have had with the Indonesian military, and, secondly to explain why the refugees have stayed so long. Those who argue that the refugees are there purely for propaganda purposes also fail to concede that the longer the refugees remain in PNG, the more likely it is that their land will be taken in their absence by the Indonesian Administration for the transmigration program. Until recently the official position of the PNG Government was that the issue of the border crossers and refugees was a bilateral issue between itself and Indonesia. It is probable that sections within the PNG Government would like to force the return of a great percentage of the Irianese in the border camps. Fortunately, the PNG Government is restrained from doing this because of an enormous popular sympathy for the Irianese inside PNG. What the PNG Government will do about the refugees is still a matter of conjecture. Such incidents as the recent forced repatriation of 12 Irianese, with probable OPM connections, have happened before but they are a cause for alarm amongst defenders of human rights. The most recent statement from the PNG Government that it is trying to internationalise the problem is, in my view, a long overdue and important step. The Australian position on the refugees has been to cop out by saying that it is not our problem. Our official position in late 1984 was that `the best long term solution . . . is for the people to return voluntarily in safety and dignity'. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that Australia has acted to facilitate this objective. Foreign Minister Hayden told the PNG Government on 6 November that Australia would not take any of the refugees into Australia and that we have made a significant contribution in humanitarian aid for the refugees in the PNG camps. It is prepared to consider helping PNG resettle genuine refugees in PNG, to find third countries to take some of the refugees and seek further United Nations assistance for PNG. The arrival of five West Irianese on Boigu, an Australian island off the PNG coast, has, however, put the cat amongst the pigeons. The Government quickly stated that no Irianese reaching Australia in this way would be allowed to stay here. This policy, said the Government, was to discourage the `draw effect' or flood of people into Australia. At this stage it is certainly worth noting that the Government has not so far been prepared to concede that there might have been a legitimate reason for leaving Irian Jaya. One might be excused for gaining an impression from the media and from the Government statements that somehow the Papua New Guinean Government was to blame. I cannot explain the apparently hard line position of the Australian Government in what seems to be a clear cut human rights question. We cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening inside Irian Jaya. The root cause for the refugee problem is the policies of the Indonesian Government in the province. At the very least, Australia should insist on a modification of Indonesian Government activities in Irian Jaya. The first thing that must be tackled is the scale and implementation of the transmigration program. This is not simply an internal matter for Indonesia. The transmigration program is, at least in part, responsible for what is now, by definition, an international refugee problem. Australia should insist that if people are to return to Irian Jaya they should do so voluntarily under internationally agreed conditions, for example, under conditions of continual monitoring by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In the case of the Irianese who do not want to return, Australia should promote an international scheme to settle the refugees in this region. Events in West Irian are of regional concern. Australia is in a position to play a key role in this issue. It is also in a position to urge on the Indonesian Government a modification of the policies which are responsible for the problem. If we are not prepared to tackle the root causes of the issue our moral responsibilities to assist the victims of events in Irian Jaya are even greater. Senator JONES(Queensland)(1.27) —I take this opportunity today to pass a few remarks on the redistribution in Queensland proposed by the National Party Government. The efforts of the National Party-which, I might add, are almost certain to be successful, given the weakness and ineptitude of the Liberal Party in Queensland-to effect yet another and even more far reaching gerrymander of State electoral boundaries are, given the nature of the Government in Queensland, quite obscene. The proposal, as Senator Colston has said, provides the well-discredited National Party with an electoral majority if it manages to harvest a mere 35 per cent of the vote. It is a knife in the back of democracy not only in Queensland but also in Australia as a whole. We must not sit back in the Senate and regard Queensland as being somewhere else, or something to laugh at and then forget. Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is not a joke figure. He is well and truly beyond any form of joke-he is a dangerous man. Queensland represents a large part of Australia. It is the third largest State in Australia in terms of population and the second largest in terms of size. The rest of Australia cannot isolate itself from the outrages perpetrated by the Queensland Government under the guise of Queensland democracy. No one wants a State rights confrontation but, at the same time, one single State government cannot be allowed to continue, year after year, prostituting the basic parliamentary procedures of the entire nation. It is pointless talking about constitutional responsibilities in relation to Queensland as it is today, or Australia, while Queensland remains as it is. It is pointless even thinking of individual rights and equalities. The latest redistribution is designed to smash the electoral voice of some 65 per cent of the voting public, or even slightly more, to allow a minority party, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen's National Party, to govern in its own right on a vote of 35 per cent or even slightly less. In simple terms, the proposal demands, through this electoral villainy, one-party control over Queensland on a vote that could be one or more percentage points behind the 36 per cent it achieved in the 1974 State election which reduced the Australian Labor Party temporarily, and democratically disastrously, to a cricket team without a twelfth man in a parliament of 82. A report was released by the three commissioners who handled the maps within a highly rigid, totally unjust four-zonal system thrust upon it under the terms of reference given to them by Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen and his Cabinet. The whole idea of the exercise was to put the electoral boundaries in kilter-to make the imbalances brought about by population changes more fair and realistic. What are we confronted with in this so-called redistribution? Let me give an example. A seat called Balonne in the Bjelke-Petersen back blocks of Queensland has a handful of electors-a mere 8,162. Perhaps they could recruit a few kangaroos and for that matter, a few emus. At the other end of the scale is the seat of Townsville East, in the midst of a highly populated provincial city, where 20,837 voters will jostle with each other to cast a vote for the Australian Labor Party. In a National Party seat, 8,162 electors will elect a member and in a Labor Party seat, 20,837 will elect a member. Already it has been pointed out that the commissioners are required under the Act to keep State electoral boundaries as far as possible within the existing local government boundaries in a bid to retain community interest. Yet, under the present four-zonal arrangement and the way in which the maps have been drawn many Labor voters have been gathered into tight areas and no fewer than 12 local government boundaries have been truncated. There has been much mention lately of the small Aboriginal community of Wujal Wujal. I believe, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you mentioned that matter so I will not take the time of the Senate by going over the details of that redistribution. But I think it is worthwhile saying that because the Aboriginal population tended to vote for the Australian Labor Party and was, therefore a deep threat to the tenure of Mr Tenni, the National Party member, it has been cloistered into a landlocked island. This is simply because 66 per cent of those Aborigines voted Labor last time. In Queensland that is a crime to be punished whether one happens to be black or white. The Senate must realise that Queensland is held hostage by a government that is vigorous in its discrimination and complete in its corruption. I have not used a number of adjectives that could be used because this is a public interest debate. Some people say that the Queensland Government is the best that can be put together by a complete gerrymander-I would not disagree with that statement-and it is only the gerrymander that keeps it together. When it comes to the gerrymander or, as Queensland has come to call it, the `Bjelkemander' the Queensland Premier makes past masters of this art of parliamentary burglary, such as Tom Playford and Henry Bolte, shine out like patron saints in comparison. To be frank to all fellow colleagues in this place, I believe the events in Queensland are such that its Government should be subject not only to a constitutional study or a committee of inquiry, but also to an inquiry on a much wider criminal scale by the National Crime Authority. It is committing a crime against the Queensland people. On the tenth anniversary of the Whitlam dismissal, we were reminded of Albert Patrick Field, who was appointed to this place at the expense of the ALP nominee. Mr Acting Deputy President, that nominee was, Senator Malcolm Colston-yourself. It was an exercise cynically undertaken by Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen to help bring down the Whitlam Government. The so-called mandate this one-party government in Queensland professes to enjoy is based, in practice, on a 38 per cent vote, plus two political turncoats of whom honourable senators may have heard. Their names are Austin and Lane, former members of the Liberal Party. They switched from the Liberals to the Nationals in a highly cynical way, immediately after the last election, to give Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen the majority he needed to form a government in his own right without the taint of Liberal involvement. Where else in Australia is there a slush fund such as the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, which through the Premier and sometimes his Cabinet colleagues, dispenses knighthoods, jobs for the boys, contracts and favours in repayment for donations or, should I say investments? I intended to continue along that line but because of the nature of the debate I do not now intend to do so. But I think it is worthwhile saying at this stage that the Sun Herald of 10 November 1985, contained an article in the `On the Inside' column. It was headed: `Old, old story'. It stated: Really! Following Joh's blatant boundary gerrymander, the Queensland Chief Electoral Commissioner John Andrews is set to be knighted in the New Year's Honours. And, he's been recommended for a Government plum job as chairman of the Queensland Sugar Board. I do not need to say any more. I think most honourable senators will be able to judge for themselves why some of those things are now happening. The Queensland Government, in its latest move, has totally ditched its sugar industry. Through the gerrymander it has attempted to enshrine National Party control on a vote which is almost 10 per cent lower than that gained by any opposition party in the country. An example of the gerrymander is the way the proportion of votes and seats per zone has changed between the 1977 redistribution and the horror show proposed in 1985. In 1977, the south-east zone had 63.6 per cent of the voters and 57.3 per cent of the seats. In the 1985 plan the south-east zone has slightly more of the voters, 64.6 per cent, and the same number of seats, 57.3 per cent. Provincial cities in the zonal set-up in Queensland in 1977 had 17.1 per cent of the voters and 15.9 per cent of the seats. Under the new plan, the zone will have 16 per cent of the voters and 14.6 per cent of the seats. It is also interesting when we come to the areas where the Bjelke-Petersen minority Government won 41 seats in 1983 with a percentage of only 38.9 per cent of the overall vote and formed a government following the defection of the two Liberals to help hold its power base together. In 1977 a 5 per cent proportion of votes was responsible for the destiny of 8.5 per cent of all seats in Queensland. Under the 1985 plan, 4.5 per cent of the votes will determine the outcome of 9 per cent of the seats. In the country zone in 1977 a total of 14.3 per cent of electors were represented by 18.3 per cent of the seats. The picture in 1985, when these proposals go ahead, will still be that 14.3 per cent of the voters will have 18.3 per cent of the seats. This will occur under the proposal which the commissioners have brought down. In 1977, the average number of voters per seat in the four zones was 47 seats in the south-east zone with an average number of voters of 16,368 per seat; 13 seats in the provincial cities zone with an average of 15,952 voters per seat; seven seats in the western and far northern zone with an average of 8,586 voters per seat; and 15 seats in the country zone with an average of 11,515 voters per seat. Under the Bjelkemander proposal, in 1985 the south-east zone will have 51 seats with an average of 19,358 voters-the previous average was 16,368 so the figure is vastly up. The provincial cities zone will have 13 seats with an average of 18,756 voters-a figure which is vastly up again in terms of individual voters and seats. The western and far northern zone will have 8 seats with an average of merely 8,659-a figure which is marginally down. The country zone, with 17 seats, has two seats more than in 1977. It has an average of 13,314 voters per seat-a figure which is up but, in percentage terms, is nowhere near the extent of the increase in the more heavily populated areas on or near the eastern coast. In other words, the weighting effect of the zonal system has been aggravated by the 1985 proposed Bjelkemander compared with the already outrageous situation which was brought to bear in 1977. It is also worth while at this late stage mentioning just two of the points made by Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen in his second reading speech when he introduced the Bill into the Parliament. He said: The four-zone system will continue the balanced representation, balanced development policy of my Government. Unlike the one vote, one value policy of other political parties, the zonal system ensures that there is an equal spread of new seats across the State. There will be four in southern Queensland and three in the central and north Queensland areas. This contrasts markedly with the Labor Party's Federal redistribution where, under its one vote, one value policy, all of the five seats were created in populous southern Queensland. Further he said: This is a very fair Bill, as it upholds the policy of balanced representation as opposed to one vote, one value, which would mean that at least an extra nine electorates would be created within 160 km of the Brisbane City Hall. I think it is quite clear that there is no intention by the Premier in Queensland to introduce one vote, one value. He has weighted electorates in such a way that he has created a situation in which there are 20,000-odd voters in a provincial city electorate and 8,000 in a country seat such as Balonne. Sitting suspended from 1.42 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to the fact that one of the four major savings banks which provide in total over 50 per cent of the housing loans in Australia has announced that it intends to cut its housing loans by 70 per cent and that two other savings banks have indicated their intention to severely curtail lending for housing. Can the Minister say what alternative sources of funds are available to home buyers and at what interest rate? Senator RYAN —I am advised that the Treasurer made a statement this morning setting out alternative sources of finance. I will make sure that a copy of that statement is made available. Senator FOREMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Did he see the report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 15 October entitled `Coalition bid to tax lotteries'? In that article Senator Messner, the Opposition's tax spokesman, was reported as having prepared suggestions on how the Government's capital gains tax proposal could be extended into other areas other than shares and property. The report suggested that secret plans by the Opposition involving the use of section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act to tax speculative windfall gains, such as lottery wins, at full marginal rates of taxation were being seriously considered. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is giving too much information in his question. I suggest that he bring his question to an end. Senator FOREMAN —Under that section such gains would be taxed without discounting for the effect of inflation. Will the Minister describe what impact such a move would have on things such as employment in that area and whether such proposals would vastly increase capital gains tax collections? Senator WALSH —I cannot say that I actually saw the report in the Adelaide Advertiser to which Senator Foreman referred but I am not surprised that it was in the Adelaide Advertiser because I have a copy of a minute signed by Senator Messner as shadow Minister for finance and taxation and dated 7 October 1985. It is one of those copies of Opposition executive minutes which are thoughtfully leaked by members of the Opposition executive to the Australian Labor Party and the Press from time to time-indeed, almost on a daily basis these days. Such is the state of cohesion not just in the Liberal Party itself but in the coalition's shadow Ministry that confidential minutes are leaked almost on a daily basis. This minute, under the section headed, `Capital gains tax', refers to the sorts of things to which Senator Foreman referred. It says: Under present tax arrangements, considerable speculative investment is subject to tax at marginal rates (e.g. short-term share, property, and futures investment). On equity grounds, `speculative' windfall gains such as lottery wins ought logically to have been included in any CGT. The implication of that policy as enunciated by Senator Messner is, firstly, that a broadening of the section 26AAA provision would tax gains without making any allowance for inflation which, compared to the tax that the Government is proposing on capital gains, would be quite unfair. Senator Messner's reference to lottery wins opens up the whole question of an area of cash receipts presently not taxed in the hands of the receiver. It is indeed the thin edge of the wedge for a punters' tax. If a punter were to be taxed under section 26AAA there would be an average rate of tax on punters' winnings of about 36 per cent. If Senator Messner's policy were implemented we would find that every punter in Australia, every time he is lucky enough to have a win, would on average have 36 per cent of it seized straight away by Senator Messner. Senator Messner —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the statement from which he just quoted. Senator WALSH —It is your paper. You should be able to distribute copies of it yourself. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has tabled the document. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that at this time last year a new home buyer would have faced a savings bank interest rate of 11.5 per cent and repayments of about $500 a month on a $50,000 loan? Is it also a fact that, due to the Hawke Government's high interest rate policies, the same potential borrower, unable to get the entire loan from a savings bank even at the much higher interest rate of 13.5 per cent, is now being forced to obtain a combined savings-trading bank loan at interest rates of up to 17.5 per cent, requiring repayments of more than $700 a month; that is, repayments some 40 per cent higher on the same loan than were necessary a year ago? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that Australians will have to live with higher interest rates for a while, is there any relief in sight for home buyers hit by such a savage rise in repayments? Senator RYAN —In the financial year 1984-85 the number of loans by all significant lenders-that is, 323,370-rose by 2.8 per cent to a new annual record. In the three months to August 1985 total approvals by all lenders remained at a high level; that is, at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 336,000. The short term prospects report of the Indicative Planning Council forecast a reduction of 5 per cent in the 1985-86 total number of approvals by banks and permanent building societies. This would need downward revision if banks reduced further lending. Senator Knowles —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister is simply not answering the question. I ask that the question be answered. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator RYAN —Thank you, Mr President. Perhaps Senator Chaney should instruct his back benchers about when points of order can properly be raised. While some privately owned banks have announced that they are reviewing their lending, the Commonwealth Savings Bank has indicated that it will be maintaining its lending target of $1.6 billion for the financial year. Borrowers who meet bank eligibility criteria should still be able to get housing loans from savings banks. The first home owners scheme continues to help low to moderate income earners into home ownership and, of course, the Government is monitoring the situation. The summary of the situation is that home ownership, particularly amongst low income families, has dramatically increased under the policies of the Hawke Government and will continue to do so. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the length of questions that have been asked today. I suggest that far too much information is being given in the questions from both sides of the chamber. I ask that they seek information from Ministers, not provide it. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I have a point of order. I seek the guidance of the Chair. I would like to know whether it is in order for Senator Ryan to answer the question Senator Messner asked her two questions later when a quite different question was put to her by Senator Knowles. I ask you whether the Minister is under any obligation to answer questions in the order in which they are asked of her. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator COLSTON —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Does regional Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Queensland broadcast a racing service which is relayed from a Brisbane commercial radio station? Does the ABC have any concern that radio commercials are also sometimes relayed when the racing service is connected, as reported in the Sunday Sun of 10 November 1985? Was this consequence foreseen when the ABC made its disgraceful decision to discontinue its own racing service in Queensland? Does the ABC intend to request royalties for the numerous commercials which slip through? Senator WALSH —This question has a rather familiar ring about it. Senator Colston asked three questions. The answer to the first one is no; the ABC produces its own Saturday afternoon sporting program for regional areas of Queensland, which includes the ABC's own racing service. In answer to the second question, the Sunday Sun of 10 November was not specific-- Senator Colston —That's not right. Senator WALSH —Well, that is what I am advised by the Minister's office. The Sunday Sun of 10 November was not specific. The ABC takes a `clean feed'-I am not sure what that means; I am not familiar with the technical jargon or slang-of the course broadcaster and does not relay the commercial station's program. The answer to the third question-I have covered this point in answers to similar questions-is that the ABC at no time made a decision to discontinue its racing service in country Queensland. As an economy measure it changed its Brisbane sporting program format. Senator COLSTON —By way of a supplementary question, Mr President, I ask: Did the Minister, in fact, say `no' in answer to the first question; that the racing service is relayed from a Brisbane commercial radio station? Senator WALSH —That is what I am advised by the Minister-that the answer to the first question is no; the ABC produces its own Saturday afternoon sporting program for regional areas of Queensland, which includes the ABC's own racing service. Senator MASON —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of events in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly yesterday in which the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly said, in relation to an answer given by the Government, `Only those drongos could possibly make the link', which I suggest would not be considered an immoderate statement in this vicinity. Is it the case that at no time was Mr Collins given the opportunity to withdraw his remarks? Was Mr Collins then named and suspended from sittings for seven days? Does the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, in fact, sit for only another seven days this year? Does the Minister see any connection between these events and the recent release of a report on the Chamberlain case which is due to be debated in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly? Finally, in the light of these events, how does the Government feel the development of democracy is progressing in the Northern Territory? Senator BUTTON —Senator Mason's question came in several parts. He asked whether I am aware of events in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly yesterday. The answer to that part is no, but I must say that the statement quoted by Senator Mason has a certain air of veracity about it. I have known Mr Collins for a long time and he does have a precise, punctilious and exact way of expressing himself, and it seems to be an excellent description of the situation with which he was confronted. I was then asked whether Mr Collins was given the opportunity to withdraw his remarks. I do not know. I was asked whether the Assembly was, in fact, going to sit for only another seven days. I do not know. I was asked whether this was connected with the Chamberlain case. I do not know, but I assume so. Opposition members interjecting- Senator BUTTON —I have been asked to answer a question. I usually get objections when I answer them with this degree of precision, and I am getting them again. The last part of the question was whether I regarded-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Button, I suggest that the last part was about the only part of the question that came within your responsibilities. Senator BUTTON —I made that quite clear, Mr President, in my answer. I was finally asked what I had to say about the progress of the development of democracy in the Northern Territory. I am eternally optimistic about that. I think that the most important thing, whether it is in Australia or outside Australia, is for systems of government to be, as it were, put on the stairway to life. I do not know how long it will take them to climb that stairway to a degree of enlightenment and sophistication such as we have attained in the Senate, but let me say that I think that in the case of the Northern Territory it will be a very long time. It will probably reach the point we are at in about the year 2000, and that will not be very far advanced. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. The Minister will be aware that the terms of office of members of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council expired on 30 June 1985, the date from which the Council ceased to operate. Can the Minister inform the Senate what action is being taken to establish a new national legal aid advisory body? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Attorney that at his direction the Department is developing a proposal as a matter of priority for the creation of an efficient and effective national legal aid monitoring and co-ordination mechanism, having regard to the contents of the final report of the departmental legal aid task force, which report was published in August this year. In general terms, the proposal at this stage is likely to involve the establishment of an identifiably separate part of the Department in conjunction with an appropriately constituted effective advisory body. The Attorney-General has indicated that he will consult interested persons, groups and bodies, including, of course, State legal aid commissions, on the detailed proposal when he has had an opportunity of considering it. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. It follows that and is indeed the question asked by Senator Knowles to which no answer has been given. I point out to the Minister that the question relates to the cost of home loans and not to the number of home loans. Is it a fact that this time last year a new home buyer would have faced a savings bank interest rate of 11.5 per cent and repayments of about $500 a month on a $50,000 loan? Is it also a fact that, under this Government's high interest rate policies, that same potential borrower is having to obtain a combined savings-trading bank loan at interest rates of up to 17.5 per cent, with repayments of more than $700 a month; that is, 40 per cent higher than the same sized loan required a year ago? I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that Australians will have to live with high interest rates for a while-I use his words-is there any relief in sight for home buyers hit by such a savage rise in repayments? Senator RYAN —I do not intend to confirm or deny the results of Senator Chaney's arithmetic. I simply remind Senator Chaney and all honourable senators that the growth in home ownership, particularly by low income earners, under this Government has been dramatic. There are now hundreds of thousands of people in possession of homes who were not a few years ago. As to the details of the Government's current response, I refer Senator Chaney to the Treasurer's statement of this morning. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Given the Minister's high salary and comfortable position, is she aware of the fact that many Australians are facing very significantly higher interest rate repayments? I ask her: What prospect is there of relief for those Australians? Senator RYAN —I do not know whether Senator Chaney would like me to take him over to my electorate office and introduce him to the constituents who come into my office to discuss the difficulties they are having in meeting mortgage repayments. I do not quite know what sort of an answer he wants to such a silly question. The fact of the matter is that this Government has done more for home ownership by low income families than any government before it has done, and we will continue to do so. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Why has the Trade Practices Commission not taken action against the proposed Coles-Myer merger? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Attorney-General that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act prohibits only mergers that result in dominance or strengthen existing dominance of a substantial market. The Trade Practices Commission, which is an independent statutory authority, indicated on 8 August this year that it would not intervene, as Senator Childs's question implies. The Trade Practices Commission expressed concern at the degree of market power likely to result, but concluded that it would be unlikely to be such as to enable the mergered entity to behave in a manner exhibiting the hallmarks of dominance; that is to say, the statutory requirement. Significant competitors remain, such as David Jones, at department store level, and Woolworths and Venture at discount store level. The Government will ensure that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act can effectively control abuses of market power, particularly when firms like this have enormous buying power over suppliers. There are other ways of achieving some of the constraints and limitations that might be thought to be necessary in the consumer and public interest other than applying the merger provisions of section 50. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Minister has said in the Senate that one cannot put too much weight on one month's balance of payments figures, does the Government put any weight on the figures for the latest four months, which together show a 25 per cent worsening in Australia's current account deficit compared with the same period last year, to $5,000m-a rate about 50 per cent worse than the $10,700m forecast by the Government for the full financial year? Does the Government still stick to this Budget forecast? If not, what are the new forecasts and when will the public be informed of them? If so, will the huge improvement now required to meet this target come from enormous falls in imports or from very large rises in exports? What will be the items that provide this improvement? Senator BUTTON —I did say the other day that too much attention should not be given to one month's figures in respect of the balance of payments. I think that is true about most figures relating to economic management and performance. We have said that, as previous governments have said it, in relation to a range of statistics and figures. I was then asked what account I take of the figures for four months, which show a bad picture. Let me say in regard to anything I have said about the balance of payments-indeed, anything which the Treasurer or the Prime Minister have said-that the observations have been based on the four months' figures and not on one month's figures. We are aware that this is a serious difficulty at present for this country. I do not think anybody runs away from that fact. As I have said in the Senate on recent occasions, the problem which is reflected in the balance of payments figures and, indeed, the problem which is reflected in the current value of the dollar is a long term problem for which governments, industry and so on over many years have to assume some degree of responsibility. Naturally, because we are in government, the Opposition's effort is to stick us with the major responsibility. I understand that; it is part of being in opposition. Honourable senators opposite will get used to it. In looking at the four months' figures, I think the picture which has emerged, consequent upon the devaluation of the dollar and the balance of trade figures, is of an economy which has a long way to go in terms of increasing its international competitiveness. I think it has a considerable way to go when one looks at the history of this situation in Australia, a country which was dependent-- Senator Watson —Tell us about the J curve. Senator BUTTON —Stop it or you will go blind, Senator Watson. If one looks at the history of this country over many years one will find that it is a country which has been very dependent for export earnings on agricultural products and the products of the mining industry. In that same period the manufacturing sector was allowed to decline behind high protective barriers. People who suddenly expect that, when agricultural products and mining sector products are encountering difficulties in world markets, the manufacturing sector can be turned around after that length of time and suddenly take up the burden of our exports and balance of trade are in the same category as Senator Watson who has just interjected. Those things cannot be done. It is a long haul which requires persistence. So the answer to Senator Michael Baume's question is that we are concerned about the four months' figures. We will stick to the Budget forecast. If there is any revision of the Budget forecast which we feel it appropriate to announce we will do so. