Tuesday, 26 November 1985 The Senate met at 2 p.m. The Clerk-Honourable senators, the President is unable to attend the sittings of the Senate due to illness. In accordance with standing order 29, the Deputy President will take the chair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, during the absence of the President, the Deputy President shall, on each sitting day, take the chair of the Senate and may, during such absence, perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and to proceedings of Standing and Joint Statutory Committees to which the President is appointed. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support the following Bills introduced by Senator Chipp: Australian Airspace (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 Australia Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships Prohibition) Bill 1985 Australian Waters (Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1985 Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill 1985, the passage of which would prohibit the entry of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons into Australian airspace, to entry of nuclear powered and/or armed ships into Australian waters, and the development, testing, manufacturing, transportation or storage of nuclear weapons in Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support these Bills-not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 199 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the Government's stated intention to hand over to the Multitjulu Community ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the Park are the natural heritage of Australia and should be retained by the Crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 700 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australia ' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Cooney (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 165 citizens), Childs (from 106 citizens) and Robertson (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Western Australia and employees of Peters (W.A.) Limited do respectfully pray that the 10 per cent sales tax on ice cream be removed forthwith-for the following reasons: That the Government has failed to consider the jobs (some of us will be vulnerable) which will inevitably be lost as a result of consumer resistance to higher prices. That the Government has ignored the damaging effects on two already hard-pressed industries: dairying (source material valued at $46 million a year) and sugar ($14 million). That the Government has grossly underestimated the cost to thousands of low income families of higher ice cream prices as a result of the tax. That the Government cannot justify taxing ice cream which is regarded by all authorities as an important, nutritious food and which is a key product in the Consumer Price Index. We request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985 in such a manner as to remove the sales tax on ice cream. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Withers (from 109 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 Vigor (from 77 citizens) and Walsh (from 233 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth. That the Hawke Government's intention to impose a tax on fringe benefits and so increase the level of taxation in Australia, will impose an unnecessary and harsh burden on many companies, a burden that could have an adverse effect on employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will abandon this unfair and potentially job destructive tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 246 citizens). To the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: They strongly oppose the increases in the price of Fuel, which is one of the main items causing the increases in the Cost of Living in Australia today and also the Upward Inflationary Trend. Australia produces 60% of the required amount of Crude Oil necessary to supply our Nation's own requirements, and is boasted as being the Cheapest produced in the World, therefore the Australian Consumer of this commodity instead of being so heavily taxed should receive more benefits than those of the Foreign Oil Consortiums. Extra taxes required to fill the Coffers of the Government, to use as they see fit, should be collected from the Foreign Oil Consortiums without recourse to the Australian Citizens. The World Parity Pricing of Australian Crude Oil was introduced when the Local Crude Oil Production was in its infancy, and the imported Overseas Product was at a World Record High. With the Promise that the Pricing would be reduced in keeping with the Falling of the World Market Price of Crude Oil, this also has been the Failing of Hawke Government's Pre-election to Office Promise. In introducing the World Parity Pricing the Federal Government bent over under pressure from the Foreign Oil Consortiums. The Petitioners hereto request that the Hawke Federal Government immediately introduce and put into action a Fuel Price Reduction Policy, even if it means that the Government builds its own Refineries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 736 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; The Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; Any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 193 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the Government's decision on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Teritory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice and due to have effect from the 21st March 1985, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned bank employees, wish to register our displeasure and concern following the announcement of the Federal Government's taxation package on 19th September 1985, in which a tax will be levied on the employer for fringe benefits provided to staff. You may not be aware, however, the vast majority of bank employees are not high income earners and many rely on benefits such as concessional interest rates on housing loans in order to maintain a living wage, others to cope with high capital city housing costs. In view of the enormous costs of this tax to our employers they will only have two courses of action open to them if this taxation package is allowed to pass through the Senate and become law, and they are to pass these costs on to either the public or the employees. With the present highly competitive climate it is extremely unlikely these costs will be passed on to the public. We seek your assistance in bringing our plight to the notice of your fellow Senators in an effort to maintain our existing living standards which are in danger of being seriously eroded by this taxation package. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 1,594 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament the petition of the undersigned, shows, that the proposed acquisition of the ACT Schools Authority's EMS video facilities at the OEC by Film Australia will seriously deplete the production of educational media within the ACT. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should, keep the facilities of the EMS which were established for the production of educational video and sound programmes for their intended educational purpose and not give them over for use by Film Australia whose intended use of these facilities is primarily for commercial/public service videos. Educational video is an increasingly valuable educational resource. The EMS section produces videos for local schools and colleges and curriculum development material for use throughout Australia and these facilities are vital for the continued production of these materials. Therefore we are most concerned at any takeover of these facilities by a separate organisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 24 citizens). Petitions received. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I withdraw General Business, notices of motion Nos 45 and 48, standing in my name and, on behalf of Senator MacGibbon, I withdraw General Business, notices of motion Nos 9, 42 and 50. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That for the purposes of sub-section 8A (7) of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, the Senate approves the giving of a guarantee to the Australian Industry Development Corporation in the terms set out in the Deed of Guarantee presented to the Senate by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce on 26 November 1985. I table the Deed of Guarantee. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that it is my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for the disallowance of the Electricity (Amendment) Ordinance 1985. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —In this Ordinance the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority was given a number of discretionary decision-making powers. While many of these were subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Committee was concerned that two types of decisions were not so subject. After exchanging correspondence with the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), the Committee is pleased to report that the Minister has undertaken to amend the Ordinance not later than July 1986 by inserting provisions for review, consultation or scrutiny. The amendments will be based on inquiry procedures which have been included in the Trade Practices Bill 1985 and which are also due to come into force in July 1986. There will need to be consistency of approval between the Ordinance and the Trade Practices Bill and the Committee was satisfied, therefore, to accept the Minister's promise to amend the Ordinance to make sure that an effective review mechanism is operative next year. The Committee was also concerned about a number of offences in the Ordinance which appeared to be of strict liability. The Minister has undertaken to amend the Ordinance to make mens rea and express request for these offences. The Minister has also agreed to insert protective clauses relating to voluntary entry by inspectors on to premises. These will make clear that entry is voluntary and by consent and will follow precedents in the Credit Ordinance. The Ordinance also provided that magistrates be empowered to issue telephone search warrants. The Committee regarded the issue of telephone warrants to be of such a nature as to require the approval of a superior court judge before the issue of a warrant. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that judges should not be burdened with this task and that appropriately it should be left to magistrates. As matters affecting superior courts fall within the Attorney-General's portfolio, the Minister for Territories has agreed to delete the power entirely from the Ordinance. The Committee was also concerned about a wide urgent entry power. The Committee accepted that it could be a reasonable power to retain, provided a power to issue telephone search warrants was conferred on a superior court judge rather than a magistrate. With the deletion of the telephone warrant power, legal authority to enter premises in emergencies might be harder to obtain and the urgent entry power might therefore be more frequently used. The Committee demurred to this. The Minister has undertaken to delete it also from the Ordinance. I should say, finally, that the Committee is grateful to the Minister and the Attorney-General and their officers for the assistance given in its scrutiny of this Ordinance. The Minister is to be commended for the changes he has promised to make the Ordinance more protective of rights. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of the present period of sittings. (2) (a) the hours of meetings of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 November 1985, be- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 November 1985. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that it is my intention on the next day of sitting to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 5, standing in my name for the next day of sitting, and notices of motion Nos 2 and 3, standing in my name for four sitting days after today, for the disallowance of Telecommunications (General) By-Laws amendments Nos 42, 43 and 44. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —Over the past weeks, through correspondence and hearings with officials, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been examining by-laws made by the Australian Telecommunications Commission. The by-laws conferred unreviewable administrative discretions on Telecom in connection with various decisions that could have financial significance to subscribers. The Committee has accepted Telecom's explanation that in amendment No. 44 review is not necessary. The Committee has also accepted Telecom's undertaking to provide for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of discretions under amendment No. 43. Finally, the Committee has suggested the amendment of, and Telecom has agreed to amend, amendment No. 42 to specify full criteria for certain interconnect decisions and to provide for internal review of them. The Committee considers that the promised amendments arising from its scrutiny of these by-laws will result in protecting the rights of persons and the Committee thanks and commends Telecom for its co-operation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Evaluation of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (incorporating parts 1 and 2)-final report. 2. Child Migrant Education-report 1984-85-pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. 3. Department of Territories-annual report 1984-85. 4. Independent Air Fares Committee-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 33 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981. 5. Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-annual report 1985-pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. 6. Australia's population trends and prospect 1985-report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to the report. 7. Review of customs and excise decisions: Stage two-report by the Administrative Review Council. 8. Australian Science and Technology Council-Annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 9. National inquiry into local government finance-report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services made in the House of Representatives on 13 November 1985. 10. Advisory Council on Australian Archives-Annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 68 (4) of the Archives Act 1983. 11. Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and Consumer Affairs Bureau-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973. 12. Australian Federal Police-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 67 (2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 13. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation- annual report 1984-85-Pursuant to sub-section 88 (4) of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974. 14. Cotton Research Committee-annural report 1984-85-pursuant to section 24 of the Cotton Research Act 1982. 15. Dried Fruits Research Committee-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971. 16. Honey Research Committee-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 18 of the Honey Research Act 1980. 17. Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee-report on marine science and technologies grants and Queen's fellowships for 1985. 18. Australian Telecommunications Commission-response to the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on Telecom's zonal charging policies-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Communications made in the House of Representatives on 15 November 1985. 19. Australian Capital Territory Administration of the Credit Ordinance-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 241 of the Credit Ordinance 1985. 20. Australian Capital Territory Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory-annual report 1984-85. 21. Australian Capital Territory Building Standards Committee-annual report 1984-85. 22. Australian Capital Territory Building Review Committee-annual report 1984-85. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Gareth Evans left Australia on 22 November for official duties in China. He will return on 1 December. During his absence Senator Walsh will be Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. He will also represent in this chamber those portfolios normally handled by Senator Gareth Evans. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, before I ask my question may I just say how sorry the Opposition is that you are in the chair for the reason you are and extend our best wishes to the President in his absence. Will the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce confirm that the Government's guidelines on occupational superannuation schemes will not require employee contributions? If this is so, does the Minister agree that the superannuation deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions will have the same effect on employers' costs as a straight pay rise? Senator BUTTON —I am not in a position to agree or disagree with either of those propositions. I will obtain an early answer for Senator Chaney. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a question. I refer him to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, claiming that the justification for his opposing some parts of the tax package but supporting the personal income tax cuts was that the latter were part of the 1986 and 1987 Budgets. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether any aspects of the tax package are any more or less part of the Budget than any other parts? Is there any way in which Mr Howard can possibly justify his hypocrisy on this matter? Senator WALSH —I am aware of an extraordinary statement from the Leader of the Opposition, along the lines that Senator Coates outlined. On the PM program on 15 November the Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition would support the tax cuts but would not support the other tax reform measures, on the quite spurious grounds that the tax cuts-that is, the personal rate scale cuts-already forecast for 1986 and 1987 were part of the Budget but the rest of the package was not. That is an alternative way of saying that the Opposition will approve the rates proposed by the Government but it will not approve the tax base. The Opposition is saying that the tax base can be fretted away and eroded away as much as it has been, with most of the erosion taking place during the period in which Mr Howard was Treasurer, but it will still support tax cuts. Without a tax base the rate scale becomes irrelevant. The rate has no relevance whatsoever if there is no base left. It is towards that point that the country was rapidly advancing during the period that Mr Howard was Treasurer. I can assume only that that extraordinary statement came out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition because of the confusion which prevails about this question in the Opposition ranks in general. The first fortuitously public statement on this matter which the Opposition made was made on 19 September, the same day as the Treasurer's statement was made in the House, when Senator Messner wrote in that famous tax committee minute: `We cannot be seen to be supporting the goodies in the package while opposing all the baddies', which is now precisely the policy which is being advocated by Mr Howard. The Leader of the National Party of Australia on the other hand said in the House of Representatives last week: The Government should be withdrawing the whole of its tax package and considering whether there cannot be a fundamental and significant reduction of government expenditure. Mr Sinclair and his colleagues had seven years in government during the 1970s and early 1980s in which to address that question should they choose to do so, but they did not do it then and there is no reason to believe that they would do it now. That confusion in the Opposition no doubt sponsored the statement which the Leader of the Opposition made on PM. Finally, the clear and inescapable implication of the policy being advocated by Mr Howard is that the tax cuts-that is the new rate scale-could not be implemented if the tax base is fretted and eroded away in the way that Mr Howard proposes to allow it to be. Since it will not be completely eroded away, the general policy effect which Mr Howard is advocating will be to shift the burden of raising revenue, the burden of taxation, more and more on to the shoulders of honest wage and salary earners operating under the pay as you earn system. It is instructive to note that during the five years in which Mr Howard was Treasurer that is precisely what happened. In his first Budget in 1978-79 PAYE net tax receipts amounted to just under 45 per cent of total tax receipts, but by 1981 and 1982-his final two Budgets-they had risen to 46.2 per cent. If we look at net PAYE tax receipts as a proportion of total revenue, we will see that the increase was even greater. It was 40.8 per cent in Mr Howard's first Budget. By the time his fourth Budget was produced it had risen to 42.9 per cent. So by more than 2 per cent in those four years he transferred the burden for raising government revenue on to the shoulders of the honest PAYE taxpayers, and he proposes to continue that process if he gets the opportunity to do so. Senator MESSNER —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce noticed a recent report that it cost Mr Bob Ansett $12,000 on entertainment as part of setting up his rent-a-car franchise in Japan? In view of the Government's constant urging of Australian business to compete internationally will it reconsider the abolition of business entertainment expenses when they are so directly linked to the success of Australian entrepreneurs in overseas markets? Senator BUTTON —One swallow does not make a summer, and one business lunch in Tokyo does not make a case for changing the Government's proposed taxation regime. The answer to the honourable senator's question is no. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen a report in the West Australian of 18 November last, headlined: `Howard sees answer in disputes'? Is the Minister aware that this article quotes Mr Howard as saying: `And I'd like to see 1,000 Mudginberris break out all over this country'? Given that the Mudginberri dispute lasted for approximately six months, and affected our export trade, can the Minister say what impact 1,000 such disputes would have on the Australian economy? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report to which Senator Cook refers. Indeed, I have in front of me a photocopy from the West Australian of 18 November which quotes Mr Howard as saying: And I'd like to see 1,000 Mudginberris break out all over this country. Senator Cook asked what would be the economic implications of that, should it ever happen. I cannot quantify that off the top of my head, but it is patently clear that 1,000 Mudginberri-type disputes breaking out simultaneously all over the country would have an enormous impact on, firstly, the level of economic activity; secondly, the level of real income in Australia; and thirdly, and above all, our export industries. Our export industries would be crippled by the sort of outcome which Mr Howard gleefully anticipates. I suggest to the mercantilists opposite, who think that the value of the dollar is the proper and the end justification for all economic effort, that under such circumstances before very long the dollar would be worth about 10c. Not even Mr Fraser ever advocated that sort of policy or took the extremist position that the present Opposition Leader does. It is quite extraordinary that any Opposition Leader could gleefully anticipate the outbreak of 1,000 Mudginberris all over the country. I can assume only that he sees that as the opening exchange in the five years of industrial warfare which he previously foreshadowed with glee should he ever become Prime Minister. Such an outbreak would have devastating effects on industry in general, on the economy in general, and in particular on our export industries. The dollar would be likely to shrink to a fraction of its present value and we would have general economic conditions which would make the legacy Mr Howard left to the country when he ceased to be Treasurer-that is, his big trifecta of double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit wage increases for two years in a row-look like good times. That would be the result should Mr Howard ever return to a position of power in this country and implement the industrial warfare policy he has been enthusiastically advocating. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question concerning the nine unsaleable and discarded Hercules C130A aircraft. What is the Government's response to the second submission put to it by Action Aid Australia, supported by Mr Bob Geldof, for the Government to make a gift of these aircraft to the United Nations for permanent famine and disaster relief work, especially in Africa? Is the Government aware that the Secretary-General of the United Nations made such a request of the international community in November 1984? Does the Government not believe that Australia's contribution of the Hercules would enhance our membership of the United Nations, serve a great humanitarian cause, and give the United Nations an independent force of its own? Senator BUTTON —There have been a number of requests to the Australian Government. Senator Chipp particularly asked about our awareness of a request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Government is aware of that but that was in the context of many requests which have been made, principally through the International Committee of the Red Cross, for air transport for relief work in Ethiopia and East Africa. The Australian Government and the Australian community have responded generously to the African disaster and we are examining ways in which we can further offer assistance in the most cost effective and appropriate way. The Government has under active and sympathetic consideration the request from Mr Bob Geldof who, as I recall it, met the Prime Minister two or three weeks ago. The Prime Minister expects quite soon to be in a position to make an announcement of the Government's response to the matter of the Hercules aircraft. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and it follows the rather silly question asked by Senator Cook. Does the Minister acknowledge that at Mudginberri there was agreement between the employer and employees? Does he agree that as a result of that there was a greater return to employees? Does he further agree that as a result there were lessened costs for the employer? Does he further agree that, in fact, that highly desirable arrangement was upset only by illegal conduct on the part of trade unions? Does he agree that if the trade union movement desisted from its illegal behaviour, a thousand Mudginberris would be exactly what this country needs in terms of increased productivity and a greater return for effort and greater return for employees? Senator WALSH —I cannot remember all the specific questions that Senator Chaney asked. I do remember one, though: Do I agree that there was a greater return to the employee? As I recall the Mudginberri dispute, the answer to that would have to be no, because nothing was happening at Mudginberri for a very long time and the employees were getting nothing at all. The Liberal Party has some sort of strange, fuzzy vision of some idealised world in which perfect competition prevails on both sides of the market-that is, in the market for labour and the market for commodities and services. It deludes itself that such a world exists. In that delusion, of course, is the origin of the policy advocated by the Liberal Party-the policy of deregulation of the labour market, collective bargaining, and the abandonment of centralised wage fixing. One would have thought that even if members of the Liberal Party cannot recognise that the world is not as they imagine it to be, the Liberal Party might remember what happened in 1981, when, as Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition presided over the implementation of exactly that policy-that is, the abandonment of centralised wage fixing, collective bargaining, and a more deregulated labour market. What happened was that we got a wages explosion of 11 per cent in the first year and 14 per cent in the second year. The Liberal Party, like the Bourbons, is incapable of learning anything from that. It is incapable of learning that we do not live in an economy which has perfect competition on both sides of the market-place. We live in an economy in which there is a good deal of monopoly power on both sides of the market-place. In that situation, and in a period of strong economic growth, such as that which has prevailed since this Government has been in office, the consequences, beyond reasonable doubt, of the abandonment of centralised wage fixation and a return to collective bargaining, or the encouragement of collective bargaining, would be a wages explosion, a repeat of the disastrous experience in the dying years of the Fraser Government, which ultimately produced double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit wage increases for two years in a row, and the worst economic recession for 50 years. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. I remind the Minister that the courts found the trade union activities at Mudginberri illegal. Does the Minister condemn that illegal activity by trade unions, which damaged employer and employees alike? Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to my previous answer. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the Minister for Education seen recent reports in the Queensland Press that the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges will be an unnecessary burden on the State Government? Will the Minister clarify the Federal Government's commitment to nurse education, and will she also comment on progress being made with the State Government to ensure that Queensland nurses benefit from Federal initiatives to upgrade their professional status? Senator RYAN —There has been a lot of misleading comment on the nurse education policy being implemented by our Government, and, of course, it will not be a surprise to Senator Reynolds or to any other senators that much of the misleading comment is coming from Queensland. Some similarly misleading comment has been coming from Tasmania, too. The facts of the matter regarding the costs of nurse training are these: The State governments have borne both the capital and the recurrent costs of nurse training. Had there been no movement or development of policy towards transferring nurse training from hospitals to colleges of advanced education, the States would have continued to bear 100 per cent of capital and recurrent costs for nurse training. The Commonwealth contributes to those costs through the States Grants (Health) Act. However, in response to a very long-standing campaign by nurses throughout Australia, the Commonwealth decided to develop and implement the policy of transferring primary nurse training from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. During the period when this transfer will be phased in-it is currently planned that the transfer will be complete by 1993; that is, the last hospital-based nurse will transfer in 1990-the Federal Government will contribute to the additional costs to the States of the new form of training. Never at any time did the Commonwealth suggest that it would take over the entire cost at this stage. That would have been quite uncalled for since the States are already funded, through State health grants, to train nurses. But because there will be additional costs with the transfer, the Commonwealth agreed to contribute to those additional costs. The contribution that we are prepared to make is, I think, quite generous and certainly quite realistic. We are contributing to the cost per student in a CAE an amount which, in 1984 prices, was $1,500 per student but which is considerably higher than that in current prices. As well as that, we are paying under the tertiary education assistance scheme for those nurse trainees in CAEs who are eligible for TEAS; we are bearing the costs of that. We are not proposing to deduct from the State health grants any of the funding which we have provided for hospital-based training and we consider it reasonable and fair that any additional costs should be met by the savings that the States ought to be able to make by no longer having to provide training in the hospitals. In addition to these arrangements the Government is assisting State health systems to respond to the shortage of trained nurses-that is, trained nurses who are prepared to work in the nursing profession-by making re-training funds available. Until now we have made, I think, in the vicinity of $3m available for retraining. Just a few days ago, the Commonwealth Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett, and I jointly announced that an extra $7.6m will be available to assist-$4m of which will be available to assist in the retraining of nurses who wish to return to the nursing profession and have their skills refreshed or upgraded and $2.3m of which will be for curriculum development to assist those CAEs that are now developing a nurse curriculum to do so at the highest possible standards. Both of these moves were very warmly welcomed by the nursing profession as a further demonstration of the Commonwealth Government's commitment to upgrading the nursing profession and providing it with the same sort of professional preparation as other professions have in our community. If a State government does not wish to take advantage of this additional funding to assist in the transfer, that is a matter for that State government to determine. We have negotiated with State governments round Australia a rate of transfer-the numbers of students to be taken on in State CAEs year by year. If the Queensland Government persists in saying that it will not engage in this transfer in a co-operative way with the Commonwealth, I am afraid that it will have to bear the wrath of the nursing profession in that State. If must be quite clear to all observers of this policy-it is certainly quite clear to the nursing profession-that the Commonwealth now has made significant extra funding available to assist with the additional funding for the transfer, that we have been very flexible in negotiating with the States with regard to the timing of the transfer and that all that remains to be done in Queensland is for that State Government to do what the vast majority of State governments throughout Australia are doing-that is, to take steps to ensure the professional upgrading of the nursing profession in that State. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. What is the current state of play in the Government's negotiations with the Australian Democrats over the tax package? Does the Government have any reason to doubt that the Democrats will adhere to the position put by Senator Chipp in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 September, namely, that the fringe benefits provisions, including those on entertainment, will go through? Senator WALSH —Firstly, I do not know; secondly, I would not tell Senator Collard if I did. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the residential hostel accommodation at Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be closed at or before the end of December 1985? If not, is it to be closed later, and if so when? If it is to be closed, what will happen to clients presently residing there and to those needing accommodation in the future? Is there presently any specific accommodation, other than that provided at Glen Waverley, for disabled people, including quadriplegics, paraplegics and those with severe brain damage, who require the services provided by the Glen Waverley Centre? Senator GRIMES —No, the residential accommodation at Glen Waverley will not be closed by the end of December this year. No firm date for the closure has been set. However it is intended, as I have announced previously, that the closure will occur as soon as alternative suitable accommodation for clients is secured. I hope that this will be in early 1986. The majority of residential clients will be completing their programs before Christmas and appropriate arrangements will be made to meet the accommodation needs of those clients whose programs are not completed by that time. Future non-hostel, community-based alternative accommodation will be secured, as it has been secured in Taringa and Townsville in Queensland and in South Australia. The simple fact is that most clients attending Glen Waverley do not require assistance with accommodation. For those who do, and depending on the specific needs of clients, approximately 12 clients can be accommodated in houses and flats at Glen Waverley. Steps are being taken to identify additional community-based accommodation which will be available in the area. The experience of other rehabilitation centres is that community-based accommodation is more effective in that if we are to rehabilitate people to live in the community it is sensible that the accommodation they have during that rehabilitation be within that community. A final factor, well known to anyone who has knowledge of the rehabilitation area, is that of cost. The cost of maintaining people in the residences that have been maintained in our rehabilitation centres has exceeded by far the cost of putting such people up in expensive hotels, and in one centre it would have been cheaper to send the people to Hawaii for a fortnight than to keep them in the centre. So for good rehabilitation practices and for economic reasons we are closing the residential accommodation in our rehabilitation centres. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What inquiries have been instituted by either the Leader of the Government or the Special Minister of State concerning what was reported as a $50m drug haul bungle on the Sydney docks last week? Is there any allegation of either someone in authority deliberately causing the job to fail or conflict between Australian Federal Police officers and Customs officers as to the administration of the duties concerned? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of any investigations having been asked for as a result of the Press reports which occurred last week, as Senator Archer pointed out. There are always allegations about drug hauls, or the absence of drug hauls, particularly on the Sydney waterfront. Those allegations frequently stem from the same source and over a long time when they have been investigated they have largely been found to be unsubstantiated. Nonetheless, because the amount on this occasion is high, I will have some inquiries made and see whether I can provide Senator Archer with a more detailed answer. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Finance to current proposals for the wholesale privatisation of major public sector enterprises in Australia. Can he say what would be the consequences of such wholesale privatisation, especially on the economy, and especially if the proceeds of the sale of public assets were used to finance current consumption? Senator Messner —Who is proposing that? Senator WALSH —Just hang around for a while and I will tell you. Of course, I am aware of the current proposals for wholesale privatisation coming from the present Federal Leader of the Liberal Party, and more recently coming more stridently from the Liberal Party Leader of the Opposition in South Australia. The latter part of Senator Bolkus's question referred to the possibility of the proceeds of the sale of assets being used to finance current consumption and that of course is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia is proposing. Mr Olsen says that he will fund his tax cuts by selling assets. That is another way of saying that he will liquidate assets in order to fund current expenditure. We all know where that road leads. If one keeps going down that road for long enough, one finishes up insolvent. If one keeps funding recurrent expenditure by the sale of assets one must become insolvent. Of course, no government has exceeded the record of the Fraser-Howard Government, not in selling off assets but in borrowing money to keep going. In 1981-82, the last full year in which Mr Howard was Treasurer, the current account deficit was equal to 6.1 per cent of gross domestic product. We are told now by members of the Opposition that there is something dreadfully wrong with having a current account deficit, even though Mr Howard presided over the biggest current account deficit of all time-6.1 per cent of GDP in the last full year that he was Treasurer. I shall tell the House what Mr Olsen proposes to do, and I have the piece of paper here, Senator Messner. He proposes to flog off 49 per cent of the equity in the South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation which will yield, so he says, $184m. He has forgotten that that is 49 per cent of the gross value of the assets of SAOGC; it is not the net value. SAOGC has significant loans which, I understand, would wipe about $50m off that $184m. But leaving that aside, Mr Olsen said that there were a number of other areas in which buildings and properties would be sold off and this would yield an extra $16m giving a total of $200m. For a start, the $200m is wrong because it is a gross figure, not a net figure. Mr Olsen then said that the $200m would be discharged off the public debt and the reduced interest payments on the reduced public debt would fund the tax cuts. Later in the document-- Senator Messner —Now you are getting it right. Senator WALSH —I am glad that Senator Messner is following me on this. Later in the document Mr Olsen referred to the dividends which would be paid by SAOGC from the remaining 51 per cent equity which would remain publicly owned. But he said nothing about the dividends that would be forgone from the 49 per cent equity in SAOGC which he proposes to flog off. Senator Messner —They are not paying any dividends. Senator WALSH —If they are not paying any- thing on the 51 per cent which it is proposed to retain in public ownership, how will one get the dividends on the 51 per cent that Mr Olsen proposes to retain? In the end, what this boils down to is a proposition which is tantamount to plundering the lawyer's trust account-I understand Mr Olsen is not a lawyer-in order to buy the lawyer's latest Rolls-Royce. Given that Mr Olsen takes his orders from the Leader of the Liberal Party in Canberra, I wonder what will happen when Mr Howard leaves parliament. I hope he will not look for a job in a lawyer's office. It will be known that as a politician he advocated policies that were tantamount to plundering the lawyer's trust account in order to fund current consumption. Another relatively minor component of Mr Olsen's proposal is that some of the housing stock funded under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement would be sold off at a 20 per cent discount. So he not only proposes to flog off assets to fund current consumption, he also proposes to flog them off at discounted prices. I understand that it is not legally permissible to sell off that housing stock at a discount, but I will check up on that to get a definitive legal opinion. What he is proposing to do is, firstly, to cook the books and, to the extent that he does not cook the books, a policy which is tantamount to plundering a lawyer's trust account to fund current consumption. Secondly, he is proposing illegal action for the disposal of the State-Commonwealth housing stock. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Minister acknowledge that the current credit squeeze is the intended outcome of direct decisions of the Hawke Labor Government? Does the Minister also acknowledge that the Prime Minister, knowing that his Government has brought about the highest ever real interest rates in this country, has still insisted that all Australians will just have to get used to these high interest rates? In the light of these expressed views of the Government, is it correct that the Government has no policies in place that would lead to a reduction in interest rates? Is it correct that the Government is waiting until after the South Australian election before responding to these pressures by raising the ceiling on housing interest rates? Senator BUTTON —I was asked, firstly, whether the current squeeze is an intended outcome of direct government decisions. I suppose if I answer that it is an unintended outcome of direct government decisions that will be seen as a most unfortunate answer for a Government Minister to give. If the implication of the honourable senator's question is that the Government deliberately set about a strategy of producing this result, of course the answer is no. Even Senator Teague is aware of the consequences of the devaluation and its effects in a wide range of areas of economic activity. Senator Michael Baume —You have chosen to use monetary policy. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. Even Senator Baume might understand that that is a consequence of the answer I just gave. I was then asked whether the Australian people will have to get used to higher interest rates. I do not think there is much point in recycling things in this chamber which have already been said by the Prime Minister, but the burden of the Prime Minister's remarks was simply that he did not anticipate an early and dramatic reduction in interest rates. That has been a view consistently expressed by the Government. Senator Chaney —Not by the Prime Minister. He promised lower interest rates. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. We have already debated that issue in Question Time here at great length too. Senator Durack —He is just plain wrong. Senator BUTTON —That is what I said, yes. I said that he was wrong about that. There is no doubt that he was. Even Senator Chaney and Senator Durack can comprehend that set of facts. The Prime Minister said that interest rates would fall and they did not and that was the wrong prediction-something which did not commend itself to previous leaders of Australian governments, who totally failed to undertake their promises arising from predictions about interest rates. I was asked finally by Senator Teague whether there will be any change in housing interest rate policies following the South Australian election. As Senator Teague may be well aware, the Treasurer made a statement about that matter, I think yesterday, and the answer is no. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister for Education seen the article entitled `Allegations fly over expulsion of student', which appeared in the Australian on 20 November 1985? The article refers to the recent departure of an overseas student who was studying at the University of New England. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether a member of her staff has lied about the reasons for the student's departure, as claimed by the Opposition? Can the Minister explain the reasons and the circumstances concerning the student's departure from this country? Senator RYAN —I am indebted to the honourable senator for his question because some very serious allegations were reported in the article in the Australian about the circumstances in which this student, Mr Ahmad Othman, terminated his studies and left Australia. The facts of the matter are these: The decision to terminate the student's studies as an overseas student was taken on the grounds of his poor academic progress and his failure to pay the overseas student charge for 1984 and 1985. Both of these factors were taken into account, although primarily the student's poor academic progress led to the decision to terminate his studies. The student was enrolled at the University of New England for a Bachelor of Economics degree at the time his studies were terminated. He was originally enrolled at the University of New South Wales, where he was excluded on the basis of his poor results. He then enrolled at the University of New England for a Bachelor of Financial Administration degree. He failed his preliminary accounting subject and was excluded from that course. He was then accepted into the Bachelor of Economics course. The course was terminated in 1985 on academic grounds. Government policy is that private overseas students, as with government supported Australian students, should maintain reasonable academic progress if they wish to retain government support. Because the student's poor record had been due to financial worries and because his most recent academic work in the Bachelor of Economics course had shown promise of improvement, his case was re-examined by my Department. My Department has taken up with the University the possibility of the student being allowed to sit for his end of year examinations in his own country. This matter is still being investigated. Under the circumstances, given the facts that have been laid out to the Senate, it is quite clear that the member of my staff who answered the Press inquiries and other inquiries was being totally accurate and adhering to the truth. I say in conclusion that it is unfortunate when a student has to leave Australia without concluding his or her studies, and I believe that my Department goes to considerable lengths to counsel and advise students so that this will not happen. The Senate, having heard that this student had a very chequered academic career in Australia before he finally enrolled in the Bachelor of Economics course at Armidale, would agree that that record was not one which would be satisfactory. For example, if the student were an Australian, his or her eligibility for an allowance under the tertiary education assistance scheme would have been forgone with an academic record of that kind. Senator Peter Baume —What about Dean Phillips's letter? Senator RYAN —I will comment on Senator Baume's interjection, because Senator Baume's comments were reported in the Australian. He has referred to the dean's letter supporting the student. It is the case, as I have already told the Senate, that the most recent academic efforts of the student were better and he was able to secure a letter saying this from the dean of the economic, faculty, but that had to be taken into account along with the history of failed courses and exclusion on academic grounds from other courses and, of course, that he had failed twice to pay the overseas student charge-for 1984 and 1985. In all the circumstances, I think the student made the right decision in voluntarily leaving Australia. I should add that, should he wish to return to Australia to resume his studies, he may apply to do so with no prejudice. Senator SHORT —My question is to Senator Walsh as Minister for Finance and in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the official document published by the Victorian Labor Government on 1 August, entitled `WorkCare', which describes that Government's approach to workers compensation. Is the Minister aware that on page 49 of that document the Victorian Government has stated that unless offsetting action is taken, one of the side effects of WorkCare would be a windfall to the Commonwealth Government of about $180m in 1986-87 and some $420m in 1990-91? Is he aware also that the document states on the same page that unless there is this offsetting action, Victorian accident compensation premiums will be funding a significant improvement in the Commonwealth budgetary position? I ask the Minister whether the Cain Government has yet approached the Federal Government, as it said it would, for discussions on particular measures which the Commonwealth can take to facilitate the reforms; whether these discussions have taken place; and, what has been the Federal Government's attitude to the issues involved? Senator WALSH —As far as I know-I found out just before Question Time that a question like this was going to be asked, but I have not had a chance to check it out-no official approach has been made from the Victorian Government to the Commonwealth Government on this matter. I will, however, check it out. In a more general sense, in the third question Senator Short asked was, I thought anyway, an implication of disapproval in that a more efficient and cheaper accident compensation scheme in Victoria would improve the Commonwealth Government's budgetary position because of increased company taxation receipts. That is quite possible, but I do not see why anybody should disapprove of actions by any State government which had that outcome. If, at no cost to the States any State government can implement a policy which improves the Commonwealth Government's budgetary position, I see no reason why anybody should disapprove. Apart from a sense of national benefit or identity, an individual State would be, to some extent, a beneficiary of an improved Commonwealth Budget outcome. On the more general question, New South Wales as well as Victoria and some other States have been looking at the possibility of no fault compensation schemes of the type which the Victorian Government either has introduced or intends to introduce very shortly, although workers compensation is a State matter and the Commonwealth is sympathetic to no fault insurance. I understand that the attitude of Senator Short's Party in Victoria is quite the reverse. The attitude of the Victorian Liberal Party has been to frustrate and oppose at every possible opportunity the Victorian Government's attempt to introduce a more efficient workers compensation scheme which would be of financial benefit to industry in Victoria, to the Victorian Government's finances and, conceivably, to the Commonwealth Government's finances. That is to be deplored. Senator SHORT —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. The implication Senator Walsh read into my third question was not correct. I was simply asking in that third question whether the Federal Government agrees with the Cain Government's proposition that offsetting action should be taken, otherwise the Federal Government will have an unexpected windfall. Senator WALSH —That is something the Government would have to consider. I can certainly see a prima facie case for rewarding State governments which adopt progressive policies which have public benefits and, conversely, for penalising State governments which refuse to do so. I imagine that any State government which has any sympathies with Senator Short's Party would be in the latter category. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I draw the attention of the Minister to a letter published in today's Australian from Western Australian Senator Sue Knowles. The letter implied that Government senators and members of parliament had completely forgotten or ignored the significance of Remembrance Day, 11 November, this year. The letter went on to say that, whilst Liberal and National Party members of parliament were proud to be seen wearing the traditional poppy, `not one' Labor or Democrat senator was seen to be wearing one. Can the Minister comment on the accuracy of her allegation? Senator GIETZELT —I did see the letter from Senator Knowles in today's Australian. It ought to be within the knowledge of the Senate that for the last 60 years wearing poppies has become part of the tradition of the 11 November commemorations. The Returned Services League conducts a sale both of poppies and of badges to raise funds as well as to commemorate 11 November 1918. I was surprised to read Senator Knowles's comments, because while I concede that many Opposition senators and members were wearing poppies, many Government senators and members were wearing badges which cost some $10 each, showing a considerably greater contribution to the commemorative nature of 11 November 1918. The point in purchasing those badges was not only to commemorate the occasion but also to make a contribution to the RSL welfare funds, which are always in need of considerable public support. I well remember wearing a badge on that day which, incidentally, cost $10, as did those worn by many other Government members and senators. The Prime Minister wore such a badge at the ceremony in Canberra that he attended with me and which was attended also by other members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives from the Opposition and the Government. Any suggestion that somehow or other Opposition members and senators were more concerned about 11 November as Remembrance Day compared with the contribution of Government members falls flat when the facts are known. I am surprised that a new senator would make such a comparison in a letter to the newspapers. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer refers to the policy of granting tax exemptions to charitable organisations. Is the Minister aware that charitable organisations in Queensland-I refer specifically to the Queensland Deaf Society (Inc.) as a case in point-may be forced to pay up to $20,000 in new taxes under the new arrangements? What criteria has the Government applied in making exemptions to charitable organisations available to religious bodies but not to non-denominational organisations offering identical services? What response would the Minister make to the suggestion that the services of organisations like the Queensland Deaf Society are provided free to clients in need and that, therefore, any increases to the cost of such services cannot be handed on to the user? Senator WALSH —There is nothing new about the distinction between the tax treatment of religious bodies and other bodies even if they may be engaged in similar activities. One can argue about whether that ought to be so, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion. It is a question of fact that the differential treatment of religious and other bodies is something that has been enshrined in the taxation law for as long as I can remember, anyway. In most if not all States, churches-church property is not necessarily exempt-are exempt from local government rates, and property used for charitable purposes by charities is not exempt. With regard to the specific organisation which Senator Bjelke-Petersen cited, I do not know how that will be treated. I do not know sufficient details. I will refer that question to the Treasurer for a response at some later date. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I understand that the Department of Defence will soon be vacating land at Portsea in Victoria which it has occupied since the middle of last century. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the Commonwealth's intentions in relation to this land? Senator GIETZELT —It is the Commonwealth Government's intention to close the Officer Cadet School at Portsea, Victoria, early in 1986 and to have it relocated at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra. Agreement has been reached with the Victorian Government for the transfer to the Victorian Government of two large portions of land which will be surplus to the Commonwealth Government's requirements. That transfer will result in a major extension of the Cape Schanck State Park. It is also the intention of the Commonwealth to provide a $2m bicentennial grant for the development of the park, which it is hoped will result in a major tourist boost to the area. The transfer will give public access to Point Nepean and at the entrance of Port Phillip Bay. I understand that the Officer Cadet School building will remain with the Army for use by the Army's School of Health, and other areas will remain under Army control for firing range purposes. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, has informed me that organised tours of historic buildings used by the Army will continue and that the historical significance and attractiveness of the Nepean Peninsula will be part of the future development of that area because of its long association with the Army, dating back, as Senator Zakharov has said, to the nineteenth century. The Minister places on public record the co-operation between the Commonwealth and the State which has resulted in the establishment of this new and important historical area. Senator WATSON —My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I refer to a recent report in the Launceston Examiner in which a former Deputy Prime Minister, Alderman Lance Barnard, informed the Launceston City Council that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services had promised that his Department would be looking at allocating funds for a study of Launceston's sewerage problems on the basis that this could be a pilot project for a national scheme. Given that the City Engineer has warned that Launceston's old trunk sewers are in continuous danger of collapse and that the cost of replacement is estimated at $20m, can the Minister give an indication of, firstly, when Launceston residents can expect to see such a study initiated; secondly, whether the Tasmanian Government will be approached to contribute to the cost of such a study; and thirdly, once the study is completed, whether the Federal Government will be assisting the City Council and the State Government in meeting the costs of rehabilitating Launceston's sewers? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, has commenced negotiations with a number of State governments with respect to improving community facilities. I am aware that some negotiations are fairly advanced in respect of New South Wales. I am not specifically aware of how far negotiations have advanced in respect of Launceston which was the issue raised by Senator Watson. As a general principle, the Government is interested in providing funds and encouragement to various cities for the purpose of improving their amenities. Just how far those negotiations have developed I am not aware, although I am aware, from the briefing the Minister has provided me, that advances have been made in some capital and other major cities. I will certainly draw this matter to the attention of the Minister to seek a more up to date explanation of how far the negotiations have reached. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has he seen the recent statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in South Australia during the State election campaign that he would scrap the 13 1/2 per cent ceiling maintained by this Government on bank home loan interest rates? What impact would this policy of the Liberal Opposition have on home buyers compared with the Hawke Government's policy on bank home loan interest rates? Senator WALSH —Fortuitously I have in front of me an extract from the House of Representatives Hansard of 13 September, when Mr Keating said to the Opposition Leader: Let me just get this right. What the honourable member is saying is that we should lift the housing rate ceiling. Mr Howard replied: `Yes'. At least that is one of his answers which was unequivocal. He said that we should lift the housing rate ceiling. As further evidence of the disarray and confusion in the Liberal Party, with it running hither and thither, Mr Olsen, in an attempt to repair the damage done by that and other statements from the temporary Leader of the Opposition, is reported in the Adelaide Advertiser of 15 November as follows: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Olsen, said yesterday he agreed with the Federal Government's policy of retaining the 13.5 p.c. ceiling, despite being ``in conflict'' with his Federal leader, Mr Howard. Of course, Mr Olsen is trying to run away from the Federal Leader's policies. But the facts are that it would not matter what Mr Olsen or any other State Liberal Party leader did. If there were a Federal Liberal government, the policies of the Federal Liberal government would prevail and there would be no ceiling on bank housing loan interest rates. That is even more astonishing, given that the South Australian Liberal leader said last week, I understand, that a State Liberal government-which fortunately will not appear-would seek to renegotiate the financial arrangements with the Commonwealth with a view to getting more Commonwealth money to pay for proposed State government tax cuts. The position of the Federal Liberal Party on that question was, of course, spelt out a couple of weeks ago by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Carlton, who called upon the Federal Government not to proceed with the proposed 2 per cent real increase in general purpose payments to the States. So, if there were a Liberal Federal government, the financial agreements with the States would be renegotiated, but they would be renegotiated in the opposite direction from that in which Mr Olsen says they should go. Finally, this extraordinary run-around and this succession of contradictions and backings and fillings that we have seen within and between the South Australian Liberal Party and the Federal Liberal Party are indicative of the sorry condition of this once great Party. It gives me no satisfaction at all, as a member of the best government that Australia has had at least since the 1940s, to see an opposition and a once great party in the State of disarray that it is now in. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I have had drawn to my attention an article in News Weekly dated 13 November 1985 and headed `Senate Committee refuses to put Bill of Rights to referendum'. I was amazed at the tenor of this article, which purports to convey to the readers of that weekly the views of me and of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which I chair, on the topic of a Bill of Rights for Australia. The article is full of such accusations of bias on my part and it is so full of partial quotations, and therefore misrepresentations, of the report that it can be construed only as a deliberate attempt to discredit both the Committee and me. Specifically, I am accused of showing `a wilful ignorance of the objections which have been raised to the Bill of Rights'. In fact, I read each of the 168 submissions put to the Committee and ensured that at our public hearings full opportunity was given to those who objected to the whole project, let alone particular aspects of it. I regard that allegation as quite libellous. It is then claimed that I `ignored the role of the common law'. In fact, the report quite specifically noted the robust creativity of the common law, for example, in developing rules of natural justice. But it still remains true that the common law is not well able to secure, for example, the right to vote or to practise religion freely. I also regard that allegation as libellous. It is further claimed that our misgiving as a Committee about putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution is `blatantly undemocratic'. It is true that we did point to the fact that it would be next to impossible to get a referendum on this topic passed, but that was not the principal reason for our misgiving. The main reason was that we did not consider it proper that too much power should be transferred to a non-elected bench of judges, as some say may have happened in the United States. We deplored any entrenchment of a Bill of Rights which might lead to parliaments abdicating their responsibility to deal with major issues of social policy. I should have thought that such a comment by the Committee could be described as `blatantly democratic', rather than the opposite. On the Human Rights Commission, we were of the view that it should be stripped of any power of final decision on disputed matters. It should stay in the area of conciliation and adjudication should be left to properly constituted judicial bodies. I have touched on only a few points made in the article, and I am conscious already of the length of my personal explanation. But I thought that I should draw the attention of the chamber to the article put together by an unnamed correspondent who, I believe, has done a grave disservice to the readers of that weekly in purporting to convey the tenor of our report. As far as I am concerned, the Committee took a most responsible attitude in putting together its exposure report. I believe that the article, as I have already said, shows little regard for the truth, either in describing that Committee's report or in regard to the part that I played in it. I have forwarded my comments to the Editor of News Weekly, and I hope that my letter is published in its next edition. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a short statement, Mr Deputy President, because I believe that I have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator TOWNLEY —The Australian of 15 November contained an article by Paul Kelly, which said, in part: The third group which emerged from this week's drama were Senate rebels who could be called `the 1975 revenge'. It includes my name with those of two other senators. I believe that this article gives the impression that I was not in favour of what happened in 1975. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1975 I was quite firm about the matter. We had a bad government. I am quite proud to be one of those who rid Australia of the Whitlam Government. I would do so again if necessary in similar circumstances. I object strongly to the assertion that I was one who objected to that action. The author of the article obviously has no knowledge of the feeling at that time. He did not contact me about the article either before or following its publication. To impute that I would vote a certain way in 1985 because of something that happened in 1975 is completely wrong and something that I refute entirely. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the time available to me, it is not possible to do justice to this report, so I shall merely refer to some of the matters that are highlighted. In the introduction to the report there are some matters which need to be reviewed. The Department of Territories refers to the fact that it has been under considerable pressure throughout the year as a result of continuing growth in demand for services. There has been considerable growth in Canberra over the period under discussion-1984-85. One of the matters highlighted is the strain on parking, and on public transport, which has resulted from that. The parking crisis which has developed in Civic and in the suburban areas adjacent to Civic is a matter about which I am getting a considerable number of representations. The suburb of Reid has been declared a heritage suburb, and great effort has been made to preserve Reid. Senator Peter Baume —A good name for a suburb. Senator REID —It is a most elegant name for the suburb. But that suburb is now grossly disfigured by the parking that takes place there daily by people who used to park nearer to the centre of Canberra. There has been some effort to extend the pay parking so that people are able more easily to reach shops, as otherwise it has become almost impossible for people to drive into Civic and to park. But there is a long recognised parking crisis. I hope that the Government will soon let us know exactly what the plans are for the future. I do not think many people would doubt that there is time for paid parking structures to be developed. There are places where they could be developed. One of the reasons why there may be some reluctance by the private sector to carry out this development is that it would want an assurance that, if private money were put into parking, there would not be unfair competition from free parking provided elsewhere. But that is a matter that needs to be addressed. The Department was also subjected to major inquiries and policy reviews during the year and they are referred to in the report as well. Additional legislation has placed stress upon the Department and it has had considerable absenteeism through repetitive strain injury. Serious industrial disputes have affected many sections of the Department but they are really too numerous to go through in detail today. Perhaps the dispute that has caused considerable concern to the Department and the community is that relating to fire services. There has been a lack of such services as a result of industrial action during this period. Quite recently we have again had problems with fire services and I suspect that even today they continue. It is a matter which requires attention and needs to be addressed, especially with the bushfire season coming up. Of course, everybody will recall the widespread bushfires which were suffered in the last financial year and which are detailed in this report. The report deals with the Department's activities in moving towards self-government. Ironically, it refers to the fact that self-government for the Australian Capital Territory was part of the Government's electoral platform. It certainly was. In May 1982, prior to the last House of Assembly election, the then Leader of the Australian Labor Party made it very plain that, within 12 months of a Federal Labor government being elected, there would be self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. As recently as yesterday it was again deferred. Apparently a couple of Ministers are not keen on the idea. The uncertainty for the community at large, and in particular for the Department of Territories, is considerable. It is extremely difficult for that Department to do its job while it just does not know what the future holds. The other problem the report refers to is the reduction and standard of services in some areas. It is all very well to increase capital construction and development but if the municipal services are not maintained the end cost to the community will be enormous. I hope those costs do not arrive immediately upon the heels of self-government because that will be an unfair burden on this community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make a few brief comments on the tabling of the fourth annual report of the Independent Air Fares Committee. I note that, on page one of the report, there is a synopsis of the Committee's activities for the year, and at points two and three the following activities are listed: Carried out public and private hearings during a cost allocation review of East-West Airlines (Operations) Ltd . . . Determined a combined F27/F28 network economy fare formula for East-West which results in the rate per kilometre declining over longer distances. I am sure that many air travellers have welcomed the entry of East-West Airlines Ltd into the market. The airline has offered `no frills' air transportation which has brought air travel within the reach of many who have found the cost of flying with the two major domestic airlines prohibitive. The news that East-West's fare formula reduces the rate per kilometre over longer distances is certainly encouraging for the people of Australia's more remote communities. But I find it rather ironic that, at a time when the Independent Air Fares Committee is carrying out reviews of East-West and working out a formula which reduces the cost per kilometre of travel over longer distances the airline is being threatened with the loss of two of its most lucrative routes, one of which is over a very long distance indeed. I refer to the Sydney-Yulara-Perth run; the other is the Sydney-Newcastle-Brisbane run. It seems that under a section of the two airlines agreement, only the two major airlines are permitted to fly trunk routes linking capital cities unless the Secretary of the Department of Aviation is satisfied that significant amounts of traffic are being generated between a third centre and each capital. I understand from a newspaper report that East-West has conceded the point on the Newcastle stopover and is attempting to establish a Sydney-Grafton-Brisbane run. However, in regard to the Yulara route I must agree with the operators of East-West. They have poured considerable funds into the promotion of Yulara as a tourist destination to support the thrice-weekly service they offer. Yulara is a bold step which has brought international tourism to Ayers Rock, and the promotions of East-West have done much to contribute to the improvement of occupancy rates at the hotels and other accommodation facilities. In addition to the international tourists, East-West flights bring Australians from the east coast and from Perth direct to Ayers Rock, and I have sent telegrams to the Federal Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) and the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) urging them to make a realistic decision on the continued flights by East-West to Ayers Rock. While it may have been true 33 years ago when the two-airline policy was first established that the Australian market could not support more than two operators, the success of East-West has shown that this is no longer the case, and the Federal Government should bear that fact in mind before it takes action to prevent East-West from flying its more lucrative routes. As I have indicated, I have sent telegrams to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and to the Minister for Transport, the text of which is as follows: Yulara has been a bold step in bringing international tourism literally overnight to Ayers Rock. It has attracted more than its share of critics. Despite this the village is in full operation and its occupancy numbers are viable and increasing. There is very good reason for optimism. Nevertheless promotion must have high priority and East-West Airlines has proved its ability in bringing visitors from the east coast and Perth to Yulara. The airline is proving to be one of the major factors contributing to the viability of Yulara. Having in mind their aggressive selling and in the light of the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Transport that East West cease its operation to Yulara I would ask that a realistic decision be made by the Federal Government to allow the airline to continue its flights to Yulara. B. Kilgariff Senator for the Northern Territory I thank the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.28) —I wish to draw to the Senate's attention the situation in northern Tasmania. Launceston is now the only major airport in Tasmania that is not serviced by East-West Airlines Ltd. Therefore, travellers into Launceston are suffering air fare discrimination in that they do not have the alternative East-West Airlines flights that people flying into and out of Hobart and the north-west coast now enjoy. I draw the attention of the Senate to the decision of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) to refuse to allow East-West to import additional aircraft and to refuse to allow that company to operate out of Launceston. Senator Grimes —That is not true, and you know it. Senator WATSON —I hope that Senator Grimes will take the opportunity in this place to put the record right publicly rather than interject in relation to matters that I have raised-matters that are of such serious concern that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) has taken them up. It is also a matter of concern to the northern Tasmanian community. I hope that Senator Grimes will take up the challenge and use this opportunity to refute the comments I have made. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.30) —I have been very much involved in this exercise over some time. Senator Watson knows perfectly well that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) has pointed out that he in no way will prevent East-West Airlines from landing at Launceston, has not prevented East-West from landing in Launceston, and will continue not to prevent East-West from landing in Launceston. If Senator Watson wants to know about the problems of Launceston Airport and the reasons why East-West-and anyone else-does not land at Launceston Airport, then he should see the Launceston Airport Defence Committee, a party political committee which was established by the former member for Bass, Mr Newman, who, I understand, is still the Chairman of that Committee. The Committee spends its whole time attacking the Government and it does nothing to contribute to the welfare of Launceston Airport. As Senator Watson has said, we are now in the ludicrous situation where Devonport has a better air service, particularly to Sydney, than Launceston because East-West goes there. The reason for this is that Devonport had the good sense early in the piece-when the previous Government was in power-to take up local ownership and to build up that airport so that now there are better services from Devonport than there are from Launceston. The reason Launceston and Wynyard did not go for local ownership was the stupidity of their local members at the time, Mr Newman and Mr Groom. In the case of Wynyard, Mr Groom actively campaigned against its going to local ownership, and in the case of Launceston Mr Newman did the same thing. As a result we have the ridiculous situation in which Devonport has a better serviced airport than Launceston. The blame lies with the previous Liberal members and there it will stay. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This is the twenty-ninth annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it covers the year ended 13 August 1985. In many respects it is an important and historic report, not least because it is the last that Sir John Moore, President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, will present, since he retired from that high office last month. I think it is important to say, and this report gives me the opportunity to say it, that Sir John Moore is a distinguished Australian who has discharged his reponsibilities as President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with great distinction. The affairs of the Commission over the last few years in which he has been the President of that body demonstrate that he has played a great role for industrial peace in Australia and the benefit of the economy. Sir John assumed office in the Commission following the vacancy created by the retirement of Sir Richard Kirby-another distinguished Australian. Among the landmark decisions that I recall under Sir John Moore's leadership of the Commission were the first wage indexation decision made on the submission of the Whitlam Government to the Commission in 1974; the return to wage indexation through the centralised wage fixing system under this Government in 1983; the major decision for women workers, the maternity leave decision, made in 1980; and more recently the redundancy case decisions. Those were key and vital decisions made by the Commission after submissions from all sections of the community. The Commission had to decide the justice, equity and substantial merits of the particular cases and to award accordingly. It should be remembered that it is the Commission's role to listen to the arguments from all sides and to make decisions. By virtue of that rule, obviously it does not please all sides and often therefore the Commission has been the subject of much unwarranted criticism, some of which has emanated from this chamber and from the chambers of the various parliaments. Since this Government took office the Commission has been subject to a major review by the Hancock Commitee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The Committee has reported and we will be legislating early next year to modify the activities of the Commission. However, we will not in any sense be legislating to diminish its central role in industrial relations in Australia. The Commission is often maligned, but if one looks down the list of those who constitute the Commission one sees the names of many eminent Australians who have immense experience in the industrial field and who come from diverse areas of the industrial field. This Government has maintained the convention of previous governments that commissioners be appointed almost on rotation from the public sector, from the employers' side and from the unions' side in order to have on the Bench a balanced point of view from all players in industrial relations. These people have brought to the Bench an immense amount of experience which has served the community well. In the period under report, the Commission has been called upon to give advice on a number of non-wage areas dealing with professional fees over a range of professions from accountancy to quantity surveyors, architects and consulting engineers, as well as a number of other matters. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this report is to be found on page 4 under the heading `Achievement of Objects of the Act'. The President of the Commission lists there the objectives of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I will not weary the Senate by reciting them, but they range from items (a) to (f). His comments on how the Commission has discharged its responsibility in meeting the objectives of the Act are, however, significant, and I quote from the report: It is my view that during the year under review the chief objects of the Act have, by and large, been achieved. This is no doubt due in part to the Prices and Incomes Accord which when linked with the Principles laid down by the Commission has ameliorated industrial relations. I believe that that is eminent testimony from the Commission itself that the accord has served Australian wage and salary earners and the broader community well. When one considers that in the period under report Australia had achieved a drop in the level of industrial disputes to the lowest level for 16 years, one can see that the comments of the President of the Commission observing the industrial relations landscape under this Government, with the assistance of the accord, are well based indeed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.38) —I rise along with Senator Cook to pay tribute to a man who is a very distinguished Australian, Sir John Moore. It has been my privilege to know him and his family for 30 years or more and to observe his work. I want to pay tribute to him not only for his work in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but well before that in the Department of Foreign Affairs, where he and his then future wife were on the staff of Dr Evatt in the United Nations in New York. Wherever Sir John has found himself he has applied himself with great dedication, and in recent years he has been under great stress as his health has not been the best. I pay that tribute and wish him and his wife a full and happy retirement and good health. In so doing I wish to say that we tend to make criticisms of the Commission as though it were some body divorced from Parliament. Over the years the Arbitration Commission has been the creature of this Parliament. It was made by the legislation of this Parliament. The jobs the judges and the conciliation commissioners do in the arbitration system are in response to the legislation we give them to carry out. When things go wrong we blame them instead of blaming the system we have set up. Fundamentally I rose to say that government after government has sought through mechanisms to make a resolution of industrial affairs which cannot be achieved by mechanisms. In fact the mechanism itself tends to polarise. It tends to build a body of great rigidity which polarises the employer bodies on the one hand and the trade union bodies on the other. On both sides of the Parliament we have got into a very bad habit in that we criticise both bodies for what they are doing as though there were an eternal need for confrontation and fight; as though the interests of boss and worker must be different and always antagonistic. The simple fact is that both sides of this Parliament have connived, however unwittingly, in a complete misrepresentation. The truth is that the interests of boss and worker are identical and when confrontation exists it hurts both parties, the community and the families outside. We must understand that it was never intended that this system, which arose out of legislation created by governments of Liberal faith decades ago, out of the Harvester case, out of all the great decisions for living wages and margins for skill, should be all prevailing. It was intended that it should lay down certain basic factors and that within those factors and within that framework boss and worker would reach consensus. Above everything else, margins for skill would be basically paid, which would reward initiative and productivity. If ever there is a goal to be sought today-not to be sought through commissions or anywhere else but to be sought in the hearts and minds of people-it is for Australians to understand that for Australia to survive and for real wages to be preserved the workers must get the message that they can keep those real wages if they apply themselves with team work and diligence to higher productivity so that costs are down and we can become cost competitive. It is a message not of mechanisms but of understanding human beings, their dignity and personality. We have tended to create a war where war should never be. In this place the mechanism is ours. If the mechanism is too rigid, we should look at it but, above everything else, we should get out and tell the people of Australia the true message. This country's living standards are threatened unless we apply ourselves as a team. If we apply ourselves as a team, it will not mean a loss of wages or a loss of penalty rates; it will mean that creation of more jobs because as we become cost competitive we can get back to higher employment. That is the imperative message with which we must move into the year 1986. If we fail to do so, we fail to lead the people of Australia. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.42) —Having listened to Senator Sir John Carrick, I do not have a great deal to quibble about. I do not think anybody would have a great deal to quibble about what he has said. It just may be the interpretation that people happen to put on what Senator Sir John Carrick has said. I agree that orderly industrial progress requires that whatever system is in place-whether it be the system of conciliation and arbitration or whether it be the collective bargaining system which takes place in the United States of America-the parties to that system must have the desire to see that system work. That is the essential feature irrespective of what system is in existence. Orderly industrial progress also requires properly representative institutions of both employers and employees. I believe Sir John Moore has worked on that basis for a long period. He has presided over the system of conciliation and arbitration in Australia. I have had quite a few differences with him in respect of some of the things that he has done but not as many as most people in the trade union movement. However, I have never been one to question his integrity, his dedication and his ability to place emphasis on the conciliation aspect of his function. I remind the Senate of something Sir John Moore said only the other day in a public interview when he was asked about proposals to deregulate wages. I am giving this information second hand because I did not see the television program. I believe he just posed this question: If a government, whether it be this Government or some future government, saw the need in the general interests of the community and the country for an incomes freeze of some kind or another and, so far as that related to the wages aspect of incomes, there was not a centralised wage fixing system, how would that wage freeze be implemented? If the Opposition is hell-bent on the question of deregulation it should consider that response by Sir John Moore because I think it is something that it has failed to consider. This is not the time to canvass those issues. I would like the opportunity at some stage to canvass them at length. I join Senator John Carrick, Senator Cook and other honourable senators in paying respect to Sir John Moore for his work in the interests of conciliation and arbitration, bearing in mind that it was for the peace and good order of this Commonwealth and was performed in a very difficult period of our industrial existence. I wish him and his wife an enjoyable and fruitful retirement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a most important paper which demands the attention of all persons interested in the future prospects of this nation. I believe that the demographic trends that emerge from an examination of this paper will have grave effects on policy planning in a wide range of areas-social security, education, health care, defence and the like. One of the most startling statistics to emerge from this paper is the statistic which shows that Australia's population is aging. Over the last 100 years the mediam age increased by 10 years. Over the next 36 years it is projected to increase by an additional eight years. That is an extra- ordinary reflection on the population of this nation. We are becoming an aging nation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —Order! The time allowed for discussion of government papers has expired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on certain efficiency audits, dated 25 November 1985. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I table the report of the Australian Delegation to the Seventy-third Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Lome, Togo, in March 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(3.50) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Seventy-third Conference of the IPU was held from 20 to 30 March this year in Lome, the capital of Togo. Togo is a small nation, a former French colony, situated on the west coast of Africa. The Australian Delegation comprised myself as leader, Mr Ian Wilson as deputy leader, Senator Noel Crichton-Browne, Mrs Elaine Darling, Mr Colin Hollis and Mr Peter McGauran. This was my first opportunity to lead an Australian delegation to an IPU Conference and my task was made easy because of the co-operation of all members of the delegation. I must remark also that the Australian delegation performed creditably and made significant contributions. The topics considered by the Conference addressed the more contentious problems confronting the world today. The Conference took place at a time when parts of Africa were, and of course still are, facing the most horrifying and destructive famine ever experienced by mankind. Even though Togo has managed to escape the worst of the famine, it was fitting that a supplementary item was included on the Conference agenda to deal specifically with the question of the African famine. I am pleased to report that Australia contributed in a significant and positive way to this debate. In fact, the Australian delegation submitted its own draft resolution dealing with the problems of the disaster and the best and most humane way to deal with it. It is pleasing to report that the resolution finally adopted unanimously by the Conference comprised most aspects of the Australian draft resolution. All national groups would have been aware of and appreciated Australia's contribution to this subject. The other subjects before the Conference dealt with disarmament, peace and Middle East tensions, the elimination of poverty and the burden of international debt. The Conference debate on the subject of disarmament, peace and Middle East tensions was at times heated. It attracted a great deal of political attention, particularly during the detailed consideration of draft resolutions. Not surprisingly, the Conference was unable to arrive at a unanimous position on the final resolution. In particular, all national groups which one might collectively regard as the Western nations, along with many other nations, took exception to the strong and pointed wording of the draft resolution submitted for a final vote. Unsuccessful attempts were made to change the proposed wording in order to present a more balanced and constructive final resolution. Apart from section D, to which the Australian Delegation objected, I commend the text of this resolution to honourable senators. In its other parts it represents a genuine attempt by an international forum to come to grips with the most difficult of political questions now facing the world. The item before the Conference concerning the burden of international debt also attracted considerable interest. Again, this was a difficult subject for Conference to consider, but on this occasion I am pleased to report that the final outcome was the adoption of a resolution with the unanimous approval of the conference. A further item was considered by the conference. This was submitted as an emergency item and concerned recent events in Langa and the repression in southern Africa. Whilst the procedures of the IPU do not enable debate to take place on an emergency item, a unanimous resolution ultimately was agreed to by the conference. The resolutions to which I have referred are included as attachments to the delegation's report. They are resolutions of significance which should be considered by this Parliament and by the Government. One final matter, to which I must refer before concluding my remarks, is the work of the IPU in addressing and dealing with the question of the violation of human rights of parliamentarians. I see this aspect of the IPU's work as underrated. There is a general lack of appreciation of the Union's tremendous activity in this area. The Union established a special committee to look at the human rights of parliamentarians in 1977. Statistics show that of the 263 cases of detained parliamentarians examined and acted upon by the Union since that date, 228 have been resolved by a release. This represents a success rate of 89 per cent. Whilst the Union is aware that these releases were not due to its activities alone, the IPU submits that its actions have been instrumental in the release of many of the detainees. This is an area of IPU activity which should be encouraged by the Australian national group. I conclude by thanking the various posts which assisted in the travel of the Australian Delegation. In particular, I refer to the posts of Madrid, Paris and London. I extend my thanks and the thanks of the delegation to Mr Tom Wharton, the Secretary to the Delegation on this visit. The Delegation also appreciated the assistance of Mr Peter Hooton of the Department of Foreign Affairs who was an adviser to the Delegation. I extend my thanks also to my fellow delegates for their support and co-operation throughout the conference. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.55) —I wish to take a moment to add to the words of Senator Colston, to the extent of thanking him as the leader of the Australian Delegation to the Seventy-third Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for the quite outstanding contribution he made at the Conference. I commend his diplomatic and skilful negotiation, patience and goodwill in very trying circumstances. Notwithstanding the fact that he fell ill during the Conference, he laboured long and hard during that illness to maintain good cheer and a soothing influence upon all of us and upon the Conference generally. His contribution to the Ten Plus group was significant and I am sure was recognised by all other members of that group. I join with him also in thanking Tom Wharton, the Secretary to the Delegation, for his diplomacy, dedication and application in ensuring that those sometimes delinquent delegates attended all sessions of the Conference. I also thank Peter Hooton, the adviser to the Delegation from the Department of Foreign Affairs, for his wise and thoughtful counsel, particularly given that a number of resolutions were minefields through which we all had to tread, particularly in respect of South Africa and the Middle East. It was only after I arrived in Togo that I realised why my name was the only one from our side of the Parliament on the notice board and why there was no major ballot. Looking at Togo's Budget, I can see why tourism does not make up a large part of its gross domestic product. In conclusion, I refer to page 3 of the report, which states: It was disappointing but perhaps inevitable that national groups took inflexible and in some cases politically extreme stances thereby establishing a less than harmonious atmosphere for debate. Also, delegates frequently confined themselves to rehearsing the official positions of their governments rather than using the international Parliamentary podium of the IPU as a means to seek new and innovative solutions to the world's problems. That was not the case on the part of the Australian delegation. I believe that we debated the issues fairly, honestly, impartially and with absolute integrity. That in no small measure was the result of the contribution our Chairman made. I hope that at future meetings of the Ten Plus group it is able to ensure that the level of debate is more pragmatic and realistic, and less dogmatic. Regrettably, it seems to have been a feature of past IPU conferences that various states have taken quite extreme views and have not been prepared in any way to compromise to the point where there may be generous, general and reasonable consensus. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to China in July 1985. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator JONES —I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to China on behalf of the President of the Senate, who unfortunately is absent from Canberra today and is unable to present the report personally. The President led the Delegation to China in July 1985. The Delegation, which comprised members of all political parties represented in the Parliament, was warmly welcomed in China. We were privileged to have discussions with a number of China's leaders in Beijing, including Mr Peng Zhen, Chairman of the Sixth National People's Congress; Mr Wu Xueqian, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr Hu Yaobang, General Secretary of the Communist Party. The discussions were detailed and frank, and concentrated on issues relating to global and regional peace, China's enterprising thrust toward modernisation and prospects for increased trade between our two countries. The Chinese emphasised that there were no fundamental conflicts of interest between China and Australia in the major issues. The call was made for our two countries to be concerned about, to work together and to take effective measures on, the sensitive issues in our region. All members of the Delegation agree that the visit to China was most successful in fostering increased understanding between our two countries. The Chinese had prepared a most comprehensive and interesting program for the ten-day visit. While none of us would claim to be experts on China as a result, we did leave China with firm impressions of China's economic and social objectives. The Chinese were willing to speak openly and at length on all questions put to them. Our discussions covered a wide range of issues of mutual interest. China's foreign policy is intimately linked to its domestic drive toward a rapid modernisation of the economy, which had stagnated during the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. To achieve its goal, China requires a stable international environment, in which to develop productive economic and technical exchanges with the world's more advanced economies. Because of its policy of maintaining equal distances in its relationship with the super-powers, China is keen to establish close ties with other countries which have the technology and the raw materials that China requires to develop its economy. Australia is a source of both raw materials and the technical expertise which can assist in that development. There is potential for increased minerals exports and considerable opportunities in the fields of light and heavy industry, surface transport, communications and business management. The Delegation is indebted to the National People's Congress for the invitation to visit China and for the organisation of a most comprehensive and interesting program for the visit. I take this opportunity to record our appreciation of the efforts of the then Australian Ambassador to China, Mr Dennis Argall, and the staff of the Embassy. The Ambassador, his wife Margaret and Mr Kevin Rudd accompanied the Delegation throughout the visit. Their understanding of China and the Chinese people contributed greatly to the success of the visit. I would like to place on record the gratitude of all members of the Delegation for the leadership provided by the President, Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland. The courtesies extended to us by Senator and Mrs McClelland during the visit were very much appreciated by us all. A number of the Delegation, including me, were accompanied by our wives. The positive contribution they made throughout the visit was appreciated not only by all members of the Delegation but also by the Chinese who had arranged to include the wives in all aspects of the visit. All members of the Delegation benefited greatly from the efforts behind the scenes of the Secretary to the Delegation, Mr Robert Alison, and the Secretary to the President, Mr Ross Smith. The efficiency with which they discharged their many and various duties materially contributed to the success of the visit to China and our enjoyment of it. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the reports relating to: 1. Restoration of facade, General Post Office, Martin Place, Sydney 2. Construction of Melbourne Mail Centre, Spencer and LaTrobe Streets, Melbourne 3. Construction of new ward block and outpatients department, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I present report No. 239 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts-Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1983-84). Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I seek leave to have a short statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report No. 239 examines the Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1983-84). Honourable senators will be aware that the advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision in the annual appropriation Acts and made available to the Minister for issue in accordance with the terms of the appropriations and Section 36A of the Audit Act 1901. The only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills and the close of the financial year. The Minister for Finance is required under the terms of the appropriations to submit a statement of this expenditure to the Parliament after the end of the financial year. This statement is examined by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. In its examination of expenditure from the Advance, the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or Additional Estimates. The Committee also seeks to ascertain whether or not the departments concerned have maintained efficient administration in the expenditure of funds under the items examined. The new AMF procedures introduced in 1982-83 require departments, whose applications, if accepted, would remain a charge on the Advance at the end of the financial year, to provide sufficient supporting material to satisfy the Committee's requirements. Despite these clear instructions, some departments still did not offer sufficient explanation with their applications. The Committee would have expected the Department of Finance to have insisted upon sufficient documentary material for it to be satisfied that an urgent and unforeseeable requirement for funds from the Advance was warranted, prior to approval being finalised. It was necessary for the Committee to request additional information. The Committee is concerned by the attitude of some departments which have received the Advance which implied that as long as offsetting savings were offered there should not be questions raised as to whether the application was `urgent' and `unforeseen'. With the Government policy on expenditure restraint, offsetting savings are being offered with many applications for the Advance-over 45 in 1983-84. The Committee would like to remind departments that the offering of offsetting savings does not replace the `urgent' and `unforeseen' requirements. The Committee received 112 submissions on the use of the Advance and decided to examine three of those submissions by public inquiry on 13 May 1985. They were: Department of Defence: Item 255-1-01-Salaries; Department of Education and Youth Affairs: Item 271-3-01-Independent Schools-Grants, Subsidies and Allowances; and Department of Territories and Local Government: Item 626-1-01-Salaries. In its examination of the Department of Defence, the Committee was very concerned that the delays in processing taxation deductions for Garden Island Dockyard had been occurring for 12 to 18 months without senior management being aware until the Committee asked for a submission on the request for $330,000 from the Advance. This request does not appear to satisfy the criteria of `urgent' and `unforeseen' except that the backlog of taxation deductions had been eliminated. The Committee is also very concerned that a Commonwealth organisation was able to submit late Taxation returns for such a long period without it being brought to the attention of senior management in the Department or the Australian Taxation Office. The Committee concludes that this request for the Advance reflects badly on the financial management of the Department of Defence. The Department of Education made an urgent application for the Advance, but the Committee is concerned that the Advance had to be used on this occasion, mainly because one State was late in submitting data on which the Australian Capital Territory grants are based. However, the Committee expects that the planned changes for 1986 will minimise the need to draw on the Advance in the future. The Committee is extremely concerned that the then Department of Territories and Local Government did not appear to have appropriate mechanisms for forecasting peak period workloads. That resulted in insufficient time for the salaries of staff needed to perform routine departmental functions to be included in the normal appropriations. The Committee is concerned that many of the instances of funds requests included in the application indicate inadequate management of discernible personnel requirements. Items which should not have been unforseen were those relating to the regular day-to-day functions of the Department. The Committee urges departments to be careful in interpreting awards to ensure that temporary staff receive their full entitlements. The errors in payments to library staff should not have occurred and it is disturbing that they were perpetuated for so many years. The Committee is also disturbed that it required union intervention to alert the Department. The Committee is of the view that, while the Department has taken appropriate action to improve its forecasting and management information systems in various areas influencing salaries administration, the information provided on the specific items covered in the Advance does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that similar problems will not occur in the future. The Committee noted particularly that for certain items the Department was unable to provide a detailed breakdown of the use of the AMF funds. This calls into question the Department's original application. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is intended to be confined to expenditure of an, urgent, and, unforeseen nature. Urgent nature was not demonstrable in all the items considered and, in the majority of instances, the unforeseen nature of the item resulted from administrative deficiencies in the then Department of Territories and Local Government rather than an inherent characteristic of the expenditure item itself. I commend this report to honourable senators. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present report No. 238 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts-Review of the Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit Report on the Administration of Public Hospitals by the Capital Territory Health Commission. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —I seek leave to have a short statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This report outlines the findings of the Committee's Inquiry into the `Report of the Auditor-General on an Efficiency Audit-Administration of Public Hospitals by the Capital Territory Health Commission'. Coincident with the Committee's inquiry and coincident with the tabling of this report, there has been widespread industrial activity in the public hospital system of the Australian Capital Territory. Industrial relations issues do not, however, fall within the scope of either the audit report or the Committee's inquiry. The audit report concentrates primarily on the managerial issue of how the former Commission balanced the need to contain hospital costs whilst ensuring an acceptable standard of service. The Committee's report focuses on the audit report's findings and recommendations on this issue. During the inquiry, the top structure of the Commission was significantly altered. The Committee reviewed these changes and considered that they were largely irrelevant to the Committee's inquiry. Coincident with the changes to its top structure, the name of the Commission was changed to the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. The Minister announced the new structure for the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority on 1 October 1985 and included a patient advocacy and complaints unit to increase the Authority's responsiveness to the community. The Committee was told that the new structure was expected to be operating early next year. There are three public hospitals-Royal Canberra, Woden Valley, and Calvary-and one private hospital, John James Memorial Hospital, in the Australian Capital Territory. The Authority administers the Royal Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals and provides grants towards the operational and capital costs of the Calvary Hospital which is administered by the Roman Catholic Order of the Little Company of Mary. The Authority exercises some administrative control over Calvary Hospital, for example, through determination of bed numbers, services provided, budgets and conditions of service for staff. The private hospital is independent of the Authority. Parliamentary appropriations to the Authority for 1985-86 were $107.4m for operational items and $4.0m for capital works and services. The sum of $77m was allocated to the Royal Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals. The grant to Calvary Hospital in 1985-86 was $9,066,000m. The details of the staffing of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority as at 30 June 1985 is set out in Table B of the report and totalled 3,784 full time staff and 957 part-time. The Committee was informed that Canberra's public hospitals have excess bed capacity. The three public hospitals were designed to provide 1,448 beds. The number of beds that were staffed as at 30 June 1985 was 913. In addition, there were 81 beds staffed and 10 day-stay beds available at the private John James Memorial Hospital at 30 June 1985. In addition to submissions detailing the former Commission's and the Authority's responses to the main audit findings and recommendations, submissions were also sought from the Australian Audit Office and two expert witnesses, Dr R. B. Holland, Director, Department of Anaesthetics and Resuscitation, Westmead Hospital and formerly Chairman, Australian Council on Hospital Standards, and Dr A. W. Ireland, formerly consultant on clinical review to the Auditor-General and to the Jamison Inquiry. The transcripts of evidence and other evidence authorised for publication have been published separately. In its inquiry the Committee found that whilst the former Commission generally expressed support for the recommendations of the efficiency audit report and developments were in progress in some areas, for example, automatic data processing, there have been only limited substantive changes in administration. The efficiency audit examined the administration of hospitals by the Commission in three areas: Planning of hospital services; use made of hospital services by clinicians; and management of hospital resources, in particular, finances and staffing. The Australian Audit Office reported that: In terms of broad indicators of financial performance, the Royal Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals were comparable to similar hospitals in Victoria and New South Wales; and the hospitals had achieved a desirable reduction in length of patient stay and compared favourably in terms of low patient length of stay with a group of Sydney metropolitan hospitals. The audit also identified a number of areas in which the administration of the hospitals could be improved. Particular criticisms were: The lack of developed processes for peer review of clinical use of hospital facilities; processes for planning the number of public hospital beds appeared to allow an excess supply of staffed hospital beds relative to efficient bed usage; despite improvement, patient length of stay at both Royal Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals was still excessive with resultant inefficiency of bed utilisation; there were weaknesses in systems for identifying financial and staffing requirements and monitoring staff use within the Commission's hospitals-management information systems were inadequate; and there was under-use of physical facilities, especially accommodation. In its report, the Committee addressed these and other related issues and made a number of detailed recommendations. In regard to resource management issues, the Committee considered that audit findings concerning the excessive cost of staff cleaning and the magnitude of debts outstanding to the Authority were accurate and cause for concern. Further, the recommendations for upgraded management information systems and associated administration changes were sound. On the question of the quality of medical services in the Authority hospitals, the recommendations for enhanced peer review activities were considered to be the major practical means of improving the service. This aspect is closely linked with the accreditation of hospitals which in Australia, is undertaken by an independent body, the Australian Council on Hospital Standards. Council surveyors review the performance of the hospital and report to the Council, which grants full or 3-year status, provisional-one year-or consultative, that is, non-accreditation status. Woden Valley Hospital applied for accreditation in 1979 but was unsuccessful largely because of the hospital's unsatisfactory medical structure. It lacked hospital-based departments and a developed process of clinical review. The medical staff structure at the Woden Valley has not changed since 1979 and the hospital has not re-applied for accreditation status. The Royal Canberra Hospital has not applied for accreditation. Other hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory have been accredited. Honourable senators may be interested to know that the majority of public hospitals in New South Wales and Victoria and increasing numbers of private hospitals in these States have been surveyed for accreditation. During the period 1974-1983, 68 per cent of hospital beds in New South Wales and 81 per cent in Victoria had been surveyed. The Committee is of the view that the process was valuable because of the process of self-examination in the preparation for assessment and consequently recommended that: The Authority require the Royal Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals to begin immediately to prepare for assessment leading to accreditation by the Australian Council on Hospital Standards. Senator GEORGES —by leave-The Committee is grateful to the former Commission and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority for the co-operation provided throughout the Committee's inquiry. The Committee thanks its adviser, Ms Robyn McClelland, and members of its secretariat for the support given to this reference. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators I present the response of the Vietnam Veterans' Association to the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Introduction Motion (by Senator Macklin for Senator Sanders) agreed to: 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. 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.09) —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- This Bill repeals sub-section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act 1903. The sub-section is one of the original provisions of the Judiciary Act, and has remained in substantially unaltered terms since 1903. At that time, there were few arrangements for legal aid in Australia and, as such, section 69 (3) was a most useful and necessary provision. It was consistent with similar provisions in the United Kingdom and some Australian States. However, in the words of a Supreme Court Judge considering the sub-section earlier this year, it can now only be described as an ``historical anachronism''. I would go further and say that it is not only out of step with modern developments in the provision of legal aid but is ripe for exploitation. Under section 69 (3) a person charged with an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth may apply to a Judge of the High Court or of a Supreme Court of a State for the appointment of counsel for his or her defence. If the Judge certifies that the person is without adequate means to provide for his or her own defence and that it is desirable in the interest of justice that counsel be appointed, the Attorney-General is then to make arrangements for that defence. The principle underlining this provision is one which all would accept. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is a party recognises this. Article 14.3 (d) of the Covenant provides that `everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees- . . . to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.' This is reflected in Article 27 (c) of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, introduced in the House of Representatives, which provides- `Every person who is charged with a criminal offence has the right- (c) to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person lacks sufficient means to pay for the assistance.' The question which the Bill addresses is the most appropriate mechanism to provide legal aid for those facing criminal charges. Since sub-section 69 (3) was enacted, and particularly since the 1970's and the work of the previous Labor administration, this country has seen the development of a very comprehensive and integrated system of legal aid based on the provision of funding through State and Territory legal aid commissions and the Australian Legal Aid Office. In addition, there is a very valuable network of community legal centres in all States. Commonwealth funding for these centres has been increased by approximately 35% to $1.5 million, within the total Commonwealth legal aid budget. The Commonwealth provides substantial funding for the operation of various elements of legal aid, currently spending about $1.2 million per week or $70.26 million in 1985-1986, an increase of 22% over the figure for 1984-1985. This system provides for legal aid in relation to indictable Commonwealth criminal offences with slight variations among jurisdictions as to means and merits tests. The various legal aid authorites throughout Australia provide legal aid on the basis of the ability of the applicant to meet the cost of proceedings. That is the fundamental test in every case. The system also provides for comprehensive review and appeal procedures where an applicant is dissatisfied with the amount of aid granted or with a refusal of aid. Until this year, certificates had rarely been sought under section 69 (3). It has now become apparent, however, that applicants are using section 69 (3) either to supplement assistance already obtained or to seek assistance which they have otherwise been refused by legal aid bodies in accordance with the accepted tests. The increase in use of section 69 (3) has followed publicity given to a Federal Court decision earlier this year. In effect, the decision places the Attorney-General in a position where he has no discretion to exercise independent judgment. For example, he has no discretion as to whether the accused is in fact without adequate means to provide his or her defence, or is able to obtain assistance from some other source. If this state of affairs continues, it is anticipated that the costs to the Commonwealth could be substantial. Assistance given pursuant to the certificate issued in the first case this year is likely to amount to $125,000 for the case at first assistance. Assistance pursuant to this certificate has been twice extended for a subsequent appeal and related proceedings. Consequently, the amount of the Commonwealth's (and taxpayers') funds involved may be much greater. Since the first certificate, three further certificates have been issued to other applicants. The extent of assistance has not yet been ascertained in relation to these but in one case assistance may well be in the order of $1 million. While it was always intended that legal aid would be available to persons meeting guidelines laid down by legal aid bodies, it was not intended that applicants would, in effect, be able to circumvent those bodies established to administer the legal aid funds and go direct to the Commonwealth. Such a practice of queue jumping or re-appealing, if it became widespread, would create a mockery of the equity and organisation of legal aid delivery. There are enough pressures on our legal aid system without this occurring. Equally it was not intended that the courts would be asked to make decisions on questions such as whether or not an accused person has adequate means to provide for his own defence. Such questions are essentially administrative questions and not suited to determination by courts whose procedures on these questions are necessarily expensive and more cumbersome. As has been pointed out, all legal aid bodies apply ``means'' and ``merits'' tests for each applicant. Although the detail of these tests vary, as the recently published Legal Aid Task Force Report documents, the fundamental test applied by all the bodies is whether the applicant is able to meet the cost of proceedings. This is the same test as required by the International Covenant and is the test in section 69 (3). However, legal aid bodies are able to assess applications with a degree of flexibility which is not available to the Courts. In addition, the bodies are able to adjust their guidelines to meet changing circumstances. For example, at least two Commissions have established, and a third is considering introducing, more sophisticated tests of an applicant's means than were available in 1903 or are able to be taken into account by the Courts under section 69 (3) according to the cases on the section. Among other things, these have the effect of taking into account the widespread use of trusts and companies in personal and family affairs by allowing the Commission to draw inferences from the apparent lifestyle of the applicant. This is an important contribution to the fairness of the legal aid system. Following the establishment of their legal aid commissions, the States have already recognised the inconsistency of retaining provisions similar to section 69 (3). Consequently, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have repealed such provisions in the Poor Prisoner Defence Acts or similar legislation. Given that legal aid will continue to be available through the ALAO and State legal aid commissions, the repeal of section 69 (3) should not have any effect on Australia's international obligations and, in particular, on its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Legal Aid schemes operating in each jurisdiction today, in the Government's view, satisfy the provisions of the International Covenant. Compared with the provisions available in 1903, the current system provides a far greater service and coverage for those in need. The requirement which we and the community face is to spread the legal aid dollar fairly and equitably. A provision such as section 69 (3) can operate to distort the normal legal aid processes and is redundant. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.11) —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- This Bill, which is part of a package of revised assistance arrangements for the commercial motor vehicle industry in Australia, proposes the phasing out over a three-year period commencing on 1 January 1986 of the bounty assistance on certain components used in the assembly of general purpose heavy commercial vehicles. The bounty, which was introduced in 1978, had been due to terminate on 30 June 1985. However in order to avoid any disruption to the industry pending a final decision by the Government on the future assistance arrangements for the industry, it was extended by the Government until 31 December 1985. New assistance arrangements for this industry were announced by the Government on 6 August 1985 and will have the effect of ensuring that the level of assistance currently provided by the bounty will be maintained through an equivalent level of tariff assistance on most components presently covered by the bounty scheme. Thus while the form of assistance will change from a bounty on local production to a tariff on imported components, the level of assistance will generally be maintained. Proposed section 14D of the Bill proposes that during the three-year phasing period the bounty will be reduced from its current level of 20 per cent to nil by 1 January 1989. At the same time it is proposed that the relevant tariff assistance be progressively increased from nil to 25 per cent by 1 January 1989. The appropriate customs tariff alterations will be contained in a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to be introduced later in this sitting. In developing the new assistance package the Government took into account the comments made by the Industries Assistance Commission-IAC-in its 1984 report on heavy commercial vehicles parts and accessories. The Commission's preferred option was for the existing bounty and by-law arrangements on components to be phased out over five years with duty rates on completely built up vehicles to be increased to 25 per cent. The Commission proposed that at the end of the phasing period components which currently attract by-law would be dutiable at the general rate of 25 per cent. The Government accepted the finding of the IAC that the level of assistance accorded vehicle assembly was too high and had resulted in an unacceptable level of fragmentation in the industry. However it was hard to see any benefits in the IAC's preferred package since it involved both a contraction in industry activity and increased prices to consumers. The IAC proposal aimed at a massive reduction in assistance levels to assembly. The reduction envisaged was in fact more substantial than that set for the passenger motor vehicle sector under the Government's current policy. If assistance levels were to be reduced on the scale proposed by the commission, a very substantial contraction in both local assembly and component production would be inevitable. Similar views were expressed by the majority of the industry. In developing the new assistance package the Government also took into consideration submissions from industry which noted that the bounty had not been successful in encouraging the use of local components in the assembly of heavy commercial vehicles. Rockwell Standard of Australia Limited for instance, once the largest manufacturers of bountiable components, was unable to sustain its manufacturing activities in spite of the relatively high level of assistance accorded by the bounty and has since moved to an import-assembly operation. A number of manufacturers of bountiable components requested that bounty assistance be replaced by a tariff, generally at the rate of 25 per cent. As a consequence of criticism of the existing arrangements the Government is concerned to simplify the current assistance which involves a mix of tariff and bounty assistance on a small range of components. The new arrangements will place by 1 January 1989 assistance on a tariff only basis, generally at a uniform rate of 25 per cent. I mentioned earlier that this Bill only covers the bounty part of the Government's new assistance package. It may be helpful if I were to outline briefly the other aspects of the Government's package which are not covered by the Bill. The other main elements of the package are: (1) There will be a reduction in the general tariff rate for general purpose heavy commercial vehicles and most special purpose vehicles from the present rates of 22.5 per cent and 25 per cent respectively to 20 per cent. Crane lorries which are currently dutiable at 35 per cent on the crane section and 25 per cent on the lorry will attract a single rate of 30 per cent; (2) duty at the existing rates for non-bountiable components, except those for fire engines less than 2.72 tonnes GVM which will increase from 2 per cent to 25 per cent, which be maintained. The reason for the increase on these fire engine components is that most components for fire engines under 2.72 tonnes GVM are indistinguishable from components for other vehicles; (3) by-law entry is to be restricted to components for use in the assembly of the cab-chassis only of general purpose vehicles and driveable chassis only in the case of buses. This is designed to remove an anomaly whereby assemblers of general purpose vehicles could import body components duty free whereas body builders were denied similar access. To amend the by-law to enable body-builders and others to obtain access to duty free componentry would result in a substantial reduction in assistance to producers of components for truck and bus bodies; (4) a tariff of 25 per cent is to apply to bodies and trailers when imported separately. When imported with or as part of a completely built-up vehicle, these components attract the same duty rate as the vehicles. This is being done to avoid the situation whereby two different rates could apply to a complete vehicle, for example 20 per cent on the cab-chassis and 25 per cent on the body. Such split rates cause administrative complexities for exporters, importers and the Australian Customs Service and the Government feel they should be avoided wherever possible; and (5) a uniform tariff of 25 per cent is to apply to filters other than filters from New Zealand which will remain dutiable at existing rates. Filters are currently dutiable at rates ranging from 2 per cent to 35 per cent, with about 80 per cent of imports being dutiable at 25 per cent. Many filters which are dutiable at 2 per cent are exactly the same as others dutiable at 25 per cent and this has created difficulties in the past for Customs administration. This decision removes that anomaly and a uniform rate of 25 per cent will apply. New Zealand rates on oil filters have to remain at current levels under the provisions of the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. The advice of the automotive industry authority is being sought on what additional components if any would be competitive with imports at the general rate of 25 per cent. Further announcements will be made on this aspect in due course. The new arrangements I have just outlined seek a more moderate reduction in assistance to assembly activity than that suggested by the IAC. The Government expects that they wil lead to a reduction in prices to consumers and to a much healthier and competitive local industry. The majority of the provisions in the Bill, notably provisions in Parts 2, 3 and 4, relate to changes to modernise the administrative provisions in the existing Act. The new provisions are similar to provisions incorporated in other bounty legislation since 1984. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the cost of bounty assistance during the phase-out period will be $1.25m for the period 1 January 1986 to 30 June 1986; $2m in fiscal year 1986-87; $1.4m in 1987-88; and $0.6m from 1 July 1988 to 31 December 1988. All values are at current prices. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.12) —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- I am introducing this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. CO-OPERATIVE COMPANIES AND SECURITIES SCHEME The Formal Agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. Negotiations are now in an advanced stage with the Northern Territory Government and I expect that the Northern Territory will be joining the co-operative scheme in the near future. In accordance with the Formal Agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State companies and securities legislation. OUTLINE OF PROPOSALS The Ministerial Council released the first exposure draft of this Bill for public comment in June 1984. Following its consideration of the numerous public comments, the Ministerial Council directed that a number of changes be made to the Bill and a second exposure draft was made available in June of this year. Again, many valuable comments were made in the public submissions. A number of seminars have also been held throughout the country at which earlier versions of the Bill have been analysed in great detail. The Bill, therefore, is the result of a good deal of consultation with those who will be affected by it. I draw to your attention some of the more important proposals contained in the Bill. Conditions attached to take-over offers The Bill contains amendments to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act dealing with conditions that may be included in take-over offers. The thrust of the proposed amendments is to enable the National Companies and Securities Commission to refuse to register offers in certain limited situations, and to prevent a bidder from acquiring shares outside a take-over offer (such as on the stock market) if the bid contains a minimum acceptance condition. These proposals are the essence of the compromise that I reached with the States when the matter was discussed at the last Ministerial Council meeting. I regard the very restrictive circumstances in which the Commission may refuse to register a proposed offer as a reasonable compromise and one that should be acceptable to the commercial community. The Government remains firmly of the view that the best judge of a take-over offer is the market-place and the regulators should have minimal involvement in determining the merits of a take-over offer. These amendments enable the Commission to refuse to register a proposed offer where it contains prescribed conditions that depend on the bidder's opinion (so called ``subjective conditions'') or depend on the happening of an event that is within the bidder's sole control. In addition, the amendments provide that once a take-over offer has been made, it cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the Commission. Another amendment is designed to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the situation in the Johns Perry case in which an offeror, after waiving a condition, was able to retain the shares obtained even though the condition had not been fulfilled. Retirement Villages Many of the public submissions received on the first exposure draft of the Bill were opposed to the regulation of rights to participate in retirement village schemes under companies and securities legislation. The Ministerial Council has accepted that this legislation is not the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with this issue. From 1 July 1987, retirement villages will not be subject to regulation under the co-operative scheme, and it will be left to the Government of each State and the Commonwealth to determine the most appropriate way of addressing the various issues arising in respect of retirement villages, of which investor protection issues are merely one element. In the interim, the National Companies and Securities Commission has delegated all its powers concerning retirement villages to the State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions. Each Commission will administer the prescribed interest provisions in their application to retirement villages in the manner most appropriate to the needs of the particular State or Territory. So far as the Commonwealth's responsibilities are concerned, the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission will be completely exempting retirement villages in the Australian Capital Territory from the companies and securities provisions. Use of extrinsic material in interpretation of scheme legislation The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 was amended last year to allow for the use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act. These amendments were designed to facilitate giving effect to the intentions of the Parliament when Acts of the Parliament fail to be interpreted. The new s. 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that if materials not forming part of the Act are capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of a provision of the Act, consideration may be given to that material to confirm the ordinary meaning of an Act. The amendments contained in this Bill propose that the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 be amended in line with the recent amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act. Recommendation concerning investments Concern has been expressed that some investment advisers may be paying more heed to matters such as the size of their likely commissions than to the financial situation and particular needs of their clients when recommending particular investments. Whilst this is obviously not true across the whole spectrum of the investment advice industry, it is clear that all those giving advice should have regard to their clients' particular needs. Accordingly, it is proposed to require that dealers, investment advisers or their representatives have a reasonable basis for making any recommendation with respect to securities to a person who may reasonably be expected, to rely to the recommendation. Liability of directors of trading trusts Currently persons contracting with a trustee, whether an individual or a corporation, are entitled to be subrogated to the trustee's right of indemnity out of the trust assets to meet liabilities properly incurred. However if the trustee acts in breach of trust or in a manner which is not authorised by the terms of the trust, the trustee's right of indemnity and therefore the creditor's right of subrogation, is lost. The problem this creates for creditors has been exacerbated by the widespread use of business structures involving a nominally capitalised corporate trustee to carry on business on behalf of a trust, together with other refinements, such as the careful siphoning of funds into the trust business. In such cases the creditor's primary right to sue the corporate trustee for the debt may well be worthless. I think there is a general recognition in the business community that the legal system cannot tolerate the continued use of artificial legal contrivances which result in the deliberate avoidance of liabilities legitimately owed to other persons. It is proposed to amend the Companies Act to impose personal liability on directors of companies acting as trustee when a debt has been incurred but the trustee company is not entitled to be indemnified out of the assets of the trust. In keeping with the broad principle that the directors of a trustee company should, in such circumstances, face a liability no more onerous than that borne by co-trustees who are natural persons, it is proposed to provide an exemption for `innocent directors' from the liability imposed by the new provisions. The explanatory memorandum gives more detail as to the manner in which `innocent directors' are defined. Priority of debts owing to employees Where a company is being wound up, the Companies Act confers a priority under section 441 for the payment of certain debts over outstanding amounts owed to other unsecured creditors. The preferences allowed by the Act include amounts for employee's wages, presently limited to $2,000, and leave of absence, which is not subject to any monetary limit. However, the Act does not include any amount which might be due to an employee as a retrenchment payment in consequence of the termination of his employment. These limitations operate harshly as against employees, particularly those employees who have forgone wages for a considerable period in the hope that the company might be able to trade its way out of difficulties, only to see it go into receivership or liquidation. Furthermore, the absence of any present entitlement to a priority for redundancy payments is anomalous: as an incident of employment it is indistinguishable from the priority already granted in respect of other employee entitlements such as accrued leave. Accordingly it is proposed to amend the Companies Act to remove the upper limit on the preference for employee wages and to allow a priority for full retrenchment payments to which the employee is otherwise entitled under an industrial award. One class of employee that will, however, not gain the benefit of these amendments is that of directors who may be employed in another capacity with the company. It is important that directors not be provided with any incentive to allow a company to continue trading in an insolvent position in the secure belief that their personal entitlements will be protected. The directors as controllers of the company, are also in a unique position, not shared by other employees, of being able to largely determine their own levels of remuneration and other entitlements and to direct such payments to their relations. Therefore, for director employees, their spouses and relatives, the existing limits will remain on the priority for wages, an upper limit of $1,500 will be imposed for the priority for leave of absence, and they will not enjoy priority in respect of any retrenchment entitlements they may otherwise have. Financial and regulatory impact statement The changes made by this Bill should not result in any additional costs to the National Companies and Securities Commission, and there should not be any other financial impact on Government revenues and expenditure. Some proposals in the Bill are of a clearly de-regulatory nature and will involve a reduction in business costs. One example is the proposal that the promotion of interests in retirement villages no longer be subject to the prospectus and trust deed requirements of companies and securities legislation. Other proposals will involve some increased costs on the commercial community which the Ministerial Council has assessed as being necessary to satisfy important public interest considerations. For example, the imposition of personal liability on directors of trading trusts in situations where they have acted in breach of trust is necessary to ensure that the legitimate interests of creditors are not defeated. The Government commends this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.13) —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- This Bill seeks to give effect to the arrangements agreed to at the Premiers Conference held on 30 May 1985 for the provision of general purpose assistance to the States. The Bill provides for payments to be made to the States in each of the three years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 in the form of general revenue grants. Provision is also made for advance payments of assistance to be made in the first six months of 1988-89, pending the passage of legislation to implement such further arrangements as may apply for that year. The purpose of these general revenue grants is to assist the States, by way of subventions to their budgets, in the financing of their recurrent outlays. The States are free to determine the purposes for which grants are spent in accordance with their own budgetary priorities. The grants provided for in the Bill comprise the major component of Commonwealth assistance to the States. In 1985-86 it is estimated that some $11.3 billion would be provided to the States under the bill out of total net payments to the States of some $20.7 billion. The Bill provides for the making of three types of general revenue grants to the States, financial assistance grants, health grants and special revenue assistance grants. The financial assistance grants represent the major element of the general revenue grants and provide the main means for implementing the distribution of grants among the States recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and agreed to at the May 1985 Premiers Conference. They replace the tax sharing grants which were made under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981. The arrangements for making these grants expired on 30 June 1985. In deciding to introduce new arrangements the Government was concerned to provide a more certain basis for assisting the States, compared with the substantial year to year variations in grants under the sharing arrangements and their antecedents. The Bill provides for a pre-determined real level of finincial assistance grants to be made to the States in each of the three years to which it applies. In 1985-86, the States will receive the same real level of grants as in 1984-85, while in the two remaining years they will receive a real increase of 2 per cent on the grants paid in the previous year. In proposing these real increases in grants to the States the Commonwealth took into account the circumstances facing the Australian economy and considered that against the background that the levels of government services provided by the States had increased significantly in recent years, it was appropriate to aim for a slower growth in public sector spending. Reflecting this, it was appropriate to envisage a somewhat slower real growth in general revenue grants than would have occurred under a continuation of tax sharing arrangements. The price index to be used in calculating the real level of grants will be the all groups consumer price index for the six State capital cities, taking the movement in the index for the year to the March quarter of each financial year over the movement in the preceding year. This arrangement, which is traditional for payments of this type, allows the final amount of the grants to be determined during the year to which they relate. The Bill provides for the total amount of financial assistance grants to be distributed among the States in each year in accordance with per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. These relativities were determined by the Grants Commission following its examination of the fiscal capacities of the States over the three years 1981-82 to 1983-84 and represent the relative shares of the grants which the Commission considered would be most consistent with the principle of fiscal equalisation; that is they represent the relative share of assistance which the Commission considers would be required to enable each State provided that it makes a comparable revenue effort, to provide services to its residents at a standard not appreciably below the standards of the other States. This is in contrast with the arrangements which applied over the past three years, when the operation of guarantee provisions in the tax sharing arrangements prevented the phased implementation of the relativities that had been agreed at the Premiers Conference in 1982. The health grants provided for in the Bill represent a continuation of the identified health grants that were first introduced for most States in 1981-82 and for South Australia and Tasmania from 1 February, 1984. They are general revenue grants but were identified as replacing specific purpose grants previously paid to the States under hospotal cost sharing agreements and payments for community health and school dental programs. The total amount of the health grants to the States will be provided under the Bill on the same basis as the financial assistance grants, with the same real amount being paid in 1985-86 as in 1984-85 and a 2 per cent real increase in each of the remaining two years. The distribution of the grants among the States included in the Bill will preserve the same per capita distribution of grants as applied in 1984-85. Taken alone, this distribution of health grants preserves and advantage which South Australia and Tasmania received from the operation of the former hospital cost sharing agreements with those States; however from 1985-86 that advantage is to be offset through the distribution of the financial assistance grants. As a result of their 1975 hospital cost sharing agreements with the Commonwealth, which were for 10 years rather than the five-year agreements entered into by the other States at that time, South Australia and Tasmania continued to receive specific purpose assistance for hospital operating costs until 1 February, 1984 when, as part of the arrangements for the introduction of Medicare, they agreed to participate fully in the identified health grants. These States chose to continue to receive assistance under the hospital cost sharing agreements beyond 1981-82, when the other States moved to identified health grants as it placed them in an advantageous position relative to the other States. This was because their hospital cost sharing agreements were not subject ot the deductions that were made in the identified health grants to other States in 1981-82 and 1982-83 to reflect the increased revenue raising capacity assessed to be available to those States from hospital charges under the then new health insurance arrangements. The advantage was retained when the two States moved to identify health grants in February 1984. This advantage has not previously been offset in the tax sharing grants as the Commonwealth Government accepted the view put by the two States at the June 1982 Premiers Conference that their entitlements under the hospital cost sharing agreements overrode fiscal equalisation principles. The basis for these States advantageous shares of identified health grants ceased on 30 June 1985 and accordingly from 1985-86 this advantage will be offset in these States share of financial assistance grants as determined by the new per capita relativities. The arrangements in this Bill therefore ensure that the combined financial assistance and health grants to South Australia and Tasmania will henceforth be comparable with those to the other States. The special revenue assistance grants payable to South Australia and Tasmania provided for in the Bill represent a transitional arrangement which recognises that the share that each of those States will receive in aggregate of financial assistance and health grants in each of the three years commencing in 1985-86 will be considerably lower when compared with the share they received in 1984-85 of tax sharing and health grants. To help smooth the adjustment process for these two States, the Commonwealth agreed at the May 1985 Premiers Conference to provide special revenue assistance grants to those States which in 1985-86 will represent two-thirds of the difference between the financial assistance grants actually payable to those States and the notional grant that would have been paid if the relative advantage of the two States derived from the health grants had been preserved. Half this amount will be paid in 1986-87. The effect of these grants will therefore be to phase out these States relative health grant advantage over three years. In addition to the general revenue grants provided for in the Bill the Commonwealth agreed at the May 1985 Premiers Conference to the provision of two other payments of special revenue assistance in 1985-86 only. These were: A payment of $10m to Queensland which is to be made in accordance with the Grants Commission's assessment in its 1 April 1985 report that Queensland's financial relativity was disturbed by the introduction of Medicare. It should be noted in this regard that as a result of the introduction of the new relativities in 1985-86 the relative cost to Queensland of its free public hospital system will be reflected in its share of financial assistance grants and, consequently, there will be no grounds for ongoing special assistance to Queensland in respect of Medicare compensation grants; and a further payment to Tasmania estimated at $31.2m. This supplementary assistance is to be provided in recognition of the fact that Tasmania's financial assistance grant was to fall by more in relative terms than any other State as a result of the introduction of the new relativities, and to ensure that its total general revenue grants do not decline by more than 4 per cent in real terms in 1985-86. Authority for these payments is being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. Under the memorandum of understanding in respect of financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and a self-governing Northern Territory, it is provided that general revenue grants should be payable to the Northern Territory on a similar basis to the States. Authority for payments to the Territory in 1985-86 analagous to those to be provided to the States under this Bill is also included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. The general revenue grants provided for in this Bill are the result of agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. The Bill provides the States with certainty in the real level of grants available to them for three years, and will provide for the distribution of the grants among the States consistent with the principle of fiscal equalisation. At the same time the level of grants is consistent with the Government's overall budgetary and economic objectives. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Tate) —The President has received the following message: Message No. 197 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives, having considered Message No. 162 of the Senate, acquaints the Senate that the House has agreed to the Senate's amendment to the Resolution agreed to by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 28 February 1985 and 27 February 1985, respectively, relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 15 November 1985 The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Bill 1985. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Bill 1985. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1985. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Bill 1985. Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985. Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985. Assent to the following Bills reported: Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Bill 1985. Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Bill 1985. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1985. Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985. Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Bill 1985. Consideration resumed from 14 November. GROUP C Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $482,958,000. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.16) —When the estimates of the Department of Communications were last before the chamber, I raised with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) the question of the response of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the Cotton case. I do not need to recite the details of that case or, indeed, the criticisms which the Ombudsman made of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, because I did that at some length on the last occasion. I say simply that I have now had a chance to look in some detail at the response given by the ABC when it was before Estimates Committee C and my colleague Senator Peter Rae raised the question of the Cotton report. Mr Jackson, replying on behalf of the ABC, indicated that as far as it was concerned the nub of the dispute was a jurisdictional one between the Ombudsman and the ABC. The Minister's advisers having had a week or 10 days since this matter was last raised, I would be interested to hear the response to the comments I raised. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.17) —As I think everyone knows, the matter raised by Senator Puplick relates to a report to the Parliament by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in respect of a complaint made in 1981 by Mr R. Cotton. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) informs me that he sought a detailed report from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the Ombudsman's report to the Parliament. He has not yet received the information necessary to consider the Government's response to the Ombudsman's report. As the Senate will be aware, the whole question of how complaints against the ABC should be handled has been a subject for heated debate in this chamber in the past. In this regard, the Minister for Communications is also seeking from the ABC a full report on the operation of the complaints procedures, which of course is related to the Ombudsman's report. Also, when these reports have been received and considered by the Minister, he will be in a position to respond to those important matters to which Senator Puplick has quite reasonably drawn our attention. I might add as supplementary information that in the Ombudsman's annual reports to 1984 it was noted that he had received 74 written complaints and 38 oral complaints against the ABC. Of these, all but one has been successfully resolved. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.19) —I thank the Minister for his answer and for the information. I express my appreciation that the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, has taken certain steps to see that he is in a position to make some response. I just seek an assurance from the Minister that any conclusions or statements Mr Duffy makes in relation to this matter will also be formally transmitted to the Senate, if it is in session at that stage, or that information relating to his decision or determination on that matter will be made available to honourable senators. The other point that I raised when I spoke previously was, firstly, whether the Corporation was yet in a position to make any statement about the proposed future of the television program the National and, secondly, whether the Corporation has yet come to any conclusions about the recommendations in the Tribe report dealing with the ABC's six State orchestras. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.20) —While the Minister is obtaining some information for Senator Puplick, I would like to ask whether he has been able to obtain any information in relation to the breakdown that I was to be given showing the savings or otherwise which have resulted from the discontinuance by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of the racing service in Queensland. I mention that I did receive some information today from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) which indicates that the allegation I made the last time I spoke about certain commercials being broadcast over the ABC was in fact correct. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(4.21) —I have here a document in relation to the matter raised by Senator Colston which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DEBATE OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF 14 NOV. 1985-SENATOR COLSTON QUEENSLAND RACING SERVICE-ESTIMATE OF SAVINGS FOLLOWING THE DECISION TO TERMINATE DIRECT RACE CALLS BY LARRY PRATT Senator Colston requested full details of how the ABC estimated that by terminating the services provided by Larry Pratt on radio, it would save $11,642 in 1985-86. The details are: $ $ Radio share of Mr Pratt's salary and relief for a full year... 21,700 Salaries savings in Radio Operations penalties and overtime... 3,245 Savings in broadcast lines costs... 5,762 30,707 Less Salary, leave bonus and recreation leave to 10.10.85... 9,803 Long service leave payment to Mr Pratt... 9,262 19,065 11,642 It is envisaged that there will be a weekly Artist Fee of $35 to $50 payable to a contributor to provide inputs to `Turf Talk'. Therefore, the estimated total savings of $11,642 in 1985-86 may be reduced to $9,763 if $40 p.w. is paid in Artists Fees for `Turf Talk'. The savings for 1986-87 are estimated to be in excess of $31,892. Senator Colston's calculations on the possible extra costs do not accord with the above: the use of network studios is not costed against particular programs and a Sporting Assistant is not rostered for studio duty in Brisbane on Saturday afternoons. No additional announcers are involved as two have been rostered in the past; but for current purposes the duties have been re- arranged to make more efficient use of the shifts. Further, it was only from 1 July this year that Mr Pratt was required to do ``on air'' general sporting reports at 6.30 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays-this regular pattern did not apply prior to that date. The Queensland Branch has changed the general sporting format that was previously broadcast at 6.30 p.m. Information is now provided in the morning by the Sporting Department and no additional staff have been taken on to cover the 6.30 p.m. time-slot. Music is played at this time. Senator WALSH —I also have about 10 pages of replies to questions which were tabled by Senator Vigor a few weeks ago. This document is rather lengthy. If requested to do so I will seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard; otherwise I will table it. Senator Vigor —I would be very pleased if it could be incorporated. Senator WALSH —I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted The document read as follows- SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HEARING OF THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 1985 Questions on Notice Question by Senator Vigor 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? Answer Telecom's buying power and Research and Development (R &D) resources have contributed significantly towards developing a telecommunications network which provides modern, cost efficient, telephone services to the Australian community, in accordance with its charter. Telecom's purchasing policies have also assisted in establishing a strong, local, manufacturing industry. Telecom will purchase approximately $1300 million worth of telecommunications technical equipment and material in 1985-86. About 90% of this equipment will be sourced from Australian industry. It is not possible in Australia to emulate the massive R &D expenditure of Japan, the United States and Europe in developing new technologies. Nevertheless, Telecom is working towards arrangements with industry to increase the level of R &D pertinent to our local capabilities and commensurate with the Australian component of the world telecommunications market. In 1984-85 Telecom Research Laboratories spent around $32 million on R &D programmes. In addition the engineering Department spent about $10 million on design/development work undertaken by Australian industry to meet Telecom contracts. This figure includes a contract let to L. M. Ericsson for development, over a three year period, of a digital rural exchange specifically for the Australian environment. This development is anticipated to have considerable export potential. Apart from direct expenditure on external R &D there are other ways in which Telecom provides support for local companies. Examples are: the licensing of the Australian manufacturer Design 2000 to produce the Telecom designed Telephone Apparatus measuring System 4 (TAMS 4) for use locally and for sale overseas. the development and supply under contract of Individual Circuit Monitoring (ICM) by J. N. Almgren Pty Ltd. the involvement of AWA in engineering design contracts for system adaptations and enhancement for the Digital Data Network. Telecom announces plans as far as possible in advance of tenders to give local manufacturers the opportunity to participate. Briefings have been given to industry on such topics as Cellular Radio and Optic Fibre Cables. Because of the long lead times involved in developing products these briefings are given as soon as practicable after firm plans have been established. Telecom's charter demand that Telecom conducts its business in a manner which would best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of Australians for its telecommunications services. In meeting that charter Telecom will maintain its policy of ensuring a high local content when purchasing equipment for use in the telecommunications network of the future. And further, Telecom is committed to fostering R &D in Australia and will continue to encourage local industry to play a greater role in design and development of products. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 14 NOVEMBER 1985 QUESTIONS TABLED BY SENATOR VIGOR CONCERNING AUSTRALIA POST Question Are there any remedies in Australia Post's contractual arrangements with the airlines that cover non-compliance on the part of the airline? Answer There are no penalty provisions in Australia Post's current contractual arrangements with the two major domestic airlines. Question If so, why has the management done nothing about the 31% and 25% respective later 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? Answer A range of factors was responsible for the unsatisfactory service performance for Express Courier articles delivered in Western Australia and Victoria during 1984-85. In the case of Express Courier articles of interstate origin, delays in air conveyance from Eastern capital cities to Perth constituted one of the factors which contributed to the problem. (Very few instances of avoidable delays were recorded in the air conveyance of Express Courier mail to Melbourne.) Delays to Express Courier and other mail on the Perth routes have been represented vigorously to the airlines on many occasions. Australia Post's dissatisfaction with the service it receives on these routes was also documented comprehensively in a submission in June 1985 to the Independent Review for Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation. The standard of service for mail conveyance to Perth has improved considerably over recent months, due to continued pressure from Australia Post, an increase in the air cargo capacity provided on the routes and an agreement by the two major domestic airlines to consign mail for Perth on international air services when demand for cargo space on their own services exceeds available aircraft capacity. Question If there are no penalties for non-compliance, 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? Answer Largely because of the unsatisfactory service on the Perth routes, negotiations on revised contractual arrangements with the two major domestic airlines have been in progress for some time, and are now close to completion. It is intended that the revised arrangements will include a penalty provision which would be applied in the event that Express Courier mail is not uplifted to destination on the flight(s) nominated by Australia Post, except in circumstances beyound the control of the airline concerned. Question 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? Answer I have referred this question to the Minister for Aviation. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 14 NOVEMBER 1985 QUESTIONS TABLED BY SENATOR VIGOR Question (Pages 2204/2205 of Hansard) 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. Response A draft reply to question on Notice No. 113 has been prepared and will shortly be submitted to the Minister for Communications for consideration. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 14 NOVEMBER 1985 QUESTIONS TABLED BY SENATOR VIGOR Question Page 2206 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. Response No. The question of an endowment is one for consideration in the budget context, and sales tax exemption is a matter for the Treasurer. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 14 NOVEMBER 1985 QUESTIONS TABLED BY SENATOR VIGOR Question Page 2206 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. Answer (1) The Forward Development Unit (FDU) has an establishment of only six and the staffing level has been consistent with this. (2) The Terms of Reference for the first FDU study were originally directed towards the future direction of commercial broadcasting in Australia. The Minister subsequently modified these both by separating commercial radio into a separate study and by his statement of 23 May 1985, establishing equalisation no later than 1990 as the Government's highest priority. If the Honourable Senator cares to read the first FDU Report, a copy of which was sent to him on publication in July, he will see that this sequence of events is meticulously recorded there. (3) The supplementary licence scheme has been given a considerable trial already, since it has been in operation from November 1983. The scheme has proved to be complex and rather unwieldy, involving both existing licensees and independent applicants in considerable expense, yet with meagre results. Accordingly, the Minister has taken a variety of steps to facilitate procedures-including amendments to the legislation. While it is too early to be definitive, it is expected that the scheme will continue to have a useful role in commercial radio (for which it was designed) even if equalisation supersedes it in the area of commercial television. (4) The major delay in processing supplementary licence applications to the ABT, occurs in arriving at draft technical specifications for each service. These specifications form the basis upon which a station will ultimately be established; they also allow independent groups seeking to oppose the supplementary licence to make submissions based on equivalent coverage of communities within the defined Service Area for the service. While applicants are required to provide full technical details in the Application, most proposals are deficient. Typical deficiencies are: inadequate coverage of communities within the Service Area; failure to provide adequate interference protection to other established radio and television services. The Department's technical analysis of proposals is further complicated by the shortage of available VHF-FM channels, and the associated issue of Band II clearance to release spectrum for FM radio development. In the past, deficient applications or planning proposals have been routinely returned to the sponsor for revision. This process has proved very time consuming, particularly in the case of supplementary licences. Accordingly, where reasonable efforts have been made by sponsors, the Department now prepares a detailed commentary on the proposal and, where relevant, specifies alternative technical details. this then forms the basis of detailed negotiations with the applicant. While additional Departmental specialist resources are used in the analysis stage, there are significant savings in the negotiation/final specification stage. Without these steps, delays would be longer. Planning for new services is continuing, in so far as present uncertainties surrounding the timetable for clearance of television services from Band II (channels 3, 4, and 5) permit. Additional planning resources have been authorised to assist the Department in dealing with an increased planning workload; however, staff experienced in this specialised activity are in very short supply. New graduates have been recruited, and continue to be sought, but such recruits require a minimum of twelve months experience before becoming effective; during the learning phase, training of these graduates places additional demands on the time of experienced staff''. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 14 NOVEMBER 1985 QUESTIONS TABLED BY SENATOR VIGOR Questions on Page 2206 of Hansard ``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 assessing 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 metropolitan 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 pubic stations might be licenced 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?'' Response There are very few clear channels available for broadcasting services in any of the populated areas of Australia. The introduction of new services thus has the potential to cause interference to existing services, and technical planning has thus become increasingly complex. To cope with this complexity the Department is developing automated planning systems which relieve planning engineers of routine computation, allowing their resources to be more effectively applied to examining the potential consequences of decision options on both short and long term. The slow initial rate of processing supplementary licences has been the result of: The need to develop systematic strategic plans for spectrum utilisation; Band II television channels obstructing FM development, and the need to commit scarce resources both to planning around these obstructions, and to finding alternative channels for the television services which need to change channels; Implementation of the LAGE decision to relocate Departmental planning resources from Melbourne to Canberra, and the attendant short-term loss of productivity while new staff are recruited and trained, and functions are consolidated in Canberra. Some benefits of these organisational changes are already evident, particularly in the improved management-control arrangements which are assisting the Department to cope with the current major expansion of services. There are also significant advantages flowing from having policy and planning resources co-located. Once these problems are overcome and the foundations for future development are firmly established, accelerated progress in processing proposals for new services is expected to be realised. Several steps have been taken, specifically to reduce planning delays for new services: regular liaison between Station Planning Branch and the ABT has been established so as to improve coordination of activities, and to allow better forward planning of resource allocations by the ABT and the Department; a substantial rewrite of the broadcasting planning guidelines has been undertaken, primarily to assist groups in preparing technical proposals; internal Departmental procedures are again being reviewed, to reduce processing requirements to the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with statutory requirements; considerable resources have been applied to technical studies and negotiations associated with the development of National Spectrum plans that will form the basis for Band II clearance, detailed planning of new television services, and FM radio development. Considerable attention has been given to the question of priorities for the application of limited resources. Work is currently being undertaken to review the real demand for new services in each category, and to develop project scheduling systems. When these systems are in place, it is hoped that a smaller number of projects will be in progress at any time. However, by reducing the loss of resources involved in staff switching their attention between projects, the overall throughput should increase. In order to do this, sponsors of proposals will need to accept certain fixed delays in the processing of their proposals. Methods of ensuring appropriate allocation of resources across all sectors, consistent with government priorities, are also being examined by the Department. Committee of the Whole 14 November 1985 Question Tabled by Senator Vigor Question Page 2206 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. Response To date the Government has not examined any changes to the licence fees collection process, although the Department of Communications is considering the matter in consultation with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator WALSH —In relation to the program the National, I am advised that section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act provides, among other things, that the Corporation shall take account of the services provided by commercial stations. It has not previously been suggested that this provision was calculated to prevent the ABC from presenting programs of a nature similar to those on commercial stations or any other radio and television services available in Australia. Senator Puplick also referred to the Carleton-Walsh Report and alleged that the National had been sabotaged in order to expand the Carleton-Walsh Report. The response provided by the Minister is that the Carleton-Walsh Report will continue to be presented next year on three nights a week, as has been the case this year. The suggestion of the sabotaging of the National is a serious assertion but there is no evidentiary basis to support it; at least none has been presented as yet. As to the internal memorandum about the National, there is continuing discussion internally about most ABC programs, not only the National, and some of this discussion is conducted by exchange of memoranda. They are written for the purposes of thoughtful professional analysis and the selective leaking of such documents can inhibit the legitimate and necessary process by which programs and program series are reviewed within the Corporation. On the question of ABC orchestras, I have a response from the Minister but I think I can update it a little. That question is under consideration by the Government at the moment. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.25) —I have had an opportunity to read the explanation given in relation to the alleged savings because of the discontinuance of the racing broadcasting service in Queensland. I thank the Minister for supplying the details but I do think some aspects are deficient. There will not be sufficient time for me to make a detailed investigation of this while we are still considering the estimates, so I put it on notice that I will probably come back to this when I have had an opportunity to investigate it further and to obtain further advice. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.26) —There are two other matters I would like to raise concerning the ABC's estimates. The first is whether the Corporation prepared a document entitled `The Human Resources Development Plan' and whether the ABC's staff unions were promised in February of this year that they would be given this plan to assist them in understanding the processes of staff rationalisation within the ABC and that no such plan in fact has been given to them? Secondly, could I be supplied with information as to how many persons took advantage of the redundancy arrangements which were offered within the ABC? What were the savings resulting from those people taking advantage of the redundancy arrangements? Is it correct that the money saved by the reduction in numbers of staff has been exceeded by the additional salaries which have had to be paid in overtime to compensate for the necessary extra work among those members of staff who have remained with the ABC? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(4.27) —I am advised that no such document as the one Senator Puplick referred to earlier has been prepared, but that the question is under discussion between ABC management and the staff unions. On the question of the savings because of staff reductions, the figures at this stage are imprecise but I understand that next year savings of the order of $10m are anticipated. I assume that is a net figure; that is, net of any overtime that may be worked. If that is not so, I will supply the additional information later. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.28) —I do not intend to say any more about the racing service after this, but I should have mentioned that I did request full details of how the ABC estimated it would save $11,642 in 1985-86. That was the figure that was given to me, but the piece of paper I have before me shows that the figure has dropped to $9,763. I will be looking to see whether it can be dropped any more than that. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP D Department of Education Proposed expenditure, $958,429,000. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) 4.29)-At the outset of the consideration of this group of estimates I would like to make some comments about matters which were raised in the report of Estimates Committee D. There are quite a few matters which I think should be brought to the attention of the full Senate, even though these are mentioned in the Committee's report, as I consider they should be highlighted. The first matter deals with the Department of Education, and specifically the Commonwealth Schools Commission. During the Committee's consideration on 18 April 1985 of the Additional Estimates, questions were asked relating to the early special education program and payments made to New South Wales. The Committee did not receive any response to that request on 18 April. Subsequently, questions on this matter were again asked at the hearings of 12 September. At that stage officers were unable to provide information. The Committee regards such a delay in responding to questions as quite intolerable. The Committee remarked in its report as follows: The Committee believes that, as a general principle, when questions asked at an Estimates hearing have not been satisfactorily answered, officers should expect they will be followed up at subsequent hearings and be briefed accordingly. The Estimates Committee believes that that should be the case and it will look forward at subsequent Estimates Committee hearings to officers being so briefed. With regard to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, the Committee was quite dissatisfied with responses provided by the Authority to a series of questions which had been made available to the Authority prior to the public hearings and which related to the use of corporal punishment in schools administered by the Authority. Whilst the Authority undertook to provide more detailed information-information that it should have had available at that time-the approach adopted by the Authority indicated a marked lack of respect for the Committee. The Committee would not expect this to recur. Comments were made about the Australian Film Commission, within the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The comments related to the unsatisfactory format of the explanatory notes provided. The Committee notes that, subsequently, a complete dissection of the items was provided by the Commission with its written replies. With regard to the National Library of Australia, there are some comments which indicate that the Committee had previously been given incorrect advice. When an Estimates committee asks for information it expects that the advice given to it is accurate; otherwise, the holding of Estimates committee hearings becomes a farce. Misleading and erroneous advice was given by the National Library of Australia on a previous occasion and this was discovered in the recent hearings that we held. I quote what the Committee said in this regard: The Committee views most seriously this provision of erroneous and misleading advice and cautions the National Library that it will be paying close attention to future evidence and activity of the Library before the Committee. I just stress again that if committees are not to be given correct advice there is not much point in holding public hearings of Estimates committees. With regard to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, it is important to comment on the Commonwealth Government Directory. This directory is widely used within the Public Service and by those outside the Government who have dealings with various government departments. The Committee at its hearings was concerned about the lengthy delay in publishing Volume 1 of the Commonwealth Government Directory for 1985. Since those hearings that directory has become available, but at that stage it was not available. The Committee was informed that the delay in publication resulted from a combination of factors, one of which was late submission of copy. Seventeen departments were listed as not having met the deadlines which were set between 1 and 28 February 1985. It is important that these departments be mentioned in the Senate because they were neglectful of their duty to provide information at a proper time. Those departments were: Arts, Heritage and Environment; Communications; Community Services; Defence; Education and Youth Affairs; Employment and Industrial Relations; Health; Industry, Technology and Commerce; Primary Industry; Prime Minister and Cabinet; Resources and Energy; Science; Sport, Recreation and Tourism; Territories; Transport; Treasury; and Veterans' Affairs. Senator Puplick —It would have been easier to list the ones that complied. Senator COLSTON —The comment of Senator Puplick is quite pertinent: It may have been easier to list the departments which replied on time. The Committee made this remark: The Committee regards this situation as most unsatisfactory and would expect that in the future departments should meet copy deadlines to ensure a more timely, and therefore up-to-date, publication of the Directory. It seems that departments should take care that-I use a word sometimes used in the Public Service-slippage does not occur in replying to requests such as this. Replies must be on time; otherwise the information being provided by the Government for its use and for the use of people outside the Government is not available. The Committee recognises that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has made some effort to rectify problems by issuing departmental guidelines. The Department has produced two documents, `Departmental Guidelines' and `Departmental Financial Guidelines for Grants'. All that I have said so far has probably been critical of certain aspects of departments. At this stage the Committee wishes to commend the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for its timely initiative in the production and publication of these guidelines. It is nice to be able to make a comment such as that when some of the other comments have been critical. Finally, I wish to make some comments about the scheduling of hearings of Estimates committees. The Committee was concerned that its consideration of the Estimates was interrupted by a variety of occurrences which were outside its influence. The Committee therefore believes that consideration should be given to reviewing the scheduling of Estimates committees to allow maximum time for public hearings, unfettered by the restraints imposed by operating subject to sitting periods of the Senate. By that we mean that definite times should be set aside for committee hearings-times when we will not be concerned about when the House may rise or when Ministers may be called away for Cabinet discussions. The Committee believes that consideration should be given to that so that Estimates committees can work in the way in which they are supposed to work. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.39) —The Chairman of Estimates Committee D has presented a report containing some of the concerns of that Committee. I endorse what he said about the matters that concern us. I refer especially to the grave discourtesy that was shown to Senator Colston in regard to questions which he asked quite properly, reasonably and courteously. They were questions which he asks every time the Estimates Committee meets, and which the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority knows will be asked, about corporal punishment. It is quite unsatisfactory that the Committee was given not only discourteous but really also quite contemptuous responses, which led to the Committee reporting as it did. Senator Colston and the Committee are quite right to say to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority: `We will not accept that kind of answer'. The Estimates Committees will continue to meet, the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority will continue to appear before the Committee, and it is entirely up to the Authority how it wishes to answer these questions in the future. But it would be most unwise to give to Senator Colston in the future the answer that it gave on this occasion. I think that is a fair statement, Senator Button, because whether or not other senators have Senator Colston's knowledge of that particular matter or his commitment to that line of questioning, we are not going to have those kinds of answers given to any colleague in the Senate, whatever his or her political persuasion, and we shall respond accordingly. I do not intend to rehash all the matters raised in the Estimates Committee examination, but there is one matter in relation to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority which I might mention now-I have raised it in the Senate briefly in the last couple of weeks-and that is the equal employment opportunity guidelines which have been put down by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, and whether or not they are guidelines that will give equal employment opportunity a bad name; whether they in fact represent some kind of quota setting based on gender-which I would call affirmative action-which does not seem to be consistent with the principle of selection and promotion on merit which the Government asserts underlies its approach to equal employment opportunity. There is in existence a document-of yellow or buff-coloured paper-put out by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority which is its equal employment opportunity policy. In that document, it lays down its objectives for the employment of women in certain defined employment categories and certain positions which may fall vacant within the Authority. I draw attention to only one of them, that is, that in relation to higher duty allowance positions-positions in which people may act in higher positions and claim higher duties allowances-it will be the objective of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that as near as possible to 100 per cent of those positions will be occupied by women. I cannot understand how any decision to lay down as an objective that as near as possible to 100 per cent of certain positions will be occupied by one gender can in any way be consistent with selection and promotion on merit. I do not understand how it can be consistent with equal employment opportunity as it has been presented by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, in this place. There are many other objectives laid down by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority-in some cases, as near as possible to 75 per cent of all the positions will be filled by women. But to say that as close as possible to 100 per cent will be filled by women will not advance the cause of equal employment opportunity. That is what I am concerned about. I want to be sure that any teacher in the Australian Capital Territory school system, male or female, can feel that she or he is getting a fair go from the system. I cannot understand from that document or from the answer given by the Minister how as close as possible to 100 per cent to one gender can in any way represent a fair go. I leave that matter and return to a matter which Senator Colston mentioned in presenting and discussing the report from Estimates Committee D. That is the refusal of the State of New South Wales to tell the Parliament whether or not it is using money for the purpose for which it has received the money. This is a matter which goes to the proper discharge of our duty as an Estimates committee. We are aware that certain money has been appropriated for the support of special education in New South Wales. At the Estimates Committee hearing in April 1985 some reasonable and simple questions were asked of the State of New South Wales. The questions were: Has the $575,000 applied to the New South Wales Government sector under the program in 1985-- that is the early special education program- been used to employ 16 early intervention teachers trained the previous year by the New South Wales Government at a cost of about half a million dollars? The answer to that, simply, would be yes or no. Has the money not been used to employ these 16 teachers in early special education programs? Yes or no would be the answer. Is it a fact that none of these teachers are being used-- I should have said `is' being used, of course- on early intervention programs? Again, a perfectly simple question of fact from New South Wales. Either they are or they are not. Has the $575,000 not been used for early intervention purposes? Has the money been lumped into general special education funding of the State Government of New South Wales? Has this been done to save the New South Wales Government funds in the special education area? We asked the Commonwealth Schools Commission to assure the Estimates Committee that the $575,000 allocated by this Parliament for early special education would be used by the New South Wales Government for early intervention programs only and, if not, would the Commission advise as to the procedures which then follow to recover the money or its equivalent from New South Wales. The answers that we got in April were unsatisfactory, but they were reasonable. They said: Answers to questions i-vii are being sought from the New South Wales education authorities and will be forwarded as soon as responses are made available. I should have thought that a commission doing its job with efficiency would have had some idea as to whether money being appropriated for certain purposes was being used for those purposes by a State. Question viii was a question of fact, which was answered as to the basis of the program. When we assembled again as an Estimates committee, a month or so ago, no substantive answers had been obtained to these questions. This was the basis for the complaint by Estimates Committee D-that in response to reasonable questions about how Commonwealth money appropriated by this Parliament was being used and whether it was being used for the purposes for which it was being appropriated, the Commonwealth Schools Commission or the Commonwealth Department of Education, whichever has the responsibility now, had failed to get us that assurance, and the State of New South Wales apparently had refused to give the information. When the matter was raised again, it was taken up with New South Wales once again. At the time the Estimates Committee met to give its report, we still had no satisfactory answer. But we had received a response from the Commonwealth Schools Commission to Estimates Committee D in which it had enclosed a letter from the Director-General of Education in New South Wales to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, in which he more or less told the Commonwealth to get lost. That is the kind of response that we got. He said: I refer to your letter conveying a series of questions from Senator Baume about early special education in New South Wales. In regard to questions (i) to (iv) I advise that the 16 teachers were given special training in 1984 at the expense of the State. Commonwealth funds were not involved. Should Senator Baume wish to know about the decisions and achievements of the New South Wales Government in this area, he should write to the State Minister for Education, the Hon. R. M. Cavalier. The answer to questions (v) and (vi) is no. The answer to the first question in the paragraph numbered (vii) is no. But what was clearly not answered was how this Commonwealth money is being used. The Commonwealth Schools Commission, following that answer, drew our attention to it in the following terms: It will be noted that the information supplied does not address certain matters raised in the questions-viz: Confirmation of the cost of $500,000 to the New South Wales Government for training of teachers; whether the teachers are employed in early special education programs. The Schools Commission went on to say: . . . and that the second paragraph of Mr Winder's reply would appear to indicate that he considers this information, being a State responsibility, should be sought directly from the New South Wales Minister. The Schools Commission goes on to explain further how we might interpret what New South Wales has said. The point I wish to make is that we do have a problem. Our duty to the Parliament is to investigate and to understand what we are appropriating moneys for and whether moneys which we are appropriating are being used for the purposes for which they are intended. I would not have asked those detailed questions had I not had expressions of concern from within my State that some of these moneys were not being used for the purposes for which they were appropriated. That is why I asked the questions in the first place. When a State such as New South Wales refuses to give a clear answer it does not help the situation. I therefore wish to commend the report of Estimates Committee D and the terms in which Senator Colston put down that report as they relate to this question and to the quite inadequate answers which the Commonwealth Schools Commission has obtained to questions which properly should have been supplied to this Committee and to the Parliament. Again, that matter will not be allowed to rest. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.52) —Two or three matters have been raised by honourable senators. The first matter emerged from Senator Colston's comments, as Chairman of Estimates Committee D, and it involves the question of the dilatoriness of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority in answering questions put to it by the Committee. I will draw those matters to the attention of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). The attention of the Schools Authority should also be drawn to the Hansard which contains the remarks made by Senator Colston and Senator Peter Baume. The second matter related to the question of affirmative action taken-I think that is the expression Senator Baume used-by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. I am advised in respect of that Authority that all staffing decisions will continue to be made on the basis of merit, as required by both the Public Service Act and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. Senator Walters —That is because women are 100 per cent better than men. Senator BUTTON —I was trying to answer the question but I was side-tracked on a matter of profound philosophical importance. Senator Walters, of course, distracted me. The point I was simply making is that the Authority employs a majority of women teachers but currently there is a higher proportion of men in senior positions. The fact that the Authority employs a majority of women teachers is consistent with school systems, both government and non-government, generally. The Authority has taken responsible measures to redress the situation in circumstances where women may have been disadvataged, because of past administrative procedures, by removing barriers and encouraging women to become more competitive in the selection process. As I said earlier, my advice is that the staffing decisions will continue to be made on merit. The third issue Senator Baume raised was the spending of special funds by the New South Wales Department of Education. I recall that this is a matter in respect of which he has asked questions of the Minister in the Senate. In his remarks he referred to the letter from the Director-General in New South Wales which I think was dated 11 October. Senator Peter Baume —I haven't got a date. It may be 11 October. Senator BUTTON —I guess that the date is not material. I am advised that, since that correspondence was entered into, the Commonwealth Department has been advised that no Commonwealth funds have been applied in respect of the training of the teachers concerned, that is, the ones to which the honourable senator referred. Some $575,000 has been applied for early intervention, that is, for early special education purposes, and it is not being used to reduce expenditure by the State Government in the general area of special education. I am also reminded that the New South Wales Department, as I understand it under some requirement whether legislative or otherwise, has to furnish a certificate by 30 June 1986. That is the time by which it is required to do that-by an authorised person to the effect that that person is satisfied that the conditions have been fulfilled, together with a statement summarising the manner in which the amount has been applied. But the advice I gave earlier was advice given by the New South Wales Department to the Commonwealth Department subsequent to the correspondence from the Director-General. I mentioned those matters only to indicate that Senator Baume's concerns have not been ignored. Action has been taken in respect of them. That is the present position. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.56) —I thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). I am aware of the document from which he was quoting because it was made available to Estimates Committee D. Another part of that document indicates certain points which should be taken into consideration. The first point is: the Commonwealth is anxious to encourage a free flow of information from education systems on matters relating to the effectiveness of their capacity to deliver appropriate education services to the nation's children. I support that. That is what this query is about. We did no more than to seek from New South Wales some of that free flow of information in respect of money which the State accepted. We want to know whether New South Wales is spending that money for the purposes for which it was allocated. The second point in the Commonwealth Schools Commission's advice to the Estimates Committee is as follows: From time to time a State Government indicates that it does not wish to make public particular information which does not fall within the legislative requirements in respect of Commonwealth funds. The problem really comes down to the fact that the legislative requirements are minimum requirements; a certificate is to be supplied by June 1986. Those are the the requirements that existed when I was a Minister and I accept that. But since a query was raised, all we wanted to get from New South Wales was enough information either to put the concern of my constituents to rest or, if it was correct, to put New South Wales on notice. It is very distressing that New South Wales has chosen to fall back on its mimimum legal requirements under the Act rather than to do as the Commission indicated and help to promote the free flow of information about which the Commission was talking in its answer. We certainly got nothing between April and October and we would have got nothing had the matter not been raised again. So New South Wales, at least, is being difficult. In relation to the equal opportunity matter, I notice that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is now in the chamber. I now know that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority document does say-I do not have it in front of me-that as near as possible to 100 per cent of all the higher duty allowance appointments will be given to women. I am a supporter of equal employment opportunity but I am not a supporter of gender preference. I am a supporter of merit. I ask the Minister: How is that condition consistent with equal employment opportunity based on merit-that as near as possible to 100 per cent of positions available should be reserved for people of either gender? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.00) —I think Senator Peter Baume's point about the New South Wales Department has been made quite clear and it would be-I was going to say vulgar-tactless of me to comment on it. I think the second sentence of the passage the honourable senator read is important. It says: This flow of information is achieved essentially through a co-operative approach with the State systems concerned. That is probably a bureaucratic way of saying that the respective departments have to be nice to each other as much as possible. In that context Senator Baume has made the point he sought to make. I am sure it is correct that if he had not raised this issue it might have been the subject of greater obfuscation than in fact it was. So I ask the honourable senator to record that as a success, and it will undoubtedly be recognised as such in the annals of history. Insofar as the point about the equal employment opportunities program in the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is concerned, I have to leave now but Senator Ryan will be taking my place and I suggest that Senator Baume intrude the question to her at the appropriate time. It is getting too hard for me. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.01) —I have two quite simple questions for the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). One concerns the youth traineeship scheme and other education in the Australian Capital Territory. What guidelines has the Minister issued to her Department to assist in implementing its part in the youth traineeship scheme, where in the system will the trainees be taken on, and when can the first intake be expected? Secondly, in the light of recurrent industrial problems in the Australian Capital Territory, is any review of the staffing of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority being conducted at the Minister's instigation? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.02) —Senator Vigor asked about guidelines for the development of traineeships. I did not understand whether he was inquiring as to traineeships that may be developed within the Commonwealth Department of Education or traineeships generally in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Vigor —Traineeships generally. Senator RYAN —I will need to discuss the matter with my officers. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.04) —To give the Minister an extra moment to discuss the matter with her officers, I would be grateful if, when she does respond, she responds also to my question about the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority gender preference guidelines. I have a genuine interest in promoting equal employment opportunity and I have a genuine interest in whether or not those guidelines are consistent with the policy which the Minister is said to espouse. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.04) —Briefly in reply to Senator Vigor, no formal guidelines have been issued but discussions have been carried out between officers of my Department, The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, employers, and I think also technical and further education authorities in the Australian Capital Territory. The results of those discussions will be made known early in the new year. The general principle of traineeships in the Australian Capital Territory will be the same as in the honourable senator's State and throughout Australia. There will be a one-year training course with three months full time off-the-job training, probably in a TAFE institution, but it may well be in the Australian Capital Territory that our secondary colleges are able to provide the three months full time training. The content of the on-the-job training will then be worked out by the employer in co-operation with the trainee, the TAFE authority, or whichever education authority is involved, and the unions. I am not sure whether Senator Vigor requested the terms of reference of the Steinle Analysis of Australian Capital Territory School Resources. Senator Vigor —I was inquiring about the staffing of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. I was interested in the industrial relations aspects. Senator RYAN —The terms of reference for the Steinle inquiry are: 1. The consultant should examine and report conclusions from an analysis of: (a) the overall level of recurrent resources per pupil in ACT government schools compared with other Australian government school systems; (b) special factors operating in the ACT that affect the overall level of resource usage (such as demographic changes, retention rates, the size and nature of the system and devolution of decision-making) and the effectiveness of resource usage. 2. The consultant will consult interested organisations in conducting this analysis and will report to the Minister for Education before the end of 1985. Data presently available should be used in the analysis including the work of the Grants Commission. Obviously, one of the organisations with which Mr Steinle will consult will be the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation and industrial issues that seem to it to be relevant will no doubt be put to him. There will be longer term industrial relations effects of the inquiry once it is completed and once the Government has made a response to it. For example, if the inquiry finds that there is an area of under use of resource usage in the Australian Capital Territory schools system no doubt that Federation will take steps to campaign for that to be overcome. On the other hand, if it finds that the Australian Capital Territory schools system is generously resourced in all of its aspects probably there will be no case for any industrial negotiations. That is the sequence of events that I would envisage. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.07) —What does the Minister consider to be the total time scale? The inquiry is due to report by the end of the year, but how long does she expect it will be before any action is likely to be taken on this matter, and what type of action is expected? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.07) —The report was requested by the end of the year so that the findings of the inquiry could be under consideration at the time of the Budget process-so that its findings could be used by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority in preparing its budget and by me in advocating the Authority's budget to the Budget Cabinet. The results of that will be known when the Budget is announced. Senator Peter Baume raised a question. The equal employment opportunity plan of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has been developed by that Authority. That is the first thing I make clear. It has not been imposed on the Authority by the Government, by legislation; only the requirement to have a plan has been imposed by legislation. The Authority, in consultation with its employees, has developed this plan. I am assured that the principle of merit does apply. In the case of the higher duties allowances, where the plan does provide that as far as possible 100 per cent of higher duties at a certain level shall be undertaken by women, that requirement would be fulfilled only if there were that number of women qualified to undertake higher duties. I think that acting in higher duties should be seen more as a managerial training experience than as a job promotion, because there is no guarantee that a person who acts in higher duties will subsequently be promoted permanently to that position. In the past all higher duties positions have been filled by men so that female teachers have not had the opportunity to gain that experience, which is, as I said, similar to some sort of executive training. When women come to apply for a promotion position they cannot get it because they have not had the experience. It is a procedure which should place competent women in a position to get the experience of acting in higher duties, which virtually all their male peers at that level would have had. I presume that virtually all of them would have had that experience, since no women have had it. Having had experience of acting in higher duties, women should then be able to compete more fairly for a promotion position when it becomes available. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.10) —I thank the Minister for that answer. However, it seems that the removal of barriers against one gender really must not be replaced by the creation of barriers against the other. I think the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority document identifies the fact that women make up 65 per cent of all the employees in the Authority. That is near enough to being correct and probably at the level we are discussing in this higher duties allowance they make up a smaller percentage. However, it would not be fair if certain male employees who also need the training and experience were shut out. If the Minister is saying that it is necessary to provide extra training and experience for people who have not had the opportunity, that is fine. I would suggest, however, that this must be provided in ways that do not create barriers against the male employees of the Authority. It reads as if people who are seeking to satisfy the objectives of the Authority are to be guided towards making sure that they pick women for those higher duties allowance positions. Written in that way, it is not really consistent and it does not really assist the selection and promotion on merit principle. It may be necessary for the Authority to re-examine what it has done because `as near as possible to 100 per cent' is very hard for lay people to swallow as being consistent with the principles that have been laid down. I shall leave that matter there. I have one other matter to raise in the area of education and that concerns the approval of new non-government schools for funding. I understand that the schools that applied were assessed by certain criteria-what we might call the Connors panel criteria-and they were put into priority order at State level. Recommendations were then made and a list finally appeared. I ask the Minister whether the Commonwealth New Schools Committee that assessed two schools in Five Dock-Domremy College and St Mary's Rosebank College-gave the Domremy College's application for Federal funding a low or the lowest priority grading. That is a simple question to which I hope the Minister will answer yes or no. The Committee would have made that decision against the background of the Connors panel criteria. Did it make this judgment because the school is in an area of declining population and not within the planned educational provisions for the area? Further, having had this ranking assigned to the school, was the ranking changed later after representations to the Minister from members of the Australian Labor Party, including the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher)? Was the end result that this school in Five Dock, in the marginal electorate of Lowe, recieved funding ahead of schools that originally had been given a higher priority ranking? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.13) —Before passing on to the question of the new non-government schools and the Domremy school in particular, I have been advised by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that the matters that were raised by Senator Peter Baume over the application of the higher duties provision are still not finalised. The council has sought comments from the staff and I understand that there is to be a very large meeting of local teachers to discuss that. It may well be that the problems that Senator Baume sees in the application of this matter may in fact be problems and it is possible for that particular provision to be applied in a different way. I agree with Senator Baume that the removal of barriers from one gender should not involve the creation of barriers for the other. I have said that on a number of occasions. With regard to the approval of new non-government schools for recurrent funding by me in 1986, it is the case that the State committees put applications into four categories of priority-high, medium, low, and lowest. High and medium were consistent with planned education provisions-that is, they had undergone proper consultations with the State planning authorities and other non-government school authorities in the area. The other two categories had not. It is the case that the recommendations of the State committees were passed on to me by the Schools Commission. I should point out that the State committees were operating under great pressures of time. The decisions came quite late, later than I would have liked, for schools wishing to start in 1986. That was because the process of setting up the new committees, having them examine the applications and apply the new criteria took a longer time to complete than we had hoped. So there was pressure on the State committees to work very quickly. The Commission itself did not have the time, which I hope it will have in future, to add its advice to the advice coming from the State committees. The State committee advice went to the Commission and the Commission passed it on to me. When I consulted my Cabinet colleagues about these proposals, obviously certain questions were asked about a number of these schools. In the particular case of Domremy College, I decided that I needed some additional information about the reason for its ranking in the low or lowest category as different information had been passed on directly to me by an officer of the Catholic Education Office in Sydney. Certainly it is the case that the honourable member for Lowe, Mr Maher, was very anxious about all the proposals in his electorate, not just that concerning Domremy, as were other local members. Some additional information was sent directly to me from the Catholic Education Office and in consideration of that additional information and of the very short time frame under which the State committees had to complete their task, I decided, as it is my prerogative to do so under the Act, that Domremy school fell within the approved guidelines for new non-government schools. The school was proposing an extension for years 11 and 12 of its operation. It is a very old school. My older sister went there as a young child so I know that it has been there for a long time. The particular support for the Domremy proposal in that area was from parents who wanted single sex education for their daughters. The St Mary's Rosebank proposal, which was recommended in the highest category, was to be co-educational for years 11 and 12, whereas the Domremy proposal was for a single sex. It was actually offering something different from Rosebank. Given the additional information and the fact that the authorities involved in the administration of schools in that area seem not to be as one on the need of the relative claims of those schools, it seemed to me, after considering all the information I was able to get in a short time, that the fairer decision was to approve the school. That is how that decision was made. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.18) —Did the Minister apply similar extra examinations to the claims of any other school? For example, what about Our Lady of Lebanon School in Harris Park, which did not get funding and which may not have had the benefit of vigorous representations? Did the Minister re-examine its case? What about the proposed Armenian school for Terrey Hills? Why was Domremy school given a second examination and were the other schools given the same special consideration? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.19) —This occurred because there was additional information concerning the Domremy school from the Catholic Education Office, the body that is responsible for the administration of Catholic schools in that area. In the case of the two other schools mentioned by Senator Peter Baume, they have been advised that they can seek a review of that decision and I expect that that is what they are doing. Certainly representations have been made to me, not directly from the schools, but by people on their behalf. I advised them immediately to seek a review of that decision. A review committee has been established under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and it has now met. If the two schools that the honourable senator mentions accepted the advice that they were offered they would have put forward additional information for the meeting on Monday. If the review committee decides to recommend their funding, that will come to me and I will look at the additional information and make the decision. So the originators of all proposals that were unsuccessful have the opportunity to request a review. They have all been advised accordingly. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $696,217,000. Buildings and Works (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $229,498,000 Repairs and Maintenance (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $125,083,000 Housing for Servicemen (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $4,258,000 Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.22) —I have two quite simple questions concerning the Department of Housing and Construction. One is about the first home owners scheme and the other is about the community housing program. Firstly, under what circumstances are applicants for benefits under the first home owners scheme required to submit further details of their savings over the previous 12 months and to account for any major deposits that were made during that period? Roughly, what proportion of applicants are asked for this additional detailed information? This matter came to my notice because of a few queries made to my office. Secondly, what monitoring is done of the community housing expansion programs conducted under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement? Is the Minister able to indicate any States other than South Australia in which there has been a major increase in the number of groups being able to obtain low cost rental accommodation through the community housing programs? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.23) —In reply to the honourable senator's first question, there is no savings requirement for the first home owners scheme. On the second question, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement requires that the information about the operation of the scheme that the honourable senator is seeking be made available to the Commonwealth by 30 November. So we are waiting on that information to be made available. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $78,946,000 Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.23) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I have a large series of questions about the Australian Institute of Sport. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Puplick, could we take the questions one or two at a time, please? Senator PUPLICK —I am quite happy to take them one at a time if required. The Australian Institute of Sport is provided with some $11m under Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. Some significant questions have been raised in the media about the operation of the Australian Institute of Sport and, in particular, about its financial dealings. Therefore, I ask as my first question: Has a committee of inquiry into the financial activities of the Australian Institute of Sport been established? If so, who is to conduct the inquiry? What are the terms of reference of that inquiry? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.24) —The officer is making the terms of reference available to me. I can advise the honourable senator that the report of that committee of inquiry will be given to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) tomorrow night. It is expected that it will be tabled on Thursday. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.24) —I presume that the Minister would be prepared to have the terms of reference formally incorporated in Hansard once they are provided by the officer? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator PUPLICK —I therefore ask: Are the children of Dr Cheffers, the Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Sport-either Paul Cheffers or Leigh Cheffers-employed by the Australian Institute of Sport, or have they been employed by the Australian Institute of Sport? If so, in what capacity and on what salaries? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.25) —I will have to take that question on notice, Mr Temporary Chairman; the officers have not got that information. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.25) —My next question relates to the expenditure by the Australian Institute of Sport. Was a sum of $4,500, or thereabouts, expended by the Institute for what was claimed to be one night's entertainment for the National Taxation Summit held in Canberra? Is that a correct claim? Was that amount of money spent on a single night's entertainment for members of the 1985 Tax Summit held in Canberra? What were the details of such expenditure? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.26) —I am advised that that matter will be covered in the report that will be tabled in Parliament later this week. A reception for the Tax Summit was held at the Australian Institute of Sport. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.26) —Was a sum of $2,800, or thereabouts, provided for a ticket for the wife of the General Manager of the Australian Institute of Sport to travel to Japan? Was that money taken out of the sport merit fund? What authorisation was necessary for money to be taken out of the sport merit fund in order to be expended on the travel arrangements of the wife of a member of staff? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.27) —I am advised that those matters will be covered in the report. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.27) —Will the report also cover the issue of the general level of expenditure on what is euphemistically known as hospitality which is alleged to have risen from a 1980-81 figure of $281 to a 1984-85 figure in excess of $42,000? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.27) —Yes, that will be covered. I seek leave to incorporate the terms of reference of the inquiry in Hansard. Leave granted. The terms of reference read as follows- AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT Examination of Allegations in Regard to Financial Administration As Internal Auditors to the Australian Institute of Sport undertake an internal audit examination of: 1. the specific allegations made in newspaper articles appearing in the Daily Telegraph of 19 and 20 November 1985 and any subsequent criticisms which are relevant. 2. the adequacy and efficiency of financial management practices and controls at the Australian Institute of Sport. A report by close of business on Wednesday 27 November 1985 is desired. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.28) —Does the report which is to be tabled on Thursday also cover the details of Dr Cheffers's travels to Melbourne and Sydney, particularly those in association with attendance at various grand final arrangements? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.28) —Yes. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.28) —Are positions at the Australian Institute of Sport advertised? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator PUPLICK —Is that correct of all positions? Senator Ryan —I am advised that they are advertised either internally or externally. Senator PUPLICK —Can the Minister take that question on notice and indicate which positions were advertised purely internally? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator PUPLICK —What journalists are, in fact, employed on a contract basis by the Australian Institute of Sport? How much is spent on employing journalists? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.29) —I will take that question on notice. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.29) —The Senate will be aware that a number of allegations have been made in relation to the purchase of certain boats by the Australian Institute of Sport. In particular, the allegation has been raised-if true, it would be serious-that the firm of Sargent and Burton, which was the unsuccessful tenderer despite having provided a quotation for the provision of this sporting equipment which was substantially lower than the tender finally accepted, was misled as to whether it had a realistic chance of obtaining the tender for which it had made a submission. I accept quite clearly that there is no requirement that simply the lowest tender must be accepted; there is clearly a requirement that the best tender must be accepted. The question that arises is whether there has been any tampering with files of the Australian Institute of Sport. In particular, an article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, which no doubt the Minister and the officers have seen, on 20 November. It draws attention to the fact that there appear to be two letters on file, which in virtually all respects are identical, except that there is a change of price for the tender by Geoff Sykes and Associates Pty Ltd, which was the successful tenderer. In the first letter the quotation is for $74,200, but there appears to be a second letter, apparently undated, in which the quotation is $71,400. Some doubts arise in terms of this second letter, because it appears that that invoice might have been sent to the buyer only one week after production had started and still prior to actually receiving the order. It appears that the firm of Sargent and Burton may have been deceived as to its prospects of winning the tender and that there may have been some tampering with the official files of the Institute in a way which would cause people to be misled, both about the sums of money involved and the sequence of events leading to the issuing of this tender. I therefore seek from the Minister any comments she may have about investigations which have taken place as far as that matter is concerned and in particular whether it is possible to obtain copies of the tender which was issued calling for submissions for the provision of that type of sporting equipment to the Australian Institute of Sport. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.32) —I am advised that those matters will be covered in the report. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.32) —I therefore ask whether a decision has been made to change the status of the Australian Institute of Sport from its current position, which is essentially as a company with various links with the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and whether it is proposed that the Australian Institute of Sport should now become a statutory authority. Has that decision been made? Is there a timetable for giving effect to such a decision if indeed it has been made? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.33) —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) indicated that he was considering taking that step. He indicated that in the House of Representatives on 19 November, but the Government has not yet made that decision. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.33) —When did the Government first become aware of the allegations of irregularities in the financial administration of the Australian Institute of Sport? Was it before the first of the articles appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, which I think was on 18 or 19 November? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.33) —I will have to refer that question to the Minister. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.34) —Does the report also canvass the issues which have been raised in the article, in which it is again alleged that the Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Sport effectively sought to impose a black ban on a former coach, a Mr Kelvin Giles, by effectively threatening the National Coaches Association that it would be cut off from valuable contact with the Australian Institute of Sport if it gave further employment to Mr Giles in any particular capacity? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.34) —The terms of reference allow that matter to be covered in the report. The officers cannot confirm that it will be. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.35) —How can the Minister tell me that certain things will be covered in the report and certain others will not? Is it that the terms of reference mandate the report to cover certain matters, but only permit it to cover other matters? Has the report been seen by the officers or by the Minister thus allowing her to indicate clearly that certain matters will be covered and certain matters will not be covered? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.35) —When Senator Puplick has an opportunity to look at the terms of reference which I have just incorporated in the Hansard record, he will see that certain financial matters that were referred to in the newspaper articles are specified in the terms of reference; so they will be covered. Other matters of a non-financial nature may be covered. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.36) —Could the Minister indicate whether, if the matter I have raised regarding Mr Giles is not covered in the terms of the report to be tabled on Thursday, she will take that question as having been placed on notice and will seek a separate response for me to that particular matter? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.36) —Yes. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.37) —I have some questions in relation to the tourism overseas promotion scheme, on which some questions were asked in Estimates Committee D. The tourism overseas promotion scheme makes available $5m for use in promoting tourism, essentially under the ministerial guidelines that allow the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) an enormous amount of latitude. How many applications are expected to be processed by the end of the financial year? What is the budget for this? What is the anticipated total of the sums expected to be sought by those applicants? Will payments be given on a first come, first served basis or will there be some type of quarterly target or some other means of assessing what is likely to be expended on the scheme on a month by month basis? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.38) —I am advised that at this stage it is difficult to assess the scope of the new scheme. The decisions will be made on a first come, first served basis, but within 70 per cent of the grant level. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.39) —I would like to know how often details of successful projects will be published so that people in the tourist industry can see what types of ventures are attracting support. Is there any intention to publish material on how the Australian Tourist Commission will apply the validity test, which was mentioned both in the guidelines, of which I have a copy, and in the replies given to the Estimates Committee D? In what way will the Australian Tourist Commission approach the market and in what way will that approach be made clear to the tourist industry? Are we to expect any further guidelines other than the document which has just been shown to us in the Senate? This contains fairly vague lists of criteria without any weightings being given to particular criteria. Is any more detailed material likely to be issued other than the booklet `Overseas Promotion Scheme Guidelines' which has been distributed to potential applicants? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.41) —An account of the successful applicants will be published annually. The annual report should contain an assessment of the scheme. When Senator Vigor is able to read the annual report, I am sure he will be able to answer some of the questions he has been putting to me. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.41) —When is it expected that the first successful applicants will receive their payments? Have any payments been made yet? Will there be a target time for the processing of applications under this scheme? Finally, what additional expertise will those assigned to the assessing of applications for the review of unfavourable decisions have compared with the people who are assessing the original recommendations? Has this process been brought into effect yet? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.42) —No proposals have been funded yet. Seminars are being held around the States to explain to interested persons and organisations how the scheme operates. Details have not yet been finalised as to the expertise of the people assessing unfavourable decisions. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.42) —On a slightly lighter note, on page 914 of the Estimates Committee D Hansard, the sum of $711,112 is listed against the Department of Special Minister of State as being for the purpose of prices and incomes accord police recruitment. To what exactly does this terminology correspond? What is the campaign, or was there some kind of mistake in the information that was provided to us? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.43) —I am advised that it is bound to be a misprint and that the amount allocated was for the prices and incomes accord campaign. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $179,898,000 Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.44) —I want to use the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 as a means of expressing in the Senate the confusion and disillusionment felt by the fishing industry of Queensland in regard to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning plan. The fishermen and fishing industry of Queensland have played the game. They have acted in a spirit of consultation and co-operation with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. They have lost fishing grounds that would have returned to the Queensland fishing industry over $1m a year. The Bird Islands and Blackwood Channel areas have been traditional fishing and trawling grounds for the prawning industry. When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority consulted the fishing industry about its proposal to declare as national park a section from the Barrier Reef to the coast, the fishing industry agreed but asked the Authority to change the boundaries of that segment from false Orford Ness to Orford Ness, a distance, I would say, of 200 kilometres. The fact is that through a misunderstanding-or whatever happened-$1m worth of good prawn trawling grounds have been lost to the fishing industry. It is no good crying over spilt milk; it has happened. However, I am asking the Minister and her advisers whether the plan can be reviewed and whether any possible amendments can be made to restore the fishing grounds to the prawn trawling industry. The Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, which includes a representative of the fishing industry, tells me that it was not informed as to the removal of the grounds and that it was disappointed by it. It requests that these grounds be returned to the fishing industry as soon as possible. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.46) —I am advised that the request of the fishermen will be taken account of in the normal review process and that a five-year cycle is involved with that review process. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.46) —Five years is a long time in a business. It is a particularly long time in the fishing industry, in which everyone is fighting for survival at the moment. There is a buy-back scheme arranged by the Government in the Gulf of Carpentaria to reduce the number of fishing trawlers because the fishing grounds are being overfished and have limited resources. Senator Robertson —There were too many licences to fish granted by your Government. Senator BOSWELL —That is dead right. There are too many licences and the Government has arranged to buy back some of them, which meets with the approval of the fishing industry. However, it will not achieve anything if, as fast as the licences are being brought back, the fishing grounds are reduced. Five years is a long time. I ask the Minister whether there is any way these fishing grounds could be returned to the industry in under five years. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(5.48) —No, that will not be possible. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $231,924,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.49) —I do not wish to raise matters which were raised during consideration of the estimates, but a couple of matters have come to my attention which require some answers. One matter concerns an Aboriginal group operating in the far western suburbs of Sydney, the Aboriginal Christian Fellowship. Local newspaper reports have indicated that this Aboriginal group, based in Mount Druitt, has been using some of its funds to pay the parking debts of the son of the director of the group. As a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, clearly I am pro-Aboriginal in my views. However, one of the things I was very much aware of when I was a Minister is that the operation of all these organisations has to be absolutely squeaky clean. Nothing more quickly destroys public confidence than evidence of any misuse of public funds. I refer to an article in the Mount Druitt-St Marys Standard -a newspaper with which I am sure the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) would be familiar-of Tuesday, 12 November 1985 headlined `Public Purse Pays Police Warrants'. The director of the group is a very distinguished Aboriginal Australian. He was, I believe, Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference when I was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I am referring to Pastor Bill Bird. The Mount Druitt-based Aboriginal Christian Fellowship is a group which receives public funding from several sources, but it certainly does receive some Federal funding. I have been shown a photocopy of a cheque dated 29 October 1985. In one person's handwriting the cheque has been made out to the Secretary of the New South Wales Police Department, and it has been signed and countersigned. In another person's handwriting an amount of $839 has been filled in. It appears, and apparently it has been admitted, that money from the Aboriginal Christian Fellowship has indeed been used to pay the debts of a young man named Bird and that he is the son of Pastor Bill Bird. That is okay. The Aboriginal Christian Fellowship can use its funds for whatever it wishes, but several matters concern me. My first point is that I was in Mount Druitt a couple of weeks ago with the Sydney City Mission examining the issue of emergency cash relief. As honourable senators know it has been a problem since 1 October when the New South Wales Government withdrew a certain amount of emergency cash. Some areas have been hard hit. The Sydney City Mission, which operates in Mount Druitt, invited me out to talk to some of the people seeking cash for emergency relief and to investigate the problems. On the day I visited the Sydney City Mission at least three Aboriginal women were waiting there for some help. They were in desperate straits. I am not going to raise again the whole question of emergency relief, but these women had children who had to be fed but they had no money and they had problems. They were facing imminent eviction. These situations involved a whole range of issues for which emergency relief is sought and needed. From what I have been told subsequently, it transpires that each of those women had tried to get funds from the Aboriginal Christian Fellowship which, by the way is a good organisation which has been offering services in the Mount Druitt area, but they had been sent away because it had no funds. Then I discovered that it is using the funds that it does have to pay the police fines of the son of the director. Before I criticise the Fellowship too much, I have to know whether it is in receipt of Federal funds and whether the money it used to pay the fines was derived from government grants. It may well be that it was, but it may not have been derived from Commonwealth Government grants. Am I correct in assuming that the Fellowship is funded for some of its functions by the Commonwealth Government through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or some other appropriate agency and that for other functions it is funded through the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services? Is it possible to receive an assurance that the money that was used to pay the parking fines of the young man, who, by the way, may be going to pay the money back to the organisation, was not provided by any Federal grant? That is a simple question. As I have said, we need to be able to reassure people that Aboriginal organisations are squeaky clean in the way they operate. There may be a simple answer to this matter, but it certainly did not make good reading in the local newspaper. Another matter I wish to raise relates to two reports on the social impact of uranium mining in Arnhem Land. I notice that some officers whom I know well are in the chamber to advise the Minister. We will all recall that when I was doing that job, we were funding a group of social scientists in Arnhem Land to examine and to report upon the social impact of uranium mining on the Aboriginal population of that area. I am reminded that on 25 March 1982, I tabled in the Senate a report from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, to which the task had been subcontracted, on the social impact of uranium mining on Northern Territory Aboriginals. I made a ministerial statement in relation to that report. On page 17 of the second report, the AIAS consolidated report to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, there are a list of findings and a list of volumes which are either to accompany that report or to appear subsequently. Volumes mentioned are `The Impact on Aborigines of Money Deriving from Uranium Mining', `Documentation for the Social Impact of Uranium Mining Project Data Base', and `Profiles of Oenpelli'. The report goes on to say: Additional and subsequent volumes will be produced on these topics . . . It lists a series of topics, including `Educational Needs of Aborigines in the Region', `The Social History of the Region', `The Laws Relating to Aborigines and to Uranium in the Region', and `Aborigines and Development'. It promises to make available papers from a special seminar conducted by the Anthropological Society of New South Wales and a transcript of a workshop on social impact assessment held in Canberra in August 1983. It says that two other volumes have been produced, namely, `Land Tenure in Western Arnhem Land' and `Hard Copy of Baseline Data'. A list of those documents can be found at page 17 of the consolidated report on the social impact of uranium mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory, which was tabled in 1984. The question that arises is: Where are all the accompanying reports which were mentioned at page 17 of the consolidated report? When will they be tabled? It seems that only a few of them, if any, have yet appeared. There is real concern among those interested in the anthropology and sociology of this region that these documents appear. If they have not appeared, will they be tabled? If they are not to be tabled, what will be done to make the information publicly available as promised on page 17 of the later report? What action has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs taken to study, to use or to implement the information and recommendations contained either in the main report or in the other reports which were promised to be tabled? I would also like to know whether the subjects of the study-the people living in Oenpelli and the people of Arnhem Land who were under study-have been informed of the results of the work which was carried out on them. It is my understanding that when they agreed to participate in the project, they were promised that they would be told of the results and they would be made available for such use as they could make of them. If they have been informed, who undertook this briefing? For example, was it one member of the group which did the work? Let me ask specifically: Was it someone who understood and knew what the work and the findings were about? I then ask: If monitoring of the physical environment in the Arnhem Land region is continuing, is there not a need still to continue the social monitoring of the people alongside the physical monitoring, especially since the money effects of mining will be long term-the impact of money, health problems, changing social organisation and a combination of problems which will all make themselves evident? Surely they are part of what the social monitoring was all about. Is a continuing assessment being made of social monitoring in the region similar to that which was the subject of the major study to which I have referred? I ask finally: Is it not a fact that the last six-monthly report to the Minister to be tabled was for the period 1 April 1982 to 5 November 1982? I now realise that that is the 1982 document to which I referred earlier. If that was the last six-monthly report, why was it the last? Were any reports prepared following that time? If so, what has happened to them? I understand that the Minister may not be able to get me those answers straight away, but they are matters of concern. It may be necessary to go to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies for that information. I would be grateful if the Minister would do so, because there is some concern about the lack of concerted action in relation to this matter. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.01) —Senator Peter Baume raised matters covered in a newspaper article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 November in which it was reported that Bill Bird's son's traffic fines were paid from the funds of the Aboriginal Christian Fellowship organisation. In response to his query the first thing I want to say is that the Aboriginal Christian Fellowship, like many community organisations, gets its funds from diverse sources. It receives Commonwealth funds and some funds from other sources, so it has a variety of funds at its disposal. However, in regard to the payment of the traffic fines, I am informed that the amount involved was an advance on wages to be repaid in the next few days. The amount was paid from a separate bank account from that used for Commonwealth funds, which were provided to enable the ACF to fund a program of prisoner rehabilitation and support of inmates' families. The major function of ACF is in community welfare, which is funded through donations and the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services. As a part of normal auditing practice the New South Wales office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has checked financial accounts for 30 June 1985. No evidence of impropriety with Commonwealth funds to that time was noted. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is accountable to the Parliament for its performance and its expenditure. In turn the Department ensures that the 1,000 Aboriginal organisations it funds are also accountable. Every organisation which receives financial assistance from the Department is subject to a comprehensive set of rules designed to ensure that the purpose of the assistance is met and that funds spent are properly accounted for. The rules are public documents and are available for anyone to see, and indeed they have been provided to Senator Peter Baume's colleague, Mr Connolly, the Opposition spokesperson on Aboriginal Affairs. So the Department at this stage is confident that there was no impropriety and that the facts are as set out. Senator Baume also raised in detail matters concerning cheques and amounts made out on them. In fact, Mr Bird responded to the newspaper article in the Mount Druitt-St Mary's Standard on 13 November. His response, which was printed in the newspaper on 19 November, confirmed the details that I have just laid out to the Committee. According to information given to me, Area Officer Eastern has personally inspected the organisation's cheque books and bank records, which fully support Mr Bird's statements. In particular, he found that the cheque in question was drawn on 29 October on the account of the ACF community development program. The account number is given. DAA funds are deposited in the account of the Aboriginal Christian Fellowship account No. 4, and the account number of that is given. Other Commonwealth funds are deposited in a third account, the ACF community development program No. 2 account, and that account number is given. All of these accounts are maintained at the Mount Druitt Branch of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Mr Bird has been advised by Inspector Evans of the Mount Druitt police that an inquiry is under way to establish how a photocopy of the cheque came into the possession of the newspaper. It is not known when the inquiry will be complete. I think that matter is adequately answered by the information available to us at this stage. In response to Senator Baume's detailed queries about further studies that were to be undertaken on the social impact of uranium mining in Arnhem Land, the officers advise that they will get that information from the Minister. That same response applies to the last six-monthly report that Senator Baume referred to. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.05) —I thank the Minister for that information and especially for the answer on the Aboriginal Chistian Fellowship organisation because that suggests that no Commonwealth funds have been used to draw this cheque. Did the Minister say that Mr Bird, in his response, indicated as well that no State government funds had been used to cover the payment of this cheque? Are we able to draw an inference that money provided by the State Government for the purpose of the Fellowship was not used for this purpose? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.05) —I do not think we are able to draw that inference from the information that has been provided. I repeat that the money that was used for this purpose was an advance on wages. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP E Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $171,530,000. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.06) —I refer to the first item of the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy, item 520.3.01, concerning the River Murray Commission, and also to the second item concerning water research. I would like to make some comments on both of those in tandem. I do so against the background that taxation legislation lies within this Parliament which could be very relevant to those items. It is well known that over a year something like one and a quarter million tonnes of salt pass down the River Murray into South Australia and that salinity as well as turbidity are of enormous consequence in South Australia. It is well known that this happens because, basically, the River Murray course, particularly in Victoria, is an old, dried up seabed and salination enters the water table from that seabed. During the years of the Fraser Government the River Murray agreement was rewritten and brought up to date, and a key element was put into it; that is, that the Commission would have authority to deal with the qualitative as well as the quantitative nature of water. That was a very major step forward. Also, a whole series of matters relating to the Maunsell report were carried out in order to help to overcome salinity. A key feature of the Fraser Government's program, and one which was to be part of the bicentennial program, was a feasibility study to be undertaken by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-SMEC. There are two real needs for the River Murray. One is to deal with salinity, to stop the water table rising and bringing up salt. The other is to provide at the upper reaches of the Murray a large extra storage area supplementary to the Dartmouth Dam so that a flush can be provided into the system and overcome the disabilities. The Fraser Government, in its last year of office, set out a wide ranging series of water programs and one was, as I say, a feasibility study to be carried out by SMEC of an upper Murray storage. That is the key to any long term management of the River Murray. Unless more fresh water can be stored at its headwaters and flushed down in times of drought and high salinity the problem of salinity will not be overcome and irrigation along the whole course of the Murray will not be able to be provided. It is to the eternal discredit of the Hawke Labor Government that one of its first actions was to cancel that feasibility study that would have been done by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation which has the expertise derived from building the whole of the Snowy Mountains project. We had a body of expertise readily available, and a relatively small amount of money was needed to apply the skills to provide information on the proper site and the cost and development of a new headwater storage system. But that study was cancelled. Anybody approaching the problems of the River Murray must first of all ensure the continuation of qualitative analysis and qualitative control and, above everything, that something is done to provide upper Murray storage. The previous Liberal Government intended to undertake that task, but it has been set aside by this Government. One of the reasons that the salt has been lifted from the dry seabed and put into the River Murray has been the habit of orchardists and others along the Murray of using flood irrigation-in other words, simply taking water by flood channels into their developed areas, soaking the ground using far more water than necessary, and the water dissolving the salt, thus lifting it up and putting it into the Murray. I have to say, without any prejudice to Victoria, that this happened very largely along the Victorian edge of the Murray. The aim, in order to overcome this problem, is to teach the agriculturalists, the orchardists, along the Murray two good practices-first of all, to give them the desire and the incentive to get expertise in and to use laser levelling and, secondly, to change from flood irrigation to spray and drip irrigation. Indeed, a Federal-State working party was set up by me to devise means by which this could be done. The working party produced a report which advocated tax incentives. What this Government is doing in its current taxation legislation is to kill those incentives. By two steps this Government has done more to damage the River Murray than has been done in all of history. It has decided to reject any idea that there should be an upper Murray storage system and it has set out to provide a disincentive for people to go into proper laser levelling and spray and drip irrigation. This Government has also wasted enormously valuable time. If there were things to do wrongly in water conservation, water storage and irrigation, the Hawke Labor Government did them. First of all, it cancelled the whole of the bicentennial water program, which would have conferred an enduring benefit on the whole of Australia. It set out systematically to wreck what had been put in place because it had some idea that it ought to pursue an institute of freshwater studies. For a year or more it set aside a fundamentally valuable institution, the Australian Water Resources Council, which comprised top ranking experts from the whole of Australia; each of the key States had some of their best experts on that Council. It had been established when I was a Minister in the Fraser Government. The Water Resources Council with its State representatives said: `We do not want an institute of freshwater studies. It would be wrong. We want to continue with a national water research council'. But this Government thought it knew better; so for a year or more it had an inquiry to establish whether there should be an institute of freshwater studies. What did the inquiry say? It said that there should not be such an institute. So for the whole of that period the land was further degraded. The inquiry said: `You should have a national water research council'. Consequently, one of the good things has been restored. Australia is the most arid continent on earth. Whereas the average world annual rainfall is 26 inches, Australia's is 16 inches. We are the driest continent on earth. We have virtually every physical mineral resource that one can name. What limits us in agriculture, in population and in industry is water. One would therefore expect that running through Budgets would be a program to help to build up water supplies. But any hope of that has been dissipated. The fundamental thing is to use those areas which can best be used. We have only one real river system in Australia of any comparable international standard, the Murray-Darling system. That system has been polluted and salinated over the years. Yet not only were the fundamental things that ought to have been done not done but also negative influences are now being put to work. Australia faces massive problems with its adverse balance of trade and international debt of an enormous magnitude. We need to earn more and more money to become competitive, to be able to apply our resources. But stagnation is what is occurring. The future of the River Murray is based upon a good new agreement which, whilst not totally perfect, is a great advance forward. It is an agreement that I am assured is working. The States are reporting to the River Murray Commission any major or significant qualitative changes upstream from the Murray. The computer model of the Murray is now working. All these things were put in place in years past but the two fundamental things necessary are a huge storage system in the upper reaches and the provision of incentives to move away from flood irrigation. But these have been set aside, which is a major tragedy. We have had three reasonable seasons recently but we had four years of drought before that. We ought to know that Australia is a drought country and that in the years ahead we will have more and more drought. The Government ought to know that to control its major waterways it will need headwater storage. We do not know what would be the best site or what is the optimal nature of a headwater storage. We should know that. We have all the expertise of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. We have the ability, with all the records of run-off from the Snowy Mountains, to put together a picture of how we can use the Rivery Murray to better advantage. The River Murray is a difficult river to handle because it does not have deep banks. It is shallow and it either runs nearly dry or floods out over the land. It is a very difficult river to manage throughout its course. I make a plea to this Government. It is not too late. There is no real money involved in putting the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to work. The Government is very proud when it presents the annual report of the Corporation and tells us what it has done in some 22 countries overseas. I for one congratulate Mr Doug Price and his team on the marvellous job they are doing. The back of the Corporation's annual report lists State after State seeking its information. But the Federal Government which controls the only real water storage system, the Snowy Mountains scheme, available to us with, incidentally, an ability to add extra hydro- electricity for the States, is doing absolutely nothing about it. If, as the Zeidler Committee of Inquiry into the State Electricity Commission of Victoria recommended, and the Fraser Government foreshadowed, the south-east Australian electricity grid is built, from Victoria to South Australia-I understand that the Hawke Government is belatedly considering this-then all the more reason to get another headwater storage and more hydro-electricity. The solution to the problem in South Australia is new headwater storage and proper tax incentives so that we do not get salination downstream. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(6.21) —The matter of the water supply problem in South Australia has been a perennial, annual, monthly and weekly subject for as long as I can recall in the Senate. It will be appreciated that on every possible occasion honourable senators from South Australia have ventilated their views in the Senate, as, indeed, have we had Ministers and shadow Ministers speaking on the problem. The solutions have been in the province of the Opposition and that of the Government from time to time. I believe that some progress is being made in this area. The possible solutions that we are all awaiting-I am sure that the people of Adelaide are awaiting-to the River Murray salinity problems are matters constantly before the Government, as they were when Senator Sir John Carrick had responsibility for such matters. The matters raised by Senator Sir John Carrick will be the subject of deliberations by the recently announced Ministerial Council which has been set up to advise the Government on the Murray-Darling basin land use and water matters. I have no doubt that the matters raised by Senator Sir John Carrick and by many other honourable senators over the years will be considered by that Council and that the contributions that have been made will, hopefully, in the short term, lead to a solution of the problem, which I am sure that Senator Sir John Carrick will admit has been with us for many years. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.22) —The problem with the explanation by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt)-I treat it with good will; I think that water storage and conservation in Australia ought to be a bipartisan matter if anything should be-is that the bicentennial program of the Fraser Government, which was rejected in total by the Hawke Government, was in fact studied and given approval by the Australian Water Resources Council some four years ago. So it is not a question of governments and oppositions playing ping-pong. There was a blueprint program for work to be done: First of all, on feasibility; more work to be done downstream; and indeed, a number of the individual programs related to desalination projects downstream to aid the situation. Indeed, one must keep fundamentally in mind that what was rejected by the Hawke Government in this scheme was a plan, purely from Commonwealth money, to filter both the Adelaide water supply and the water supply of the Iron Triangle. Adelaide and the Iron Triangle suffer more from turbidity-that is, debris in the water-than from salt, although one would not think that if one tried to drink the water. The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth Liberal Government had put down a program which would have picked up the total tab for this. There would have been no delay and we could have got on with the job of providing clear filtration both for Adelaide and for the three cities of the Iron Triangle. Honourable senators will recall that there was a nasty health hazard in the water supplies in that area over the years. I think that there were some cerebrospinal meningeal kind of infections along the way. Senator Vigor —Amoebal meningitis. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Vigor acknowledges it. It is a very serious situation which arises, as I understand it, out of the amounts of debris and bacteria that are in the unfiltered water. Nothing was done. Some belated action has been taken in respect of financing in that regard. The fact is that it is not a question of saying that the Government and the Opposition have played ping-pong for years. It is a matter of reminding the people of Australia that the former Government put down a specific program, having brought in the River Murray Agreement and the tax incentives for spray and drip irrigation and laser levelling, and these things have been set aside. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Tate) —The Minister does not want to respond, Senator. Perhaps I may ask that the honourable senator's remarks be confined as much as possible to an item of expenditure. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes; as you may know, Mr Temporary Chairman, I did the unusual thing of identifying that item. I will happily identify division 520.3.03-`Management of former atomic test sites'. The management of those test sites has been under the consideration of a series of governments, and not only Liberal governments over the years. For three years the Whitlam Government had the management of them, had the ability to move on those sites, had the ability to make all the tests and to do all the things that were necessary for safeguarding and prevention. Indeed, so in the intervening years did the Liberal Government, as has now, for the last three years, the Hawke Government. In my time as Minister, I hope that I took the problem very seriously. I visited the sites and sought scientific advice on the protection of those sites that were considered to contain materials that ought to remain buried and could have radioactivity, which ought to be properly fenced, and access to which ought to be denied to humans. The advice that apparently had been received until recently was accepted by both the Whitlam Government and by previous and later Liberal governments. That was that the protection of the areas was being done as well as possible, that Federal Police were patrolling the fences, that the depredations of feral animals or intruders were being dealt with, and that in fact there were warning signs around the place. I say that against the fact that in days ahead we shall be having another view of the situation. I would be very interested if the Minister were able to tell me whether it is possible to have available, certainly at the time that the report of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia is tabled, the written submissions of the Commonwealth to that Commission. I ask that as a specific, because it is of great importance for the people of Australia to be able to say: `This is what the Hawke Government said to the Commission'. Because there is an item here for the cost of the Commonwealth counsel, I know that the Commonwealth was represented. Indeed, I asked a series of questions on that matter, and I commend the Government for it. I understand-I seek confirmation again-that the report on the health of all those who worked at Maralinga in that time-some 15,000 to 16,000 people-a report prepared by the Department of Health in conjunction with the Department of National Development, was made available to the Commission with the full force of the Government behind it. I say this because there is likely to be an air of melodrama about any kind of report on atomic tests. I do not want to underestimate it. If there is any kind of matter to be dealt with, it ought to be dealt with. Let me explain why I am asking these questions. It seemed to me, as Minister, that there were two most important things to deal with regarding the atomic test sites. The first question was: Are they safe? Are the fences in order? Are the concrete blocks over the so-called cemetary areas at Maralinga, Emu and elsewhere intact? Are the signs up? Can they be understood by Aborigines as well as other Australians? Do our measurements of radioactivity suggest that there is any change of any significance in any of the dust or rock formations around? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Tate) —Order! We shall have to learn of your second point, Senator, after dinner. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was dealing with the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy and the item dealing with management of former atomic test sites. I had pointed out that governments of both major parties-Labor and Liberal-had had the responsibility for this matter over the years and, indeed, that they had had the opportunity to determine two main problems. As I saw it, as the then Minister, there were two problems: First of all, to ensure that the sites, whether at Monte Bello, Maralinga, Emu or elsewhere, were secure and offered no health hazards for the present or the future; but more importantly, to check with all those people who could be located who had been at the atomic test sites in the years before to find out their experiences and their state of health and to offer them medical examinations and the facilities of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Tribunal. As a result a very extensive survey was carried out in conjunction with the Department of Health. I have in my hand the report of that survey, which is entitled `Health of Atomic Test Personnel'. That survey located some 15,364 people who had been at the test sites, established 8,018 addresses, and sent out questionnaires to those people. If my memory serves me correctly, the survey also established that there had been something in the order of 1,500 deaths. Those people who were alive and had been located were asked to fill in questionnaires and to respond. The responses were analysed, and the report of that study is available. Senator Kilgariff —Does that include civilians? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It includes civilians. Senator Kilgariff —Aboriginal people? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It includes all those who worked on the sites. It does not include transient Aborigines. The result of that study is available for all to read. I hope that that report was given to the Royal Commission-I seek the Minister's response-because it is a very valuable document. All honourable senators will know, as the report is available, that it did not find proof of any relationship between the tests and health hazards. That was not my intention. My intention was to find the truth and, if the truth was that there were people who had been adversely affected, to offer them both medical treatment and compensation. I have repeatedly suggested that to the present Government, Equally, the task was to get expert advice in a survey of the test sites and to see what repair jobs should be done. Government senators would know that at each of the Estimates committees for the last three years I have asked the Government whether it had ensured that there was no health hazard at the test sites. In a general sense the answers have been reassuring every year. At both Supplementary Estimates and general Estimates committee hearings I asked those questions long before any royal commission was mooted because it seemed to me that, if there were any danger at all, it was our job to clean it up. Even at the last Estimates Committee hearing there was no suggestion from the Government that it had located any appreciable hazard. Some fine plutonium dust particles had been located. When I went to the test sites and to the ground zeros, the advice that was given to me was that if one stayed in a place for weeks or months there may be a health hazard. Senator Kilgariff —Have you any knowledge of the black cloud? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —There have been a number of reports by the body responsible for advising the Government on radioactive materials and there has been no suggestion of any firm relationship. As Senator Kilgariff may know, there have been some suggestions that there was a very serious outbreak of either German measles or measles amongst Aborigines at that time. It is believed that there may have been some correlation with those deaths because Aborigines are very susceptible to rubella in particular. There is a thought that they may have been affected. I cannot say yes or no in regard to the Aborigines. I can only say that, on the best survey that could be done, there was no apparent effect on the 15,000 people. As to the offer for people to come forward to seek compensation, I think the Government has pointed out that a fraction of people came forward. I think in my time there may have been 100 or 120 and that figure might have increased by a few. There has not been a surge of people seeking compensation, so the people themselves do not believe that they have been affected. The dosimeters that the people wore were located. Let me say quite clearly and not in any defensive way that, if there are at this moment significant deposits of radioactive material in Maralinga, Emu or Monte Bello, the government of the day-I do not say this in the sense of the Hawke Government-had the duty year by year to know this and to do something about it. Just as the Fraser Government sought to do this, I have been assured by the Hawke Government that it has been seeking to do it. I have checked with the Government on the question of the repairs of fences and concrete covers. Indeed, a new area is to be fenced because of the presence of some particles. The important point to keep in mind is that it has always been the duty of the government of the day to find out what is going on. At the Senate Estimates Committee hearing I asked whether the McClelland Royal Commission had sought or done any tests upon the flora or fauna in these areas. I asked this question because, having been to those test sites, I had seen an abundance of living material. It therefore would be quite possible to find out, in a scientific way, what happens when radioactive material is ingested. Those of us who have been to the ground zero plinths would have had rather frequent sights of the noses of feral animals-hares, rabbits and dingoes-peeping out from beneath the plinths because they burrow under them to keep cool. We have animals such as the dingo that live over a period that are capable of being examined to see what they have ingested through their lungs, because they are low ground-breathing animals. There are lizards, rabbits and a whole range of animals to examine. On Monte Bello a whole life cycle is based around the sea turtle and its eggs and all the fauna on the islands coming to eat the eggs. So we have plenty of life cycles to examine going back over the years. When I asked this question the answer I received was that the Royal Commission did not make any specific inquiries about the information available on the effect, if any, on the flora and fauna, nor did it initiate any investigations or tests on existing flora and fauna. However, a number of scientific and general documents dealing with aspects of these matters have been provided to the Royal Commission, and a list is available. I seek confirmation from the Minister of my understanding that that list-I acknowledge its value-does not point to any significant radioactive effects on the flora or fauna on those islands. I must say that I cannot comprehend a royal commission, seeking to find the effect on living creatures of radioactivity, and particularly of minute particles of plutonium in the soil, not setting out to do laboratory tests on those animals that are freely available. If those tests are not done, how do we evaluate that effect? If the Royal Commission says that there are dangers in the area, I must say that those of us who have advised the governments of the day apparently have not advised them wisely or the governments of the day, having that advice, have not acted. That is why I seek to ask the government of the day now whether it will make available, together with the report of the Royal Commission, the submissions relevant to this matter that it made to the Royal Commission. There has been a tendency to concentrate upon events at Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello as though the errors involved a variety of matters, such as the wrong timing, the wrong weather and our being misled as to the nature of the tests. We have concentrated on the series of trigger tests which allegedly distributed plutonium. If in fact that information is right, it should be brought out. But the test of that is: What do we know of its effects; what do we know now of the distribution of the plutonium and what do we know about its ingestion by living creatures? If we do not know those things, why do we not know? We do know that in a properly controlled epidemiological study carried out by the Department of Health and the Department of Resources and Energy, virtually every living person who had been associated with Maralinga was surveyed, and death certificates were also surveyed. I do not want anything to be hidden. I am pleading that, if things went wrong, let us learn from what went wrong. If anybody at all has suffered-Aborigines or anyone else-let us find out. We will find out not through anecdotal evidence-it will be of great danger if it is anecdotal-but by knowing what the government of the day has found in all its radiological tests in the last three years, year by year. Were the officers right when they told us at the Estimates committee hearings that they had done the surveys and felt no particular anxiety about the situation? What has happened with all these reports? Has any report suggested that there is a danger to living creatures? I rise on this matter only because I think that one of the dangers is that anecdotal evidence, particularly anecdotal evidence concerning the Aborigines, can lead to a lot of beliefs which, if tested, may be found not to be true. I seek from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs assurances that he will provide in due course, with the report of the Royal Commission, any submission of the Government; that he will verify that the Government itself over the three years of its tenure has indeed surveyed the areas and has not made any report to Estimates committees of any significant worry about health; and that nothing in the very good bibliography regarding tests on flora and fauna has pointed to significant effects on the health of living creatures. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.14) —Senator Sir John Carrick has raised a number of important issues in respect of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963. He asked whether the Government will make public its submission to that Royal Commission. The Government has already made that document public and a copy can be made available to Senator Sir John Carrick or for that matter to any other person who wishes to examine the Government's submission to that important inquiry. In respect of his general questions, the Government proposes to table the Commission's report in the current session of parliament. That means that in the next day or so the report will be presented to the House of Representatives, and I imagine that it will be simultaneously presented in the Senate. However, I am advised that the Government does not propose to offer any public comment on the matters raised in the report until it has been tabled. At this stage, I cannot make any other comment in respect of the matters raised by the honourable senator. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.15) —I thank the Minister for his reply. I was not seeking any comment on the report itself; I was just seeking a response, which I received, to my question concerning whether a copy of the submission would be made available. I asked for confirmation of something that is factual; that is, that in the series of reports to Estimates committees over three years the Government in answer to questions has not raised any significant question of radioactive danger. My second question was whether anything significant in the bibliography provided information on damage to living creatures. Senator Gietzelt —I have no further information to provide. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I cannot believe-- Senator Cook —Why don't you wait for the report to come down? The Minister is going to table the report next week. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I make it perfectly clear that I am not talking about the report; I am talking about evidence that has been or has not been given to Estimates committees by the Government. That is what we are dealing with here. I am asking a very simple question: Is it true that in response to questions over the last three years on no occasion has anything of particular significance been raised about the dangers of radioactivity? That must be able to be answered by the array of advisers that the Minister has. Equally, I am asking whether the bibliography supplied contains anything significant on flora and fauna. I hope that that can be answered. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.17) —I understand that Senator Sir John Carrick raised a number of these matters before Senate Estimates committees and information was provided to him. My advice is that there is no other information available to me. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.17) —I move on to division 520.3.06-the Ranger uranium project. That project has had some difficulties recently, as the Government and the Committee will know, because of the fact that there has not been a total evaporation during the dry season from the open cut mine. Difficulties have been experienced in taking the water out of the mine so that it can be mined in the dry season. There is some question of whether the water itself may be mildly radioactive. Since the dry season has virtually come and gone, there has been no resolution of the problem and we are now headed for the wet season-no doubt Ranger is using its stocks of yellowcake to supply its overseas orders-I ask: Have the Government and its scientific advisers resolved the problem of the proper and safe disposal of water from the pit at Ranger? Senator Gietzelt —My information is that it is still under consideration. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —For how long will this consideration go on? When is there likely to be a solution to the matter? As I understand it, the matter has been running for some months. If the Minister has no answer, I pass to Division 520, subdivision 3, item 10, which relates to energy conservation. In doing that I wish to look both at the statistics that have been provided in the Estimates committee and at the series of reports. In the Estimates committee a prognosis was given to this Parliament about our self-sufficiency in oil over the coming six or seven years. If my memory is correct, that prognosis was that unless significant amounts of oil were found by about 1992 our oil self-sufficiency would drop to 42 per cent. I have previously pointed out in the Senate that every 10 per cent drop from a 70 per cent level of self-sufficiency means a cost of more than $1 billion for importing oil. Obviously with our trading deficit in its present state, no one could go in for importing oil. I am not suggesting that the oil stocks would drop to 42 per cent. Indeed, I see that the Bureau of Mineral Resources has given a similar prediction in information supplied and I saw that the Chairman of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in an address to the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association said that by about 1995 the deficiency might be down to one-third or 33 per cent. My questions arise because I looked up the energy forecast for the 1980s. This was a departmental production in 1982 and that forecast said of petroleum fuels: Petroleum fuels usage has declined significantly since 1978-79 and it is forecast to remain below the 1978-79 level until the mid-1980s, increasing at an average rate of 0.5 per cent per annum throughout the decade. When I look at the APEA report I find this statement: Projections show world oil consumption growing at no more than 1.3 per cent annually. In the US it is half that rate-- about six-tenths of a per cent- and in Australia that figure is a little less than 2 per cent. It is a long way from the projection of energy conservation that was forecast in 1982-that of moving throughout the decade at half a per cent increase-to almost 2 per cent. That suggests that fuel conservation has fallen. I noted a disastrous report in the Estimates committee answers about the Government's abject failure to deal, for example, with the conversion of its enormous fleet of vehicles throughout Australia to liquefied petroleum gas. In fact something like 114 vehicles have been converted whereas the target was to be 3,000 every year or so, if my memory serves me correctly. Knowing that the trend has run away from its forecast and knowing, as it does, and admitting that there is likely to be a very big fall-off in oil, how the Government can possibly not go ahead with the conversion of vehicles defeats me. The brave claims that there have been energy savings, that there has been energy conservation, are fundamentally wrong. The figures are in the report and I simply draw attention to the fact that no government can proceed in the belief that because there is an oil glut throughout the world at this moment there will be a similar glut in five or seven years. The developing countries alone will take up the slack. If there is to be a sufficiency of oil, at least every 15 years an oil field the size of those in Alaska or the North Sea must be discovered. There have been no such finds in recent times and therefore in Australia we should be conserving what we have. The Government is exporting oil at the moment and I oppose that. It is doing that because we get a self-sufficiency at the lighter end of the barrel at about 70 per cent and we are getting about 80 per cent from the oil fields. There is no doubt at all that the Government takes consolation from the fact that it is earning foreign currency and therefore helping with our adverse trade balance, but it is a foolish government that does nothing to conserve oil if the other side of the trade balance is to fall away, billions of dollars at a time, if we do not keep up. That is fundamental. I simply make that point and ask the Minister whether his advisers have any comment on the figures I have put forward and whether they accept them. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.26) —It must be conceded that a number of the points that have been raised by Senator Sir John Carrick have some relevance and are substantially correct. However, to meet the difficulties that he foreshadows, the Government is according exploration initiatives a high priority. Senator Sir John Carrick will appreciate that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is not here, has a much more intimate knowledge of many of the matters that have been raised. Nevertheless, the Government is continuing to accord a high priority to the use of alternative energy sources and it is also giving particular attention to energy conservation generally. I recall that Senator Sir John Carrick spoke at length on these matters when he was the Minister and on many other occasions. The Government accepts that these matters should have a high priority, but it is not possible for me at this time to answer sufficiently, to the satisfaction of myself and that of the honourable senator, the precise matters that he has raised. These answers can only be given by the Minister for Resources and Energy who is, unfortunately, not in Australia at the moment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.27) —I think that it is an insult to the Committee and a disgrace that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who is the Minister at the table, knows nothing about the subject. Personally I have some sympathy for him; he has been thrown into the ring and I do not suppose that we should expect him to know a lot about the subject. However, the Committee is entitled to expect that the appropriation for this Department or any other department would be handled either by the Minister himself or the Minister who acts in his place in this chamber and not just any Minister who happens to be available or on duty. This is simply not good enough. Senator Sir John Carrick has asked a number of questions in this debate and he has been treated with nothing short of contempt by the Government. Again, I do not blame the Minister at the table. Here we have the appropriations of this Government for the financial year being brought on by the Government itself-it determines when its Bills will be dealt with-during a week when the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is also the Minister who acts for other departments that are being considered in this group, has taken himself off to China or Timbuktu or somewhere. The Senate did not sit last week and that would have been a more convenient time for the Minister to have had his overseas junket. He has chosen to be away this week and the Government has chosen this week to bring on his estimates. That is totally unacceptable to the Opposition. It is particularly unacceptable for Senator Sir John Carrick, with his vast knowledge and interest in this subject, to be treated in this way. I have been sitting here listening to this charade by the Government and I have decided to move that the Senate postpones consideration of the estimates before us. The Government can make its own arrangements as to when it brings them on again for consideration. There is absolutely no excuse whatever. Not only is the Minister for Resources and Energy absent, but also the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy is absent. We were informed today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) that Senator Walsh was in fact the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. I cannot remember which Minister is representing the Attorney-General. We will deal with that matter when the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department come before us later. The fact of the matter is that at this point Senator Walsh is the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. Presumably he would be in a position to make a better fist of handling these estimates than the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table. As I said, he cannot be expected to answer the questions. We have had a litany of non-answers or answers such as: `I don't know, but I will find out'; `We will tell you later'; or `We will have to wait till the Minister comes back to tell us'. This is a total farce. It is a total insult. I move: That further consideration of the Votes for the Department of Resources and Energy be postponed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —The motion before the Chair is that further consideration of the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy be deferred to a later hour. Senator DURACK —No. My motion is that they be postponed. The Government can determine when it will be in a position to deal with these estimates. Perhaps it will be in such a position next week. If the Government wants to consider these estimates at a later hour today or tomorrow, it should consider bringing the Minister back. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The motion before the Chair is: That further consideration of the Votes for the Department of Resources and Energy be postponed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $217,792,000. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.33) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I want to address some remarks to the votes for the Attorney-General's Department. I notice that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) is at the table. I do not know whether he is representing the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the Senate. Senator Cook —Why don't you get on with it and stop carping. Senator DURACK —What a brilliant contribution by Senator Cook. We will see whether I am carping. If the honourable senator listens he will find out whether the Minister, whom he supports, can answer any questions. If he cannot, I will give him the same treatment that has just been given in relation to the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy. Perhaps Senator Cook would serve better by getting out and trying to organise something in the Senate. Senator Cook —When I want advice from you, I will ask for it. Senator DURACK —I am not asking for the honourable senator's advice. Mr Temporary Chairman, I want to deal, firstly, with division 170 under the heading `Courts and Tribunal Administration'. At the Estimates committee hearing there was a discussion about the arrangements for the Federal Court of Australia. The question arose as to some rearrangements of appointments to the Federal Court in the last few months. I asked: Has there been an overall increase in the number of judges in the Federal Court and the Family Court? The reply I received was that there had been only one additional appointment to the Federal Court. This reply was given on 17 September 1985. I presume that the answer which was given by the officer, Mr Curtis, referred to the previous 12 months. He also indicated that there had been some important rearrangements of justices of the court in that two judges who had previously been judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court and based in Darwin had resigned or retired from their duties. Mr Justice Forster had moved to Adelaide and Mr Justice Muirhead had moved to Perth. That gave rise to some further discussions because I was concerned about the policy that was exhibited by these arrangements, particularly as I understood that Mr Justice Muirhead was retiring from the Supreme Court altogether and was going to live in Perth. The next announcement we heard was that he was going to be appointed as a second judge in the Federal Court in Perth. That gave rise to some discussion about the nature of this appointment-whether it was a temporary appointment or whether it portended a change in policy in relation to appointments to the Federal Court. I was concerned to know whether there had been any inquiries from members of the legal profession in Western Australia and whether any of them were interested in an appointment to a second position in the Federal Court in Perth. I never got an answer to that question, as the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) who was dealing with these estimates could not answer the question. I do not know whether I have any hopes of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who is at the table at the moment being able to answer that question. I have never had any answer to that question subsequently despite the fact that it was asked on 17 September 1985. Therefore, I repeat the question: Is Mr Justice Muirhead simply taking this position as a temporary position, or is it envisaged as a permanent appointment to the Federal Court in Perth? The second point which arose-it arises in relation not only to Mr Justice Muirhead, but also, I guess, in relation to Mr Justice Forster-is whether there is to be a change of policy in appointments to the Federal Court in future. Until now appointments have been made on a territorial basis. If a judge is required in Perth, is the appointment made from the Perth profession? If it is made in Melbourne, is it made from the Melbourne profession, and so on, which has been basically the way in which the Federal Court has been structured up to date. Will appointments be made from within Australia at large? I am simply seeking information, I am not expressing any view one way or the other on that matter. I got a very unsatisfactory response from Senator Gareth Evans at the time. When I pressed him, he stated: I will take it on notice and see what Mr Bowen-- who is the Attorney-General- might be inclined to say. This is the sort of way this Government goes. It may or may not be inclined to give information. This is a government which was supposed to be the great apostle of freedom of information and so on, but it is almost like extracting teeth to get any information even if the Minister is supposed to know something about it, much less when it pretends to know nothing. The Minister representing the Attorney-General has never deigned to give me an answer to that question. So I repeat it. In fact, although Senator Gareth Evans tried to indicate that perhaps there was nothing very surprising about any of these appointments, the fact is that quite recently there has been an appointment to the Federal Court of a Mr David Jackson, QC, of the Brisbane Bar. He is a very fine lawyer and it is a very good appointment for the Federal Court. But I noticed that Mr Jackson is to be based in Sydney even though he is a practitioner of the Queensland Bar. He has been appointed and is to be based in Sydney. That is a very interesting development and it is very much in line with the questions I raised in Estimates Committee E on 17 September. It adds further to the interest I have in whether or not the Government has changed its policy in regard to appointments to the Federal Court. I would like to know whether there has been such a change of policy. If there has not been a change of policy, how does the Government explain the appointments of Mr Justice Muirhead, who has transferred from Darwin to Perth and is now sitting in Perth, and Mr Justice Jackson, who has been appointed from the Queensland Bar basically to serve the Court in Sydney? The other matter on this item, which I did not raise at the time but which is of some concern, is whether this Government is following any different policy from that of previous governments-not only the Fraser Government but also its predecessors-in relation to the size of the Federal Court. I appreciate that the Federal Court was established by the Fraser Government, but the Industrial Court had been in existence for some years and before the boilermakers case there was the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Historically, the policy of successive Federal governments over many decades has been that the Federal Court-whether it is called the Federal Court or by any other name, but a Federal court other than the High Court of Australia-would be a specialist court with very limited jurisdiction and limited purpose, certainly limited in size and not designed to be a competitor with the traditional court structure in Australia; namely, of the superior courts being the Supreme Courts of the States, ultimately with appeals to the High Court of Australia. We will be debating this matter shortly under another Bill, under which appeals to the Privy Council finally will be abolished, so we will have a thoroughly indigenous courts structure in Australia. I wonder whether, in view of those changes, this Government is contemplating a change in policy in relation to the size of the Federal Court. Will the Federal Court remain a specialist court or will it be expanded, as it easily could be, by being given jurisdiction under various Acts of this Parliament, where instead of investing State courts with that jurisdiction this Parliament may invest the Federal Court with the jurisdiction. That has been a serious matter of conflict within the Australian judicial system for some years. It has commanded great attention and concern by the courts and the legal profession of this country and also by litigants, who suffer most when there is a conflict about jurisdiction, which all lawyers agree is a totally arid, unproductive, expensive and unnecessary conflict for litigants and their advisers. The Australian Constitutional Convention, which was held in Brisbane at the end of July and early August, accepted a recommendation from its judicature committee which was designed to iron out these conflicts of jurisdiction. I know that the Government has accepted that recommendation and is working on it and I am not really asking about that. I am interested to know whether the Government has formed any different policy in the light of that decision; whether it sees any further growth in the size of the Federal Court; whether it sees the Federal Court as having an unlimited growth; or whether it sees the situation now as being one of containing the size of the Federal Court and attempting to maintain and perhaps enhance the powers and status of the State Supreme Courts. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.45) —As I understand the situation regarding some of the matters raised by Senator Durack, I am advised that Mr Justice Muirhead was an existing member of the Federal Court of Australia and was also a member of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. He resigned from the Northern Territory Supreme Court but retained his Federal Court appointment and subsequently moved to Perth. I think that that is a fairly normal and natural arrangement that is made from time to time, having regard to the various jurisdictions for which the Commonwealth has some responsibility to provide assistance wherever it is needed. There was a need for some additional Federal Court assistance to be provided in Perth and Mr Justice Muirhead took that position. With respect to Mr Justice Jackson, as Senator Durack would acknowledge, the Federal Court is a national court and judges often sit in States other than the State from which they come and from which they were appointed. Based on the information available to me, I do not think that there is any substantial reason to be critical of the way in which the movement of judges has taken place, bearing in mind that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has to look at the overall responsibilities in those areas and apply logic and common sense to resolve difficulties that occur from time to time. On some of the other matters, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is looking at problems such as cross-vesting of jurisdiction between State and Federal courts, but until this has been resolved, these matters are still receiving the attention of the Government. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.47) —Clearly the Minister does not know any- thing about this matter. He has made no attempt to answer my questions, nor does the officer advising him seem to be able to provide him with any answers that he can either understand or convey to me. The fact of the matter is that I asked a series of questions, none of which has been answered by the Minister. In relation to Mr Justice Muirhead, I asked whether his appointment was temporary or for an indefinite period. That was my specific question. I have been given some answers which talk about natural arrangements, which is totally irrelevant. It might well be justified for Mr Justice Muirhead to be appointed to Perth; I am not making any criticism of that. I am simply asking whether this portends a different policy, and specifically I am asking whether it is a temporary or permanent matter. That was all I asked, and I got some cock and bull answer about it being natural arrangements. It is really a pathetic effort. In relation to Mr Justice Jackson's appointment, I got the answer that judges often sit in other States. Of course judges sit in other States; we know that and we know that it is a national court. I was asking whether it will be normal policy in the future for a member of the profession, in this case from Queensland, to be appointed to the Federal Court of Australia to be based in another State, namely, New South Wales. I want to know whether the two events that have occurred in the last month-namely, the appointment of Mr Justice Muirhead from Darwin to Perth and the appointment of Mr Justice Jackson from Queensland to Sydney-indicate a new policy. That is what I am asking. I am not criticising anything; I am simply asking whether or not that is a new policy. In relation to cross-vesting, I know about the matter because I have worked on it for years. I was at the Constitutional Convention and I know that the Government has accepted the policy. I do not need to be told anything that has been happening about that. I want to know whether the Government has changed its policy in relation to the size of the Federal Court or whether the Government will confine the Federal Court to a specialist role and thereby seek, under the new policy of cross-vesting, to build up again and try to restore the status and jurisdictions of the State courts. The answers I have just been given to each of those three questions are totally beside the point. They simply do not answer the questions. I am giving the Minister one more chance to answer them. If I cannot get better answers I will move, as I did previously, to postpone the consideration of these estimates until we can get somebody at the table who can answer them. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.50) —Senator Durack is long enough in the tooth to know that if he wants to ask questions relating to Government policy he has the opportunity every day during Question Time to ask them of the Minister who is acting in this place for the Attorney-General. I am not in that position. What the Attorney-General may or may not want to do in respect of appointments or policies are matters that can be addressed only by the Attorney-General or the Minister representing him, and at the proper time. As Senator Durack well knows, they are not matters on which the officers who are present tonight can give advice to me as the duty Minister dealing with this section of the Estimates. Senator Durack knows full well that officers are not permitted or encouraged to comment on Government policies. They are matters which are determined by the Minister or the government of the day. I cannot give Senator Durack those sorts of answers. However, those answers are readily available to him if he gets to his feet tomorrow at Question Time and asks the Minister representing the Attorney-General about the question of the movements of judges or whether policies have changed. All I can say is that as far as I am aware there has been no change in the policy and there will not be until such time as the cross-vesting issue has been resolved. That is as much information as I can give Senator Durack. It is as much information as the officers from the Department can give him. These matters fall within the purview of the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General is not a member of the Senate-and he is not; he is a member of the House of Representatives-the Minister who represents him in this place is the logical person to whom to address these questions. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.53) —I remind Senator Gietzelt that on 17 September, two months ago, at the relevant Estimates committee hearing, I asked this question in relation to Government policy on appointments to the Federal Court of Australia. A number of other questions which were raised at the Estimates committee hearing went unanswered. The Senate has received supplementary answers to most of the questions, but no answer has been received to my question which Senator Evans said he would refer to the Attorney- General, Mr Lionel Bowen, about the policy Mr Bowen is following in relation to appointments to the Federal Court. That question was asked over two months ago. During the consideration of these estimates I would expect to have an answer to that question which has been on notice for two months or more. In fact, I would have expected to have had an answer to it long ago before the report of the Estimates committee was submitted. It is no good Senator Gietzelt saying that I can ask these questions every day at Question Time. The fact is that what we are engaging in now is a process of the chamber whereby detailed examination is being given to the estimates of particular departments. It has long been a tradition and a right of the chamber and honourable senators to ask questions in this forum. I do not propose to accept being told by Senator Gietzelt when I am to ask questions and when I am not. I am entitled to ask questions when the Standing Orders of this place enable me as a senator to do so. Furthermore, it has been a tradition of this place-- Senator Gietzelt —You can ask as many as you like but I can't answer them. Senator DURACK —That is the Minister's fault and a problem he has to solve. Officers are present during the consideration of these estimates to assist the Minister at the table if he cannot answer the questions himself. It has been a tradition of the chamber for the Minister who is either himself responsible for estimates of the department which are being considered or the Minister who represents the Minister to have some knowledge and ability to answer the questions and for that person to be present in the chamber when these estimates are considered. That has been the tradition of this Senate. I have said already that it is a total insult to the chamber that the Government cannot organise itself in a better way in order to deal with these matters. That is even more evident when, as I have said, one of the questions I asked was first put on 17 September when the Estimates committees were sitting. I have not had an answer to my question for over two months. It is absurd in the extreme that the Minister cannot be briefed to answer that question. For Senator Gietzelt to say that he cannot answer these questions is an absolutely remarkable example of this Government's attitude to Parliament and to informing the people of Australia about their affairs. I do not propose to be dictated to by Senator Gietzelt as to when I am to ask questions. I am entitled to ask those questions now. If I cannot get any sort of an attempt to answer them, it is fair enough to postpone further consideration of these matters until I do. As the officers present have had some opportunity to brief the Minister, I am prepared to give him a further opportunity to make some effort to answer my questions. Otherwise, I propose to move that further consideration of the matter be postponed. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(8.57) —I recollect that we did the same when we were on the other side of the House. We had the same complaint. When honourable senators opposite speak of tradition they should remember that they broke that tradition. It was a tradition that the Minister in charge of the portfolio, or the person acting for the Minister in the other place, would be present during the asking of questions in the Committee of the Whole. When I used to complain of the fact that the Minister in charge was not in his place my complaint was dismissed. When the Opposition establishes a tradition it has to realise the difficulties it has created for itself. It is quite unfair to ask Senator Gietzelt to respond to matters for which he has no direct responsibility. He has to depend upon the officers present and those officers can speak only in an advisory capacity. The Minister who answers the question takes full responsibility for the answer. The sooner we get back to the position whereby in the Committee of the Whole the Minister responsible for the portfolio is present, the better. What is going on is quiet unfair. It is quite unfair of Senator Durack to take the dominating position he does, which is that unless he gets an answer he will move that further consideration of the matter be postponed. I suggest that the Government and the Australian Democrats consider now that the role of the Government has been taken over by the Liberals through the in- ordinate actions of Senator Durack. Senator Kilgariff —But the question was asked two months ago. Senator GEORGES —Yes, it was, and at Question Time or subsequently Senator Durack can ask why he has not received an answer. I suggest to Senator Gietzelt and to other Ministers who are caught in this sort of situation that they place the questions on notice and honourable senators will get a reply. Senator Durack —You might not get your Estimates. Senator GEORGES —That remains to be seen. If honourable senators opposite are going to be obstructive at this late stage they know what is going to happen. Senator Walters —Who is being obstructive? Senator GEORGES —The Opposition is. This is a classic example. I am waiting to get on to Estimates Committee F, and maybe that is the basis of my complaint- Senator Durack —What do you want? We will get on to that. We will postpone this and you can get on with yours. Senator GEORGES —That is not necessarily what I want. Let us get some reason into this matter. We have fallen into a practice of not having the Minister present to answer questions directly. Senator Walters —That is a very bad practice to follow. Senator GEORGES —The previous Government established the practice. I remember complaining about it when I was on the other side of the chamber, and I could not get a direct answer from the Minister responsible. We have fallen into the practice of duty Ministers having to accept the responsibility for portfolios of which they have no knowledge. It is a very difficult situation. We have had an extensive scrutiny of the Estimates by the various Estimates committees. We are now going through the same process again. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.0) —On examining the Hansard record of the Estimates Committee hearing, I notice that Senator Durack raised all these matters as he has indicated, at that hearing. In particular, he asked questions on appointments in Perth. He was given this answer by Senator Gareth Evans, who, after all, was representing the Attorney-General: I think that is a matter for the Attorney-General to answer. I am not in a position to do so on his behalf. I do not think that it is an appropriate matter for the officer. Senator Durack then asked this question: Perhaps you will take that on notice? Senator Gareth Evans then said: I will take it on notice and see what Mr Bowen might be inclined to say. It appears that Senator Durack is of the view that he has not received a satisfactory answer. No doubt, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has taken the question on notice and will answer it when he is ready. That is nothing new. It has been par for the course as long as I have been a senator. Ministers of Senator Durack's Government did not answer questions at the convenience of an individual senator, be it a Government or an Opposition senator. Governments have taken their time to answer questions, whatever political party has been in power. The Attorney-General, for his own reasons, obviously has not responded to Senator Durack's question. I am not competent and certainly the departmental officers are not competent to reply on matters which are the individual responsibility of a Minister and the responsibility of the Government of the day. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.02) —I suppose that what we have ended up with is the fact that the Attorney-General does not have any answer to the question that he has been asked. Apparently the departmental officers present in the chamber have not been informed of the answer by their own Minister, despite the fact that that question was asked over two months ago. That is a sorry commentary on the Attorney-General, but I suppose we should not be very surprised at it, having seen his performance generally. In those circumstances, I will not proceed to postpone the proceedings any further because clearly nobody except the Attorney-General can answer my questions. I simply note that he treats the Parliament in this cavalier way. I might say that the very firm tradition in this place has been that when questions are asked at Estimates committee hearings that cannot be answered, the answers are provided before the Estimates committees report to the Senate. Not only has this question not been answered within that time frame and following that tradition; it has not been answered now when the matter is being debated in the Committee of the Whole. The Attorney-General will obviously have to wear the responsibility for that totally cavalier and, I believe, insulting attitude towards this Committee. Another matter to which I want to refer could really be dealt with under the same heading as the previous question I referred to; namely, Division 170 dealing with courts and tribunals. It was agreed at the hearing of Estimates Committee E that the questions I wished to ask on travelling allowances of judges and statutory officers could be dealt with under that heading because they had a very close relevance to it. In fact, those estimates are not covered in Division 170 but are dealt with under the special appropriations for the Department. I note that Senator Walsh, who is presently acting for the Attorney-General in this place, is with us now. I am sure that he will have done a lot of homework on this subject. He is so interested in the portfolio that I know he will be in a very strong position to answer my questions and if not he will at least be particularly interested in what I have to say. A matter which I find very disturbing indeed relates to the estimates for travelling allowances for High Court judges, Federal Court judges, and Family Court judges. I shall give honourable senators an example of the problems that we faced on the Estimates Committee. One item provided $67,084 to cover travelling allowances for High Court judges. As there are seven High Court judges, that amounted to a total travelling allowance figure-that is an allowance for overnight travel-for each of these judges of $9,600 per annum. That has to be considered in the context of the fact that five of the seven High Court judges receive a lump sum to cover travel from their home States to Canberra. I think that they get a lump sum of about $10,000 for the time that they spend in Canberra. We know that the High Court spends most of its time sitting in Canberra. So some $67,000 was allowed to cover travel by any of those five judges who live outside Canberra when the High Court sits somewhere other than their home base and for those two High Court judges who live in Canberra when they travel to places outside Canberra. It was really inconceivable that $9,600 should be allowed on average for each of the seven judges. I asked some questions about that. The Senate received a staggering reply in the supplementary answers that were provided, to which I have been referring. I asked the question: Again we do not have any figures for the travelling allowance-- that is, the travelling allowance payable to justices of the High Court of Australia- for 1984-85. We have an estimate for 1985-86 of $67,000. Have you got a figure for 1984-85? The reply that I received was: In 1984-85 expenditure of $31,098 was incurred by Justices of the High Court for travelling allowance. So twice the amount that was estimated for the past financial year has been estimated for the current financial year. I asked the same question about Federal Court judges travelling allowance. Mind you, there were something like 28 judges. I was told that $284,369 was claimed for this year whereas last year it was $145,000. In relation to Family Court judges, this year $303,323 is being claimed for travelling allowances whereas last year, on inquiry, I was told that it was $157,000. So that figure has nearly doubled again. I do not know whether the Attorney-General's Department in its estimating follows the principle of thinking of a number and doubling it, but it looks very like it. The Deputy Secretary to the Department, in a letter of 4 October covering all of this further information, says: the estimates for travelling allowance under Special Appropriations for the High Court, Federal Court and Family Court, when compared with the figures now provided for the preceding year, show increases too great to be fully explained by the factors I mentioned during the hearing. At least that was a recognition that was long overdue because these allowances were under question. How could such increases be required? The answers given at the hearing were quite inadequate. Mr Glare, the Deputy Secretary, on reflection has finally come to that conclusion as well. At the Estimates Committee hearing very strenuous efforts were made by officers of the Department to justify these incredible increases. I suggest that Senator Walsh, who is at the table, has a fertile field for the future as Minister for Finance in querying some of these estimates because here we have twice the amount being claimed as was expended in the previous year. The officers tried to justify those incredible increases and we now have the admission by the Deputy Secretary of the Department that they are too great to be fully explained by the factors mentioned during the hearing. This was his conclusion: These estimates appear to have been subject to estimating error. Because the travel which gives rise to travelling allowance claims is constrained by other items, the effect is that there will be savings under the three travelling allowance items. I hope there will be very considerable savings, about 50 per cent of the amounts that have been claimed. I do not propose to ask any further questions about these matters, but I do think that they reveal an incredible approach to the estimating of judges' travelling allowances. What concerns me is that these matters, which are on the public record, can lead to a very widespread misunderstanding about the amount of travel that judges undertake, and to questions about extravagances by judges, which of course would be quite unjustified, as the Deputy Secretary of the Department now admits. Over the past year there has been a great deal of focus on the judiciary. At such a time to have outlandish claims appearing for travel by judges of the High Court of Australia in particular-twice as much as for the year before-would indicate, I think, that there is something questionable about the travel that they may be undertaking. But we now find that that is due simply to what the Department calls `estimating error'. Although I am pleased that that admission has now been made, I believe it is a very serious and a most unfortunate error and one which should never have occurred. I hope it will never occur again. I also expect, at the next Estimates committee hearing, to be advised about what degree of savings is expected in respect of judicial travel. I put all concerned on notice now that next year I will certainly be asking questions about that to ensure that these amounts that will presumably be voted for by the Parliament-as the officer says, nothing can be done about it now as they are the figures-will show considerable savings. There is another matter about which I am not satisfied, and that is the travelling allowance claimed for the Solicitor-General. I preface my remarks in relation to this by giving some facts. The travelling allowance claimed for the Solicitor-General amounts to $32,000. At the daily rate of allowance for the Solicitor-General, under the new Remuneration Tribunal guidelines, that amounts to about 200 days in which travelling allowance can be claimed by him. That is a very large item when we consider that the Solicitor-General has been required by the Government to be based in and to live in Canberra. His arrangements have differed from those of his predecessor who lived in Sydney and who used to come to Canberra on several days most weeks and who may well have accumulated a large travel expenditure as a result. But the new Solicitor-General is required to live in Canberra and has been given an allowance for living here, which I think amounts to about $10,000 a year under the new Remuneration Tribunal guidelines. That is already provided for by a statutory provision. The Canberra allowance is in addition to that; it is a separate item. So, in addition to the Canberra allowance of $10,000, apparently an amount of $32,000 has been allowed for his travel outside Canberra. Some information has been provided as to his requirements to travel around Australia-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Durack, your time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.16) —I have three simple questions; one relating to the area of class actions, the second relating to the proposed small claims and residential tenancies tribunal in the Australian Capital Territory and the third relating to the Freedom of Information Act. In February 1977 the Australian Law Reform Commission received references on standing and class actions. Is there any indication when the final report from this reference will be ready? Why are such delays occurring when annual reports for each of the past few years have said that the final document was imminent. Does the Government intend to continue waiting for the report from the Law Reform Commission before developing policies in this area? In 1980-these matters relate to one another-a working party suggested that small claims and residential tenancies tribunals be established in the Australian Capital Territory. Some time ago there was a report of a draft ordinance making its way through the bureaucratic system. Can the Minister inform us when the working party's suggestions are likely to be acted upon? Why is it that Australian Capital Territory matters always seem to take so long to settle? My last question is: In the light of the nearly half of the requests for internal revenue under the freedom of information legislation are at least in part successful, and a fair proportion of matters that are taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are also successful, does the Government intend to require agencies to break down their freedom of information costs into three categories; first instance, internal revenue and Administrative Appeal Tribunal-so that their performance and especially their compliance with the spirit of the freedom of information legislation can be measured by both the public and by the Parliament? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.20) —I understand that the Australian Law Reform Commission has nearly completed its reference on class actions. I will have to take the second question on notice. The third question relating to freedom of information and whether the administrative costs or the costs involving the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are separated I understand is under review. If the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has anything to add, I will supply that. In Senator Durack's earlier comments, there was some implicit criticism of the Department of Finance for not scrutinising the Estimates sufficiently or picking up an estimating error. I know that in some cases the Department of Finance does challenge figures of that nature put up by various departments and sometimes obtains the agreement of departments to vary the estimates which have been submitted; but I guess it cannot do everything. Perhaps the trouble with the Attorney-General's Department is that it contains too many lawyers who frequently do not seem to think that money matters very much. I have nothing else to add. What I have not been able to supply to Senator Vigor, I will endeavour to get later. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.21) —I just wish to return to the comments I was making about the travelling allowance provided to the Solicitor-General. He is based in Canberra; the Government wants him in Canberra and there is good reason for that. Obviously, his main work is in Canberra but, admittedly, he has to travel around for many other meetings and conferences and, I suppose, appearances in court. The Department has provided, by way of example, some indication of the sort of travel he does, which is all perfectly well known. Even under the widest, most generous calculations, it would not be likely that he would be away for what would be about 200 nights. Presumably, if he is away for only part of a day he does not receive the full amount, although I am not sure about that. On the face of it, there appears to be the same sort of gross overcalculation of travelling allowance estimated for the Solicitor-General as there has been for judges. I do not want to say any more than that. Three errors have already been admitted. I wonder whether the Department has had another look at this item and whether it will now indicate that that is an accurate or semi-accurate estimate, or whether it falls within the same category as the estimates made for the Federal judges. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That further consideration of the votes for the Department of Resources and Energy be resumed. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $171,530,000 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.23) —I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) whether he has replies to the questions I asked earlier. I asked two things of particular significance. In the three years of the Hawke Government and at Estimates Committees, is it not a fact that the Minister gave assurances that there were no vital or highly significant radioactive problems at the atomic test sites that were not being dealt with? Is it a fact that each time I questioned the Government, it gave reassurances about the maintenance of those sites? In view of the fact that a bibliography of tests on flora and fauna is given in the Estimates Committee list, does that bibliography confirm that there were no vital defects in flora and fauna at any of those sites over the years covered by that bibliography? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.25) —I do not recall precisely what I said in response to questions about Maralinga on every occasion they were asked. In the last few years such questions were asked of me rather than of the present Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). I do remember questions on flora and fauna. To my knowledge, there was no evidence of any sort of genetic ill effects on the flora and fauna in the area concerned. In a more general sense, while I do not recall precisely what I said on every occasion, I did certainly report to the Senate at least once that fragments of plutonium had been discovered at some of the test sites and that, therefore, of course none of those sites could be regarded as absolutely safe, at least for permanent occupation or possibly even for transitory occupation. Action was taken, I think in 1984, to fence off the most sensitive areas. I do not think it would be accurate or reasonable to say that there were absolutely no hazards in that area under all conceivable circumstances. On the evidence available to it at the time, the Government took commonsense action to ensure that the public interest was reasonably protected. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.27) —I therefore ask the Minister whether, from his recollection and from the knowledge of the Government, anything was left undone that it was necessary to do to protect health from any radioactive materials at any of the test sites? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.27) —Fallible judgments are involved in answering a question such as that. For example, it was demonstrated last year that fragments of plutonium were in the area. Since some fragments were found, it is a reasonable assumption that smaller fragments were also present. However, whether an attempt should be made, for example, to remove the first few inches of topsoil from a significant area of land of 50 or 100 acres or whether it would be better to fence off that area are matters of judgment to which no definitive answer can really be given. I take this opportunity to say that, although it is frequently not recognised, almost everything has a price. Among other things, any government would have to consider the cost which may be incurred in any clean-up operation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.29) —I recognise that the Minister cannot speak with the clearest recollection now, but I ask him to seek from his officials, and let me have in due course, an answer to my question about the bibliography, to confirm his recollection and mine that there was nothing significant in the tests. I ask that because at Estimates Committee E I was advised by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that no testing of flora or fauna was made by the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1953 and 1963, so any information would be from prior to that time. Will the Minister check with his officials on answers given over the three years by both Ministers? I acknowledge that he gave full and frank answers during his term. I acknowledge that he drew attention to particles, particularly of plutonium, built up by dust. I acknowledge that evidence was given of fencing and fencing off. Fundamentally, however, what I am asking is: Did the Government, in that knowledge, regard what it was doing then as being basically effective, basically being the reasonable thing to do in the light of the knowledge at hand? Will the Minister get that information if he does not have it now? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.30) —The answer is yes, the information requested can, I think, be provided, and I shall endeavour to do so. Principally, the decisions about what was a reasonable thing to do, I suppose, were made by me. On the evidence available at the time, I thought, and still think, that the actions taken were reasonable actions. However, it should be borne in mind that what was thought to be a reasonable exposure to radiation in the early 1950s is no longer thought to be a reasonable exposure to radiation in the 1980s. Whether the McClelland Commission has added significantly, or at all, to the store of knowledge which was available at the time that I made those decisions, I do not know; but that is something which I expect will be known within the next few weeks. On the question of genetic mutations, and the bibliography to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred, at that stage at least, certainly no evidence was brought to my knowledge that there had been any genetic mutations of plants or animals in the area. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.31) —I thank the Minister for that reply. I asked a question on item 10 relating to energy conservation and in so doing drew attention to the fact that according to energy projections by the Department back in 1982 the growth of petroleum energy in Australia would be slowed down and would be only 0.5 per cent per year throughout the rest of this decade. I drew attention to the statement in the journal of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association which said that Australian petroleum energy consumption is growing at nearly 2 per cent, and that is ahead of the world, compared with America at 0.6 per cent. I ask whether the Government had any comment on the fact that its consumption, if these figures are correct, is very considerably wide of the target of conservation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.32) —I do not know whether Senator Gareth Evans would have any comment on that question. There is one point that could be made: Although the ratio is not 1:1, there is, of course, some correlation between the rate of economic growth and energy consumption. Given that in the last 2 1/2 years Australia has had, by historic Australian standards and particularly by the standards of the last decade or so, a very high rate of economic growth, it must be expected that that high rate of economic growth must have some influence on the growth in petroleum energy consumption. Otherwise, I am not entirely familiar with this area any more; I shall see whether Senator Gareth Evans has any comment to make on the question. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.33) —Will the Minister check the figures I have given in due course? When he talks about the high rate of economic growth, will he keep in mind that the American figure that I have given is an annual growth of 0.6 per cent in petroleum consumption and that America has had fairly consistent growth. Whilst I am on that subject, perhaps I may remind the Senate that when the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was present I drew attention to a very considerable failure and was seeking information on that. In the past and under the Fraser Government, a major program was implemented to convert vehicles, including Commonwealth vehicles, to operate on liquefied petroleum gas in order to get fuel saving. My memory is that there was to be a target of about 3,000 vehicles a year. The answer to me in the Estimates Committee was: Currently the Commonwealth departmental fleet has 144 LPG-powered vehicles out of an estimated total of 15,300. The major statutory authorities operate 417 out of an estimated total of 31,000. It goes on to say that the taxi fleets, which understand the economics of this matter, have converted very fully and that in Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane taxi industry sources estimate over 90 per cent of the taxis are LPG fuelled. Sydney and Perth fleets are undergoing conversion with current levels of 56 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. It is expected that these levels will rise to those obtained in other capitals within five years. About 55 per cent of the Tasmanian taxi fleet is LPG fuelled; in Canberra, it is 98 per cent. Against that background, the government policy was to pursue the targets I have indicated in the hope that in a decade or so some 14 per cent of automotive fuel would be provided by LPG. I draw the Minister's attention to the report in the Estimates: However, it is estimated that in 1983-84 LPG displaced 2.1 per cent of the motor spirit market and that around 40,000 vehicles were LPG fuelled. The simple fact of the matter is that the whole gearing of the LPG program was aimed to give automotive use high priority against the day when the oil supplies would fall in sufficiency. I pointed out to the other Minister that evidence had been given before the Senate of a very likely fall, over the next seven years, of self-sufficiency, possibly down to as low as 42 per cent, unless there are significant oil finds, and that we are using more oil than we are finding. I am relating it to the item on energy conservation, where, as my figures show, there has been a marked failure in the programs, and I seek the Minister's comment on the matter. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.37) —Regarding the disparity between some vehicles in the private sector and government vehicles, there is, I think, a partial explanation for that. Because of the exemption from the refined petroleum excise for LPG, there is some incentive for operators of vehicles in the private sector-provided that they have a high mileage and access to LPG supplies, and so on-to convert. This incentive is not really present with the government fleet because it is an internal transaction, essentially, so far as the Government as a whole is concerned. On the broader question, it would appear that the targets which had been set down at the time that Senator Sir John Carrick was the responsible Minister would not be met. I am not so sure that that is a matter for concern. Both LPG and crude oil are internationally tradeable commodities, and the choice of whether one or the other should be taken is ultimately, I think, a question of the relative prices. But I shall see whether Senator Gareth Evans, when he returns, has anything to add to that, and, if so, supply it to Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.38) —Perhaps I may direct my remarks to the Minister. I do not think it is fair to talk about the absence of excise at the Commonwealth level as being a disincentive. I suggest that the way to achieve a program of energy conservation in the Commonwealth Government is to give an instruction and to see that it is carried out. Quite clearly, if, in fact, the total conversion is 144 vehicles no such instruction has been given, and certainly nothing has been carried out. So, fundamentally, that comparison on excise is non-existent. If the Minister sees the problem as being one simply of cost, and not of conservation, I suggest to him, as kindly as I can, that that is not what I am asking. We are dealing with energy conservation. Equally, as the Minister must know, whereas Australia has abundant gas supplies and a possibility of converting even natural gas in that regard, and whereas it has very perilous supplies of oil, the problem of conversion is that one would have to start now if in seven years one were to have a fleet that had saved appreciably, 10 per cent to 14 per cent. I ask the Minister to get a response from the responsible Minister along those lines. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.40) —I will ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to comply with Senator Sir John Carrick's last request. I do not want to start a debate on the conservation argument but, if that argument is followed a couple of steps further down the logical path that has been laid down, it could be used as a criticism of the Government's present policy of exporting crude oil. Some people criticise that policy but, to my knowledge, it is not seriously disputed by the Opposition. I think judgments are involved here. In this area, as in many other areas, the present Government has decided on policies which are more closely related to allowing market forces to determine what happens rather than Government directives. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.41) —The Minister would not have had the opportunity of looking at questions asked at the Estimates committee meeting where we sought information concerning energy conservation in government buildings and a series of tables was supplied. The claim before the Estimates committee was that there had been a considerable success. The fact of the matter is that if one looks at the electricity bills one by one, year by year-there are two or three years of comparisons-one sees that there is little or no evidence at all of any real conservation. This ought to appeal to the Minister's heart, as Minister for Finance, as not just tens of millions of dollars but hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills could be saved. For example, in 1983-84 the electricity bill for the Edmund Barton building was $335,000, rising to $414,000-odd the following year, and so the statistics continue in very big figures right throughout. The simple fact of the matter is that this will mean not only a saving of money for the Government through good housekeeping but also, above everything else, that we will be using electricity to the best possible advantage. A policy for energy conservation in government buildings has been set out. The Minister will know that in the early 1980s there was a chronic shortage of electric power in New South Wales and Victoria-the two States that are of significance to the Australian Capital Territory. That, allied with a drought, caused very severe blackouts and restrictions on industry. The best way to build a power house is to save the equivalent of a power house in terms of energy conservation. That makes sense in every respect in terms of government savings. The general feeling throughout the world is that if one is willing to do this kind of thing a saving of up to 30 per cent on energy costs can be achieved, and that represents a saving for the Government of hundreds of millions of dollars. The same thing applies to the automotive industry. I simply draw attention to these figures. I recognise that the Minister would not have seen them and, therefore, it would be wrong for me to seek clarification. I just wish to draw attention to the whole situation. If we are to tackle Australia's greatest problem and get productivity up and internal costs down, if we are to conserve energy so that we have more electric power for the future without more capitalisation of power stations, if we are to have more automotive power without having to import oil, this makes good sense. Those figures show some progress but not much. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.44) —I can only agree with most of what Senator Sir John Carrick has said. It has been demonstrated that investment in building retrofits has been extremely cost effective. From memory, capital pay-back periods are as short as 18 months. I think the planning for a program of retrofitting was done when Senator Sir John Carrick was the Minister responsible and it was continued in the two Budgets with which I was associated in the Department of Resources and Energy. In the present Budget, $1.5m has been appropriated in the estimates of the Department of Housing and Construction for the modification of Commonwealth buildings for energy conservation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.45) —I wish to ask the Minister a question in relation to the export of crude oil from Bass Strait. Reference was made to this at the Estimates committee meeting. On what grounds was the decision taken to allow the export of crude oil two years ago? Is there a ceiling on the amount of oil that can be exported in a year? Is this subject to revision in any way at all? What amount of money do we earn in export earnings and what percentage of Australia's export earnings this year comes from the export of crude oil? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Mininster for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.46) —I cannot guarantee the precision of some of the answers that I will give. Senator MacGibbon asked for the reasons for the Government's decision. I was the Minister responsible at the time and I can give him some of them. Foremost amongst those reasons was that if oil production were locked in in Bass Strait or, indeed, anywhere else for want of a market it is reasonable to assume, and the Government made the judgment, that that would have a depressing effect on oil exploration activity. Senator MacGibbon asked whether there was any ceiling on the amount of crude oil that can be exported. The answer is no, there is no ceiling per se, but the Government monitors the prices at which oil is exported. As to the revenue earned from oil exports, I am fairly uncertain but from memory it was of the order of $1.7 billion in the last financial year. However, it ought to be borne in mind that Australia is still a significant net importer of oil. Senator MacGibbon —I am aware of that, but what percentage would that be of our export earnings? Would it be 10 per cent, 30 per cent or 2 per cent? Senator WALSH —If my figure of $1.7 billion is correct, it is of the order of 4 or 5 per cent. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.48) —I rise as a result of the eloquence of Senator Sir John Carrick earlier on the subject of water, which is a subject quite dear to my heart. It raised a number of unanswered questions for me. I would like to know how the Government is planning to develop and handle this very important area. What appropriation is being made available to look at new developments for water conservation and water reticulation in Australia, in particular for imaginative projects such as the Clarence River hydro-electric scheme which has been promoted to me by a number of councils along the River Murray? I ask the Minister: What are the Government's current plans and what funds are being made available to look at our needs in the year 2000? How many of the plans that have been put forward are actually being put into practice? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.49) —This is very much more a policy question than an Estimates committee question. I do not know whether this matter was taken up at an Estimates committee meeting itself. There is, of course, and there has been for many years, a water resources assessment program and a water research program, the expenditure on which amounts to just over $1m in the present Budget. Senator Vigor mentioned the Clarence River, which I presume is in northern New South Wales. I think he called it a hydro-electric scheme. From what I recall of that proposition, it involves pumping water uphill, thereby consuming electricity, instead of generating electricity by putting it though a turbine as it goes downhill. As far as I know, that proposal is not under any study at the moment. If that is wrong-I would be be surprised if it were wrong-I will ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to let the honourable senator know. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $243,624,000 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.51) —I want to raise the matter of the account rendered by the Department of the Special Minister of State to the organisers of the World Cup Athletics. It was for a considerable amount of money, alleged to be the cost of policing provided at the World Cup Athletics. Has that account been paid or does it remain with the organisers of the World Cup Athletics as an account which is expected to be paid by them? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.52) —If I heard the question properly, Senator Reid asked whether the account in question has been paid. I am advised that the answer is no. Senator Reid —Is it still outstanding and expected to be paid? Senator WALSH —I would assume so. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.52) —Can the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) tell us the basis of the account, how it was calculated and in particular on what basis an account was rendered to this organisation? What accounts will be rendered to other organisations where police are involved? Can we have a specific set of rules or regulations so that we know exactly what the position will be for the future? For example, will such accounts apply to sporting bodies, to demonstrations-who falls foul of this and who does not? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.53) —I am advised that the account was rendered principally for police services in the policing of the World Cup Athletics. I understand that it is the first time such an account has been rendered in the Australian Capital Teritory but it is quite common for State police departments to make similar charges where special services are requested of State police forces. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.53) —I appreciate that it was the first time such an account had been rendered in the Australian Capital Territory; that is why I want to know in what circumstances such an account will be rendered. How are we to know in future who will get an account, maybe just a few weeks before an event, for a large sum of money? This account, if it was going to be levied, should have been, or at least could have been, made known to the organisers some three years or more previously. What are the rules? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.54) —In the case of the World Cup Athletics there was a specific Government decision that charges would be levied for the services requested. The on-going question concerning the circumstances under which charges for services of that type will be levied is still under consideration. Senator Reid —When was the decison made that this charge would be levied? Senator WALSH —August 1984. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.54) —When will we know exactly who in future will be charged? There are events coming up in Canberra associated with Australia Day activities. Are these charges to be levied in this coming year or not? What about the Canberra Festival activities in March, and what about demonstrations and sporting events? How do we know which sporting events will be sent an account on the eve of the event, after all the budgeting has been done, and which ones will not? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.55) —No answer is available at this stage but I will see that the question is drawn to the attention of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to see whether he can give an answer as to when the guidelines or a statement of continuing policy can be expected. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.55) —I hope that that is the case because I raised these very matters in the adjournment debate a few weeks ago and so far I have had no response. I hope that I can rely on the Minister's word that my query will be answered quite soon. Senator Walsh —I said I will ask him; I did not guarantee that he would answer. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.56) —I could not find in the estimates where the cost of the Coastal Surveillance Unit was brought to charge. Formerly it was under the Australian Federal Police, yet division 577, subdivision 2, does not seem specifically to bring that to account this year. I am referring to the coastal surveillance flights operated by Skywest Aviation (Queensland) Limited. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.56) —I will take that on notice for the time being. I may be able to supply an answer in a few minutes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.57) —I refer to division 577, dealing with the Australian Federal Police. First of all I commend the Australian Federal Police for the work they have done in recent times and the significant successes they have had recently, particularly in relation to drug trafficking. I am aware that they are still a relatively small force which has had only a limited time to receive expert training. I pay my personal tribute to a force which is growing in efficiency and in achievement. When I look at the estimate I see that the amount of money allocated to the Australian Federal Police is up by barely 5 per cent. If one were to apply to administrative expenses and other things the ordinary consumer price index increases in fact there would be no growth at all. I make a number of general remarks concerning the Australian Federal Police and subdivision 582, dealing with royal commissions. Recently a former royal commissioner, Mr Justice Athol Moffitt, has written a book. His report in the 1970s was virtually the first of the royal commissions into gambling, drugs and general vice. Subsequently there have been the Woodward, Williams, Costigan and Stewart royal commissions-indeed I may have left out one or two-and a great volume of evidence of organised crime has emerged. I hope that the Government and the authorities within the operations of the Government-the police, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the National Crime Authority-will seek to investigate the key findings and the key comments of each of those commissions. One tends in politics to deal episodically with things as they arise. I am suggesting that here now is, probably uniquely, a collection of experience, evidence and facts from five royal commissions. Here too now is a book published by a very distinguished Australian, a man who has deliberately not sought to write headlines in his book but has pointed to events and trends of events rather than name individuals just to chase headlines. I commend to each of the authorities concerned not only an examination of the book but also a willingness on its part to seek out persons such as Mr Justice Athol Moffitt, interview them and seek from them the magnificent wealth of experience that they have gained. I know the kind of people they are and they would be very willing to be forthcoming. I would like to see a study done by the Government and its authorities of the whole of these reports, not in detail of individual alleged villains or, indeed, of individual events but to establish a pattern from which we can get a blueprint of what is happening in Australia. The Moffitt Royal Commission first drew attention to the fact that there was an emergence of organised crime, particularly of blue collar crime, of a magnitude quite different from anything we had seen before. I am not sure that governments of all persuasions have been alert enough to deal with it. I rise tonight to commend the Federal Police, to draw attention to some new information and to invite the Government to look at the information, from wherever it may come, and extract from it the key evidence. This would be helpful to all honourable senators in contemplating the future, in contemplating for example the work which the National Crime Authority should undertake. It would be helpful not simply to look at individual cases, but to look at patterns as they have been drawn up by the Royal Commissions. I invite the Government to do so. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.01) —In response to Senator MacGibbon, the total cost of the coastal protection unit's program is $33.4m, most of which-$21.5m-is appropriated within the Department of Defence and most of which involves contract services. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.02) —Following the Minister's reply, the Committee will remember that when the contract was first let to Skywest Airlines Ltd, the circumstances in which it was awarded came under considerable criticism in the Senate. One of the elements of that criticism was the fitting of sideways looking radar in the Shrike Commander aircraft which I said was an absolute nonsense and subsequent events have proved the correctness of that. This radar has now been withdrawn from service. The Ericsson sideways looking radar was a secondary surveillance radar which was designed for detecting oil slicks and icebergs in the North Sea, neither of which are terribly common occurances on the Barrier Reef. Senator Kilgariff —Or the north coast. Senator MacGIBBON —Or the north coast, as Senator Kilgariff says. Yet this was its primary role. I would like to know how much money we lost on that nonsensical exercise which the Department and the Minister would not be told was futile before it was introduced. The operator has now leased for a trial period a maritime version of a King Air aircraft which has a much better radar fitted in it. What is this lease costing us? If it is successful, will the aircraft be bought by Skywest and a lease agreement entered into for the Commonwealth to provide this surveillance of the Barrier Reef area? Above all, who will make the judgment? Will the same bunch of people who made the judgment that the Ericsson was suitable, be the people who will now sit in judgment on the King Air or will some competent people be doing it? Senator Grimes —Like you? Senator MacGIBBON —Well, I could do a lot better than they did. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.06) —I do not have any information on those questions but I will see whether the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, has any information that he can supply. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.06) —I direct the Committee's attention to Division 580 which deals with the Australian Electoral Commission. I am one of the members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and I acknowledge that a considerable amount of progress has been made both in the establishment of the Commission and in legislative reform. But fundamentally the mechanisms of electoral reform will fail essentially for one government budgetary reason. All the elements are built around the fact that an electoral roll must be clean. The Government has not made any money available at all for a habitation review this year. It is a nonsense to set up an electoral commission, to give it the job of cleansing the rolls-making transfers, wiping out those people who have died and adding new people-if it cannot do one fundamental thing. This is doubly important. It is no use the Minister saying: `We have a three-year cycle; we can do it before an election or before the next shower of rain'. The fact is that the Government is rightly seeking to get an agreement with all States that there be a joint preparation of rolls and that the rolls be joint rolls. I think that only one State, or at the most two, now stand out. If a roll is to be in reasonable condition for any State election or for a Federal election whenever it may emerge, there must be a continuous habitation review and a continuous cleansing of the rolls so that both the States and the Commonwealth can have available a set of facts. I was recently taken to see a demonstration of a pilot computer program that would do marvellous things if one had the millions of dollars to buy it. It can make sure that if somebody dies he or she is taken out of the roll and if somebody transfers somewhere that is noted on the rolls. The only trouble was that I asked a question that one should not ask-how one could tell whether the basic roll was clean. How does one check up ab initio on a person who is initially enrolled? There is absolutely no check at all. It is like expertly shuffling a crook pack of cards. Therefore, it is an absolute nonsense to set up mechanisms and for Senator Ray and me to come into this Parliament and talk about the virtues of how a redistribution is done. If we do a redistribution over seven years, we lock it in and we have a median point at three and a half years for a precise figure. At this moment we are very worried about whether there should be any tolerance at all. This is the essence of lunacy because one starts off with a gross error. We are playing silly little people's games. We are pretending to the community that a system is correct and accurate when in fact the very basis from which we start is not accurate. I say emphatically that there is no sense in pretending that we have a basis of a sound electoral system particularly if we have joint Federal and State rolls if we will not make money available for habitation reviews. It is no use the Government saying that it might do it next year after or in the year before an election. Habitation reviews must be done continously in order to meet the demands of all States. It is nonsense to think of computerising rolls and shuffling the pack accurately when the pack itself is defective. I make the strong plea to the Minister that whatever the economies may be, the money must be allocated. One cannot have an effective parliamentary system with redistribution unless one's rolls are honest. At this moment the rolls are getting more and more erroneous, both for State and Federal purposes. Therefore, while commending the work of the Committee and the chairmanship of Senator Robert Ray, I must say that there is a fundamental error in the budgeting of a government which seeks not to cut the amount for a habitation review but to provide no money at all for it. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.10) —It is a sad day when I have to get up here and agree with Senator Sir John Carrick. I think that the Government will have to give consideration to how it funds habitation reviews. The current Act says that every two years there will be a habitation review. I have some doubts whether that is sufficient on two grounds. The first is whether it is fair. I suspect the Australian Labor Party does better out of annual habitation reviews than biannual ones because our voters tend to be on the move far more than Liberal voters. Therefore, I think in our own self-interest we may have to look at annual habitation reviews. Secondly, I know that no government likes to tie in an annual expendure item that it always has to pay out. No Finance Minister, no Treasurer, has any particular liking for that. We have spent a lot more on making Australia a democratic community in the last three years. We have set up the Australian Electoral Commission; we have introduced public funding and introduced a whole range of reforms. Senator Sir John Carrick is right that if the basic building blocks are not there, a lot of those reforms become farcical. If this Government wanted to learn a lesson about roll habitation, it had only to look at the role of the previous Government, which was very tardy in this particular exercise. It seemed to have habitation reviews in Labor electorates but never in National Party electorates. When we talk about a clean roll, the one thing we do not do is cut off the roll the moment an election is announced and disfranchise a couple of hundred thousand people. Apart from those minor disagreements with Senator Sir John Carrick, I think he is basically right. That is the price of democracy. It will probably cost $2m to $3m a year and it is unavoidable. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.11) —My temporary love affair with Senator Robert Ray has to have a minor aberration at this moment. He suggests that some act of ministerial authority has brought about a situation where politically rolls were cleansed in one area and not in another. That is a gross reflection on the Commonwealth electoral officers and the divisional electoral officers at the time. I just happen to know that it is not true. Senator Robert Ray —Have a look at the answer to Senator Gietzelt's question in 1981. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If Senator Ray gives it to me, I will look at it. I simply want to say that it ought not to be a habit in this place to suggest that a Commonwealth electoral officer is corrupt. He can only do this if he is carrying out orders. I for one do not suggest that the Hawke Labor Government is giving political orders to the Australian Electoral Commission. I believe that if money is made available for roll cleansing it will be made available on the basis of a Commonwealth chief electoral officer receiving information from his divisional electoral officers and acting accordingly. I simply rise to correct that. I think in his heart or hearts Senator Robert Ray will smile and agree with me. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.12) —The fact is that when the Government allows only 50 per cent of the money to an electoral office for a habitation review-that is a government decision-it inevitably picks inner city areas or suburban areas because they can be done quickly, easily and cheaply. The effect of that was that the National Party areas were not hit. Only Labor electorates and, indeed, some Liberal electorates were hit, but the National Party electorates were not hit. We have to question how much advantage that was to the National Party. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.13) —I do not want to rake over any sordid coals, as Senator Robert Ray was about to do. Senator Sir John Carrick is right in the sense that the rolls are inaccurate the day after they are compiled. There is a continuing accumulation of-I was going to say dead wood-a dead something or other on the rolls which requires review. I am advised that the position so far as Senator Sir John Carrick's point of substance is concerned is that this year a habitation review is being conducted in Western Australia to which the Commonwealth has contributed some $95,000. The current legislation requires a habitation review every two years. It is expected that there will be a need to budget for about $4,500m next year for the purpose of habitation reviews. As Senator Sir John Carrick acknowledged, the legislation prescribes a two-year habitation review. It is understood that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform will again be considering whether to recommend annual reviews as distinct from two-yearly reviews. Any change in the legislation will, of course, wait on any such recommendation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.15) —I thank the Minister. I simply remind him-he perhaps needs no reminding-that what has changed is the joint rolls. As more and more States take the Commonwealth rolls, it is quite clear that every year the rolls have got to be as accurate as possible because there will always be a State or Federal election. I simply ask the Minister to take that aboard for the future. Senator Button —That is a view that could appropriately be put to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.16) —I would like to touch, very briefly, on coastal surveillance. The viability and efficiency of the coastal protection unit has been a rather controversial matter. I understand that, to a degree, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). To bring an end to the controversy, is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in a position to indicate whether it is correct that the flying hours and the finance available for the Shrike aircraft-that is the coastal surveillance aircraft under charter-have been cut back? Is it also correct that charter aircraft emanating out of Darwin are now making fewer flights along the northern coast? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.17) —I understand that there is a reduced requirement from the Department of Health and accordingly, the number of hours available has been reduced. I think I can fairly remind Senator Kilgariff that this has been the subject matter of a question in the Senate. I will endeavour to obtain the answer, which gives much more detailed information than I am able to provide at the moment. The honourable senator's question was whether the hours have been reduced. The answer is yes. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.18) —The Minister has indicated that the finance for the Department of Health has been cut back. As I understand it, coastal surveillance, quarantine matters and the like do come under the Department of Health. It is very difficult to ascertain within the Budget Papers whether the same amount of money is being spent each year on coastal surveillance because it is so fragmented over the various departments. When the Minister obtains this information, will he ascertain whether coastal surveillance as a whole is being cut back? If this is the case, it is difficult to understand the reason. There has been a drive by the Federal Government this year in relation to the prevention of drug abuse. The project is called Operation Noah. I commend the authorities for previously conducting such a drive because they were able to obtain information which resulted in finding millions of dollars worth of drugs that were brought into Australia. I thought that was extremely good. I have no doubt that people who are interested in drug prevention would commend the authorities for their initiative. The point I am making now is that a lot of drugs are brought into the country from the Golden Triangle in Indo-China. Operation Noah was to encourage the Australian community to lend its assistance to finding the smugglers and bringing about their apprehension. In view of that it is most unusual that funding for northern coastal surveillance is being cut back. The Minister has yet to confirm this. To me, that is a most serious situation. Frankly, I think that this is extremely poor economy, given the inroads that drugs are making into Australia now. As I have said, the fragmentation of budgeting for northern surveillance, which covers so many departments, causes a most difficult problem. I look to the Minister to give the chamber, Australia and me an assurance that northern surveillance is not being cut back; that it is being kept up in an efficient unit and that funds are being made available to the coastal protection unit to ensure that it operates efficiently. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.21) —Senator Kilgariff asked me, in conjunction with other information I have said will be obtained, to obtain some information about this matter. I said earlier that the requirement in respect of health, which is a quarantine function as I understand it, had gone down. The overall expenditure on surveillance this year has gone up moderately-by $1.6m. I do not know whether any amount of expenditure on this initiative will give Senator Kilgariff or anybody else the assurance he requires in respect of the potential for importation of drugs into Australia, but that may be some small satisfaction. I will endeavour to obtain the other information. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.22) —The Department of the Special Minister of State provides some of the facilities and resources for members of parliament. The parliamentary departments, of course, supply the others. The Department of the Special Minister of State supplies resources for electorate offices for senators and members. The Department of the Senate supplies equipment for senators' offices in Canberra. A situation has arisen where the Department of the Senate has moved senators into the twentieth century with the provision of computers for use in their parliamentary offices. That equipment has been provided through the Department of the Senate under its appropriation. The question now arises as to what will happen in relation to the provision of equipment in electorate offices for senators and members. What has been spoken of, apparently, is that the Department of the Special Minister of State may be moving independently along some path to provide computers in some electorate offices. There are some problems. Firstly, those parliamentarians who use this modern word processing or data processing equipment have a requirement for it in both their electorate offices and their parliamentary offices. I have four such machines-one in Parliament, two in my electorate office and one at home-to enable me to do the kind of work I need to do. Now that many other parliamentarians are acquiring such equipment in their electorate offices, it is quite likely that the Department of the Special Minister of State will want to go down that path. As far as we are concerned, we have one job to do and it does not matter whether the equipment is provided by one or other department. What matters is that we should have equipment which is compatible and can be used in both places, so that we can use modem connections to get the machines talking to each other. It is not clear what are the intentions of the Department of the Special Minister of State in this area. Will there be a move to provide this kind of equipment for parliamentarians and can we be certain that interdepartmental rivalries will not lead us to a situation where equipment obtained for the electorate offices either is not compatible with that in the parliamentary offices or in some other way is not developed in an integrated fashion? It would be a gross waste of resources if the departments failed to work together on the provision of computers to parliamentarians. I hope that commonsense will prevail and the same equipment is purchased. The Department of the Senate, for example, has chosen equipment from Digital Equipment Corporation (Aust.) Pty Ltd for honourable senators. I hope that a decision taken by the Department of the Special Minister of State will not see some machinery chosen which is not compatible with that which has been chosen by the Department of the Senate. I would like the Minister to advise us of what steps are being taken by the Department of the Special Minister of State in relation to developments in this area. What assurance can he give us that it will be integrated in every possible way with the work being carried on in the parliamentary departments? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.25) —Senator Peter Baume is correct in saying that there has been some interest in this matter. The Department of the Special Minister of State appointed a group of consultants specialising in office equipment and micro-processing tech- nology to look into the matter. The group reported to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) on 19 November, seven days ago. Senator Peter Baume —Who were they? Senator BUTTON —I do not know. The question of compatibility, of course, had to be addressed in any such study. I think that the Department is as aware as he or I of the importance of it. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.26) —I have several questions relating to the Australian Federal Police, which I understand is handled by the Special Minister of State. On page 847 of the Hansard of Estimates Committee E it was stated that probably no police force in Australia is currently researching computer fraud as such. No estimate could be given at the time of the cost to the community of computer fraud. What types of measures does the Government intend to take to make it harder for people to perpetrate swindles in this area and to handle the problems of companies and government bodies which may be subject to hackers or people who can get into computers and modify figures to their own advantage or to the advantage of an organisation to which they belong? Senator Grimes —Haven't you heard of Estimates committees or questions on notice, or are you just trying to be difficult? Senator VIGOR —This is a very important estimate. Senator Grimes —Of course it is important; everything is important. That is why we have Estimates committees, questions on notice and adjournment debates. You are just being a nuisance. Senator VIGOR —I will sit down to give Senator Button a chance to answer my question. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.27) —The Special Minister of State has already announced, I understand, a decision to have a study made of a variety of forms of fraud, including computer fraud. That study is about to get under way. Until that study is completed, of course, we cannot answer the honourable senator's questions, but if he keeps asking questions the study will never be completed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.28) —I have a question on the matter of electoral reform. The Minister will be aware that more than one submission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has pointed out how poor definitions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act have left open the possibility of some voters in practice getting more than one vote. I would like to know what work the Electoral Commission has been instructed to carry out to attend to this embarrassing situation and what types of appropriations are associated with this. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.29) —I will have to take that question on notice and supply Senator Vigor with an answer to it in due course. I hazard a guess that there is no specific appropriation in this Budget for that purpose. It would be in the context of a global appropriation for the Electoral Commission. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.30) —I raise tonight the question of human rights which has received considerable publicity in relation to the activities of a group of eminent persons, which includes a former Prime Minister of this country, which has been appointed to take steps to endeavour to ensure the protection of human rights and development of full human rights in South Africa. Bearing in mind that persons's activities and interest in relation to South Africa, I remind the Senate of his interest and activities in relation to another country-Afghanistan-and of what is being done in relation to it by the world, by this Parliament and by the person to whom I refer, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. Malcolm Fraser was sufficiently concerned, and still is concerned, about South Africa and Zimbabwe to be involved in a great number of discussions and actions taken in regard to South Africa. He was also sufficiently concerned about Afghanistan to suggest that Australians should not participate in the Olympic Games which were to be held in Moscow, thereby not encouraging the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. It is a matter of some concern that the invasion of Afghanistan appears to have been forgotten in the welter of words about actions being taken in relation to southern Africa. I remind the Senate that on 19 February 1985 the European Commission on Human Rights reported to the United Nations Economic and Social Council on Afghanistan. It made horrendous findings about the actions of the `Government' of and invading forces in Afghanistan. By way of background I refer to the fact that at the first regular session in 1984 of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations the Council, by its resolution No. 37 of 1984 entitled `Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan', endorsed by 35 votes to four, with 12 abstentions, the Commission's decision to request the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to appoint a Special Rapporteur with the mandate to examine the human rights situation in Afghanistan, with a view to formulating proposals which could contribute to ensuring full protection of the human rights of all residents of the country before, during and after the withdrawal of all foreign forces. The resolution is set out in the report to which I have referred. What that report describes is quite horrific. I am not suggesting that what it describes is peculiar. Regrettably, war brings with it not only the deprivation of human rights but also the degradation of human beings. It brings with it the degradation of the standards of behaviour of the winners or oppressors. It brings with it the deprivation of the rights of those who are subjected to being on the losing end of the power struggle at a particular time. Senator Kilgariff —As sinners we look the other way. Senator PETER RAE —I thank Senator Kilgariff for his comment. I briefly draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the United Nations report referred to the use of anti-personnel mines and so-called toy bombs. It referred to the victimisation of the civilian population-I emphasise this-particularly of women and children. It referred to the non-acceptance of members of the Afghan opposition forces as prisoners of war. The report, in its recommendations, referred to the desirability that the governments directly involved in the present situation regarding human rights in Afghanistan should co-operate fully with the United Nations, in particular in clarifying the fate of missing persons, and should do everything possible, as a matter of urgency, to contribute to the restoration and upholding of human rights in Afghanistan. The report referred to the fact that Soviet forces had engaged in a deliberate policy of bombing villages, massacring civilians and summarily executing captured guerrillas. The report accused the Government of Afghanistan of holding an estimated 50,000 political prisoners. We hear about South Africa. We hear about what is wrong in South Africa. I do not wish to debate that or to suggest that some of the things which have been happening in South Africa are not wrong. But let us keep these things in balance. When we are talking about and paying attention to human rights in the world, let us keep in balance the allegation made in a report of the Commission on Human Rights that there are 50,000 political prisoners in Afghanistan. I pause to say that a Scandinavian report of some two years ago alleged that there were of the order of 200,000 political prisoners in Vietnam. What have we heard about those people? What have we heard about the 50,000 political prisoners in Afghanistan? The report said that torture in gaols had become so routine that it had assumed the character of an `administrative practice'. The report was prepared by an Austrian law professor, Felix Ermacora. It is not regarded as being political from the point of view of being biased in regard to political parties. Professor Ermacora had also participated in human rights inquiries into Chile and South Africa. It is interesting to note that the Afghan Government refused to co-operate with Professor Ermacora when undertaking his report. His report referred to the fact that not only was torture and ill-treatment inflicted on women but also degrading treatment was undergone by many of them. The Special Rapporteur took particular note of cases of women who had been raped in the presence of members of their families. One witness mentioned the case of one Said Rafik, who was killed by soldiers because he had intervened to prevent his daughter from being raped by a soldier. In his testimony, a former officer of the security police stated that he himself had witnessed the scene-the report references where it occurred-where a husband had been obliged to watch the rape of his wife who was eight months pregnant. Numerous witnesses declared that children had been seriously wounded, having their hands and feet blown off either by handling `booby-trapped toys' picked up along the roadway or by stepping on them. According to witnesses these toys had been dropped by helicopter into zones presumed to be occupied by the resistance. The booby-trap toys, which exploded on the slightest contact, were shaped like pens or small animals and looked completely inoffensive from the outside. I could go on to quote a great deal about the use of poisonous gases and reprisals for alleged acts of terrorism. I could quote the detail of the report. It is not my intention tonight to quote the report in full. I am trying to say that this Parliament, while considering its concern for human rights in the world, should keep that question in balance. We must bear in mind that some three million Afghans have fled Afghanistan as a result of the Russian invasion and that more than one million are estimated to have been killed. Senator Kilgariff —And that is conservative. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the honour- able senator. That is a conservative estimate. Senator Button —That is another independent rapporteur that you have there-Senator Kilgariff. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Kilgariff is another concerned Australian and not someone who makes supercilious comments about a matter of great seriousness. I do not propose to be interrupted by somebody who regards with flippancy the serious matter to which I am trying to direct myself. I wish to go on to refer briefly to some of the other areas of concern in relation to the question of human rights to which I believe regard should be paid. One country that concerns me is Romania. A report by the Department of State submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations in the United States Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the United States House of Representatives, dated February 1985, states with regard to Romania: In the area of human rights, major discrepancies persist between Romania's Constitution, laws, Public pronouncements, and international commitments on the one hand, and the civil liberties and human rights actually allowed by the regime on the other. Almost all aspects of life proceed within narrow bounds defined by authority without regard to constitutional and legal guarantees, although practices vary as a result of individual circumstances and attitudes of local officials. Political dissent is not tolerated; any appearance of deviation from the party's policies is actively repressed. Psychological and, to a lesser extent, physical intimidation by the ubiquitous security apparatus and other state organs is effective in securing conformity, although the costs in terms of individual liberties, creativity, and overall economic efficiency are apparent. The report talks about political killings, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. It states: There have been numerous reports of cruel and degrading treatment in Romanian prisons in 1984. The most common complaints concern cells which are badly ventilated and poorly heated, bad food in extremely small quantities, difficult working conditions, long periods of isolation, little or no reading materials, overcrowding, and segregation of persons deemed ``dangerous to the State'' because of their religious beliefs. Furthermore, persons convicted of political crimes are not allowed to work but are forced to spend their sentences within the confines of the prison, thus forgoing the possibility of reducing their sentences through work outside the prison. Acts of violence perpetrated by police authorities attempting to obtain information are commonly reported. Persons apprehended for illegally trying to cross the border often complain of cruel treatment, including beatings, inflicted during police custody. Persons detained for questioning are often kept for long periods without sleep, food, or toilet facilities. The report goes on to talk about arbitrary arrest, the denial of fair public trial, the denial of freedom of speech and freedom of the Press. It goes on to talk about the denial of freedom of peaceful assembly and association and, in particular, it talks about the fact that free trade unions are not permitted. I have no doubt that that is a matter which would concern those who believe that a free trade union movement is an important part of a democracy. The report talks about the limitations on freedom of religion and states that only certain religions are recognised. It states: During 1984, fewer cases of harassment were reported, although the persecution of members of denominations not recognized by the State, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Romanian Uniates continues. Individuals are still fined and imprisoned for religious practices. This is the sort of world with which we should be concerned. This is the sort of world which we tend to forget, I believe, when we concentrate our attention on what is going wrong in one area and pretend that our efforts ought to be concentrated and limited to that one area alone. An item which appeared in a newspaper on 30 October concerned me greatly when I read it. I think it sums up what I am talking about. I do not remember any great world outrage when it was reported that 200 political prisoners were excuted in Iran during the month of October, according to a communique issued in Paris by the Islamic left movement People's Mujahedeen. That event was just accepted as deserving a small three or four-line paragraph in a newspaper and apparently is not regarded as a matter of great moment. But one single country has been singled out by a large number of people in the world as being one upon which they will concentrate because they have some reason for wishing to do so. A committee of eminent persons has been established to look into the question of human rights of individuals in that country. What about the other countries of the world with which we should be concerned? What about the political prisoners in Iran? What about the political prisoners and human rights in Romania? What about the millions of people who have been affected by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? When will we pay a little more attention to them? I recall that when I was in Bonn in 1978 I met one of the Indian members of parliament who had been imprisoned under the regime of Indira Gandhi, a person whom I regarded at that time as being a dictator. He said to me that whilst he was in prison under her regime, a copy of the speeches which had been made in this chamber by certain of us who were concerned about the political prisoners in India at that time had been smuggled in. He said how much it meant to him to have smuggled to him whilst in prison the expressions of concern and to know of the pressure which was being applied in a free democracy towards the restoration of democracy and freedom in a country in which at that time he happened to be a member of parliament imprisoned for his political beliefs. I ask the Senate tonight to bear in mind that if we raise these questions they can sometimes do some good. They can sometimes bring home to the regimes which are inflicting a deprivation of human rights the pressure which is necessary to reduce the degree of deprivation or possibly even restore human rights in those countries. It is in that light that I have made my comments-in the hope that we may get from the Government an assurance that it will pass on to the governments of those countries the views of this chamber, of this Parliament and of this country that human rights are to be respected, that we believe that human rights are universal and not selective and that we believe that human rights might be enforced in those countries through pressure from all of those sections of the world which are free to enjoy them, and that includes Australia. I trust that we will get from this Government an assurance that it will do everything it can to see human rights preserved and asserted in every country of the world and not selectively in some parts of it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.50 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Audit Act-Corrigendum-Report of the Auditor-General upon the Financial Statements prepared by the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1985. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1985- MQ14-High Quality Beef to EEC-1986 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ15-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1986 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ16-Buffalomeat to EEC-1986 Quota Administration Scheme. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determinations 1985 Nos, 4, 5, 6. Determinations 1985- No. 67-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 68-Travelling Allowances and others. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notice- No. 150-Prohibition on the taking of prawns off the east coast of Australia, dated 6 November 1985. Plan of Management No. 2-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). Public Service Act- Appointment- Department of Veterans' Affairs-R. Miranda. Determinations 1985 Nos 84, 89, 90, 91, 92. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination 1985 No. 5. Quarantine Act-Determination under section 86E, dated 13 November 1985. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determination 1985- No. 19-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Australian Science and Technology Council and others, dated 30 October 1985. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination made under the following Ordinances- Cemeteries, dated 28 October 1985. Health Services, dated 8 October 1985 and 5 November 1985. Variation of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, dated 19 November 1985. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 61. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 46. Telecommunications (Staff) Amendments Nos 46, 47. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGES-ASSENT TO LAWS: Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, notifying that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following Laws: 18 November 1985-Message No. 39- Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 129 of 1985) 22 Novemer 1985-Messages- No. 40- Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 (Act No. 130 of 1985) Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 (Act No. 131 of 1985) No. 41- Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Act 1985 (Act No. 132 of 1985) No. 42- Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act 1985 (Act No. 133 of 1985) Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act 1985 (Act No. 134 of 1985) GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act and section of an Act to come into operation on the dates specified: Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1985-Section 35-29 November 1985 (Gazette No. S 490, 21 November 1985). Insurance Contracts Act 1984-1 January 1986 (Gazette Nos S 484, 18 November 1985 and S 487, 20 November 1985). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 200) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: (1) How many passengers were carried by Australian National Railways Commission in the most recent full year for which this information is available. (2) How many of the passengers in (1) above paid full fare. (3) How many of the passengers in (1) above were there in each less than full fare category and what percentage of full fare applied to each such category. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has advised (1) A total of 357 456 passengers were carried in 1983/84 (2) Full fare was paid by 148 148 passengers in 1983/84 (41.4 per cent of total patronage) (3) Details of patronage for each less than full fare category during 1983/84 are: Less Than Full Fare Category Passengers Percentage of Total Patronage Percentage of Full Adult Rail Fare Child... 46 552 13.0 50 Students 16 yrs and Over... 23 093 6.5 50 Pensioner Fares... 38 201 10.7 NIL (a) Pensioner Half Fare... 69 374 19.4 50 Staff including AN &Other Systems... 24 508 6.9 NIL Others including Austrailpass Holders... 7 580 2.1 Various Percentages (b) Total... 209 308 58.6 (a) Full fare reimbursed by Federal Government. (b) Includes War Service beneficiaries. (Question No. 212) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Was the decision not to allot HMAS SYDNEY for `Special Service' during the Vietnam conflict made by the Cabinet of the day. (2) Was the southern zone of Vietnam designated a `Special Area' from 31 July 1962 and were all Vietnam waters designated as `Special Area' from 1 March 1967. (3) Were Army personnel who performed duties in Vietnam awarded `Special Duty' while on board HMAS SYDNEY. (4) Did Mr Justice Toose, in his report `Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System', draw attention to the fact that although a soldier and a sailor were both injured in the same accident while assisting with the unloading of HMAS SYDNEY in a South Vietnam port, the soldier, having been allotted for `Special Service' was covered by repatriation legislation, whereas the sailor was not. (5) Have numerous approaches been made to Ministers of Defence both in this and the previous Government, on behalf of RAN personnel, in their efforts to obtain repatriation benefits. (6) Will the Minister for Defence ensure that this matter is looked into, and remedied, before the revised repatriation legislation is finalised, in view of what appears to be gross discrimination against these veterans. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In 1965 Government decided that the Services be directed that allotment for special duty should only be made at a time when personnel were exposed to potential risk by reason of the fact that there was a continuing danger from activities of hostile forces or dissident elements. Personnel, such as the crew of HMAS SYDNEY who were employed on transit duties between Australia and Vietnam and who would not be employed on special duty in Vietnam on arrival there, were not allotted for special service because, at that time, there was no assessed sea or air threat to the convoy routes. The then Government believed there was consequently no `continuing danger from activities of hostile forces or dissident elements'. (2) Yes, in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962. The new Veterans' Entitlements Bill Schedule 2 designates Vietnam waters as a special area from and including 31 July 1962. (3) The Special service of those Army personnel who had been allotted for special duty in Vietnam and who were being transported to or from Vietnam by whatever means, included the transit period. (4) Yes (page 106, Vol. I of the report). (5) There have been a number of representations relating to repatriation benefits, made by or on behalf of personnel who were not allotted for special duty in a special area. (6) This Government has reviewed the question of allotment for service in Vietnam and has decided that, in the spirit of an act-of-grace, that all Australian Service personnel on continuous full time service who served in the declared special area of Vietnam's land and waters during the period from and including 31 July 1962 to and including 11 January 1973 will be deemed to have been allotted for special service and will have access to repatriation and Defence Service Home loan benefits. (Question No. 294) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 May 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Defence now received advice that the Deputy Ombudsman (Defence Force) has been investigating the matter of Non-Allotment for Special Service to the men who served on HMAS SYDNEY, HMAS BOONAROO and HMAS JEPARIT between 1965 and 1973 (see Question No. 212, 16 April 1985). (2) Did the Deputy Ombudsman express the opinion that the crew members of HMAS SYDNEY, HMAS BOONAROO and HMAS JEPARIT and like units were members of the Forces for the purposes of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act and were also eligible persons for the purposes of the Defence Services Homes Act. (3) Has the Minister been requested to ensure that the revised repatriation legislation, when introduced, will allow for repatriation cover for these men of the Royal Australian Navy. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. See also my answer to Question on Notice No. 212. (Question No. 457) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What cost was incurred by the Federal Government in advertising the results of the 1983 Economic Summit. (2) Has any cost been incurred in advertising the proceedings or results of the 1985 Taxation Summit. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) $330,000. (2) No advertising immediately followed the Summit but advertising was planned to take place following the announcement of the tax reform package. (Question No. 469) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which Queensland locations have locally transmitted ABC TV, but no locally transmitted ABC radio. (2) Which Queensland locations have locally transmitted ABC radio, but no locally transmitted ABC TV. (3) Which Queensland locations have New South Wales TV programs transmitted and why do these places not receive Queensland programs. (4) Which Queensland centres with populations of 400 or more do not have: (a) first class ABC radio reception; and (b) first class TV reception. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer in response to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following Queensland locations have locally transmitted ABC TV but no locally transmitted radio. Normanton, Karumba, Doomadgee, Arukun, Kowanyama*, Georgetown, Pentland, Charleville, Morven, Tieri, Camooweal, Boulia, Quilpie, Tambo, Injune, Taroom, Miriam Vale, Mitchell, Stanthorpe, Texas, Birdsville, Bedourie, Croydon, Edward River*, Gununa*, Lockhart River*, Middlemount, Windorah*. (2) Charters Towers is the only Queensland location which has locally transmitted ABC radio but no locally transmitted ABC television. (3) The following ABC television translators provide a mixture of Queensland and New South Wales programming via the INTELSAT IVA satellite. Aramac, Arukun, Ballon*, Bamaga*, Bedourie, Birdsville, Boulia, Burdekin Falls*, Cooktown, Croydon, Edward River*, Eulo*, Georgetown, Greenvale, Gununa*, Hopevale, Injune, Isisford, Jundah*, Karumba, Kowanyama*, Lockhart River*, Mt Molloy, Muttaburra, Normanton, Quilpie, Stonehenge*, Tambo, Taroon, Thargomindah*, Thursday Island, Wandoan, Weipa, Wujal Wujal*, Windorah*. * Self-help Television Reception Scheme (STRS) translators. I am advised by the ABC that the reason for this mix of NSW and Queensland programming is due to a decision made by the ABC to provide Darwin and associated centres in the Northern Territory with the Sydney version of The National rather than the Brisbane version. Because of difficulties with switching arrangements the change from Queensland to NSW programming takes place at 2.30 p.m. As the Queensland satellite-fed stations receive the same service via INTELSAT IVA as the Northern Territory stations they also receive the same mix of programming. It should be noted that with the implementation of the Australian Communications Satellite System early next year, satellite fed stations in Queensland will receive a Queensland originated service. (4) (a) The following Queensland centres with populations of 400 or more receive less than adequate ABC AM or FM service. Normanton, Karumba, Doomadgee, Arukun, Kowanyama, Georgetown, Pentland, Camooweal, Boulia, Tieri, Quilpie, Tambo, Injune, Taroom, Miriam Vale, Charleville, Mitchell, Texas, Birdsville, Bedourie, Croydon, Edward River, Gununa, Lockhart River, Middlemount, Morven, Stanthorpe, Windorah. (4) (b) The following Queensland centres with populations of 400 or more receive a less than adequate ABC television service. Theodore, Eidsvold, Esk, Woorabinda. (Question No. 470) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) How many farmers are now growing aloe vera as an alternative to sugar cane. (2) On what basis was capital expenditure on this farming considered for taxation deduction and why did the Commissioner for Taxation reverse this eligibility. (3) Will urgent reconsideration be given to re-instating eligibility for this alternative crop, in view of the extreme hardship being faced by so many cane farmers. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is estimated that 171 canegrowers are growing aloe vera. (2) and (3) The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that, generally speaking, capital expenditure is not allowable as an income tax deduction. Exceptions for this general rule occur in some industries, for example the mining industry. The Commissioner understands that in Queensland conditions aloe vera plants have an expected life cycle of 5-10 years during which time the plants will produce annual crops for harvesting. Expenditure incurred in their initial planting is considered to be of a capital nature in much the same way as expenditure on the initial purchase and planting of pineapple plants, banana trees and other fruit trees is considered to be of a capital nature. This contrasts with the planting of annual crops, for example wheat, sugar cane, etc which are harvested annually. The cost of planting annual crops is fully deductible for income tax purposes. The disallowance of claims for income tax deductions for capital expenditure incurred on the initial purchase of aloe vera plants is not the result of a reversal of previous practice. An amendment of the income tax law would be required to give effect to the honourable Senator's suggestion. (Question No. 486) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) How many medical and non-medical experiments using animals have been undertaken by the Department of Health or its agencies during the last 10 years. (2) What species of animals were used in the experiments. (3) For what purposes were the experiments undertaken. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Some laboratories operating as agencies within my Department have conducted or are conducting experiments involving animals. However, the information sought by the honourable senator regarding the number of experiments conducted over the past 10 years, is unavailable in most instances. Set out below is the available information: Laboratory Number of experiments over 10 years Species Purpose National Biological Standards Laboratory (NBSL) 1,837 (possibly medical) 11,743 non-medical Mice, guinea-pigs, rabbits, chickens, sheep, cats Checking standards and testing therapeutic goods. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine Not available (14 currently approved by University of Sydney Animal Ethics Committee) Rabbits, guinea-pigs, mice, rats Preparation of substances used for diagnostic tests and research on topics of public health and tropical medicine. (Question No. 567) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What is the average nominal rate of protection for manufacturing industry. (2) What is the averge nominal rate of protection for manufacturing industry excluding the passenger motor vehicle industry. (3) What is the average nominal rate of protection for manufacturing industry excluding the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. (4) What is the average nominal rate of protection for manufacturing industry, excluding the passenger motor vehicles and textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: The Industries Assistance Commission has calculated the following rates of assistance for the year 1982-83. (latest available figures). (1) The average nominal rate of assistance on outputs for manufacturing industry was 16 per cent. (2) The average nominal rate of assistance on outputs for manufacturing industry, excluding the passenger motor vehicle industry, was 13 per cent. (3) The average nominal rate of assistance on outputs for manufacturing industry, excluding the textiles, clothing and footwear industries was 13 per cent. (4) The average nominal rate of assistance on outputs for manufacturing industry, excluding the passenger motor vehicles and textiles, clothing and footwear industries, was 10 per cent. (Question No. 571) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