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I had specifically asked the Minister: If the Government sticks to the Budget forecast, which will involve a very significant improvement in the existing situation, will the huge improvements now required to meet this target come from enormous falls in imports or from very large rises in exports for the remaining eight months of the year? What will those items be that provide this improvement? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I had specifically asked that question, Mr President. Senator BUTTON —As is the case in respect of all of these sorts of figures, there is no identification in the break-up of any department, I suppose-- Senator Chaney —The figures you cited yesterday were broken up. Senator BUTTON —I was asked a question, Senator, about what export items would provide that resurgence. I think it is very difficult to answer that question on the basis of any viable forecast. The Budget strategy and the Budget assumptions are predicated on a decline in imports-I forget the figure; I think it is 6 per cent over the year-and a rise in exports. Beyond saying that that is so, and I think that both processes are at work, to use Senator Coates's immortal phrase-- Senator Chaney —No, Senator Cook. Senator BUTTON —I said `Senator Coates'. I am sure it was Senator Coates. There is a lot of discussion in international economic journals about the J curve and how the J curve operates. Let me say quite frankly that in the Australian environment I think it is clear, on the basis of experience, and it is also clear on the basis of any sensible observation, having regard to what I said in relation to the earlier part of the question, that the J curve operates differently. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —You sound like Yes Minister. Senator BUTTON —I am glad to have a contribution from the honourable senator; there have not been many in the last three years. But that is the fact of the matter. I cannot answer the question any more specifically than that. I do not think Senator Michael Baume would be helped if I did. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister for Community Services been drawn to the West Australian of 12 November which carries an item alleging that there will be an extra charge of $11 a week for every child attending a day care centre and that single mothers receiving welfare would be discouraged from seeking work? Will the Minister explain the position for the benefit of West Australian users of child care, bearing in mind that the daily paper has not seen fit to carry a factual account of the new funding arrangements? Senator GRIMES —The West Australian newspaper plus some other newspapers reported various alarmist stories about child care changes. These stories were sometimes the result of the fevered imagination of the reporters concerned. At other times the stories were put out by vested interests who feared that the changes to child care funding would affect their incomes. The facts are-and the facts are particularly important in Western Australia-that about 58 per cent of users of day care centres will have a maximum increase of $2 a week, or 5c an hour. That $2 a week will apply only to those who have their children in care for 40 hours. Most people have their children in care for much less than that. Single parents, for instance, on average will have an increase of about 80c to 85c a week. But under the new funding arragements, as under the old funding arrangements, there is provision for the centres to take into account the special needs of those who are particularly badly off and fees can be waived altogether. A small number of people, about 6 per cent, from memory, will have increases of between $2 and $10. A similar number will have increases of between $10 and $20 and less than one per cent will have increases of over $20. They will all be people in receipt of incomes above about $32,000 to $36,000 a year. About 3 per cent of people with one child, and particular-people with two children, will have a considerable decrease in their fees. This is a result of the rearrangement of the funding. I hope that the newspapers that have been publishing alarmist stories about what they think might happen in the new child care funding arrangements will have the decency to print the details of the funding arrangements which have been arrived at so that their alarmist stories of the past which are sometimes fed to them by people who should know better can be counteracted and the fears of people allayed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer make a formal statement on the extent of the credit squeeze which has been imposed by the Government? Senator WALSH —Without accepting the terms in which the question was phrased, I do not know the answer and I will refer the question to the Treasurer. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the total breakdown of talks yesterday with industry leaders and the Queensland Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Turner, regarding the plight of the sugar industry? Is the Government aware that the Queensland Government decided in advance to abort the Commonwealth Government's offer of grants of up to $150m to assist the sugar industry? What protection can the Federal Government offer to the sections of the industry that are prepared to grasp the help being offered by Canberra and are being refused it because of the attitude of the Queensland Government? Senator WALSH —Yes, I am aware of the breakdown yesterday of the talks about assistance to the sugar industry due to the intransigence and mean-mindedness of the Queensland Government. I am also aware of the fact that the Queensland Government decided in advance to abort the Commonwealth's rescue operation. I had first heard two or three days ago that that was going to happen. I am advised by the Minister that the protection that the Federal Government offers to the industry is still on the table. I do not know that it will remain there indefinitely but it is certainly there for the time being subject to the Queensland Government agreeing to accept its share-indeed, in my view, something less than its share-of the responsibility, and that is to match with one State Government dollar every $2 that the Commonwealth puts up. In my view, the Commonwealth is being more than generous in making that sort of an offer. Indeed, it would have been generous to make a fifty-fifty offer, let alone a two to one offer. The Queensland Government was not prepared to accept matching on a one for two basis that Commonwealth offer of up to $150m over a three year period. It will probably be said, if it has not been said already, that the State Government does not have the financial resources. That, of course, is false. The Queensland Government has hollow logs stuffed full of money all over the place, a substantial amount of which-at least $20m or $30m-is in fact Commonwealth money lent to Queensland over a 20-year period for rural adjustment, on-lent to farmers and then recalled from the farmers by the Queensland Government in a period much shorter than the 20 years for which the money was advanced by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the on-lending. The Queensland Government has at least $20m, or $30m stuffed away in a hollow log from that source alone. It is quite untrue to say that the State Government could not afford to match the Commonwealth's offer. Senator BOSWELL —My question is also addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Government has guaranteed the Queensland sugar industry $173m which is not subject to any dollar for dollar arrangement but is a straight direct grant? Is he also aware that the Queensland Cane Growers Council has asked the Queensland Government not to negotiate deregulation with the Federal Government? Senator WALSH —I am aware of a bit of financial conjuring by the Queensland Government under which it has asserted that it has offered the industry $173m. I think that figure is correct. What the Queensland Government has put forward is a proposal to provide carry-on finance, mostly to mills and not to the cane growers, whom Senator Boswell probably purports to represent, by way of loans. But that, of course, is not $173m. The value of the interest forgone on the loans is of the order of $23m. So $23m is the real offer being made by the Queensland Government, not to the cane growers, whom Senator Boswell purports to represent, but mostly to mills. Of course, this proposal has the additional disadvantage of being essentially of a prop-up nature. It does nothing at all to address the structural problems of the industry. It just postpones to another period the inevitable structural adjustment which, because it has been postponed, will, when it eventually happens, be more painful than it need otherwise have been. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs advise the Senate of the Government's views on the current political and economic crises facing the Philippines? What has the Australian Government done to relay any concerns that it may have to the Philippines Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —The brief supplied to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this currently very sensitive subject is in the following terms, and I am happy to make the Government's position clear on these issues. The Philippines is important to Australia not only because of the presence of United States bases there, strategically important though these are, or because of the hypothetical threat to our trade routes. The Philippines is important to us as a regional country of over 50 million people which has been a supporter of Western values, a founder member of the Association of South East Asian Nations and a partner in the economic development aspirations of our region. Stability in the Philippines is important to the stability of the region. The Government believes that the current complex situation requires careful thought and a careful response-not, I interpolate, some half-baked shooting from the hip that we have received in recent times from the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. It therefore looks forward to a consideration of the results of the inquiry being carried out by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Philippine economy faces severe problems. Despite progress made in rescheduling foreign debt and in reducing inflation, economic growth is expected to remain negative again this year. Improvement cannot be expected until confidence in the political situation in the Philippines is restored. The New Peoples Army, the NPA, continues to grow. There are now an estimated 15,000 to 16,500 armed guerrillas. The NPA is not in a position to overthrow the Government but the insurgency situation is serious and shows no sign of improvement. The Government has viewed the situation in the Philippines with concern for some time and has maintained a close interest in these problems. Mr Hayden took the opportunity to raise them with the Acting Foreign Minister of the Philippines at the ASEAN post-ministerial conference discussions in Kuala Lumpur in July 1985. Clearly, the internal problems of the Philippines have to be resolved by the Philippines people themselves. President Marcos announced on 3 November that he proposed to hold a snap presidential election on 17 January next year. The final decision as to whether the election will take place and when will be made by the National Assembly. The Australian Government looks forward to fair elections whenever held. Impartial supervision of the elections by the Commission on Elections or COMELEC will play an important role in ensuring a fair poll. We shall follow with interest the issue of reaccreditation to COMELEC of the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections known as NAMFREL whose poll monitoring activities had a positive effect on the conduct of the 1984 National Assembly elections. Might I finally say that early elections in themselves will not solve the many problems facing the Philippines. Much will depend on the will and capability of whoever wins the presidential election to carry out political and economic reforms which will allow the aspirations of the Philippine people to be met. The Australian Government hopes that change can be achieved peacefully and constructively with respect for democratic processes and human rights. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Does the Government acknowledge that the equal rights of Australian citizens to elect governments of their choice is a basic and democratic human right? Does the Minister agree that the corrupt Queensland electoral system denies such fundamental rights? Will he give an assurance that the Government will give its blessing to any inquiry into the corrupt Queensland electoral system by the Human Rights Commission and that any Bill of Rights introduced into this Parliament will also acknowledge such fundamental human rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, as to the first two questions. Clearly, I have been saying as much in this Parliament all week, and indeed as long as I have been in this Parliament, but the matter has been acutely drawn to our attention with the outrageous gerrymander that has become public knowledge in the last few days. As to the question of an investigation by the Human Rights Commission into the electoral situation in Queensland, that is something in the first instance for the Human Rights Commission itself to embark upon. I cannot imagine that the Attorney-General would have any views which would inhibit in any way the role of the Human Rights Commission in that respect, either under its present legislative charter or under any that might be created in the future. That is a matter for the Attorney-General and I will refer Senator Macklin's remarks to him. As to the content of the proposed Bill of Rights, which I understand is being debated in the other place today, there is of course a clause in that Bill which guarantees in terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights universal and equal suffrage to all Australian citizens. It is a matter no doubt for future debate in this place and elsewhere as to the extent to which such a guarantee should apply to the States. It is a matter of interest, as I have mentioned previously in this chamber, that the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which has considered this question, has come forward with a recommendation that the Bill be amended in that respect-even if not to apply to the States generally, at least that it should do so so far as electoral guarantees are concerned. No doubt that is something the Attorney-General and the Government will take very closely into account should it become an issue, as no doubt it is likely to, when the Bill is debated in this place. Again, I will refer Senator Macklin's question to the Attorney-General for such further comment as he might wish to make. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Considerable concern has been expressed as to the level of air services between Australia and Japan and the fact that Australians wishing to travel from some States to Japan have been particularly disadvantaged in that routes to Japan operate solely from major cities on the eastern seaboard. What action has been taken to relieve this problem? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that matters aimed at improving international services to Australian cities are determined largely by market demand and are subsequently considered on that basis in a commercial judgment decision by the airlines. Qantas is constantly monitoring and reviewing traffic demand in respect of passengers from various parts of Australia. It has looked at the growth in both the tourist industry to Japan and Japanese tourism to Australia. I am advised that the Minister has given approval to a major agreement between Qantas and the Japan Airlines (JAL) to increase substantially the number of international services between Australia and Japan. This airline agreement provides for a 25 per cent increase in capacity between Australia and Japan by October 1986. This will result in three new services being established-a joint Qantas-JAL Perth- Tokyo B767 once-weekly service from 1 April 1986; a joint Brisbane-Cairns-Tokyo B767 once-weekly service also from 1 April 1986; and a joint Sydney-Tokyo B747 once-weekly service to start from 1 October 1986. In practical terms, this means that currently Perth passengers who must travel via the east coast of Australia and Cairns passengers who have to travel to Brisbane in order to join flights to Tokyo will have a big improvement in the availability of service. The Government is confident that Qantas's and JAL's commercial decisions in this matter will lead to a significant boost in tourism between our two countries. Senator CHANEY —Can the Minister for Finance, representing the Treasurer, guarantee that the interest ceiling on bank home loans will not be increased in the six months following the South Australian election? Senator WALSH —The Treasurer made a statement about a month ago saying that the ceiling on housing loan interest rates would not be increased. He also issued a statement on 13 November-yesterday. In making this decision the Government remains of the view that the current 13 1/2 per cent ceiling on bank home loan rates should remain unchanged. Senator Chaney referred to the South Australian election, and this might be an opportune time to warn South Australians what will happen if there happens to be a Federal Liberal Government. The shadow Treasurer yesterday said that the Commonwealth Government should not pay the 2 per cent real increase to the States which was forecast in this year's Budget. It would cost South Australia about $25m if that Liberal Party policy were to be implemented. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister showed his usual aptitude for commenting on Liberal policy while being totally unable to answer questions about his own policies. As he is aware of those statements by the Treasurer, how long will that undertaking last? Can he guarantee that it will last six months after the South Australian election? Senator WALSH —The Treasurer can issue the Treasurer's guarantees. I will refer the question to him. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Finance seen the article in today's Australian Financial Review in which the National Australia Bank announced a record $301.7m profit, and the article in today's Australian where that same bank is threatening to slash its lending for housing by up to $750m, points that have been alluded to in earlier questions? What is the Government's attitude to these announcements and the prospective behaviour by this bank? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in the Australian Financial Review to which Senator Crowley referred as to the bank's profit, and in another newspaper a report of the alleged reduction in housing loans coming from that same bank. The $300m profit, incidentally, was up 30 per cent on the previous year for the same bank-an enormous increase in profitability for that bank. However, there appears to be some doubt as to the accuracy of the alleged reduction in housing loan funds. I refer to an interview with the Treasurer on the AM program today when, having been introduced by Warwick Beutler, the Treasurer said, referring to the National Australia Bank: They told the Treasury this week that their lending for this year would be $850-$900m, not $250m-- which has been reported in the Press-- and their current lending is running at $70m a month, which is $840m a year. That's a long way from $250m. I am not sure whether that has been clarified, but I draw attention to that apparent inconsistency. The Treasurer also observed later in that interview: . . . it is curious that the National Bank ought to be declaring a record profit in a record year and saying that their housing lending is going to diminish by that degree. I can only endorse the Treasurer's comments. If the report is true, it smacks to some extent of blackmail. I hope that it is not an attempt to blackmail the Government. If that should turn out to be the case, well, as individuals we can respond. If that is the case, I myself will close the account I have had with the National Bank for the last 34 years, and I hope that a lot of other people will do the same thing. Senator MacGIBBON —My question without notice is to the Minister for Finance. When does the Minister expect interest rates to fall? Senator WALSH —If I knew precisely when interest rates were going to fall, I suppose I would be out there speculating on Commonwealth Government and other interest-bearing securities. I do not know, and I am not going to make the sort of ridiculous, if not blatantly dishonest, statement that the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, made a few years ago when he said that if interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent before the end of the year, he would eat his hat. So far as I know and, I think, anyone else on this side of the chamber knows, that was also a broken promise. Interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent; indeed, they went up by about 2 per cent and he did not eat his hat. Likewise, in 1977 or 1978 the then Prime Minister, the unlamented Mr Fraser, said: `There is absolutely no doubt that interest rates are coming down'. I do not know the answer to the question and I am not going to make the mistake that the people to whom I have referred made in the past. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Press statement by the Opposition's shadow Treasurer, Mr Jim Carlton, in which he called on the Government to reduce Commonwealth grants to the States. What specific implications would such a policy have for Commonwealth-State relations and, in particular, for South Australia? Senator WALSH —I have in front of me a most extraordinary Press statement. I think some lunatic must have been issuing Press statements and putting the shadow Treasurer's name on them. The Press statement appears under the name `the Hon. Jim Carlton, MP, shadow Treasurer' and, as Senator Maguire has said, it indicates that the Commonwealth Government should not pay to the States in the next financial year the 2 per cent real increase in Commonwealth grants which was set out in the Budget Papers. I cannot believe that, even in the discordant and warring Liberal Party, the shadow Treasurer would so effectively sink a State Liberal leader during an election campaign as Mr Carlton would have sunk Mr Olsen yesterday with that statement. Therefore, I cannot believe that it is genuine. However, in case it is genuine, it would have these sorts of effects: Next financial year Commonwealth grants to South Australia would be reduced by about $25m. Compensating increases in State taxes would be required to fill that $25m hole in the State Government's revenue. There are a variety of ways in which taxes could be increased to plug that $25m hole in revenue. By way of illustration, if car registration and drivers licence fees were increased by 36 per cent, that would provide the $25m which the South Australian Government would need if any Commonwealth government were to cut the 2 per cent real increase in funding for the State next year. Alternatively, the financial institutions duty which Mr Olsen has promised to abolish could be increased by 80 per cent and that would provide about the $25m required. In case this Press statement is genuine and Mr Olsen does not like the examples that I have put forward as to how he could plug the revenue hole, I invite him to nominate the specific taxes or State charges which he would increase to recover the $25m of Commonwealth revenue forgone. Senator COLLARD —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, concerns the asbestos mine at Barraba in New South Wales. Is the Minister aware that the Federal Government committed a loan of $1.4m in 1979 as part of a joint loan of $2.8m with the New South Wales Government for the development of a wet milling process at the Woodsreef Ltd asbestos mine at Barraba, New South Wales? Is he also aware that the Commonwealth Government has committed itself to the expenditure of approximately $4.5m when interest is accounted for in regard to this milling operation? Is he also aware that the New South Wales Government has now decided to withdraw any support for the venture, leaving the Commonwealth Government high and dry? In view of the Commonwealth Government's commitment, what action has the Minister taken to recover the Commonwealth's obligation or to encourage the State Government to live up to its original obligations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the situation. Indeed, I had discussions on it as recently as three hours ago in Sydney. The Government's present position on the subject is one of seeking a review of the New South Wales Cabinet decision in order to ensure that the occupational health and safety issue, which is the crucial one so far as I think everybody is concerned in the wet milling process that is proposed, is satisfactorily addressed before a final decision is made. If the decision is in the negative it would result not only in the loss of the investment or the loans that have been made by both the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments but also in the loss of a significant employment opportunity in the Barraba area and also a significant resource project in its own right. The Commonwealth Government is keen that the project should proceed provided that everyone can be satisfied that the occupational health and safety aspects of the matter can be addressed. The difficulty about asbestos is that it has assumed an almost kryptonite status as far as many people are concerned, for understandable reasons given the appalling record of a number of mine operations in the past, not the least of which was Mr Hancock's contribution to the health of the Australian work force in Wittenoom some time ago. The matter is an acutely sensitive one and I can well understand the New South Wales Government having made the decision it did. However, it may be that further examination of these technical questions will indicate the possibility of a review of the decision which has already been made. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of an article headed `Diggers go to war over changes to compensation' which appeared in the Sydney Daily Mirror on 12 November 1985? This article refers to the formation of the defence and ex-service party, headed by a Mr Andrew Hanley, whose purpose is to elect a senator, presumably himself, to represent New South Wales veterans. Will the Minister indicate the Government's reaction to the formation of this new party? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of the article referred to by Senator Richardson. A Mr Hanley is reported in the newspaper as suggesting the establishment of a breakaway ex-service group because he is dissatisfied with the performance of the Government and the Opposition in respect of ex-service matters. I am advised that he was the secretary of a group that attempted a breakaway some time ago and that he did not succeed, although he seems to believe that in some way or other he would be able to marshal 540,000 votes, which would be sufficient to have an ex-service representative elected to the national Parliament by the voters in New South Wales. The purpose of this move is to increase very considerably the chances of overcoming what he claims are deficiencies in respect of services and facilities for veterans. How he would achieve that as a single member of the Senate surprises me and I am sure it would surprise even the veteran community. No single person could provide sufficient leadership, finances or facilities that would enable government to be provided with the funds that he seeks. It is another case of a person seeking to capitalise on some of the stress that has been caused by the exaggeration in respect of the Veterans' Entitlement Bill. It would be a pity if he did not allow the Parliament to deal with this Bill and then form a judgment about the way in which the Parliament has responded to its obligations to veterans. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Following the cancellation of contracts for the construction of the new Darwin Airport terminal, at considerable loss-some $20m-to both government and contractors, the Federal Government indicated that it would review the project and report after a six-month review. As this time has now expired, will the Minister outline to the Senate the Government's intentions, if any, to provide a suitable terminal to handle the rapidly growing numbers of international passengers and internal traffic passing through Darwin Airport and at the same time give real support to the international hotels being constructed in Darwin, whose future will be seriously jeopardised if the reception of travellers continues indefinitely in the old Second World War hangar at Darwin Airport? Senator GIETZELT —I have no information about any proposal in respect of Darwin. I think it is very interesting that I have been asked a second question today about improving air transport facilities. That certainly indicates that even in the Opposition there is some recognition of the turnaround that has taken place in the Australian economy, which requires the provision of additional services. The current position on Darwin Airport is that it has received the attention of the Government-of course, not sufficient to meet the total needs of the transport requirements in that area. If any further development has taken place in respect of that matter since the last time I answered that question about the Darwin Airport, I will refer it to the Minister and seek an early response. Senator GARETH EVANS —The other day Senator Vallentine asked me a question about the joint facility at Nurrungar and its implications for the strategic defence initiative. I am happy to be able to answer now on behalf of the Minister for Defence as follows: The changes at Nurrungar have nothing to do with the strategic defence initiative. The forthcoming construction at Nurrungar is only to provide better accommodation for both Australian and United States of American staff working at Nurrungar and for the equipment that is housed there. The construction work does not mean any change in the function of the station. The construction is being funded by the United States, as was announced by the Minister for Defence on 21 October 1985. Australia is not involved in SDI. None of the Australian-US joint defence facilities will be involved with SDI. As to the possibility of a first strike capability being achieved, I refer the honourable senator to the answer which I gave her on that subject yesterday-that is to say, the answer incorporated in Hansard from the Minister for Defence. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 11 November Senator Chipp asked me a question also raising this matter. I undertook to refer part of that question to the Minister for Defence. He has replied as follows: The forthcoming construction at Nurrungar is only to provide better accommodation for both Australian and United States of American staff working at Nurrungar and for the equipment that is housed there. The construction work does not mean any change in the function of the station. Senator GIETZELT —On 9 October I was asked by Senator Jones a question regarding the importation of railway equipment from South Africa. On 10 October I responded on behalf of the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Morris, whom I represent in this place, that the Australian National, which is the only rail system for which the Federal Government has responsibility, had imported no such equipment since the Government announced its new policy on commercial dealings with South Africa on 19 August. I also said that I would seek from the Minister for Foreign Affairs any additional information he may care to provide on this matter. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has now supplied me with the following additional information: Until 19 August 1985 the only restrictions on the importation of goods from South Africa applied to arms. Any prior importation of railway equipment from South Africa was not in violation of government policy or any international bans. From that date Australian Government agencies are prohibited from purchasing goods from South African sources and the Australian National Railways Commission is included in that prohibition. While the activities of State rail authorities are a matter for State governments, the Prime Minister has written to the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory seeking their co-operation with the Australian Government's policy in relation to South Africa. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-My personal explanation refers to an answer given by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, to an earlier question from Senator Foreman. Senator Walsh quoted certain statements of mine as tending to indicate that the Opposition was considering the introduction of some form of capital gains tax upon various speculative gains. At the end of the Minister's answer I asked him to table the document from which he quoted. Having examined a copy of that statement I see that it is not any kind of sinister document but rather a general comment upon the whole capital gains tax proposal of the Government. That document emanated from my office on the day upon which the announcement of the tax program from Mr Keating was made in Parliament. I point out that the reference to the item mentioned by Senator Walsh was, indeed, descriptive of the deficiency of the logic in the Government's thinking in respect of the introduction of a capital gains tax and the fact that speculative gains were already incorporated in the present income tax law. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that whole section of the paper tabled by the Minister which refers to my comments on the capital gains tax. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 5: CAPITAL GAINS TAX Although introduction of the CGT applies only to assets purchased from September 20th 1985, and although the estimated revenue yield is a modest $25 million in the fifth year of operation (compared with an expected revenue yield by that time of $450 million from the CGT outline in the Draft White Paper), there are a number of disturbing effects that require comment. The basic problems with such a universal CGT is that it fails to draw any distinction between productive investment and speculative investment. In the Treasurer's Statement, this failure is reflected in the comment that ``the current system of taxing capital gains violates horizontal equity . . . and undermines the progressivity of the tax system since the distribution of the ownership of capital is skewed in favour of higher income groups.'' (page 41). (Interestingly, this did not stop the government from skewing the income tax scale changes in favour of higher income groups!) This tax must be opposed, not only because it is economically unsound but also because it is inequitable. Under present tax arrangements, considerable speculative investment is subject to tax at marginal rates (eg. short-term share, property, and futures investment). On equity grounds, `speculative' windfall gains such as lottery wins ought logically to have been included in any CGT. But the basic opposition to the proposed CGT is that not only will risk-taking be discouraged through its attack on productive long-term investment (ie. a prospective tax), but also the CGT threatens to devalue existing assets such as farms and small businesses (ie. a retrospective tax). Moreover, in designing the CGT to apply to real gains upon realisation of assets acquired from September 20th, the proposal introduces two additional distortions into the tax system: viz. a disincentive to dispose of assets which would be subject to the CGT, and any incentive to invest in the family home at the expense of investment of other productive long-term assets. The PRESIDENT —I present the second report of the Standing Orders Committee for the sixty-second session. Ordered that the report be printed. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I table a report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the planning for the Senate and House of Representatives chambers in the new Parliament House. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) — by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) accepts the necessity for the interior finish of the Senate Chamber in the new Parliament House to maintain in suitable form the dignity and atmosphere of the present Chamber; (2) considers that it is appropriate for the new Chamber to have a basically wood-panelled appearance, taking advantage of, and making use of the wide range of timbers to be found throughout Australia; and (3) rejects the proposal, recently revealed to Senators, for the walls of the new Chamber to be lined with fabric of varying colours, not consistent with the traditional red colour common to Westminster-style Upper houses. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.08) —I present the 241st report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on reports of the Auditor-General for 1983-84 and September 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —I seek leave to have a short statement on the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report 241 examines the reports of the Auditor-General-1983-84 and September 1984. Honourable Senators will be aware that each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor-General. Following the tabling of the reports of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1984 and September 1984, the Committee sought written submissions from 12 Departments in respect of 20 items. This report analyses the responses by departments and authorities to the Public Accounts Committee, explaining the criticisms raised by the Auditor-General in his Reports. The Committee took public evidence on three items-the Property Directorate, the Financial Statements Outstanding and the Industrial Wages Payroll System, all of which are now administered by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. Following its examination of information supplied by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, the Committee concluded that many questions continued to remain unanswered concerning the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's management of its extensive property holdings. The Committee is particularly concerned that, despite the creation of the Property Directorate, many of the problems identified in earlier reviews and audits still exist. For this reason, the Committee has decided to examine further (outside the context of this report) the wider issue of management of the Commonwealth's property holdings. The Committee is extremely concerned by the frequency with which deficiencies in the adminstration of student assistance programs by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs have been raised in the Auditor-General's Reports. The Committee has previously recommended that departments operating major programs (ie those with a budget of at least ten million dollars and an expected life of at least five years) should ensure that specific legislation is drafted for these programs. Such legislation should be supported by regulations which describe, in detail, administrative arrangements. The magnitude of benefits paid, especially under the TEAS Scheme ($222 million in 1983) demands a high standard of accountability. The Committee is of the view that, while the Department of Education and Youth Affairs has made many improvements, the situation remains unsatisfactory. State Offices are not in receipt of sufficient or timely information to ensure that all applicants are treated consistently (and hence equitably) and promptly. The Committee is very concerned at the number of serious problems identified in the administration of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. It notes the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce's comment that many of these resulted from the short time provided for its implementation. In view of the changes to the Scheme announced in the recent 1985-86 Budget (whereby currently eligible primary producers will receive a full rebate of the excise on diesel fuel from 1 November 1985) the Committee has sought assurances from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce that adequate resources will be available to ensure the Scheme operates effectively and with proper accountability. The Minister has responded generally to the Committee's request for assurances. The Committee is not satisfied with the Department's assertion that many of the weaknesses of the Scheme, especially those relating to self-assessment, derived from the Government's intention to set in place simple procedures. The Department was unable to provide documentary evidence of the previous or present Governments' expressed intention in this regard. The Committee frequently observes schemes and programs with implementation problems like those experienced by the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. Such schemes may well be eminently desirable and useful in their objectives. However, on occasions where they have been instituted with little or no preparatory investigation there are subsequent administrative problems. The programs may be capable of efficient and effective implementation provided sufficient attention is given to the development phase. The Committee urges that Departments and Ministers take great care to ensure that essential planning has been carried out before a new or revised program is announced and/or begins operation. The Committee is extremely concerned at the poor performance of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in the preparation of the financial statements for which it is responsible. Although a timetable for the Department to submit outstanding financial statements to Audit was agreed, the Committee notes that there has already been some slippage since its adoption although overall progress has been made in the preparation of more timely financial statements. The Committee expects the Department to improve the timeliness and accuracy of its financial statements. The Committee reviewed internal audit sections in three departments. While the Committee noted planned improvements, there are still problems with insufficient staff resources, and, in the Department of Health, differences of philosophy with the Australian Audit Office. The frequency with which internal audit within departments attracts critical comment from the Auditor-General is unsatisfactory. The Committee has maintained a long standing interest in this matter and believes that development of efficient internal audit arrangements is a critical component of efficient public administration and accountability. For this reason, the Committee has decided to conduct a comprehensive review of Departmental internal audit practices. There are many other issues covered in this Report which I have not raised here. I commend this report to Honourable Senators. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I table further 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 REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report of variations to the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra 1985, the eigthty-sixth series. I also table minutes of the proceedings. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The report I have just tabled is the Committee's second report on the 86th Series of Variations to the Plan of Lay-out of the City of Canberra. The first report on this series namely Item 6 dealing with roadworks associated with the construction of the Tuggeranong Town Centre was reported on by the Committee on 7 October at the Request of the Minister for Territories to consider this Item as a matter of urgency. This report deals with the outstanding 16 Variations except for Variation 3, which the National Capital Development Commission has requested be withdrawn by the Minister. The Committee approves all Variations in this report except Variations 12 and 17 which are approved in part subject to certain restrictions. The Committee is very conscious of continued urban expansion into the significant area known as Lanyon Bowl. In its consideration of this Variation and Variation No. 17 which involve housing developments on either side of Tharwa Drive leading towards the Lanyon Gates, the Committee is anxious to ensure that any proposed development in this area be as unobtrusive as possible and not diminish the integrity of Lanyon Homestead itself. The Committee is keenly aware of its responsibility to safeguard the Murrumbidgee River Corridor and the adjoining area of Lanyon Bowl which has been gazetted by the Heritage Commission with the intention of declaring it part of the National Estate. The NCDC have indicated that no development will be proceeded with in the rest of the Lanyon Bowl Area except for housing blocks at the northern limit of Lanyon Bowl leading into the area of the Lanyon Gates. In the Committee's view there should not be any development at all in Lanyon Bowl. In examining these proposals the Committee has been informed that by conforming to the line suggested by the National Trust and gazetted by the Heritage Commission this would preclude development of between 150 and 170 housing blocks. This is not considered to be a substantial reduction in land available for development nor is this slight reduction in available land considered to constitute any undue problem as far as projected estimates for supply and demand of serviced land over the next two years is concerned. The Committee feels that in the interest of preserving the visual and heritage aspects of the area no development should proceed south of the Northern limit of the Lanyon Bowl line. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that adequate screening be provided and therefore recommends that extensive landscaping with trees commonly occurring on the site be provided up to the Lanyon Bowl line so that no houses will actually be constructed on the line. In this way, the buffer zone will extend up to and include the Northern limit of Lanyon Bowl. The Committee is also conscious of the semi-rural environment of this area, its distance from the rest of Canberra and the lack of municipal facilities such as a regular bus service. In the interests of maintaining this environment the Committee also recommends that the size of blocks released in this area (Variations 12 &17) be large enough to maintain the rural setting with a further restriction that no government housing be provided there. The Committee therefore recommends that in relation to Variations Nos. 12 and 17 no housing development be proceeded with south of and including the line defined as the northern limit of Lanyon Bowl and that the road layout for the proposed sub-divisions be amended accordingly. It is also emphasised that the NCDC will keep the Committee closely informed about future developments in South Tuggeranong. The Committee welcomes the announcement that there will be no development of South Lanyon if new areas identified for future development in Watson, Phillip and the Murrumbidgee Golf Estate are proceeded with alongside the release of sites in Gungahlin in 1988. Senator REID —The written statement sets out things in detail; I want briefly to refer to the main element of this report. It specifically refers to development approaching Lanyon in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee has looked at this area on a number of occasions, including the time when we prepared a report in relation to the Murrumbidgee River. In particular, we have recommended, subsequent to the recommendation in that report, that there should be no development in the south Lanyon area, that the development of north Lanyon should be restricted to a line that represents the Lanyon bowl and that there be no development beyond that point. Also, we want there to be landscaping in the area which cuts out a view of the housing from Lanyon, but that the landscaping be done in a way that is sympathetic with the natural area that is presently in existence. The sort of landscaping that might be used to block out an area of houses would in many instances be totally unsuitable for the sort of area that we are referring to. For that reason we believe that an area of land larger than normal is appropriate for this purpose. We are concerned also that that area of development of the City of Canberra will be a long way from the centre of the city. It will be very much at the end of the line as far as municipal services are concerned and we recommend that the blocks in that area should be considerably larger than normal suburban house blocks so that, to an extent, as the city ends and the rural landscape commences there is an area which can in part incorporate a rural atmosphere. There are various ways in which people with larger blocks in that area could develop them. I think it needs to be made clear to those who purchase in the area that they cannot expect the same sort of bus services and other municipal services that may be appropriate in other areas of Canberra. We also recommend that there be no government housing development in that particular area. To those who are interested in the Murrumbidgee River and the general development at that end of Canberra, I recommend that they look at the report closely and consider its implications, but otherwise rely on the incorporated statement. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I table further 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. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.13) —The Advance to the Minister for Finance is not generally a very exciting document per se. However, it does allow senators to see what extra activities the Government has been up to in the various months and what additional expenditure might be expected. For instance, in August this year there was an appropriation of $100,000 for the salaries of officers on the task force on `long term economic growth'. I believe that this task force will be reporting soon. I asked a number of questions in Estimates Committee A about some of the work that the task force was engaged in. I look forward to its report. It will be interesting to see what public documents, if any, arise from the work of this task force or whether that work will just result in a private report to the Ministers concerned. Other interesting items that turn up in these monthly statements are the $100,000 in August for a special information campaign by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, about which very little information is given elsewhere, and the $1,300,000 for the Australian traineeship system, which I understand is having more than its fair share of teething problems. There are some quite striking entries for the month of September. An extra $500,000 in compensation and legal expenses was requested by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I wonder exactly what this presages. The sum of $321,000 is being made available to the States and to the Northern Territory for measures to combat the transmission of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. There does not appear to be any direct report on what any of these above expenditures are actually achieving. There is a new appropriation of $700,000 for the national space program. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce is getting a further $5m for salary payments. It seems, in a very strange way, that when responsibility for non-military offsets was transferred from the Department of Science, someone forgot the salaries for the staff. We did raise this matter at the Estimates Committee proceedings but I do not remember whether the amount which is shown here has been removed from the budget by the Department of Science. One final item which deserves mention is the $38m-odd provided pending the issue of the Governor-General's warrant under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. That gives me a timely opportunity to remind the Senate and the people of Australia of the way in which the Liberal, Labor and National Party senators joined ranks in May to cut about one-tenth off what councils were expecting to get in untied funds. My colleague Senator Mason was the only senator from New South Wales who understood the dislocation that was caused to councils in that State because of the interaction of this decision with the legislation introduced by the Wran Government for rate pegging. I believe that situation left a terrible problem for the Self report because the ground rules were changed half way through the national Inquiry into Local Government Finance. I hope, indeed, that local government will get a better deal and that we can look forward to the Government and the Opposition supporting measures to help local government, which is an essential part of the government structure within Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.18) —I commend the Snowy Mountains Council for the careful management it has shown in its report for the last year. It has fulfilled its management and administrative responsibilities and it has looked closely at the management of one of our major water resources. Water is Australia's scarcest resource. South Australia, my own State, is the driest State in Australia. The River Murray supports more than 50 per cent of South Australia's water usage. The Snowy Mountains scheme has been instrumental in making both the quality and the quantity of water available to my State much better than if that scheme had not been introduced. However, it has been brought to my notice in a letter from the Mannum District Council, which wrote to me recently, that there is the opportunity for a similar scheme being taken up by the Snowy Mountains Council as an extra scheme. This would be the Clarence River hydro-electric scheme which could, in fact, result in water going back into the Murray basin. I also received a letter from the Renmark District Council in similar terms. The letter from the Mannum District Council stated: The quality of water is also being monitored and is of concern to all South Australians. Also the amount of water available is a major concern, particularly in drier years, when additional water flow is required to endeavour to flush high salt content from the river. Council considers that implementations of the Clarence River Hydro-Electric Scheme would be of enormous benefit to our State. Council seeks your support to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to commence the required investment into the project. I use this report to bring that to the notice of the Government and to support the interests of a very active council in my State. South Australia is totally dependent on New South Wales and Victorian users of Murray River water for the final quality and supply of its water. It is very important that the management schemes be examined. I think it is also important that we consider the problems and advantages that may be involved in redirecting some of the inland waters from the northern rivers down the Murray. Problems associated with doing that are those of disease and weeds, but these may be able to be solved by modern technology. I commend this as being something which could be looked at under our water management program. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.21) —The Department of Finance annual report for 1984-85 is the first report to be presented in broad program structure to reflect the Department's new program budgeting structure. I believe that the program budgeting structure is an innovative and essential way of looking at the operations of the Public Service. I should like to say a few words about the program and some of the problems that may develop. The new budgeting and monitoring program is based on individual projects, so it is possible to look at the cost effectiveness of various policy measures. However, in the process of introducing the program budgeting format we have cut down the detail which is given to the Senate and to the Parliament on budgeting matters. I hope that when the budgeting process takes place next time we will have available a greater level of detail on staffing and expenditure than we had this year from those departments which went over to the program budgeting scheme. The Department of Finance is now responsible for staff budgeting integration into the budgeting process. However, we do not get any type of forewarning or model of the staffing structures within the Department before the Estimates committees; nor are we given information on the number of consultants and temporary staff who are involved. The Australian Democrats certainly will be seeking a way of getting that information reported to the Senate in some form, either in the course of the Estimates Committee or before. A fair bit of information about the various branches of the Department of Finance is included in the appendix to the report. However, in the Department of Finance report, as in the reports of other departments, we should have details of staffing so that it is possible to judge the effectiveness of the Department in terms of use of staff and staff numbers. Because of time limitations I conclude my remarks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Sanders: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.25) —The Australian National Railways Commission report on accident statistics for the period 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1985 arises out of section 69 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act, which requires: . . . as soon as practicable after the expiration of the period of 6 months ending on 30 January, and of the period of 6 months ending on 31 December, in each year, that the Commission furnish to the Minister a report, in writing, with respect to accidents that have occurred, during the period, on railways operated by it. The Minister for Transport then has the option under section 70 to establish an independent board of inquiry on any of the reported accidents. This is what occurred in the case of one fatality on 11 September 1984, when an employee of the railways was struck by a passenger train travelling between Two Wells and Bolivar, north of Adelaide. The fettler was killed because the approaching rail car was not warned of the gangs present on the track, there being no flagman or gang warning boards out. During the coronial inquiry evidence was presented that the gang did not have the boards as they were in short supply, having been on order for approximately 6 months. I believe that this was quite unforgivable in an organisation running our national railways. Other evidence was presented to the inquiry that in February this year a train driver had stated that in recent months, prior to the inquest, he had seen gangs working without warning boards. He referred in particular to a case in point which occurred on the run to Mount Gambier only a week before the inquest. We are talking about death. The railways have cut down on staffing. They have cut down on the number of guards and stewards on trains. That has led to a decrease in safety. In fact, a number of people have fallen off trains such as the Indian-Pacific on the South Australia to Western Australia run. I believe that it is extremely important that staffing levels be maintained and that those levels should be examined by the railways. There is no justifiable cost saving when we are dealing with people's lives. It is very important that we should have proper crewing of trains and that proper equipment be given to crews working on the lines. I recommend to the Government that it should investigate these matters further and make certain that the railways fulfil their responsibility to their employees in regard to safety, and their responsibilities to the people they carry by providing the right level of staffing on trains carrying passengers so that passengers cannot just open doors, as happened on the Indian Pacific express, and walk out into space. It would not be very comfortable for Senator Collard, who is laughing, if it happened to him. In many cases people have been found beside the line dead or dying. I believe that this is quite unacceptable in a civilised country where it is quite possible for the railways to provide the right facilities, even locking doors, to achieve this end. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.31) —This is the second of the reports on remote commercial television services presented by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator Collard —We have people falling off the tower, have we? Senator VIGOR —No, nobody is falling off the satellite. The report deals with the north-east footprint that covers 90 per cent of the area of Queensland and will provide services to around 100,000 people. There was only one applicant for the licence and this was a consortium of all television operators in Queensland. Each partner in that consortium is to have an equal vote unless a poll is to be held, in which case voting strength will match the degree of financial commitment to the consortium. In fact, Mount Isa Television Pty Ltd, with its market of around 6,000 households, is the smallest operator in Australia. It has a remote area experience that the consortium valued. It does not have the financial resources to match the contributions from the other stations. The Government's attention should be drawn to the Tribunal's recommendation that educational programs should not be encoded, as would be the normal commercial programs. This is extremely important as currently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been pulling out of educational programs, making it difficult for people in remote areas to get the benefit of major educational programs. I believe that the Tribunal's suggestion is very sensible and that the Tribunal has much to offer in the way of reflecting on broadcasting through its own practical experience. The Department of Communications and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) should pay greater attention to the recommendations of the Tribunal. Then we would not find ourselves in the type of situation we had in Perth, with inquiries being dragged out for commercial reasons or because of slip-ups in the Department's recommendations. In Perth the Tribunal spent three months hearing technical evidence that to date has always been the Department's responsibility. Coming back to the report, an interesting point is that members of the Queensland consortium want to use their transponder on the satellite for program and advertising distribution between themselves during down times. I commend this approach. I also recommend that some of the down time for communications be used by public broadcasters and public television people. This is a matter very dear to my heart. I believe that if we could get proper local window or even a full channel for public television both in this area and in other areas serviced by the satellite we would have generally a much better television service. Originally, the Queensland consortium was going to share the transponder with the Queensland Government. However, I believe that these cost savings from satellite transmission will enable the consortium to cover its decision not to share with the Queensland Government and to make more local programs. Once the third satellite is up and the consortium's remote area programs system has been set up, I believe that it will be possible to do a lot of the communication of programs on a direct basis and to get much better current affairs programs in the bush. I note that local windows are mentioned in the report. I note also that the studio facilities at the local retransmission points have not been planned for at this stage. I strongly recommend that the licensees have at least some degree of local content in the programs they transmit. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.36) —Yesterday I was speaking briefly on the Aussat Pty Ltd annual report when the time allowed for the debate expired. At the end of my few minutes I was saying that the facilities offered by Aussat do not come cheaply and that those who wish to receive transmissions must purchase a receiving dish and other equipment which will cost up to $2,000. Until a few weeks ago it seemed that purchasers would also have to bear the cost of the sales tax on these goods, but I was very happy to hear that the Federal Government has agreed to waive the tax on equipment purchased for domestic use. Like very many others, I have received representations from people and organisations in the outback community, such as the Isolated Children and Parents Association, expressing concern that the financial burden imposed by the sales tax component might mean that the already expensive equipment would be beyond the financial means of many prospective consumers. One can well imagine that because the cost of living in the outback is extremely high. Many people live in the bush and, frankly, I wonder at times just how they manage to make do in rearing children and presenting a reasonable type of home for them. Such things as the dishes related to the new receiving equipment for Aussat represent an additional cost and, as I said, I am happy that the Government has seen fit to lift that sales tax component. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is to be congratulated on the decision to waive the tax, but let us not forget that the people in the outback will still be paying up to $2,000 for what really amounts to a television receiver. Most people in the eastern States and the other more populated parts of Australia would not pay much more than a few hundred dollars for their television receivers. As I was saying, living in the outback, in the bush, is extremely costly. In spite of the cost, I can assure the Senate that the people in the outback-not only in the Northern Territory but also those those in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and such-look forward to the commencement of satellite broadcasts and getting one step closer to enjoying some of the facilities which the more populated areas have had for decades. I welcome the continued progress of Aussat. It is to be congratulated. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.38) —The Aussat Pty Ltd report raises two issues which I would like to examine. One relates to the matter that I was discussing yesterday, the report on remote commercial television services, and deals with the problem of the equalisation of television services. The other deals with the matter of space technology. I am pleased that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is responsible for this area, is in the chamber at the moment. Senator Button —I am not if I have to listen to you for half an hour. Senator PUPLICK —The Minister does not know how lucky he is to be getting a little information for a change. The question which arises firstly is the reference on page 10 of the report, which reads as follows: The Minister for Communications also announced during the year the policy intention that there would be a further expansion of commercial television broadcasting throughout Australia through the concept of equalization of services. This will provide further potential for the use of AUSSAT facilities for the relaying of commercial broadcasting programs throughout Australia. As I said in discussing the report yesterday, the Government appears to have induced a great deal of confusion into the future of the broadcasting industry by pursuing policies such as equalisation of services at the same time as it is claiming that it has maintained a commitment to localism in broadcasting. Clearly, that is an area which needs to be sorted out fairly promptly by the Government. The Government needs to come down on one side or the other on two policies which are, I believe, mutually exclusive. The second point which arises in this comment about Aussat is that I am glad to see that the Channel 7 network has now decided to join the 9 and 10 networks to take up some transponder capacity although, for various strategic reasons which I do not think it appropriate to go into in this debate, they have decided to take out a lease on a 12-watt transponder on the existing facility rather than the 30-watt transponders which have been taken by Channel 9 and Channel 10. I think that Channel 9 and Channel 10 are likely to come to the conclusion that, financially, Channel 7 has been a great deal wiser in this matter and they will come to regret having succumbed to the pressures that were put upon them to get into the 30-watt transponder. I believe the 12-watt transponder arrangement that Channel 7 has taken will give it, firstly, access before the others and, secondly, access to more lucrative regional markets to which they are aiming. Senator Button —Senator, I want to withdraw what I said earlier. What you are saying is very interesting and I agree with a lot of it. I apologise. Senator PUPLICK —Thank you, Senator. The second general point I want to make concerns page 4 of the report, which states: Operational decisions of the year included the selection of the ARIANE rocket to launch the third satellite . . . Mr Acting Deputy President, as you know, the previous satellites have used the American space shuttle facility. The decision to use the Ariane facility, which was developed through fundamentally French technology but was supported by other countries in the Common Market, I think, again, is an indication of something which the Minister will have immediately before him; that is, the recommendations of the Madigan report and the very strong support that has been given to that by Dr Ken McCracken of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and others in terms of the development of an indigenous space industry. I know that Senator Button and his Department have been keen to promote this and have already indicated that money will be made available at an initial stage for the first series of proposals arising from the Madigan report. I think that that report and the influence which it is likely to have on government will be quite significant. I have no doubt that this Government is likely to view that with a considerable degree of enthusiasm. I think that in terms of developing one of the potential areas of high technology benefit for Australia, both financially and in scientific, technical and other services, Senator Button has a most exciting prospect within his ministerial capacity to respond to the Madigan report. Hopefully, we will reach the stage where, with an indigenous Australian space industry, we will be able not only to build but also to launch, monitor and make use of our own satellite resources throughout Australia, which will be of benefit to the whole community, to the electronics industry and to technological development in Australia as a whole. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.43) —I rise to support Senator Puplick regarding this matter. I believe it is extremely important for us to develop an indigenous Australian space industry. I was very pleased to note that page 11 of the report which was prepared by Aussat Pty Ltd states that Aussat will progressively award $120m in contracts to Australian industry as a direct result of the satellite program. However, one of the things that comes out of the report is that the whole satellite program is directed at communication. While I applaud the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service, HACBSS, and the use of the satellite for improving our overall communications in a country as broad as Australia, I also believe we should be planning now, because we have a seven-year term in which to do it, for the next satellite to carry a much greater component of scientific and technological equipment within it. The opportunities that are being lost in this area are enormous, particularly in the meteorology and oceanography areas. Currently, the satellite has been managed basically through the Department of Communications and, as far as I can see, very little communication has actually been taking place with other departments. The Department of Science and the Department of Resources and Energy might well co-operate to put into the satellite instruments of practical use to the Australian community. I wish to speak particularly about satellite oceanographic measuring equipment, which measures the temperature of the oceans and the amount of chlorophyll in the oceans, and from which we can develop a pretty good picture of forward weather patterns over Australia. Currently we do not have sufficient weather stations around Australia to get a good picture of what is happening. With the use of the satellite it would be possible to obtain this information, either directly through our own satellites or by the use of the satellites that are being launched by other countries. As this is a very expensive industry, I recommend that we look at the prospect of co-operating with the European Economic Community and Canada in their program of world meteorological monitoring by satellite. I bring this to the notice of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who I believe would be able to get a reasonable amount of kudos if he could initiate talks with the people who are organising this program. Currently we are tapping into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites, the oceanographic satellites, with university-built and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-built dishes, and are doing some work which is extremely exciting in world-wide terms. If this work and work on the properties of the atmosphere can be extended and we can use polar orbiting satellites we should be able to look at the whole configuration over the Southern Ocean from where most weather patterns affecting the settled areas of Australia develop, and communicate this directly, including using satellite information from our Antarctic bases. I recommend that Aussat, which seems to be a company that has the expertise, look at moving into this area of installing scientific and technological instruments within Australian or foreign satellites. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(3.49) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I speak briefly to the first annual report of the Department of Community Services which covers the period from 13 December 1984 to 30 June 1985. It follows the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 11 December 1984 of the creation of the new Department of Community Services to co-ordinate all government social security, community services, health and welfare policies, and also to administer some of the subsidy programs in that area of government work. I take the opportunity to refer to the establishment of the Department and to the repeal of the National Welfare Fund, a move that was supported by all parties and by other bodies such as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in May this year. Senator Puplick —And first proposed by you, Senator. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Yes, it has been proposed, I think, on a number of occasions, and in May this year the National Welfare Fund was repealed. Future amounts will come from standing appropriations and the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Senator Button —It is an on-going contribution which you have made, for which we are grateful. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Thank you, Minister. That is a very appropriate comment. Senator Button —Recognition, even if too late, is worth while. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Thank you. The interest I have in the new Department is in the development of the programs under broad bands, such as disability services or the home and community care program which has now been established. In fact, legislation is listed on the Notice Paper today to put into effect the new home and community care program. This program, which has been designed to help aged and disabled people stay in their own homes, is a way in which the Government can work with the voluntary organisations in the States and Territories to achieve a range of services that can have support from Government and can be developed in accordance with the needs of the community. I was pleased to see that this program has been established. When I look at the top structure staffing diagram of the Department, I find that the home and community care program is under the charge of Miss Mary Scott, who is an experienced officer in the Department and who, I feel sure, will bring a great deal of experience and intelligence to the work of this essential program. I am aware that there has been a great deal of discussion with the States through a committee that has been negotiating and interpreting the aims of this program and has been looking to provide programs that will have additional funds available, in at least the next two years, of $25m in 1985-86 and $30m in 1986-87-on a three-for-one basis in the first instance and a two-for-one basis in 1986-87-to those States which have concluded agreements with the Commonwealth on this program. Thereafter the matching funds will be provided by the Commonwealth on a dollar-for-dollar basis. I do not think anyone would accept that the establishment of a new way of working will provide solutions unless there is achievement within that program and that objective. I look with hope to the development of the range of services that will not only enable people to stay in their own homes for as long as is possible, with as much independence as is possible, but also provide those services when they are unable to remain in their own homes. I have taken this opportunity simply to refer to this new Department's creation and to the new programs that will work within it. I look forward to hearing the results and the achievements of these programs in the years ahead. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is my day for being kind to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I want to say a few things about the report of the Steel Industry Authority, which I think is not only an excellent report but also a very encouraging report in terms of what it indicates as the long term prospects for the Australian steel industry. I am pleased to see an authority indicate in its annual report these words: The Authority's objective must be seen to be to preside over its own demise. I think that in terms of the Authority's task over a specified period, to bring some greater rationality and some greater degree of success into the industry, it is approaching its task in a very correct and proper fashion. The Minister is to be congratulated for the way in which the Authority has been set up. It is interesting to see that there is some renewed confidence within the steel industry for reinvestment. I note that this year the Japanese steel industry has announced that it proposes to invest about $US42billion into the process of upgrading its plant and machinery. There is evidence within this report that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the industry as a whole are doing likewise. The report draws attention to the fact that the devaluation of the Australian dollar ought to provide some benefit in terms of increased competitiveness, both on the domestic scene and in the export market. It draws attention to the fact that although there has been a reduction in labour within the steel industry-the figure is 856 persons-that has been achieved without any retrenchments. It has been done in an orderly fashion by voluntary early retirements, resignations and transfers out of the industry. From time to time honourable senators on this side of the chamber are often accused unjustly of not having any degree of sensitivity to these matters. I think it is proper to quote from the report, where it states: Man hours lost through industrial disputes when compared with total possible manhours worked have shown a substantial fall over the last five years from 3 per cent in 1980-81 to 0.4 per cent in 1984-85, a tribute to all those in the industry. I think it proper that it should be recorded that the industry, in terms of management and the unions, assisted by the Authority and by the support it has been receiving from the Government, has managed to achieve a substantial breakthrough in an area in which industrial disputes were part of the problem of the declining competitiveness of the Australian steel industry. That ought to be recognised as a matter for some congratulations to all parties concerned. There is, however, one particular matter which does concern me as a senator for New South Wales-that is, the report on pages 21 and 22 discusses the impact of State government taxes and charges on the steel industry. Mr Acting Deputy President, as a South Australian senator, you would know that it is South Australia and New South Wales in which these things particularly matter. The report draws attention to the fact that in those States imposts by State government taxes and charges have had a deleteriuous effect upon the development of the steel industry. In particular, the report singles out the situation in New South Wales. It states that payments from the various parts of the steel industry to the New South Wales State Government have been increasing at a faster rate than movements in the consumer price index. Indeed, while the consumer price index has moved from a base of 100 in 1980-81 to 131.6 in 1984-85, charges in New South Wales moved from that same base of 100 in 1980-81 to 165.8 in the current period. Senator Button —Senator, I think the New South Wales Government has made some concessions recently, has it not? Senator PUPLICK —It has made some concessions recently in terms of electricity costs, that is correct. Nevertheless, it simply draws attention to the fact that all these on-costs in an industry which is in some degree of difficulty must be carefully monitored. As I say, I think this is an encouraging annual report in regard to the steel industry, which is one of the most important industries in my State of New South Wales. The attitude of management and unions, and the underpinning support given by this Government, with the support of the Opposition-indeed, initially put in place by its predecessor government-indicates that many of the problems in manufacturing industry and in heavy industries in Australia can be overcome. The situation is not necessarily as despondent as many people have made out. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.59) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like particularly to bring to the notice of the Senate one aspect of the report, which deals with the way in which the Industries Assistance Commission assesses how much assistance is given to a particular industry. Two aspects of this come out in the report. The following statement is made on page 56 of the report: Assistance provided through discriminatory domestic pricing arrangements in 1983-84 was higher than in 1982-83. This implies that Australian consumers are paying more for the product by some type of control process which is introduced by the Government, that they are paying some type of subsidy towards exports. Reading the report, I am disturbed to find what I believe is an anomaly in this area. Where Australian manufacturing is done by multinational companies which are also responsible for manufacturing similar products overseas, such as happens in the chemical or pharmaceutical industry-in those areas there is very little competition between imported goods and those manufactured locally-the company itself is assessed as having very little assistance because there is nothing to which the price structure can be compared. The local Australian price for those products may be well above prices for similar products enjoyed by the other countries but nobody is importing them to Australia other than the same multinational companies. Where the world manufacturer of a particular class of product is dominated by such a multinational organisation, the IAC's assessment of the level of assistance enjoyed by that industry is low. Where production is in the hands of locally owned business, especially where imports are marketed by large overseas corporations or governments, the international price of those products is often artificially depressed or supported. This means that the IAC assesses the level of support to local industry as being the difference between the world price for the products and the local Australian price, even though what is really being measured is the level of assistance provided to overseas industries for exporting. For example, let us just take the wheat industry. The domestic price of wheat is set by the Australian Wheat Board in order to prevent the few purchasers and converters unduly exploiting the many small wheat producers and farmers. This orderly marketing was set up to give equal strength to the sellers and the buyers within Australia. Australian home consumption prices for wheat are set by the Board to reflect in some measure the cost of production. Yet I point out that the margin of profit for wheat growers on their investment and work is very low. If the farmer were to be paid for his labour at a rate commensurate with his skills and hours worked, Australian wheat would be seen to be sold at a loss on domestic markets. The world price of wheat is declining. This problem is not due to the farmers. It is not because other countries are producing cheaper wheat than Australia. Australian farmers are the most efficient in the world. However, the Government is giving no direct support to any grain industry. The same problems that I have mentioned in the wheat area hold for peas, barley, and many other grains. I believe the IAC should re-examine its method of assessing how much assistance is being given to a particular export industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-This is the second report on assistance to the apple and pear industry to come before the Senate this year. The Industries Assistance Commission was asked in March to investigate whether the assistance arrangements applying for the 1984 season were in need of variation. Unfortunately, this request was made at a time when harvesting of this year's crop had already begun and, thus, time constraints would have made it extremely difficult to implement any new underwriting arrangements that may have eventuated. However, the IAC interim report concluded that no further assistance was to be recommended. The IAC's decision on interim assistance was contrary to the submissions it received from the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture, the Tasmanian Apple and Pear Growers Association and the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association which had advised the IAC that within the area of fruit `at risk' sales, there was definitely a need for further support. Similarly, the recommendations contained in this final IAC report will be met with mixed reactions from the apple and pear growers. In fact, the IAC has recommended that the apple and pear industry should be assisted somewhat below the current level of assistance and the present underwriting be extended for only a further three years and then terminated. I believe that the industry would have preferred that after three years the position not necessarily be terminated but reviewed. During these three years the IAC has recommended that underwriting be restricted to `at risk' sales, et cetera. The apple and pear growers have been pleased to note that the IAC has recognised the need to protect vulnerable `at risk' sales. However, the IAC has recommended that the trigger price be calculated on the basis of 80 per cent of the volume weighted average `at risk' f.o.b. price for the highest three of the past four years. The industry would have preferred to have seen the trigger point assessed by a figure of 95 per cent over the past four years. As Tasmanian growers anticipate production costs of $9 per case next year, they are apprehensive about the adequacy of the underwriting arrangements advocated by the IAC for the 1986 season. Growers will be dismayed that after a decade of intensive rationalisation the IAC still advocates a further consolidation of the industry. Tasmanian fruit growers have a convincing record of performance in rationalising their operations to better meet market demands. This has been achieved by re-planting with new varieties, the recent investment of $10m in new technology and the review of marketing strategies. The stage has now been reached where the rejuvenated apple industry has re-established its position as a major agricultural industry in Tasmania. In compiling this report the IAC seems to have been alarmed at the prospect of what it saw could be a re-enactment or a recurrence of the disastrous markets of 1981 when the Tasmanian Apple Marketing Authority failed to secure markets and also because of disastrous overseas prices. But what the growers need is a measure of underwriting of production costs in the event of a deterioration of the prospective market after shipping. That is where the problem arises. The IAC report, despite its failure to recognise the need for adequate assistance, drew attention to some of the difficulties facing apple and pear growers. I think we should all be encouraged by the fact that a body as responsible and authoritative as the IAC has commented on the disadvantages of the absence of any plant variety rights legislation. I hope that the Senate and the Government take note of those comments. Secondly, I believe that freight costs imposed an excessive financial burden on Tasmanian apple and pear growers in terms of wharfage and associated costs because Australian growers have difficulties competing, for example, with similar costs and similar exports from New Zealand. Tasmania's surplus of apples and pears must be exported since there are limitations on the quantity of Tasmanian fruit that can be profitably landed on the mainland. The devaluation of the Australian dollar has brought about a largely unanticipated improvement in overseas market prices and we hope for a better season this year. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Anyone studying Table D7 of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the apple and pear industry cannot help being struck by the evidence shown in that table of the decline in the Tasmanian industry. In 1979 Tasmania was well ahead of any other State, with a total of 1,206,000 apple trees with a 93.2 per cent bearing. The number of apple trees in Victoria amounted to only 1,187,000 with an 80 per cent bearing. The position was totally reversed by 1983, when Tasmania fell well behind Victoria. Victoria had 1,378,000 trees with a 77 per cent bearing, and Tasmania slipped to 1,163,000 trees with the same bearing percentage. One may well ask why this has happened, but the answer is very obvious to us in Tasmania. Without a doubt it is Bass Strait. Tasmania's industry is the most efficient in the world but we cannot cope with the problems caused by that strip of water. The industry was able to compete on the domestic market with the help of the freight equalisation scheme, but with the present glut of apples on that market our disadvantage has been underlined. There is no recognition by the Government of freight disadvantage when considering exports, even though the recent major inquiry commissioned by the Government suggested that in recognition of the disadvantage to Tasmania the name `freight equalisation scheme' should be abandoned and that from now on it should be known as the freight compensation scheme. A few years ago ships called regularly at Tasmania, but last year the European Conference Line paid its last visit to Tasmania following action by the waterside workers. It now calls only on mainland States. As a result the only shipping to call into our State in this apple season has been the Polish Ocean Line. Its freight charges are $1.34 per carton higher than the charges of the European Conference. It is quite impossible to compete in those circumstances. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The time allowed for discussion of government papers has expired. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.14) —The Senate is continuing the debate on a private member's Bill entitled the Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1985. The Bill is one of six private member's Bills introduced by the Australian Democrats. To understand the particular Bill, one must look at the totality of the six and at the stated policies of the Australian Democrats. I think it would be fair to say that, taken in their totality, the Bills and the policies reflect those points: The rejection by the Australian Democrats of the ANZUS defence treaty; the rejection by the Democrats of the Western alliance; the recognition by the Democrats of a policy of neutrality and isolation; and the recognition by the Democrats of a policy that rejects the mining, milling or export of fissile materials, uranium or thorium, from Australia. That overall effect is necessary to be stated because when one states the intentions of the Bill before us, there is much that seems to be good and generally acceptable. The effect, nevertheless, when taken into full account is that the policy would be a total abrogation of our responsibilities under the great international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and indeed of our obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency. On the face of it, the Bill in its stated purposes is unobjectionable. It seeks to prohibit the development, testing, manufacture, importation, transportation or storage of nuclear weapons in Australia, by Australia or any other foreign power or company. The fact is that the major parties in this Senate would in general terms support such an intention. The Liberal Party, to which I belong, and the National Party with which we are in coalition are both emphatically opposed to the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons in Australia, and so indeed is the stated policy of the Australian Labor Party. Those are not the matters in contention, and indeed there would be no need for such a Bill as this if that were simply the intention. The simple fact is that in the early 1970s the Fraser Liberal Government signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That Treaty is the mainspring in the world towards nuclear non-proliferation of weapons. It is the one essential effort by some 130 nation states of the world to get together to stop any further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and Australia is emphatically committed to it. We are eagerly working to strengthen it, to draw to it from outside those 40 nations, or fewer now, that remain outside. Some of them are part of the Latin-American Treaty of Tlatelolco with similar goals; others are not bound at all. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which Australia is a signatory and which was ratified in 1973 emphatically commits us `not to receive, manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, not to seek or receive assistance in their manufacture'. That is article 2. We are signatories to it and both sides of this House emphatically support it. It goes on further in article 3 that parties will not provide to non-nuclear weapons states source or special fissionable material or equipment for production of special fissionable material, unless subject to safeguards. It goes on to deal with the acceptance of safeguards on all peaceful nuclear activities. The fact is that in the time of the Fraser Liberal Government a series of pieces of legislation were brought into this Parliament in a debate over some weeks. The whole question of Australia's responsibilities and attitudes to the nuclear cycle was debated at great length. In those discussions and in debates in which I took part as a Minister, Australia made it clear that it would be a leader in the world in the safeguards that it would lay down to provide for the protection of all fissionable materials-uranium, thorium and other materials-so that none of the materials that flowed from us would be in any way used for nuclear weapons. The Liberal Party is emphatic in its desire for nuclear and conventional disarmament. It is emphatic that there should be non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and that Australia under a Liberal Government would never resort to nuclear weapons. There cannot be anything clearer than that. The Fraser Liberal Government introduced safeguards and strengthened the Australian Safeguards Office so that it could work in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency to survey the movement of all Australian fissionable materials throughout the world and so that there was no way they could be used other than in peaceful nuclear energy generation. That has happened. In that situation Australia is not only a signatory to the International Atomic Energy Agency requirements but has become an active member of its governing body in Vienna. I visited the Agency when I was a Minister. I studied what was being done and I moved to have it strengthened. The fundamental need in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world is to have an agreement by the nations of it that there will be a surveillance body, a monitoring body-the International Atomic Energy Agency-which would be allowed to search a country to see what it was doing with nuclear materials and to ensure that there was no proliferation of weapons. Australia not only has welcomed that but also is part of the governing body. One of the fundamental points of that is that if we are to justify being part of the governing body of IAEA we must show ourselves to be active members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That means we have obligations under that Treaty. Of course, a fundamental condition of that Treaty is that Australia undertakes to supply nuclear materials for use for peaceful purposes to nations which are similarly covered by the safeguards. I invite the Senate to look at articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty, which are its key features. If a nation state is to be a good neighbour to countries which are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has an absolute responsibility to provide to other member states, under the strictest safeguards, fissile material for use in nuclear energy. That is fundamental. To say that we will not do that is to weaken the situation. Lest it should be felt that I am putting a Liberal Party partisan view on this matter, I will state what ought to be accepted as a bipartisan view. I have in my hands the report to the Hawke Federal Government of the Australian Science and Technology Council-ASTEC-the supreme, prestigious scientific body in Australia. The report is entitled `Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle' and looks at the ways of maintaining peacetime nuclear power generation throughout the world while stopping nuclear proliferation. It is of vital importance that every Australian should read and understand the essential conclusion of that report of a bipartisan committee of Australian scientists. They are scientists of all political persuasions; they are scientists with expertise. The main conclusion of the report states: Our overall conclusion is that Australia will be best able to make a significant contribution if it is actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. By such involvement we consider that Australia will be able to make a direct contribution to the development of the civil nuclear fuel cycle in ways that will increase global energy security, help to strengthen the elements of the non-proliferation regime and help to reduce the risks of misuse of civil facilities and the diversion of nuclear materials from civil to military uses. The report continues: Without such involvement we consider that global energy security would be less assured and our ability to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and to influence future developments in the fuel cycle would be reduced. We do not wish to exaggerate Australia's role in matters related to the nuclear fuel cycle but, as in most other human endeavours, it is only by active involvement that Australia can expect to be able to influence the future course of events. That is the main conclusion of ASTEC, the most prestigious body of scientists in Australia, when asked the essential question: How is it best to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world? The report concludes that the best way is for Australia to be a good neighbour in the active movement of fissile materials around the world for peacetime purposes, to be a strong monitor and to survey what happens to nuclear materials. The report goes on to state that if we do not do that we will weaken nuclear non-proliferation in the world and widen the opportunities for other countries to increase their nuclear weapons. ASTEC in its report recommends that we should not limit ourselves to the nuclear fuel cycle; we should continue with not just the mining and milling of uranium but also its enrichment. The more that a country which has the responsibilities of Australia does these things under strict safeguards, the less danger there is that a nation outside the treaty will abuse the safeguards and the less danger there will be of fissile material escaping into weaponry. These are the fundamental points and those who argue against them have to argue against this report. The Bill is quite unnecessary. Its good parts seek to stop the manufacture or use in Australia of nuclear weaponry. We are totally committed to that, as is the Australian Labor Party. There is no need whatsoever for any legislative act towards that end. There is on the statute book a series of pieces of legislation which govern the movement of fissile material, the safeguard protections, the mining and milling-the whole handling of highly radioactive material. There is in existence an Australian Safeguards Office. We are on the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency. So there is no doubt about not only the existence of our commitments but also the practical application of them. There is a bipartisanship between the Liberal and National parties and the Australian Labor Party and there is no need for further intervention in that regard. However, the intervention of this Bill is much more insidious. Firstly, it would prevent the full implementation of the ANZUS Treaty by Australia and our participation in the Western alliance. Both the coalition and the Australian Labor Party emphasise that today the nuclear peace of this world is maintained by deterrence, the ability of the two super-powers to maintain a deterrent structure so that no first strike shall occur because of the danger of retaliation and the damage that would come from a prohibitive retaliation. Therefore, the peacekeepers of this world, those who value and work for peace, are those who will look towards maintaining the deterrence while arguing strenuously and practically for the greatest possible reduction of armaments in the world. The Liberal Party and the National Party are fervent in their desire to see, particularly in the weeks ahead, the super-powers come together and seek an enormous reduction in both nuclear and conventional arms to a level of equivalence where there can be effective monitoring, surveillance and verification. That is what we all hope for. I make it perfectly clear that the introduction in the Senate by an honourable senator of a Bill with an anti-nuclear stance does not mean that he or she has a monopoly over peace. Peace is in the hearts, minds, spirits and intentions of every person in this chamber. I acknowledge that in the differences of view that are held by honourable senators. However, it is absolutely necessary that nobody should pretend he has a monopoly over peace. I do not say that the Democrats are doing that. We are arguing and ought to be arguing about the mechanisms that will bring about that peace. It is respectable to have a difference of opinion as to how one brings about that peace. It is the view of the coalition, and it is a view which is supported predominantly throughout the world, that anything that strengthens the deterrent strengthens peace; anything that weakens the deterrent weakens peace. The majority of Australians have said that they favour the ANZUS Treaty. The Democrats have said that they do not favour it. I want to make one point about that. I think it is Senator Chipp who in recent times has criticised the Treaty and said that it is meaningless. In recent times I have been reminded that during the Indonesian confrontation in the 1960s the then Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said to the Indonesian Government that if the Indonesian Government came into conflict with the Australian troops that would trigger off the ANZUS Treaty. If one wanted clear proof of the practical application of the ANZUS Treaty between partners in this area there it was and here it is. I am seeking to get the actual documentation of this so that there can be no argument in the world about the strength of the ANZUS Treaty. Even so, I do not think many Australians believe that we should shed our link with the Western alliance or with those who work for a common purpose of defence. The Western alliance has no aggressive tendencies. It exists to maintain peace with dignity. The effect of this Bill, if it were carried, would be not to allow into any of our ports nuclear-propelled, nuclear-capable or nuclear-armed vessels. That is not disputed. Indeed, subsequent Bills on the Notice Paper go on to strengthen that. The fact of the matter is that between 40 and 50 per cent of the United States Navy vessels are today nuclear-propelled. In the next decade it will be 70 per cent or more. As the oil shortage increases virtually all the modern navies of the world will be nuclear-propelled and so, indeed, will be the main commercial vessels. What this Bill is, in fact, is a statement by the Democrats that they would not allow our allied navies to come to our ports for the ordinary purposes of being refuelled, revictualled or repaired or for recreational purposes. One cannot have a working treaty between allies unless one is willing to refuel their ships and to help them be repaired. Fundamentally, this means that the British aircraft carrier Invincible would not be capable of being repaired. It was a sad day when it was not repaired in the past. In fact, under this kind of policy we would not welcome to our shores the very allies on whom we depend for maintaining the peace. The peace of this world is determined by the fact that we can disperse our defence mechanisms-the navies can disperse, the submarines can disperse. The basic reason why a first strike will never be made on the American mainland is that in and under the seas of the various oceans of this world will be allied vessels and submarines which will be capable of retaliation. That is an ugly thing. I look to the day when we will not need to have the deterrent as a means of peace. I hope that research such as the strategic defence initiative can succeed so that we can put in its place a non-nuclear defence system that will outlaw forever nuclear weapons. One should eagerly hope that that will be so. One should hope that the research that the Russians have been doing for years and that the Americans are now in fact moving towards, can be brought together in a common understanding in the world so that we will find that the younger generations of the future no longer will have to have peace by mutual terror but will have peace because we have found a non-nuclear way of making nuclear weapons obsolete. Senator Robert Ray —If they both do it at the same time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, if they do. I thank Senator Ray. The fact of the matter is that the understanding of this has been wrongly projected. It has been projected that the Russians have not been doing this and that the Americans are doing it as a destabilising thing. The Russians for years have been doing high density beam and particle beam research. They have a primitive system around Moscow. In fact, they have a radar system, which is undoubtedly in breach of the Treaty, at Krasnoyarsk in Central Siberia, as has been acknowledged by the Hawke Government. Mr Reagan has said that in his research he will do two things: That he is willing to make known to the world each stage of the progress of his research so that there is no one-upmanship in this situation-indeed, if the research proves to be not totally successful he will not go ahead with it-and that the Americans will stage between the super-powers, in three stages, the research, the introduction of some of the development and the ultimate phasing out. So in point of fact the Americans are now saying that they will not destabilise, that they want to get disarmament and a movement towards peace. Fundamental to the discussions of the next week or two in Geneva is the fact that we should put to rest this idea that the SDI is a unilateral move by the Americans which would destabilise. The contrary is true. The Russians have been doing it. I can only pray that by it or by something else we will find a non-nuclear means. But, indeed, it goes further than that. Senator Harradine —Julius Stone had a letter about that the day before he died. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I draw attention to it. It is fundamental that the Australian people should understand what the SDI is all about. I repeat that what President Reagan said and what every Australian should understand is this: Will we have to commit the new generations, for generation after generation to eternity, to a world in which peace is tenuously kept by mutually assured destruction? Will the only source of peace be that we have a nuclear offensive, which is a tenuous thing? Could we not find a way in which we could get a defence system which is non-nuclear against a nuclear offence system? Could we not, therefore, outlaw all nuclear weapons? That is an ideal. If it is an impractical ideal we will be back to the deterrent. If it is an ideal that is a success and is phased in by common agreement throughout the world, we will have done for our new generations something that will be a real value indeed. Fundamentally, I say this because it gets to the core of this Bill and the five other Bills-one cannot get peace by opting out. The idea behind this Bill is that somehow we can get a nuclear-free zone. These words are used in the Bill and, sadly, are used by the Government. There is only one effective nuclear-free zone-a global one. Any attempt by anybody to pretend that one can get a zone and say that it is nuclear-free because there are no weapons in it at the moment is a delusion of the people and a dangerous weakening of the peace. I want this world, step by step, to have nuclear non-proliferation zones, one after the other, side by side, until the world has total non-proliferation. I applaud the South Pacific nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is quite wrongly called the nuclear-free zone. It cannot be a nuclear-free zone. That is admitted because the nuclear powers have free movement on the sea, under the sea and in the international airspace. It is a corruption of the truth for anybody to mouth the idea and to pretend to Australians that there is a nuclear-free zone. There cannot be. The simple fact is that if there were a nuclear strike of any magnitude anywhere in the world, it would have to be designed to ensure that there was no retaliation. All reputable scientists have calculated that the magnitude would be such that it would create a nuclear winter. The physical phenomenon of the ordinary mix in the stratosphere would ensure that everybody in the world shared in this disaster. It is generally agreed that it does not matter if a country calls itself nuclear free, is neutral, isolated, has no nuclear bases or installations, no war ships in its ports; it cannot buy itself any kind of protection from a nuclear strike wherever that strike is in the world. The fact is that from all the nuclear explosions that have happened in the world, by way of nuclear tests and so on, Australia has had distributed over its landmass two millirads of radiation a year, as the rest of the world. The radiation has been beautifully spread throughout the world. It is not quite as much radiation as comes from coal burning power stations spreading their radiation. Nevertheless, the radiation has been spread by the cosmic mix. Anyone who seeks to create the illusion that, by isolation, by neutralism, by having no joint defence facilities or by having no war ships in Australian ports, one can buy peace or protection is in fact deluding members of the public, and deluding them seriously. I have heard the Australian Democrats arguing that they accept the principle of the nuclear winter. One cannot accept the principle of the nuclear winter without, in fact, admitting that a first strike anywhere in the world will destroy the world. That is a simple fact. The illusion that one gains from isolation is nonsense. I will go with everybody-the Democrats, the Australian Labor Party, everybody-in any move at all that will extend the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation in this world. If people want to work for that, if people want more and more countries to agree to this so that ultimately we get the lot agreeing, we will get for the first time a nuclear free zone because it is the only way we will get it. We should not delude that if we did not have nuclear targets on our soil that somehow or other we would buy ourselves peace. It would not matter whether we were targeted in Australia. If a first strike occurred only on the American mainland, Australia would be lethally destroyed. That is the fundamental position and I point out that we join in the desire for peace. We join in the desire for a great level of disarmament. However, we want to remove the delusions that are created by those who promote the idea that if we become isolationist, we can somehow or other buy protection. Accordingly, we reject this Bill. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.43) —in reply-I am disappointed at the response to this Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1985, both from the Liberal Party of Australia and from the Australian Labor Party. I compliment Senator Sir John Carrick on his speech because I think it eloquently sums up the view of his Party and the view of the Labor Party. I do not think anyone could have done it better or more completely than he just did. For the part of the Australian Democrats, we do not agree with a word of what he said, except that we acknowledge that he is just as interested in peace as we are. Senator Sir John Carrick —Surely. I acknowledge that. Senator CHIPP —Let us not score political points off that. Senator Sir John Carrick was gracious enough not to and I acknowledge his point. Just for the record, I would like to correct one small thing which he said. He was in error in saying that this Bill would preclude the visits of ships with nuclear installations or nuclear bombs. I have another Bill which does, but just for the record I point out that sub-clause 3 (2) of this Bill says: In this Act, a reference to Australia shall be read as not including a reference to any part of the territorial sea of Australia that is below low-water mark, or the airspace above, that territorial sea. Senator Sir John Carrick —The other Bills will? Senator CHIPP —The other Bills will. That is not a big point but I make it just to clear the record. We do not agree with any of the thrust of what Senator Sir John Carrick said. I suppose we have gone into that before, and I will not repeat those arguments but one thing on which he concentrated today and which brought forth some reaction from my friend and colleague Senator Sanders was that any first strike would inevitably mean the end of the world. I think that is probably one of the big areas of difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party on the one hand and us on the other hand. We are dismayed at the reports coming from the Pentagon in particular-I have no doubt that reports are circulating in the Soviet Union as well, although we do not see them-that a limited nuclear war is possible to win. Senator Sir John Carrick —The Pentagon say it isn't. Senator CHIPP —There are people in the Pentagon who have been quoted as saying the opposite. In fact, now that freedom of information records are becoming available-I think it is after the 30-year period-we are now finding the terrifying number of times that the American chiefs-of-staff have recommended to successive Presidents of the United States of America that the nuclear option be taken up. Senator Sir John Carrick —Not in recent times. Senator CHIPP —We do not know. During the Vietnam war there were several times-I forget how many, but in the teens anyway-that the chiefs-of-staff placed recommendations before American Presidents to use the nuclear option in Vietnam. Senator Sir John Carrick —The Reagan Government has said that there cannot be a limited war. Senator CHIPP —Mr Deputy President, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing Senator Sir John Carrick and me to have this friendly interchange. There are leading figures in the Pentagon who have said, on record, that it is possible. I suppose it depends on what one says is a limited war. My latest information is that certainly the 500 bomb level is it. Beyond that there will be a nuclear winter for sure. Even if there was a 500-bomb exchange in the Northern Hemisphere, there is no way that any sort of life could survive south of the Equator, including everything in Australia. I am not advocating that. What I am advocating is that some maniac on either side-the Soviet side or the American side-might decide that a limited nuclear war is possible to win and have a go at it. If that is contained as a limited war and if, by not having bases, we are not involved or made a nuclear target, there is a chance-I put it no higher than that-that life could survive in Australia. What the Democrats are putting is that we as politicians do not have the right to mortgage the future of our children by making them nuclear targets. I made a statement the other day, which I make again, that it is the Democrats' view that Australia is more of a prime nuclear target because of the installations we have on our soil than are the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries in Europe which in fact have the bombs. What one does in a time of nuclear attack or feared attack is claw out the eyes and the brains of the enemy. As it happens, the eyes of the enemy, namely the United States as far as the Soviets are concerned, are not on American soil. They are not chiefly in NATO countries although there are some there. The significant eyes and brains of the enemy as far as the Soviets are concerned are located in Australia. Senator Robert Ray —If you take them away you may increase the chances of war. Senator CHIPP —That is a respectable argument. We do not accept it, but is a respectable argument. What we say is that if the Soviets and the United States want to pursue this insanity, we cannot do too much to stop them. What we say as Australian politicians is that we do not want a bar of it. We say that we have not got the right, as far as our children are concerned, to mortgage this country. It is as simple as that. I have never heard anybody say that the actions of the United States and the Soviet Union are not insane. Only insanity could have produced a situation of 50,000 nuclear bombs in the world. Only insane men and women could have done that, men and women who have lost their balance, who have totally lost their sense of proportion. As I have said before, the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 and killed 200,000 human beings is by today's standards a toy. The average size of those 50,000 bombs I mentioned, 30,000 of which are owned by the United States and 20,000 by the Soviet Union, is about 30 or 40 times more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb. Therefore, in theory at least, the average bomb today could kill in one hit something like four or five or six million people. That is the magnitude of what we are talking about. Yet they have built 50,000 of those bombs, and they are now talking about building more. If that is not a classic case of insanity I do not know what is. All I am saying to people such as Senator Robert Ray, who I acknowledge is absolutely sincere in this, is that if they want to do that over there and destroy the Northern Hemisphere in a limited nuclear exchange, there is nothing we can do about it. What we are saying is that they should not involve Australia. We should not be politicians who involve Australia-- Senator Robert Ray —You want to wash your hands of the whole affair. Senator Sir John Carrick —How do you limit retaliation against a limited strike? Senator CHIPP —Normally I like interjections. However, I did not hear either of those interjections and am not paying either one-- Senator Sir John Carrick —How would you limit the retaliation against a limited nuclear strike? Since the target would not have been wiped out, would that retaliation not have to increase to stop further first strikes? Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge that we have no control over what happens on the other side of the planet. I do not think I am being oversimplistic when I say that there is a concept, at least in the Pentagon and probably in the Kremlin, that a limited nuclear strike is possible. If that happens and it is pre-emptive- Senator Robert Ray —Is it possible to have a limited response? That is the question. Senator CHIPP —If it is pre-emptive, then the question asked by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Robert Ray is irrelevant. If the strike is pre-emptive, then there is no question of a response. That is the sort of logic exercising the minds of those military people in both places. Senator Robert Ray —I agree with you that they are insane if that is what they are thinking. Senator CHIPP —Yes. The Australian Labor Party has disappointed me with its response to this Bill. It says that there is no need to enshrine its policy in legislation. Member of the Labor Party agree that this Bill before the chamber is Labor Party policy, yet they say, by some extraordinary process of logic. that they will not vote for it. They go further and say that they will vote against it. I am sorry that people who have the intellectual capacity of Senator Robert Ray-I regard that as high-have not stood up in this debate and explained how they can live with that dilemma. If honourable senators opposite believe that this is their policy-it is accepted by their Party-and that nuclear weapons should be prohibited from Australian soil, how in the name of God can they sit in the national Parliament and vote against the Bill when the division bells ring? It it were not in accordance with their policy I could understand it, but to stand up here and say `It is our policy but we are not going to vote for it' is beyond my comprehension. If it were a matter of interest rates or the redistribution of wealth or something else there would be no conscience matter involved. This Bill is concerned with the survival of life on this continent, and for honourable members opposite to vote against their principles and their policy on a matter such as this is something I cannot understand. On the other hand, the Liberals are honest about the whole thing. They have said before-I hope I do not misquote them-that they would in certain circumstances entertain the prospect of having nuclear weapons on Australian soil. I do not agree with that but at least it is honest. I imagine that is the sort of stuff we could look forward to if and when a Liberal government returns to office in this country. Senator Durack —Only if most unlikely circumstances of that kind arose. Senator CHIPP —Yes, but members of the Liberal Party do not rule out that possibility, and they are honest about it. Surely that in itself is enough reason to put the sentiments expressed in my Bill into Australian law. If it were the law of Australia, any future Liberal government, finding itself in such circumstances, would have to repeal the Act. I think this is where the value of my Bill lies and why it is a tragedy that this Parliament will refuse its passage. It would be one thing for the Liberal Party, if and when it regains office, surreptitiously to sneak in a nuclear installation somewhere. That would be one thing. I am not an expert in these things, but possibly it could be done by regulation; possibly it could be done by treaty which would not need ratification by this Parliament. A nuclear weapon could be installed on Australian soil without reference to the Parliament. What the Democrats are trying to do is to bring down legislation and put it on the statute books to ensure that a future Liberal government would have to repeal that Act. One can imagine the marching in the streets, the protests and deputations to members of parliament, if the Liberal Party were to try to overcome that sort of obstacle? That to me is probably the greatest value of this Bill. At least it would give a safety zone for the future. At least it would prevent any future Liberal government-the Liberal Party quite honestly concedes its intentions-from acting because it would have to face the anger and the rage of those people out there who care about nuclear proliferation. There is another reason why this Bill must be passed. A nuclear weapons prohibition Act would make it illegal for B52 bombers to carry nuclear weapons into Australia. At the moment there is absolutely no guarantee that these bombers are not coming into Australia loaded with nuclear bombs. In the very near future they could be coming in loaded with cruise missiles. It was the policy of this Govenment when in opposition that the private agreement, which had no legal validity at all, between Foreign Minister Tony Street and the United States Secretary of State Haig that United States bombers were possibly carrying nuclear weapons into Australia was unacceptable. It was the Labor Party which said that. It was Mr Lionel Bowen, as spokesperson on foreign affairs, who said that. This Bill of mine would make it illegal for B52s to carry nuclear weapons into Australia. Another Bill in the package of Bills would make it illegal for B52s to carry nuclear weapons in Australian airspace. Mr Deputy President, I feel quite strange standing here today and confessing to you that I cannot get from Senator Gareth Evans a guarantee that those bombers are not now carrying nuclear bombs. I am only a member of parliament. I asked him the question. I gave him two days notice. His Defence Department briefed him to say: `Don't tell Chipp whether those B52s are carrying nuclear bombs'. I would have thought that I was entitled to know that. I leave it to the judgment of the Senate to decide that. There is one aspect of Labor policy which I cannot understand, and I mention this in passing. The Labor Party passionately states that it will not allow nuclear bombs on Australian soil- it will not vote for this Bill but it is still passionate in its statements that it will not allow them-yet it will freely allow nuclear bombs in Australian ports. Again, I would have been grateful for someone of the intellectual capacity of Senator Robert Ray to have explained to me the logic of that. We have been denied the privilege of hearing his good mind on this. This Bill is important. The security of this nation and its basic standing in a nuclear world must not only be of interest to Parliament but also be subject to the laws of this land. Many honourable senators know not only that this Bill is good but also that it is the right thing to vote for. Many honourable senators look forward to the day, at some time in the future, when such a Bill becomes law. I hope that it is a Bill introduced by the Australian Labor Party. Senator Robert Ray —A good possibility. Senator CHIPP —If that is so it will have our total and vigorous support. All I hope is that that day will come very soon because, notwithstanding what Senator Robert Ray thinks of the performance of his Government, the chances are that it will not stay in office forever. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Chipp, D.L. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Vallentine, J.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B.Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F.Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Coates, J. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crichton-Brown, N. A. Robertson, E. A.Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G.Devlin, R. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W.Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Townley, M.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Harradine, B. Withers, R. G.Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.08) —The Postal Services Amendment (Continuance of Postal Services) Bill 1985 is opposed by the Government. Senator Lewis wishes to have the matter dealt with tonight. In those circumstances I will truncate the comments I might otherwise have made. Senator Lewis's purpose in introducing this Bill is no doubt laudable in the sense that he wants the mail to get through at all times. It is a true indication of the Lewis spirit-a man who faces all hardships simply to see that the mail gets through in the grand tradition of Cobb and Co. and Wells Fargo. However, in this instance the honourable senator's concepts are not properly met by the means he wishes to use to bring those concepts into actuality. I simply want to make certain points as to why the mechanism that he proposes is not adequate to meet his concepts. The first is that Senator Lewis talks of a monopoly operating at a time when the mail, ostensibly, cannot get through. It is, in my submission to the Senate, an inadequate way of going abut the matter simply to pass a Bill to permit a Minister, after consultation with the Australian Postal Commission, to allow some alternative postal service to operate. Given the circumstances that the postal service in Australia operates not only in the cities but also in rural areas, it would be inadequate for somebody simply to carry mail, for instance, from one city to another. That would not meet the requirements that the people have of the postal services in this country. So at that level it is inadequate. The issue of whether there ought to be a monopoly has been raised by the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission. That is a matter that ought be considered, and considered in a proper case. The meaning of the words used in the Bill is wide. The concepts with which the Minister and perhaps the court have to grapple are concepts which include whether or not the services provided will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people. These are concepts that ought not be decided by a Minister and a court. It should be pointed out that at the moment there is no problem with the postal service. The trouble surrounding the mail sorters in Sydney has been resolved. As I have said, the Bill, although noble in its concepts, does not meet the mechanism that would be required to meet the problems we face. Knowing Senator Lewis and noting his robust approach to things, he will no doubt accuse the Government of opposing the Bill because of pressure from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is not the situation that pertains. The Government opposes the Bill because, as I say, although its concepts may be good, the mechanism-the machinery-and the means adopted to meet that are inadequate. That does not mean, of course, that the Government will not consider at some stage the matters that are raised by Senator Lewis in his Bill and which were raised by the Bradley Committee. Those concepts include the monopoly position of Australia Post and so on. On that basis this Bill is opposed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.12) —Senator Cooney did not sound too convinced that the Postal Services Amendment (Continuance of Postal Services) Bill, which was introduced by Senator Lewis, was not a sound and proper Bill. He talked about the situation in which letters could not be delivered to isolated areas. I do not know whether he realises that this Bill only proposes to amend section 85 of the Postal Services Act, which gives Australia Post a monopoly on the delivery of letter weighing 500 grams or more. All it does is provide the Minister for Communications with power to waive that monopoly for any period. If there were a crisis situation, such as the one we have just faced in New South Wales, the Minister would have the power to waive that monopoly provision of the section and allow private enterprise to deliver the mail during the period of the strike. At the moment we have a situation in which the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress has decided to take action into its own hands. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that this occurred prior to the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The Australian newspaper of 22 October stated: The ACTU bans, which were proposed at the last congress of the council by the Combined Unions Against Racism . . . are designed to disrupt or stop all travel, shipping, trade, telecommunications and mail between the two countries. As well, building workers across the country will not use South African products this week and food and distribution unions will not handle South African foodstuffs and manufactured goods. Before the Prime Minister began his negotiations in the Bahamas, what did we have? We had the ACTU deciding that it would take action into its own hands. We in Australia believe that we have a democracy. We have not. We certainly have not when the Hawke Government is in power because the ACTU, with government blessing-because the Government will not take any action to stop it-has decided that it will take the action it sees fit. It is not a democratically elected government of this country, yet it has decided that it will take action on a matter on which a government should rightly decide. The ACTU has decided that no mail will go out of this country to South Africa and that no mail will come in and be delivered. At the moment, 30,000 pieces of mail are being held up, waiting to go to South Africa. What right has any union to hold up the Queen's mail? We have, or we had, a tradition in this country that the mail must be delivered. It is private mail. It is not up to the unions to know whether that mail is important or otherwise. It is not up to the unions to decide what mail shall or shall not be delivered. Yet they have taken the matter into their own hands, and this Government will not take action to stop them. This is the problem we face. Under the heading `ACTU's foreign policy' the Australian newspaper stated: The decision by a number of ACTU-affiliated unions to cut virtually all links between Australia and South Africa for a week must reinforce the views of those who maintain that it is the Australian Council of Trade Unions which runs the country, not the Government. The Australian newspaper editorials are pointing that out to the Australian people, but I believe it is essential that the Government points out to the Australian people that it will not tolerate the ACTU running the country. Where is the Minister? I do not believe that a Minister is in the chamber. It is a disgrace that no Minister has been in the chamber during this debate. If the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) took the advice of the Opposition and if he agreed that the Government is running the country and not the ACTU, he would agree with Senator Lewis's Bill. That Bill seeks, in a situation such as the one that applies at the moment-where, as I have said, 30,000 pieces of mail have been held up in this country and are not being delivered or sent to South Africa-that the Minister have the power to reverse the existing monopoly position and allow private enterprise to take over the delivery of that mail. Again, I refer to a media quotation: Business groups warned yesterday that renewed ACTU action . . . could threaten negotiations to bring Australian companies trading in South Africa under a code of conduct. The article continues: The action comes as the Federal Government is seeking trade union approval to the text of the code, already agreed to by the Business Council of Australia . . . and the Confederation of Australian Industry . . . The Prime Minister agreed to that code of conduct and he sought the ACTU's agreement also. The fact that the ACTU would not even attend the meeting between those business groups and the Federal Minister seemed to me so arrogant. Yet what did the Government do? It backed off because it is not prepared to take on the ACTU under any circumstances, no matter what the situation is. The Minister, Mr Duffy, in a wishy washy sort of way, warned Australia Post that unless it improved its postal service in New South Wales the public would look to private enterprise for a better service. He did not say: `Right, we will now support this Bill'. He has not at any stage indicated that he would do that. Indeed, the opposite has occurred. He has said: `The ACTU will not allow us to do that', so this Government will not support a very sensible piece of legislation. Of course, Commissioner Grimshaw had no control whatsoever. A full page advertisement was placed in the Sydney Morning Herald in which Mr Commissioner Grimshaw, in regard to the current situation at some of Sydney's metropolitan mail centres during the all-out strike in New South Wales, stated: The Commission is seriously concerned that in defiance of my decision in May of this year some members of the union have continued a campaign which has seriously disrupted mail services in New South Wales. I direct those members of the union involved in industrial activity to cease their actions and play a positive role in returning mail services to the level the public are entitled to. That is our domestic situation. If this piece of legislation had been in place there would not have been the need for a full page add to have been placed in a newspaper by the Australian Postal Commission, pleading with its workers to accept the decision of the court. The Commission said to the people of Australia: `We are terribly sorry, but while we are faced with continuing industrial disruption, we suggest you avoid using the Sydney mail services, if possible, for priority paid and other critical mail'. There was a backlog of letters and large parcels. It took three weeks for a letter to get from Sydney to Launceston, and the public are paying high prices for the service. As someone said, out of the 33 cents postage that one paid to post a letter, during the period of the strike, the cost was made up of 20 cents for storage and 13 cents for delivery. We have a ludicrous situation. The national leader of the Postal Workers Union stated that the whole thing had been taken over by the international socialists. Of course, we know that that is so and the Government knows that that is so. We know that the hard line communists took over that strike. There has been no indication from the Government that it will try to do anything to control that situation. This is a very simple piece of legislation. It involves a very simple amendment. We are merely saying that in times of crisis-such as in the case of the union being run by the international socialists, which has been admitted by its national leader-when the communists try to take over a strike in this country, the Minister should have the discretion to be able to waive the monopoly provision of section 85 of the Act and allow private enterprise to take over the delivery service for that short time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.24) —I was amused to hear Senator Walters describe the Postal Services Amendment (Continuance of Postal Services) Bill as a simple amendment. To describe the taking away of the monopolistic privilege of the postal service, to replace striking unionists with scab labour, as simple beggars the imagination. The Australian Democrats cannot support this Bill. I know that we have time constraints. One could talk for a long time about this sort of thing. I suppose that the Democrats, like everybody in this chamber, are opposed to political decisions being taken by bodies other than members of parliament. To the extent that Senator Walters has said that a decision has been taken by an outside body, namely, a trade union, I agree with her. I do not go to the extent of saying that it has been taken over by international communists. She might be right in that regard; I do not know. But the fact is that a decision affecting a crucial part of our existence, namely, the fact that mail is not being delivered to South Africa, has not been taken by the Parliament. That is basically wrong. It is against the whole thrust of democratic institutions. We agree with the Liberal Party and, I am sure, the Australian Labor Party in saying that this dispute is wrong and that there should be ways of settling it. We do not agree that confrontation is the way to settle an industrial dispute. That was proven in the Queensland electricity dispute. That dispute was settled by tolerance and compromise. If the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Hawke Federal Government had not intervened as they did in that dispute, in a very sensible and sensitive way, this country would have been plunged into absolute chaos. But that was a classic example of an industrial relations situation, which had been precipitated by a very silly Premier of Queensland, that could have led to a national paralysis. It was not solved by confrontation. The confrontation was taken out of it and it was solved by compromise and consensus. I cannot understand, with great respect to Senator Walters and the other gung-ho boys and girls in the Liberal Party, why they have not learned their lesson from history. The Hawke Government has many faults but one of its classic achievements is that the time lost through industrial disputes in each year of its administration has been less than that lost under each year of the Fraser Government. Even Malcolm Fraser's friends say that his reign, if I can use that word, was characterised-- Senator Watson —It was because Bob Hawke was head of the ACTU. Senator CHIPP —It was characterised by confrontation in industrial relations. Malcolm Fraser would not be upset if he heard me say that because he admits it himself. `Take the bastards on' was the Fraser technique, amply supported by people such as Senator Walters and Senator Watson. That is a respectable philosophy to have but I disagree with it. Surely, if members of the national Parliament are going to keep on saying that, they must ask themselves, if they are sincere or fair dinkum: Does it work? Does confrontation in industrial relations work? I would have thought that the classic example that I have just given shows that it does not work. The consensus style of settling industrial disputes does work, whereas confrontation does not. I do not know what Senator Watson's interjection was. I promised Senator Lewis I would finish my remarks at 5.35 p.m. But I would like to answer the interjection. As I understand it, he said that the reason that the time lost in industrial disputes is less under the Hawke Government than under the Fraser Government is Mr Hawke was President of the ACTU at that time. Some of the explanations of these right wingers in the Liberal Party are absolutely absurd. No doubt such people had a hand in the ascension to power of their beloved leader, John Howard. Just look at what kind of a week he has had. Look at the popularity polls. Those people must wear the responsibility and share in the downward turn in the popularity and public acceptance of John Howard. They must lift their game and stop coming into this Parliament and making these absolutely absurd propositions about confrontation solving industrial disputes. I understand that this is a serious matter and to that extent I compliment Mr Macphee and Senator Lewis for bringing in a novel solution because this problem has to be solved. I understand that at the moment ten innocent black African countries-innocent in the sense that they do not practise apartheid-are suffering because of this mail ban. The situation is going to get worse. So clearly this dispute has to be solved. Senator Peter Baume —When elephants fight the grass gets trampled. Senator CHIPP —I do not understand that. I am sure it is a brilliant analogy but the meaning escapes me for the moment. The honourable senator always makes brilliant interjections for which I am always grateful. The Bill has some technical weaknesses which I will mention briefly. It provides that the Minister may revoke Australia Post's monopoly on the delivery of mail where Australia Post is unable to provide an adequate service, firstly, throughout Australia and, secondly, in a particular part of Australia. The revocation itself can be subsequently revoked. In the case of the South African bans, Australia Post is not able to provide a satisfactory service in relation to a particular geographical area-that is, Australia or part of Australia-but in relation to a particular type of mail, that is, mail to or from South Africa. I would like Senator Lewis, if he has time when he responds, to acknowledge whether I am right or wrong in pointing out this weakness. This part of the legislation would apply to the South African bans only if the Minister was to form the opinion that refusal to deliver South African mail was in itself sufficient to constitute a failure `to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services'. If that very unlikely interpretation was made by the Minister, the effect of the amendment would be to remove the Australia Post monopoly for all mail until the South African bans were lifted. The Minister cannot, under the amendment, lift the monopoly only in relation to South African mail. That is my understanding of the legislation on the legal advice that I have received. I should have given Senator Lewis notice that I was going to raise this matter; I am not trying to embarrass him. However, I just put on record that that is one of the objections to the Bill that the Democrats have received on legal advice. The Bill would be more effective in the case of strikes such as the recent New South Wales mail sorters' strike, but even here there are difficulties. As some mail from overseas to parts of Australia, other than Sydney, goes through Sydney, and as mail from country New South Wales to other parts of Australia may pass through Sydney, would the Sydney strike of mail sorters provide a basis for removing the Australia Post monopoly from any part of the country which may be affected in any way by the strike? That seems to me to be another massive question mark raised by this Bill. They are technical difficulties which would preclude us voting for the Bill. In the two or three minutes that I have left to speak, I would like to come to the main reasons for our objection to the Bill. I would like to give a possible scenario if this Bill were passed. I am not saying that it is a proper scenario. I am not saying that it is one that I would approve of. However, to quote the phrase of a famous Australian, the result of the scenario I am about to outline is as plain as night follows day. Let us suppose that the mail sorters at Redfern went out on strike. The Minister, using the power under this Act, could then revoke Australia Post's monopoly in New South Wales. As a result of that, the Australia Post union workers would go out on a national strike. This is not a technical point. It is one on which Senator Lewis, with his not inconsiderable experience in these matters, would be able to comment. What does Senator Lewis think would happen as soon as the Minister invoked the legislation and revoked Australia Post's monopoly in New South Wales? He must concede that every worker in Australia Post would go out on strike Australia-wide within 24 hours. As a result, there would be a total paralysis of all postal services in New South Wales. Senator Lewis might then respond: `Okay, call the bastards bluff. Remove the monopoly totally from Australia Post right throughout Australia and have private enterprise deliver every letter and parcel'. What would be the position then? I do not know as much as some people do about the union movement. However, I know a fair bit. I was chairman of the Liberal Party's industrial relations committee for many years. My father was a trade unionist. I do not know whether it is right or wrong but I know that the one thing governments can do to unions that is certain to inflame passions more than anything else is to introduce scab labour. That is a terrible and horrible term. I do not like it. However, a lot of trade unionists learnt what it meant throughout their long-suffering careers. Whether one likes it or not, this legislation is simply a means of allowing a government to introduce scab labour to break a strike. As soon as one does that, one has chaos throughout the whole country. Again, I emphasise that I am not saying it is right or proper. I am saying it is inevitable that this will happen. The next thing that happens after banning Australia Post union members is the entry of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It would call a national strike. This is the inevitable way in which the cards would fall. I would say that, within 48 hours of the provisions of this Bill being invoked, not only would postal services cease to operate but one would have a national strike. There would be no trams, trains or phone services and food would not be delivered. The whole nation would close down. At that point the Government would have to compromise and, inevitably, that compromise would involve the repeal of this legislation. I would have liked to speak longer on this matter. However, I honour my commitment to Senator Lewis and I will conclude my remarks. I ask him to be good enough to respond to the points I have raised. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I am fighting a losing battle, but I think it might be appropriate if we could limit the use in this chamber of a certain word that has been used a couple of times. I call Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.37) —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I shall not use that word. I want to thank those honourable senators who have spoken in this debate, and also those who have declined to speak at my request, for meeting the timetable that I asked them to meet. It must be understood that if a vote is not taken by 5.43 p.m. this matter will be adjourned. That is the reason for the pressure to have this debate concluded by 5.43 p.m. I thank honourable senators for their contribution. Senator Chipp raised a couple of matters of a technical nature. I refer him to clause (4) (b) and clause (7) (b) which make it perfectly clear that the Minister has a power, by lifting the monopoly provision, to deal with the delivery of mails in specific areas. These provisons would be able to cover specifically the delivery of mail to and from the people of South Africa. Really, what is happening to the delivery of mail to the people of South Africa, is a terrible shame. We have had letters of protest from people who have been unable to communicate with their children who are living in South Africa because of the ban which has been imposed by the trade union movement for political purposes. The ban has nothing to do with the normal reasons that lead to strike action. The purpose of this Bill is simply to place ministerial responsibility properly where it should be and to give the Government power to ensure that the mails of Australia can get through. The Bill gives the Minister a discretionary power which he can implement. It is not a question of confrontation. On the contrary, the Bill would open up mail delivery to competiton, not confrontation. Let me explain that for the benefit of Senator Chipp. We believe that at present Australia Post has a monopoly over the delivery of mail weighing not more than 500 grams. At present the competition is free and open in respect of all mail articles in excess of 500 grams. That situation exists already. All this Bill proposes is that the Minister should have the power to open up competition for mail under 500 grams if there is a situation in which the mails cannot get through. I do not see that as a matter of confrontation. Senator Chipp knows as well as I do that even Australian Labor Party governments from time to time have a confrontation with the trade union movement if that becomes necessary. The real question is: Where does the merit lie? If one looks at the strikes Australia Post has had throughout this year, one understands the simple principle of whether we allow Australia Post to hold up and delay the mails of Australia or whether we give the Minister the legislative teeth to do something about it. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G.Boswell, R. L. D. Rae, PeterBrownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G.Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Crichton-Brown, N. A. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Townley, M.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G.Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Harradine, B.Black, J. R, Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N, McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P,Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley. R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A.Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Georges, G. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Question resolved. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 26 November 1985, at 2 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. The PRESIDENT —The House of Representatives has transmitted to the Senate a resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives concerning the establishment of a joint select committee to inquire into and report on all aspects of the Government's proposals for an Australia Card. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-proposed: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 194 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on the Government's proposals for an Australia Card. (2) That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.48) —The Opposition has had no notice, so far as I know, of the actual terms of this message. Perhaps I could have the opportunity of a short adjournment to find out whether there is any significance in it and whether it can go through. I repeat that no word has been indicated to the Opposition about this matter. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to implement that part of the Government's indigenous crude oil marketing policy which provides for the imposition of a 3 cents per litre special customs duty on imports of light crude oils and petroleum products. The Government's policy on indigenous crude oil marketing was announced by the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, on 9 October 1984. In the 1984 autumn sittings the Government introduced a Bill to impose, under certain circumstances, a special stand-by duty on imports of certain light oils. The Government subsequently decided to conduct a major review of crude oil marketing policy. The review took into account representations made by the oil industry on the various provisions of this earlier Bill. Accordingly, the 1984 Bill was allowed to lapse with the prorogation of the last Parliament. The Bill I have just introduced is part of the package of measures which the government decided to implement following consideration of the crude oil marketing review. The Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duty) Bill 1985 reflects the Government's determination that crude oil produced in Australia will, where possible, be refined in Australia. The Bill is closely tied to the partial allocation scheme that currently allocates most of Australia's crude oil production to particular oil refiners. Under the scheme, the Government announces how much crude oil it expects each refiner to lift during each quarter from each producing area. Monthly records of each refiner's performance are kept for each producing area and are compared with their lifting obligations. If a particular refiner has failed to meet its obligations to lift indigenous crude oil over an extended period, then the provisions contained in this Bill are to come into effect. The commencement date of the Bill is the day on which it receives the royal assent. It should be noted, however, that the crude oil marketing partial allocation scheme announced by Senator Walsh came into effect on 1 January 1985, except for the arrangements for the imposition of a special penalty duty which are contained in this Bill. The provisions of the Bill require that duty can only be imposed on importations of certain oil on and from the date of publication of a Gazette notice which declares that the duty is imposed. It is not possible for that Gazette notice to be published within a time period of two months after the date on which the Bill receives the royal assent. The Bill does provide, however, that shortfalls of Bass Strait oil during each of three consecutive annual months that occurred after June 1985 can be taken into account. The purpose of enabling shortfalls that occurred after June 1985 being able to be taken into account is to implement the previously announced and clearly defined Government intention that this Bill would take effect, as far as practicable, from the introduction of the crude oil marketing partial allocation scheme. Similarly, for minor oil from a particular oil source, underliftings during a period of six consecutive annual months that occurred after March 1985 can be taken into account. The significance of the dates of June and March 1985 is that the ends of these months are approximately three and six months before the prospective date of the Bill receiving the royal assent. In the policy statement of 9 October 1984, the Government announced that the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duties) Bill 1984 then before the Parliament would be redrafted to enable the penalty import duty to be applied to both crude oil and refined products and to be imposed on an individual company rather than across the board. As with the previous Bill, the Government has limited the application of the duty to goods of a density below 0.9. This means that no duty will be payable on imports that are used to meet the demand for heavy oil products such as bitumen. Imports of heavy oils do not compete with indigenous crudes and it would not be appropriate to apply the penalty duty to them. The Bill also recognises the different scales of oil production in Bass Strait and the smaller or minor oil producing areas. For Bass Strait oil, action to impose the penalty duty can only commence when a refiner has had a shortfall in liftings for each of three consecutive annual months occurring after June 1985. In relation to the smaller oil producing areas, action can only commence against a refiner who has failed to lift the allocated percentage of minor oil in each of six consecutive annual months occurring after March 1985. The provisions contained in clause 10 of the Bill would come into effect once a refiner had failed to meet its allocation obligations in regard to Bass Strait oil. The Minister for Resources and Energy is, firstly, required to give the refiner a written notice setting out particulars of the shortfall. That notice will also state the need for information that will satisfy the Minister that the shortfall was not caused by factors principally under the control of the refiner. The refiner is given one calendar month to respond to this notice. If, within that calendar month, the refiner has not responded to the minister, or the information supplied does not satisfy the Minister, then further steps may be taken to impose the penalty duty. After making the decision that the shortfall was within the control of the refiner, the Minister for Resources and Energy is required to notify the refiner in writing of the particulars of the decision. This notification will also state that, unless otherwise precluded by a later provision of the Bill, a stand-by certificate may be issued to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. That certificate, if issued, will specify the refiner and the three annual months in which the shortfall had occurred and will certify that it is appropriate for the duty to be payable. Sub-clause 10 (4) is important in the operation of the Bill as it provides the refiner with the opportunity to make up the shortfall and thus prevent the imposition of the duty. The period allowed for the shortfall to be made up commences at the beginning of the earliest of the three annual months of shortfall and ends one calendar month after the day that the refiner was given the second written notice. Before the penalty duty can be imposed, the Minister for resources and energy also is required to publish a gazette notice inviting persons to be included on a list of eligible persons. Inclusion on the list will ensure that those refiners who purchased the allocated quantities of oil will not be required to pay the penalty duty. It is only when all the requirements I have outlined have been satisfied that the Minister for Resources and Energy is able to issue a stand-by certificate to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Clause 12 of the Bill requires the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, once he or she has received a stand-by certificate, to publish a Gazette notice declaring that duty is payable under the legislation. The duty cannot be imposed from a day earlier than the day of publication of the notice in the Gazette. Similar procedures to those I have just outlined in relation to Bass Strait oil are also applied to minor oil from other fields. In the case of these smaller fields, however, a refiner has to have underlifted minor oil from a particular source for a period of six consecutive annual months occurring after March 1985 before the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill can come into effect. The Bill also includes provisions for the revocation of a penalty duty that has been imposed. Once the Minister for Resources and Energy becomes satisfied after an annual month that a refiner has ceased to have a shortfall or underlift, that Minister shall, by notice in writing to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, revoke the relevant stand-by certificate. Where all stand-by certificates are revoked, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is thereafter obliged, by clause 14, to publish a Gazette notice revoking the declaration which imposed the penalty duty. This revocation will have effect on the first day of the annual month after the date that this Gazette notice is published. Clause 15 of the Bill recognises that one refiner may agree with another to purchase oil which forms part of the allocation obligations of the other refiner. Provision is made in clause 15 that the relevant Bass Strait and minor oil allocation notices applicable to both the transferor and transferee are deemed to be adjusted by the transferred quantity or percentage of oil. In addition to the measures contained in the Bill which provide refiners with the opportunity to avoid the imposition of the penalty duty, honourable senators may recall that the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1985 which was passed in the last autumn sittings included measures which relate to this Bill. Those measures put into place provisions for appeals to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in regard to certain aspects of this legislation. The following matters in the Bill are within the jurisdiction of that Tribunal- 1. A decision of the Minister for Resources and Energy that he or she is, or is not, satisfied of a matter for the purposes of the definition of `List of Eligible Importers' in sub-clause 4 (1); 2. A decision of that Minister under paragraph 10 (1) (b) that he or she is, or is not, satisfied as to whether a shortfall of Bass Strait oil during each of three consecutive annual months was principally within the control of the refiner; and 3. A decision of that Minister under paragraph 11 (1) (b) that he or she is, or not, satisfied as to whether an underlifting of minor oil during a period of six consecutive annual months was principally within the control of the refiner. Financial Impact As long as refiners are meeting their obligations, no stand-by duty will be imposed. The refining industry has traditionally met these obligations. Accordingly the Government would not expect to have to frequently invoke the provisions of this Bill. Consequently, the Bill will normally have no financial impact. If at any stage a refiner fails to meet the allocated requirements and the penalty duty is brought into effect, there will be an increase in Government receipts. It is very difficult to estimate the extent of such an increase but, as an example, if a middle-sized refiner had to pay the duty, then Government receipts would increase by approximately $4 million a month. Thus the legislation would only have a marginal effect on Government revenues but could have a major impact on the refiner concerned. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Archer) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, requesting changes in the membership of the Senate Standing Committee of Finance and Government Operations and the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt, on behalf of Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That Senator Richardson be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and that Senator Reynolds, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Committee. (2) That Senator Tate be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinance. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and until such time as a senator has been appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Tate, that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as the Chairman, shall, in the event of any equality of voting, have a casting vote. Motion (by Senator Rebertson)-by leave-agreed to: That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes be extended to 6 December 1985. Consideration resumed. GROUP C Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $588,503,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.54) —To which Minister am I addressing my remarks? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —You are addressing the Chair. Senator WALTERS —Yes. I was wondering whether Senator Walsh, the Minister representing the Treasurer, would be coming into the chamber. There have been a number of statements and reports of the cost of the imposition of the new taxation measures on the restaurant industry and of the jobs which have either been lost or will be lost to that industry. Is the Government concerned about the reports? Has it commissioned its own investigation and, if so, what were the findings? Senator Walsh —A tiny fraction of that which is claimed by industry propagandists. Senator WALTERS —Senator Walsh was not in the chamber when I commenced to ask the question. I will ask it again. There have been a number of statements and reports of the cost of the imposition of the new taxation measures on the restaurant industry and of the jobs which either have been or will be lost to that industry. Is the Government concerned about the reports? Has it commissioned its own investigation and, if so, what were the findings? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.56) —We have official statistics of job vacancies in the catering industry for the month of October compared with those for September. They show that there has been a very large increase in the number of employment vacancies in the catering industry, which flatly contradicts the assertions which have been made by the assorted vested interest groups which, for their own ends, political or otherwise, have been making gross and false claims about the effect of the cancellation of deductibility. Senator Walters —I asked whether the Government had commissioned its own investigations and, if so, what were the results. Senator WALSH —No. As Minister for Finance I would resist it on the grounds that it would be a gross misuse of public funds and resources. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.57) —The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) might be able to answer this question: Is it a fact that members of parliament were recently given a third staff member? Was that third staff member granted to do basic research? Is any test applied as to the capability of those people, especially those who work for Senator Walters? All she has done today is ask the most simple questions of fact that any person could get answers to by simply walking through the door of the Parliamentary Library. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I am not sure whether those remarks were directed to the vote which is in front of us. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.58) —You can carry on and be rude if you want to, Senator Ray. It is quite stupid of you. I thought you wanted to have the Appropriation Bills passed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —Mr Temporary Chairman, if the Government wants its Appropriation Bills passed, I suggest that Senator Robert Ray should not waste the time of the Senate. Senator Robert Ray —You are the greatest time waster who has ever been here. Senator WALTERS —I can go on if the honourable senator wishes; it is up to him. It is his Government's Appropriation Bills which he is trying to get passed. He had better behave himself. I thought he had been a senator long enough to know that he could not intimidate me. My next question relates to the foreign debt servicing payments, which last year exceeded rural export earnings by $1 billion. What effect will the 3.8 per cent wage rise have on Australia's international competitiveness and, hence, on our indebtedness to foreign creditors? What were Australia's gross net overseas debt figures at 30 June for the past four years? Senator Robert Ray —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are considering the Estimates and we cannot have a generalised debate. These sorts of questions are more appropriate to Question Time. I think you should ask Senator Walters to make her questions relevant to the Estimates. Senator Peter Baume —Speaking to the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, it has been traditional in this place for the debate on the Appropriation Bills to range widely. Senator Walters has asked questions which fall within the area of Treasury activity. If it is necessary to find a heading, the appropriations cover salaries for the Department of the Treasury and the salaries cover the activities of people who can answer these questions. If the honourable senator wants to ask the question, it is probably within order. Senator Walsh —I want to speak on the point of order and related matters. I am a tolerant man, as all honourable senators know. But if this sort of questioning on matters of either very fine detail or trivia is going to continue we will have to ask what the purpose of the Estimates committees sitting as separate committees is, because the Estimates committees, sitting as separate committees, are the place for that sort of question. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —On the point of order, as long as Senator Walters's questions are related to the votes before us-in other words, the Treasury-the Chair has no option other than to accept the question. What the Committee does with the question is beyond the Chair's influence. So the question which was being asked was in order. Did you wish to continue, Senator Walters, or had you finished your question? Sentor WALTERS-I had asked that question. It has not been answered yet. A point of order was taken. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.01) —No, the question will not be answered. I do not have that information. It will be supplied in writing. Following what I said before, as two people apparently have an enormous list of written questions, may I suggest that they all be submitted in writing and the answers will be supplied in writing? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.01) —No, I will not do that. Senator Walsh —Well, I am not going to answer anything else. Senator WALTERS —Then I will ask the questions. Have Australian consumers seen the full impact of the devaluation of the dollar reflected in the prices of imported products? If not, what is the estimation of the price increases yet to come, based on present values of the dollar? The Minister obviously will not answer any further questions but I will continue to ask them. What is Treasury's latest estimate of Australia's inflation rate in both the short and the medium terms and in light of the 3.8 per cent wage decision? Several observers are predicting a slump in oil prices next year following a meeting of the oil producing countries in Vienna. What effect would a drop in oil prices have on the Australian energy-based export prices and, in turn, on the value of the dollar? Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $213,276,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $482,958,000. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.04) —I have a number of questions in this area which are related to the Estimates committees and to the Appropriation Bills. They follow the questions I asked at the Estimates Committee and the answers which came out of those questions. However, I am willing, in the interests of expediency in terms of passing the Bill, to put these questions on notice on the undertaking from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), which I believe he made before but which I would like him to repeat in relation to this line of the Estimates, that they will be answered before the next sitting of parliament. If I can have that undertaking I am quite happy to put these questions on notice. I have discussed this with Senator Button. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(6.05) —I will answer Senator Vigor now. I have not seen the questions, but even if I had, I could not give an absolute guarantee that they would all be answered. Some of them may well be not answerable because the information is just not available, for example. But I will give a guarantee that they will be submitted to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and that I will endeavour to get answers in the time that has been specified. If it is not possible to do so in that time, I will endeavour to get them as soon as possible. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.06) —I thank the Minister. I will present these questions to the Minister at the next possible time. I seek leave to have the questions incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The questions read as follows- TELECOM: COLONIAL MENTALITY ON TECHNOLOGY On 10 September (Hansard page 85) Estimates Committee C was told by Telecom's representative: ``Our research and development efforts are basically an attempt to have an understanding of the current technologies, run trials and make an assessment of their suitability for application in our network. An important part of that is to decide when the technology is mature enough for it to be prudent for us to commit ourselves to investment in the network''. This is most unsatisfactory when Telecom's buying muscle and Australian research and development skills could enable an export-capable Australian industry to be established in the telecommunications area. Will the government consider making it a statutory obligation upon Telecom to foster research and development in Australia and to encourage the development rather than the modification of communications technology here? AUSTRALIA POST CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS Only 69% of Express Courier articles were delivered on time in Western Australia, while in Victoria the success rate was 75%. I understand that a good part of the problem lies in airline uplift arrangements at Tullamarine and Adelaide. In answer to a question I asked on Tuesday, 10th September at the Senate Estimates Committee C, I was told that the airlines are required to uplift, on flights specified by Australia Post, all airmail tendered to them. Are there any remedies in Australia Post's contractual arrangements with the airlines that cover noncompliance on the part of the airline? If so, why has the management done nothing about the 31% and 25% respective late delivery figures for Express Courier deliveries in Western Australia and Victoria? Surely no private enterprise would allow that situation to continue if competitors were getting an advantage in a tight market, as is the case with competition between Australia Post and private courier services? If there are no penalties for noncompliance, when do the contractual arrangements end, and what encouragement will the government give the negotiators to ensure that the airlines cannot walk away untouched, from failures to deliver as contracted? Will the Government, in the mean time, legislate to permit Qantas to carry mail throughout the country, thereby adding further incentive for the domestic airlines to honour their agreements? AUSTRALIA POST: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTATION We have just seen a major dispute that arose when New South Wales management tried to gear work practices to peaks of mail throughout. In response to a question by Senator Parer, Estimates Committee C discovered that last financial year it cost 11 million dollars in additional overtime to clear New South Wales mail backlogs caused by industrial problems. I have had Question on Notice No. 113 on the Notice Paper since 19 March, dealing with how disputes arise, and what sort of planning has gone into the establishment of new mail centres. There is no indication that an answer is anywhere in the offing. I am happy to modify the question if a particular part has created compilation problems in answering. I would like to get an answer. I am sure that honourable Senators and the general public would very much like to know what management is doing to settle matters before they develop into disputes. It is in Australia Post's interests to release this information to the public. I hope that the interest of the Minister for Communications will help get this information into the open so that the mail situation in New South Wales can be properly assessed. PUBLIC BROADCASTING I make two points: (1) Funding levels kept the same despite more stations and especially greater levels of aboriginal broadcasting; (2) From the written evidence, there was a tug-of-war between the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Communications over who should control the funds for aboriginal broadcasting. At page 861 of the Estimates Hansard of Friday, 20 September, we were told that the Explanatory Notes do not reflect the arrangements involving the Public Broadcasting Foundation. This was, and I quote, because the Explanatory Notes ``were prepared before certain Government decisions were taken''. That, I understand, is bureaucratic language to indicate that the Minister for Communications successfully restored the funding to the Public Broadcasting Foundation on the eve of the budget speech. I applaud the Minister's determination. It would have been better still if he'd been able to get an increase in funding to take account of the additional aboriginal broadcasting to occur this year. In fact, the whole of the public broadcasting network of some 60 stations around the country costs around 7 million dollars to run. That's what it costs for the running of the EA stations in Melbourne and Sydney. The Government provides about 1.3 million dollars to the public broadcasting sector, with more than half of that going to cover part of the costs of ethnic broadcasting groups which buy station time. The public broadcasting sector in turn provides training skills for thousands of people. It has in many ways taken over from the ABC in giving training to new people. I believe that the government would give long-term sustenance to the public broadcasting sector by making a one-off endowment. That would enable the Public Broadcasting Foundation to make appropriate investments, so that recurrent funding wasn't a major problem. There will alwyas be a lot of frantic fund-raising. Budgets will generally operate on a shoestring. But at least with an endowment, we wouldn't find any future government taking political action against the public broadcasters by withdrawing funds. I note, in the response to a question I put on notice, that the Treasurer has arranged to consider sales tax exemption on capital equipment purchases. This move, would certainly assist communities involved in public broadcasting. They certainly provide the training that leads people to employment in the media. They also provide an excellent outlet for self-expression in various forms. The Australian music industry has certainly been given a major fillip with the growth of public broadcasting. Groups that have always found the conservative approach of the commercial broadcasters insurmountable, have found an audience on public radio. Some of them have then gone on to major commercial success also. On behalf of public broadcasters and participants around the country, I ask the Minister whether there is additional information available on Government attitudes towards a one-off endowment and sales-tax exemption for public broadcasters and public television. FORWARD DEVELOPMENT UNIT The Forward Development Unit has been given substantial new staff resources. When it was established in February, its terms of reference were to deal with the medium and long-term future for commercial television-and to look closely at opportunities brought by advanced delivery technology. At the end of April, the Minister reaffirmed that equalisation was a long-term objective. Yet the report of the Forward Development Unit dealt only with the short-term, and was quite nebulous about how many longer-term rearrangements might occur. Did the Minister for Communications modify in writing the terms of reference, or did the Unit reinterpret the terms of reference in the light of policy announcements made in May? Is this a case of ``Yes, Minister''? In the light of strong statements in favour of giving the supplementary licence scheme a fair trial-these have come from within the ACTU and public interest groups-can the Minister say whether any part of the supplementary licence approach will be retained? And if so, what will be done to get the Department to process material more quickly? Only 4 of the original 98 applications have gone to the Tribunal, and the television one in Canberra has been put under pressure by both commercial interests and the Minister. LICENCES FOR NEW STATIONS According to page 436 of the Estimates Hansard, there are currently 835 Expressions of Interest (not all compatible) from people hoping to obtain a broadcasting licence awaiting processing by the Department of Communications. In addition, the Department is currently assesssing 128 firm proposals for broadcasting licences, plus more for supplementary licences. Clearance of television stations from Band II will take up additional Department of Communications resources. Only about half the planning resources will be available for broadcast station planning, and consequently they expect to process only between 15 and 20 of the proposals before them this year. The Department of Communications is being given additional resources, but not the Broadcasting Tribunal. The Tribunal gets very little advance notice of licence applications. The Annual Report of the Department of Communications indicates that low-power community stations are being planned for the Melbourne metroplitan area. But in answer to my question on notice No. 193 in Hansard of March 29th 1985, the Department could not predict how many new public stations might be licensed over the next three years. Will the government be setting priority areas for the Station Planning Branch to tackle, or will we continue the very slow progress of the previous years on a large number of fronts? In a letter dated the 28 October, the Minister for Communications has indicated to me that he is aware of the planning delays, and that he has asked his department to examine ways in which some of those delays may be overcome. Has the Minister given the Department a deadline by which it is to report on these matters? Can the Minister tell me now how the Department plans to overcome those delays? LICENCE FEE COLLECTION Last year the High Court ruled that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal could not ask for extra financial documents where it wasn't satisfied that figures presented as a station's gross earnings, were actually a fair reflection of what was going on. Has the government examined simplifying the process by basing licence fees purely on advertising revenue? If so, when can such a change be anticipated? Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.06) —During the hearings of Senates Estimates Committee C, I asked some questions about the racing service that was provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Queensland. The background to what I am about to say and the question I asked at that time is that the racing broadcasting service in Queensland, despite what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation says, has been discontinued. A skeleton service of some sort is provided for people in regional areas. In fact, whenever I ask questions about this matter the people in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation seem to get very twitchy and defensive about a decision which was made and was not in the interests of the Queensland people. I should mention that I asked a question at Question Time in the Senate this afternoon and again the information which had been provided to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh)-I do not blame the Minister in any way-was a little too smart by half. The question was not answered. I do not have the question with me as it was my intention to raise the matter during the adjournment debate tonight. I probably will use that opportunity rather than raise it at this stage. One of the questions I asked during the hearings of the Senate Estimates Committee was: I would also like to know what sort of savings were involved in taking this service off and whether the administration in Queensland looked at any other area where it could make similar savings. The service to which I was referring was the broadcast of races in Queensland and taking off the service altogether in the Brisbane metropolitan area. The answer I got was: The changed arrangements for the Queensland Racing Service are estimated to save $11,642 in 1985-86 and $31,892 in a full year. The answer went on, but it is not relevant to what I want to say. I ask that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation give full details of how it estimates that saving of $11,642. I cannot and do not expect the answer now but I do expect that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will provide that type of information through the Minister. I believe that the changes which were made in Queensland resulted in extra costs rather than savings. I want to indicate why I think some of this may be so. I have calculated the possible extra costs that might be pertinent at the moment. There could be wages for an additional radio announcer each Saturday afternoon, the additional radio announcer being required because of the need to have somebody take the place of the person who normally runs the racing service and as well as that having someone there to cross over to racing broadcasts which are given out by 4BC. Including penalty rates, I have calculated that this person would cost about $110 for a Saturday afternoon. There is a person who gives a racing preview each Saturday morning. I am not sure of the costs that would be involved there but those were normally given by the person who did the racing broadcast previously, Larry Pratt, and I would estimate these would be not less than $50 for that morning. I understand that an extra studio is being used. Studios are normally hired out by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at $10 an hour; so there is approximately six hours extra maintenance of the studio, which would cost about $60. There are costs associated with the use of a sporting assistant. This sporting assistant was previously employed elsewhere ferrying results between the two studios. My estimated costs are about $90. There is also the additional cost of two days salary to replace Monday and Tuesday programs which were previously serviced by the racing commentator. My estimated cost there is about $180. That brings to about $490 all those extra costs that would have to be incurred because of the fact that the racing broadcasting service has been discontinued. I think that we should perhaps add the weekly cost of Seventel which has now been introduced into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Brisbane so that the racing odds and results are available. Seventel is used on a Saturday afternoon only. I do not know the cost of that but perhaps that should be added as well. The savings that have been obtained because of the fact that the radio racing broadcasts went off the air are about 60 per cent of the salary paid to the former racing commentator, which approximates about $317 a week. It seems to me that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is saving about $317 a week. It has extra costs of about $490 a week and, if my calculations are correct, that is about $170 extra costs that it is incurring. Therefore, I would like to look at this alleged saving of $11,642 very carefully. I have some doubts whether that figure is correct. I ask the Minister to ask his colleague in the other place to obtain from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation a detailed breakdown of how the Queensland racing service is estimated to save this $11,642, especially in the light of any additional costs that have been incurred, with a detailed breakdown of those additional costs because of the fact that the racing broadcasting service is no longer available in the metropolitan area and the service obtained from 4BC is available only to regional areas in Queensland. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.14) —The vote for the Department of Communications includes a vote for payments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. There are many matters which ought to have the attention of this Parliament in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The first matter I intend to raise is a report from the Ombudsman on the case involving Mr Cotton. This is a significant report, significant for this reason if for no other, and I quote from the report: This is the first report I have found it necessary to make to the Parliament. The Ombudsman usually discharges his responsibilities by some form of conciliation between departments or statutory authorities where he is investigating a matter and the person who has been aggrieved or whose rights have been infringed upon. Only when he finds that the authority or department has acted in a fashion where it is not prepared to take notice of the Ombudsman's recommendations or has failed to co-operate with the Ombudsman, does he seek to report to Parliament. The office of Ombudsman has been in existence for many years. This is the first occasion the Ombudsman has had to come to the Parliament with a report. I quote from paragraph 10 of his report: The fact that the Parliament is now only receiving a report about a complaint made in April 1981 will be explained by the events and actions which I will recount. In short, however, the ABC baulked my investigation at almost every turn in an exercise of obfuscation and prevarication without parallel in my eight years experience as the first Commonwealth Ombudsman. In relation to a videotape that he wanted to see, at paragraph 13 the Ombudsman says: The video tape was displayed to us after repeated correspondence and telephone calls-a story in itself. Senator Peter Rae —This is Professor Richardson, is it? Senator PUPLICK —This is Professor Jack Richardson, the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Senator Peter Rae —The most experienced Ombudsman? Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Peter Rae says, he is not only a most experienced judicial and administrative officer but in fact the most senior person to hold that position throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. At paragraph 16 he says: The attitude of the ABC from the beginning prevented me from dealing with the complaints according to the normal investigational processes of my office under the Ombudsman Act 1976. At paragraph 20 he says: The ABC failed to produce the documents as required, that failure in my opinion, amounting to a contravention of section 36 of the Ombudsman Act which makes it an offence for a person refusing or failing, without reasonable excuse, to furnish information which I have required in pursuance to the Ombudsman Act. Senator Peter Baume —What sanctions are there under that Act? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Peter Baume draws my attention to whether there are sanctions available under the Act. The most significant sanction under the Act or, indeed, the most significant sanction available to the Parliament would be not to give the ABC its appropriation, which I think would be a fairly commendable thing until we get some intelligent replies to this report. At paragraph 42 of the report are the Ombudsman's conclusions, where at conclusion number (ii) he says: The actions of the ABC in handling the Principal's complaint That is the complaint of Mr Cotton-- within its own organisation were unreasonable and unjust because it failed to deal with matters of substance and accepted as facts matters which were not substantiated. The report concludes in paragraph 66: The self-serving attitude of the ABC in this case revealed by my investigation and its determination to resist the Ombudsman will I hope dramatically demonstrate to Senators and Members of the Parliament the need for an effective mechanism of external accountability to protect individual members of the community against unfair and unjust treatment by this publicly funded agency. It is simply unacceptable that this government instrumentality, under the guise of independence, or some other assertion, should be allowed to function as a Caesar's palace- I presume by that he means Caesar as in the Caesars of ancient Rome and not Caesar as in the Nevada gambling house, although one wonders from time to time- when legitimate complaints are made about it, as in the case I investigated. If there is one thing that the whole of the Ombudsman's report demonstrates, it is that the ABC has clearly regarded itself, in this particular instance, as being in some way above the law. In particular, it has regarded itself as being able, authorised and somehow proper in its behaviour to resist the Commonwealth Ombudsman undertaking investgations. The Ombudsman complains to this Parliament under section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, virtually for the first time in a decade, and describes the obfuscation and prevarication of the ABC. He describes the self-serving attitude of the ABC. He describes the ABC resisting providing him with information. He describes the ABC as unjust and unreasonable. He says the ABC has failed to produce documents. He says that the ABC: . . . prevented me from dealing with the complaints according with the normal investigational processes- There has not been a satisfactory explanation, not so much of the intricacies or the validities of Mr Cotton's case but of the way in which the Corporation has responded to the complaints made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Senator Peter Rae —There are two issues. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Peter Rae says, the issues are quite separate. In terms of the appropriation debate, I am not concerned with the question of the validity or otherwise of Mr Cotton's complaint. That has been determined. It is certainly true that the Ombudsman found that he was unjustly and unreasonably dealt with, but that is a separate matter. What is of significance is that this Parliament funds two offices. It funds the ABC and it funds the Commonwealth Ombudsman. One of the reason it funds the Commonwealth Ombudsman is that that institution, that statutory office, has a series of responsibilities. Basically, those responsibilities are to discharge a conciliatory functions between a complainant and a department, a complainant and a statutory authority, or whatever it happens to be. In virtually every single case- although I have not been through all the Ombudsman's reports for the last 10 years-the Ombudsman has been able to conclude his investigations without coming to the Parliament. He comes to the Parliament once in a decade. He has come to the Parliament in the course of this financial year to report on an investigation involving the ABC. What we have not had from the ABC is not a proper explanation about Mr Cotton's case but a proper explanation about why it put in the way of the Commonwealth Ombudsman difficulties, obstructions and prevarications. Indeed, it refused to respond to the requests that the Ombudsman made initially to see a video which he had to look at in order to determine whether Mr Cotton had a case or did not have a case. We do not know whether documents were properly provided. I do not believe that until such time as there is a satisfactory explanation from the ABC the Parliament should vote to give money to the ABC. Until such time as it is satisfied that the ABC has properly responded to the complaints made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I believe the appropriations for the Department of Communications ought to be delayed. Certainly, I believe that should be delayed until the Senate resumes in 10 days time. That will give the ABC plenty of opportunity to respond. In 10 days time the Senate can determine whether it is satisfied with the explanation it has received. I believe that is one of the issues concerning the Department of Communications, one of the issues arising in terms of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which needs some exposure, indeed some investigation. Senator Peter Baume —When the matter was raised in the Estimates Committee what kind of response did you receive from the Corporation? Senator PUPLICK —In answer to Senator Peter Baume's question, we received responses which I think would be described as unsatisfactory, at the very least. The other matter to be raised concerns the ABC program, the National. If ever there has been a situation in which public money has been expended on attempting to change the character and nature of the Commission, now the Corporation, in terms of the role it plays in the delivery of news services to the people of Australia, the National must go down as constituting one of the most monumental failures that has ever been undertaken. The fact that it has failed I think is not something simply to be held against the ABC. In any broadcasting situation new formats and new programs will be tried. Inevitably, in anything which relies on a market a fair number of those new things will fail, whether they be television mini-series, the presentation of news reports, changes of programming, or whatever. That degree of failure is inevitable. The question is whether the failure was occasioned not because the National was not a good program but for two other reasons. Firstly, did the National fail because the ABC was trying to do something which it should not have done? That is to say, was it trying to enter into a degree of competition with the commercial broadcasters, which does not constitute a proper part of its charter? Secondly, did the National fail because it has been internally sabotaged by politics within the ABC? I refer in particular to the degree of hostility from certain other persons in the ABC, particularly within the program affectionately known around this place as Car-Wash, that is to say, the Carleton-Walsh Report. Has public money been poured down the drain as a result of the sabotage of one news program in order to expand the operations of the Carleton-Walsh Report in an attempt to make it a five nights a week operation-in fact, to make it the centrepiece, as it were, of the ABC's news and public affairs broadcasting? I think we will have an opportunity in the course of the debate on appropriations for the Department of Communications to raise this matter and to look at some of the internal memoranda concerning the way in which the National has been analysed in reports written by other people within the ABC. Again, when we resume in a week or so, I hope the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will be able to provide some answers about that. Thirdly, I wish to express a degree of dissatisfaction-given the shortage of time I will do it quickly-with the way in which the ABC discharges its responsibilities for the broadcasting and coverage of science in Australia. There is no doubt that the ABC's Science Show is probably the best program the ABC broadcasts. I think the Science Show together with the Health Report, the Technology Report and the series that used to be known as Warm Boot, and various other programs on the ABC, have done a great deal to advance the public understanding of scientific issues in the Australian community. However, the general approach of the ABC to the reporting of scientific issues and issues of concern arising in the field of science, within the framework of their wider responsibilities in terms of news and coverage of news programs, I think for a national broadcaster has been lamentable. My next point, which will have to wait until some later time, concerns ABC orchestras and why it is that for the maintenance of six ABC orchestras we expend more money than we expend on the whole of the Australia Council's vote. Why is it that the Australia Council is kept short of money to spread over all the art forms while for the maintenance of six orchestras the ABC gets more money per annum than the whole of the arts community gets through the Australia Council in any financial year? Senator Peter Rae —And is sitting on and virtually not using nearly $5m worth of land for that purpose as well. That is not taken into account either. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Peter Rae rightly observes that the ABC has unused properties. In view of the time, that is an issue to which I will return. Progress reported. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I have seen yesterday's Hansard, which wrongly changed what I said yesterday in answer to an interjection from Senator Missen. I was originally reported as saying: `I am sorry, Senator Missen. I thought we wrote back to you quite fully about this matter'. Hansard changed that to read: `I apologise to Senator Missen'. I did not apologise to Senator Missen and I did not intend to. I guess I intended to say: `I am sorry to have to contradict you'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.30) —On 6 November an article entitled `Ousted student finds support' appeared in the higher education supplement of the Australian newspaper. It concerned a Malaysian student, Mr Ahmad Othman, who was expelled from this country. The story raises very serious concerns. Either someone in the office of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has lied about the matter or there is a form of student assessment going on within the Government that is entirely new. The article states, in part: . . . claims by officials that he had failed to make satisfactory academic progress and had not paid the overseas student charge in 1984 and 1985. I do not wish to contest the claim that this man had not paid the overseas student charge. His explusion could have been quite properly made on that basis. The article goes on to say: A spokesman for Senator Ryan's office in Canberra said that Mr Othman had shown poor academic performance and had failed to pay his fees for the past two years. It then purports to quote the spokesman as follows: `He had failed a number of times and the decision to terminate Mr Othman's visa was taken on his poor academic progress,' he said yesterday. If the Government wishes to expel someone for not having paid his student charge, let it do so; but for an official in Senator Ryan's office to hide behind the excuse that the student in question had failed, as least in part, to satisfy an academic record and that this had been the cause of his explusion is reasonable only if it is correct. I have before me a letter from the Faculty of Economics Studies at the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, dated 7 November, the day after this newspaper story appeared, signed by John Phillips, Dean of the Faculty. The letter, to the editor of the higher education section of the Australian, reads: Your report on the expulsion of the Malaysian student, Mr Ahmad Othman, who enrolled in this Faculty, raises serious questions of bureaucratic interference in the academic affairs of universities and of discrimination against overseas students. Let me state quite plainly the Mr Othman, who first enrolled here in 1983, was and still is a student in good standing in this faculty. His academic progress has not resulted in his exclusion from further enrolment in the Faculty, and I must express my concern at the statement from Senator Ryan's office that the decision to terminate his visa was based on his poor academic performance. The letter goes on to expand on that point. This is a very serious matter. Either someone in Senator Ryan's office has made a genuine error of fact, in which case I expect Senator Ryan to acknowledge this publicly as quickly as she is able, or someone in Senator Ryan's office has deliberately misstated the facts about Mr Othman in order to hide the fact that he was expelled from this country for failing to pay his student charge. It is now over to Senator Ryan to clear this up. The student obviously was in good academic standing and it is not correct-it is in fact a gross slander upon the student-to claim in any way that his expulsion from this country was occasioned by his poor academic progress, as claimed from within Senator Ryan's office. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.34) —This afternoon in Question Time I asked a question about the racing service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Queensland. I must say that I was dissatisfied with the answer but I in no way reflect upon the Minister who answered the question, Senator Walsh. I do, however, reflect upon the advisers who provided the information for the Minister. I provided the Minister with the question beforehand, which gave the Minister and the Department of Communications the opportunity to obtain the answer before Question Time. It seems to me that someone in the Department or in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation itself is doing his best to snow anybody who asks questions about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's radio racing service in Queensland. The plain fact is that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Brisbane terminated the contract of Larry Pratt, who used to broadcast races from the various racing locations in Brisbane. Those broadcasts were sent out over the airwaves of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not only to the metropolitan area but also to all regional areas of Queensland. For some reason, which I have not yet been able to determine-I have been given some reasons but I do not believe them-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Queensland decided to terminate Larry Pratt's contract in relation to radio. I understand that he still does some television work for the Corporation. Since then the ABC in Queensland has not really had a racing service as such. I suppose that if one wanted to be pedantic one could say that it does have a racing service because it takes the broadcasts of the races around Brisbane from station 4BC and relays these to areas outside Brisbane. Within Brisbane there is no broadcast of the races themselves. I suppose one could say that the ABC does have a racing service because it provides a few tips in the morning and some results during the afternoon service, but it is not really a racing service as such. To be a proper racing service it would have to have its own broadcaster at the races. This afternoon I asked the following question: Does regional Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Queensland broadcast a racing service which is relayed from a Brisbane commercial radio station? The answer was no. That so astounded me that in Question Time this afternoon I asked one of the very few supplementary questions that I have asked in this place, just to make sure that I had heard correctly. The answer was: . . . No, the ABC produces its own Saturday afternoon sporting program for regional areas of Queensland, which includes the ABC's own racing service. Again, I am not reflecting on the Minister; I am reflecting on the person who provided the information for the Minister. I am not quite sure whether that person was trying to be too smart by half by saying that the sporting program includes the ABC's own racing service. It does not really; it includes a service which is provided by station 4BC. I asked: Does the ABC have any concern that radio commercials are also sometimes relayed when the racing service is connected. I referred to a report in the Sunday Sun of 10 November 1985. The answer I got was this: The Sunday Sun of the 10 November was not specific. The ABC takes a `clean feed' . . . of the course broadcaster and does not relay the commercial station's program. I tried to obtain some information about that this afternoon but, because it is fairly difficult to obtain that sort of information within a couple of hours, the information that I have is probably not comprehensive. However, I intend to follow the matter up tomorrow, and probably over the weekend, to find out what this clean feed is and whether a clean feed actually occurs. The information I was given this afternoon was that there could be an assumption that a clean feed was made, but it is impossible to have a clean feed. Exactly what that means I am not sure, but I will follow it up over the weekend. The information that was given to me this afternoon was that the ABC is channelling in on the 4BC program, which means that commercials will come over if there is a delay. It was implied in the answer this afternoon that the commercials do not come over the ABC because of this `clean feed', but information given to me this afternoon was that the commercials do come over when there is a delay. This afternoon I referred to the Sunday Sun of 10 November. I now refer to the Sunday-Mail. It is an indication that I did not read the Sunday-Mail very carefully last Sunday that I did not see, until this afternoon, this comment by Greg Atherton, who is a racing journalist for the Sunday-Mail, regarding country races: Complaints continue unabated from country areas regarding the totally inadequate racing service being received through the ABC since the sacking of race-caller Larry Pratt. Most object to the impersonal service being doled out by Aunty. But no real blame can be laid with the studio man at the ABC. After all, he depends on whatever 4BC provides as he has no direct link with the caller at the track to ask for information. However, every cloud has a silver lining. A number of commercials are sneaking over the ABC air waves, to the joy of the advertisers. All I want to indicate this evening is that I am not satisfied with the answers that were given. However, I stress again that I do not put any blame at the foot of the Minister. I think honourable senators would understand what I mean by that. The Minister is given information from the Department through the Minister in the other place. What I am saying is that there are some people in the Department or in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation itself who are upset that questions are being asked about what is really a serious situation for many people in rural areas in Queensland. It is a serious situation for many people who are just outside the range of regional transmitters in some northern and southern parts of Brisbane who cannot pick up 4BC and cannot get anything over the ABC. It is a serious situation. What I intend to do is to find out, over the weekend, more about the actual questions that I asked. If it seems that people in the Department of Communications or the ABC are deliberately trying to snow a senator in this place I shall raise the matter again. For those people in Communications and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who will obviously read the Hansard record of what I have had to say, I warn them that just because they have made a wrong decision in Queensland on some very dubious grounds they should not try to hide the facts of what is happening. I am a fairly persistent character and if I think that somebody is not providing me with the information I will keep digging until I am able to obtain it. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.43) —The Senate must have been concerned to hear the matter that Senator Peter Baume raised in the Senate in the adjournment debate tonight regarding Mr Othman and the fact that he has been removed from Australia. Mr Othman was a student at a university. It has been said that he was removed because of his poor record. This has now been refuted by Senator Peter Baume. As a member of the Opposition's immigration and ethnic affairs committee, I am particularly concerned about this matter. I believe the Government and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) must look at the situation as a matter of urgency. If Mr Othman has been removed from the country on improper grounds, ill-proved grounds, I believe the Government should take immediate steps to rectify the matter. We look to the Government to carry out a very earnest investigation of the situation immediately. Tonight I rise to speak again, to set the record straight, on the Northern Territory Government's record on the development and financial management of the Territory. Honourable senators may remember that a few days ago I endeavoured to have incorporated in the Senate Hansard a report regarding the Northern Territory Government's commitments to tourist development projects. It was actually a financial statement on the matters that have been criticised, but I have referred to those before. I was not permitted to have the report included in Hansard. Since the election of the first Hawke Government in 1983 the Northern Territory has had nothing from the Federal Government but criticism, scepticism and a negative attitude to any positive initiative the Territory might take. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has continued his attack in this chamber on what he claims is a lack of fiscal responsibility in the Territory. I believe he should look at his own Government's record on responsibility to the Territory, because it has shown very little. It has reneged on agreements reached between its Ministers and the Northern Territory Government, such as the agreement reached over superannuation. The Government has bailed out of its commitments in the Territory, such as the one it gave to build the new Darwin Airport. Having spent about $20m it decided it would pull out, leaving contractors stranded and the Northern Territory with an airport little better, and in fact much worse, than some in Third World countries. Some of its commitments to the Territory it did not even attempt to meet; for example, the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. It shelved this project after setting up an inquiry into the economic feasibility of the project, which I believe knew what it intended to find before it even commenced its hearings. The problems which have been associated with getting hold of the Hill inquiry's reasoning on its decision, under freedom of information legislation, bear witness to the reluctance of the Federal Government to come clean and publicly explain how it came to its conclusions. What we do know is that the Government completely ignored the defence implications of the railway, which have been stated by leading authorities from the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Unit to be of great importance. The Northern Territory Government has since engaged private, and impartial, consultants to examine the feasibility of the railway and they have reached the conclusion that it can be a profitable venture. The Hon. Ian Tuxworth, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, announced last week at the Northern Australian Development Conference that construction of the line would commence in 1987. The Territory has tired of waiting for the Commonwealth to come to the party and do the right thing by northern Australians and, in fact, Australia. The line will be built by the Territory with private finance; that is, finance obtained around Australia. It will run at a profit, which is something that no other line in Australia, including Mr Hill's New South Wales railway, has been able to do. I know that there will be some scepticism from the Federal Government on this proposal, not least of which will come from Senator Walsh. But I would just like to hark back to Senator Walsh's comments earlier this year concerning the natural gas pipeline from central Australia to Darwin. I recall Senator Walsh standing over there and telling the Senate that the whole concept was `pie in the sky'. It may interest Senator Walsh, who is now in the chamber, to know that that pie in the sky is now being laid at the rate of three metres a minute, which runs into many kilometres a day, and the Territory is doing it on its own. The Commonwealth is not paying for it. It is being privately funded because private enterprise, at least, has faith in the Territory. I believe the pipeline is costing some $380m and is one of the largest lease arrangements of its kind. Given Senator Walsh's views on the prospects of the pipeline, I do not think that we can put too much store by the Federal Government's appraisal of the Territory's ventures in the Territory. I certainly will not be putting any faith in whatever views Senator Walsh may express on the proposed railway. Senator Walsh has consistently put a very slanted view on the management of the Territory economy by the Northern Territory Government. I would like again to set the record straight on our tourist development projects. As leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard was refused earlier, I will not attempt to do so again tonight. In this free world and free country, I would have thought that the report that I have endeavoured to have included in the Senate Hansard would have at least been permitted to be included. While I have spent some time tonight dwelling on Senator Walsh's attitude to the self-help that has been shown in the Northern Territory, I wish to say a few words about a member of the Northern Territory community who is far more deserving of the Senate's attention. I refer to the late Bishop O'Loughlin of Darwin, who passed away today. I was deeply sorry to hear of his passing, as he was a most revered man in the Northern Territory. He was 74 years of age and would have been Bishop of Darwin for 37 years next January. He was born on 25 July 1911 at Brompton in Adelaide and was educated at the Christian Brothers College. In 1930 he entered the Order of Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, and was ordained as a priest in 1935. Between 1937 and 1938 he held a position as a prefect of studies at Downlands College in Toowoomba, Queensland. Between 1947 and 1948 he was Director of Catholic Education in Rabaul. On 13 January 1949 he was appointed Bishop of Darwin, and was consecrated as Bishop at St Francis Xavier Cathedral, in Adelaide. He was one of the youngest bishops to be appointed in Australia, being only 38 years of age at that time. In 1974 he celebrated his twenty-fifth anniversary of his appointment. Bishop O'Loughlin worked unstintingly and often under considerable pressure for the benefit of his flock in the Territory and had particular interest in the welfare of those on the Catholic missions, the Catholic education system and his far flung parishioners in the Northern Territory. Recognition of his work was made in the award of the Companion of St Michael and St George for distinguished service to the church and the Aboriginal people. He was also recently awarded a Rotary award-the Paul Harris Fellowship for community service. His ill-health and his death today is no doubt as a result of his complete dedication to the Northern Territory, and while the Territory will mourn his passing he will be remembered for his influence and work carried out for the betterment of all in the Northern Territory. Indeed, he was a great Australian. I understand that he will be accorded a state funeral tomorrow week-that is, 22 November-in Darwin. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.52) —I raise briefly an important matter affecting the Illawarra region in that it is, of course, a major steel producer at the Port Kembla steelworks. This emerges from some comments made in an interesting contribution by Senator Puplick in a discussion of the Steel Industry Authority report. It seemed appropriate that, Senator Puplick having raised very properly some sound points on that report, some other matters affecting the steel industry and their impact on the region-and, of course, on the whole of Australia-should be raised briefly tonight. In the first place I draw to the attention of the Senate the balance of payments implications of the contribution made by the steel industry to exports last year, which may well not be sustained in the current year. In fact, it was pointed out in the Steel Industry Authority report that in the 1984-85 financial year there had been a noticeable decline in domestic sales and a very substantial increase in exports in that financial year. In fact, exports in 1984-85 rose from 778,000 tonnes to 1,047,000 tonnes. That is a very considerable increase. As I said, this is revealed in the Steel Industry Authority report. It involves concurrently a 5 per cent decrease in domestic dispatches and a 54 per cent increase in export sales, when compared with the figures for the previous year. This shift in the sales pattern was most noticeable during the first half of 1985-that is, the second half of the financial year-when domestic dispatches were relatively low and export sales were substantially greater than at any time since the commencement of the steel industry plan. The report suggests, of course, that the devaluation of the Australian dollar had helped to increase the overseas sales by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, which are now running at about 21 per cent of output compared to 16 per cent of output in 1983-84. The interesting question that emerges in terms in Australia's balance of payments is that BHP's ability to satisfy an increase in its sales to both markets is limited, given that it is currently operating at close to its nominal capacity. That obviously means that if the increase in the domestic economy's activity, which the Government tells us is taking place at a rapid-in fact, the Government now says too rapid-rate, obviously, domestic demand for steel will increase and the capacity of BHP to export will be diminished, with a consequential impact in the remainder of this financial year on our balance of payments figures. I mention that because this is obviously another of the many problems that this Government faces in getting anywhere near its balance of payments target for the year, which, as the Senate is aware, is a deficit of only $10,700m, when clearly it appears to be heading to around the $12,000m to $12.5 billion mark. The other point I make in regard to the steel industry is to note the enormous investment that BHP is now making in this industry, particularly in the Illawarra region. This is another problem which the Government must face. It is a problem in the sense that this massive investment is bringing with it a reduction in the levels of employment. In other words, this industry has to become more efficient. It is doing so, but the Government cannot hope to see any significant increases in employment as a result. I believe that is true of much of the investment going on in Australia at the moment. There are, however, some matters of concern to me that emerge from this major increase in investment. The Steel Industry Authority report reveals that recent public announcements by BHP indicate that total investment in steel during the life of the steel industry plan may be about $1,200m to $1,300m. The majority of the proposed capital expenditure is to be undertaken, I am glad to say, at the Port Kembla steelworks. This investment program is aimed primarily at increasing efficiency but not capacity. So the Government cannot look, as I said, to great increases in exports while local demand is increasing. The major benefits for the industry from the investment, the report states, will be apparent when the new continuous casting plants at Port Kembla and Newcastle and improvements to product mills are completed in 1987. It is worth while then to look at what this investment has done so far for productivity. The report lists about $500m of expenditure undertaken or under way in Port Kembla. Yet in the last six months we have seen only a 1.6 per cent increase in productivity growth, in terms of hours per unit of output. In the six months to June 1984 there had been a 19.5 per cent increase due largely to the closure of so many of the old and inefficient blast furnaces. As a result, of course, there were the massive reductions in employment during the period preceding the six months to June, in fact, probably starting in 1982, at Port Kembla. I remind the House, of course, that the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), along with the current Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), attended a rally in my area when I was the member for Macarthur. He gave an undertaking to the people in that region just before the 1983 election that there would be no more sackings in the steel industry and no more retrenchments in the coal industry. The record shows the many thousands of people who are no longer employed in that industry. This report reveals a reduction of about 2,000 in the steel industry work force within the last two years. But the issue that I think is significant is that there is still a massive need to increase productivity in the Australian steel industry. This enormous expenditure, hopefully, will do so. The Steel Industry Authority report, for example, pointed out that at Port Kembla the figure for tonnes per man-year is about 294, but in the British steel industry's Llanwern plant the figure is 420 tonnes per man-year; in Port Talbot in the United Kingdom it is 389 tonnes a year. All these figures are way above those for Australia. Of course, if we look at the figures in the United States, we see that, at the Bethlehem steel works the figure is 389 tonnes and at the Kimitsu plant in Japan the figure is 374 tonnes. So our performance is still obviously way behind. I commend BHP for its massive expansion in respect of equipment. I regret that the people of the region were deceived by the leaders of the present Government when they were in opposition about the manning and employment levels that would apply in the steel industry under a Labor government. Those people were obviously misled grievously. Nonetheless, the consequences for the steel industry and for Australia as a whole have been a massive upgrading and improvement in the steel industry. I must say that I commend the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, for the role he played in that massive improvement which is certainly to the benefit of the region in which I have my electorate office. I commend BHP for what it is undertaking. I should not conclude my speech without commending the more responsible members of the union movement who have in fact reduced their level of industrial unrest in the region. Senator Button —It is not their level of industrial unrest; it is the level of industrial unrest. It takes two to tango, you know. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister makes the reasonable point that it takes two people to have a dispute. I must say from my experience in the region that there has been an incredible level of industrial unrest. The Minister will remember the dispute at Port Kembla when a tug boat captain clocked one of his deckhands. The harbour was tied up for a long time as a result of a dispute that had absolutely nothing to do with BHP. The two who tangoed were members of different unions. That has been one of the major problems in that area. The Minister's interjection, while being right in theory, is totally wrong in practice. There has been far too much reckless and nonsensical industrial disputation in that area and that is one of the reasons the industry was faced with serious problems. I commend those members of the union movement who have recognised the folly of their past practices and who now, having seen the massive reductions in employment that have followed, are doing what I believe is the right thing. I hope that both the employers and the employees contine to do the right thing even though, as the figures clearly show, the more the industry upgrades and modernises its plant the less will be its demand for labour. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(7.03) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. I should point out that I heard only what was said by the last speaker, Senator Michael Baume. I think the honourable senator would be well advised to compare notes with Senator Puplick who made a totally different speech about the Steel Industry Authority report when that report was debated in the Parliament earlier today. It would be helpful if he did that. I think that Senator Baume is wrong about a number of stroppy allegatioins he made. He says that there have been retrenchments in the steel industry. There have been no retrenchments in the steel industry since the steel plan was introduced. Senator Michael Baume —What about since March 1983? Senator BUTTON —Yes, there have been retrenchments since March 1983. Senator Michael Baume —That was the election date. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. The essence of what the Government said in opposition was that it would stop the rot as far as disemployment in the steel industry was concerned, and that happened. Senator Michael Baume —How many thousands of workers later? Senator BUTTON —Most of the workers were thrown out of the steel industry in 1982. The honourable senator would probably remember that, even though he was not here at the time. A number of other suggestions have been made in terms of comparing productivity figures in various countries and so on. I think the more important comparison is the condition of the Australian steel industry compared with the condition, for example, of Bethlehem Steel in the United States of America, to which the honourable senator referred. I would put my two bob into the Australian steel industry rather than Bethlehem Steel any day. In fact, there are very grave dangers in comparing international productivity figures because the statistics are compiled on totally different bases. Some steel industries include all the management and all the white collar staff in the productivity figures. The Australian industry, for example, does not. The other important consideration which Senator Baume raised is the question of industrial disputes. I do not think he referred to the figures in the Steel Industry Authority report on the reduction in industrial disputes. Another interesting comparison which he might like to make, if he is a student of the steel industry, is wages in the steel industry in Australia compared with other industries overseas. From recollection, the more dramatic figures are that Australian steel workers are paid about $13.50 to $14 something an hour. Korean steel workers are paid about $4 an hour, United States steel workers about $28 an hour and British steel workers about $10 an hour. I think it will be found-- Senator Michael Baume —And the Japanese about $14. Senator BUTTON —Yes, more than us. Senator Michael Baume —The Japanese are about the same. Senator BUTTON —I agree, they are about the same. But they are, in fact, ahead of us in terms of wages. So the comparisons are fairly dramatic and stark. It is interesting to find that we are at the bottom end of the pecking order in terms of wages, and not at the top end which is occupied by the Americans and some Europeans. Senator Michael Baume —Except the British. Senator BUTTON —I said `some Europeans'. I have never regarded the British as Europeans. This is not the appropriate time to debate these matters. I thank honourable senators for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.07 p.m. till Tuesday, 26 November 1985, at 2 p.m.; or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed in accordance with the Resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were tabled: Christmas Island Act-Ordinances 1985- No. 6-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island. No. 7-Police Force (Amendment). No. 8-Civil Law (Amendment). Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 284. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 285. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice- No. 154-Prohibition relating to the taking of prawns off northern Australia, dated 28 October 1985. Postal Services Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 296. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 283. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 60-Credit (Amendment) (No. 2). Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 295. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 297. Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 282. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 499) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How much money has been spent on restoration and renovation of the Air Force Field Office at 155 Barton Terrace, North Adelaide. (2) Was this work done in accordance with National Trust criteria. (3) Is the Department of Defence considering, or in the process of, selling the Barton Terrace property; if so, what price does it anticipate the property will bring. (4) Is the Department intending to rent other premises for the Air Office in South Australia; if so, where, and what annual rental. (5) Why is the Department: (a) selling the Barton Terrace property; (b) renting rather than purchasing new premises. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Approximately $172,000 has been spent on repairs and maintenance to the Air Force property at 155 Barton Terrace, North Adelaide, since it was acquired by the RAAF in 1950. A further $25,000 is planned to be spent in 1985-86. (2) Since the property was entered on the Register of the National Estate, all repair work has been agreed by the National Trust. (3) The Department of Defence is considering alternative accommodation arrangements. If this occurs, the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services would arrange for valuation of the Barton Terrace property and its disposal. (4) No decision has yet been taken to rent other premises. (5) (a) If a decision to release the Barton Terrace property is made, it will be because the RAAF's accommodation needs can be met more economically in other premises; (b) No decision has yet been made to rent or purchase new premises. (Question No. 506) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, following the Resolution passed by the State Council of the Queensland Division of the Australian Labor Party, calling for the nomination by the Federal Government of the Queensland Wet Tropical Rain- forests for World Heritage Listing, take action to ensure that this area is nominated on the World Heritage list. (2) Is the timber of the rain-forest to be used in the construction of the new Parliament House; if so, can this be taken as an indication that the Government intends to ignore the Resolution on rain-forests of the Queensland State Council of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Under an agreement reached by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM), the Commonwealth Government has written to State and Territory Governments inviting them to submit suggestions for places to be examined with a view to possible future nominations to the World Heritage List. Queensland has responded and advised that it does not wish to have any places in Queensland nominated for the World Heritage List. In this connection, the Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing. The Government is committed to the preservation of both our natural and cultural heritage and it is considered that these aims can best be achieved through co-operation and consultation rather than conflict and confrontation. The recently released report on `Rainforest Conservation in Australia' which was prepared in collaboration between groups holding strong and diverse opinions on a complex environmental issue, exemplifies the value of co-operation and consultation. (2) On 22 September 1985 the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate wrote jointly to all Members and Senators concerning the use of rainforest timbers in the construction of the new Parliament House. (Question No. 529) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: Have members of the Central Tablelands No Base Committee been attempting for some time to see the Minister for Defence to discuss the latest developments in the acquisition of land in the Orange-Bathurst area; if so, have meetings been held, if not, when will the Minister be available to discuss the matter with these people. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Approaches have been made on a number of occasions by the Central Tablelands No Base Committee with a view to discussing the proposal for a Schools Complex to be located in the Orange-Bathurst area. The group has been advised that there seems little value in a meeting until the results of the environmental studies are available. At that stage all parties concerned will be in a position to discuss the matter in a properly informed way. The No Base Central Tablelands Committee has every opportunity to make its views known to the consultants undertaking those studies, and to the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee which is now to inquire into the proposal. (Question No. 531) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Is there extreme shortage of 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm calibre military ammunition. (2) Has the next two years' supply run of 7.62 mm ammunition been rejected because of faulty brass case wall construction. (3) Is the newer, smaller 5.56 mm calibre fully imported and none of this calibre yet manufactured in Australia. (4) Are Army units storing their practice ammunition and have Reserve Forces in some units been advised to purchase ammunition privately, with the result that many recruits have not been able to qualify with arms. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are no problems in meeting Army's present capability and training requirements in any configuration of either 7.62 or 5.56 calibre ammunition. (2) No 7.62 mm ammunition has been rejected recently for problems of cartridge case wall thickness nor are such problems anticipated. (3) No 5.56 mm ammunition is manufactured in Australia at present. However, with the proposed adoption by Army of weapons of this calibre local production of 5.56 mm ammunition is also proposed and planning for production has commenced. (4) See (1) above. For ammunition in excess of those requirements existing regulations allow units to store ammunition, including practice ammunition provided suitable approved storage facilities exist. Army reserve units have not been advised to purchase ammunition privately nor are there any known instances of recruits being unable to qualify with arms due to lack of ammunition. (Question No. 552) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Has the Department of Defence increased home rental rates over the past years for housing provided to: (a) Royal Australian Navy personnel; (b) Australian Army personnel; and (c) Royal Australian Air Force personnel; if so, have any such rises been of a comparable percentage to the Consumer Price Index; if not what have they been. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The present rent setting policy was determined in 1981 and provides that a review of married quarter rentals be undertaken annually but not earlier than November each year. The policy provides for changes in rent levels, where indicated, to be implemented in the following April. The policy provides for rents to be reviewed by reference to a basket of factors which includes changes in rents in the private rental market, movements in the aggregate costs of providing married quarters, movements in community housing costs, movements in Defence Force salaries and movements in rents charged to tenants of other Commonwealth owned houses. Any changes in the quantum of rentals which result from an annual review are the consequence of a consideration of the totality of these factors. Rent variations implemented in April of each year following the three most recent reviews were NIL in 1983, 11% in 1984 and 6.9% in 1985. In 1982, 1983 and 1984 the Housing Component of the Consumer Price Index was respectively 11.1%, 10.5% and 7.1%, while the `All Groups' component for the same years was 10.4%, 11.5% and 6.9%. (Question No. 554) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) Is it the Government's intention to declare the Gimbat and Goodparla Pastoral Leases as an extension of the Kakadu National Park, despite the historical existence of mineralisation in the area and the recent discovery of a major gold deposit at Coronation Hill. (2) Will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment guarantee that the development of the ore body discovered at Coronation Hill will be allowed to proceed, given that the ore is on Commonwealth land; if so, under what legislation will the development be allowed to proceed; if not, under existing legislation, is it the Government's intention to legislate to allow development to proceed. (3) Is it the Government's intention to permit further exploration outside the existing mineral leases, given that the whole area proposed to be declared a national park is highly prospective for gold, base metals and other minerals. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised as follows: (1) The Government is currently addressing various matters associated with the incorporation of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases into Kakadu National Park. The Government is well aware of the mineralisation of the area and the gold deposit at Coronation Hill, just as it is of the conservation and recreational values and pastoral uses of the area. These aspects are being fully considered. (2, 3) Until the Government has fully considered the matter I am not in a position to make any statement regarding development of the ore body at Coronation Hill or to advise on the Government's intentions regarding future exploration. (Question No. 626) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: Can the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment confirm that the Australia Council is regarded by the Federal Government as merely another Government body under direct ministerial control instead of being an independent body designed to promote Australian art as was originally intended. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australia Council was established under the Australia Council Act 1975 and is the Government's arts funding agency. The powers and functions of the Council together with the relationship between the Council and the Government are set out in the present legislative arrangements.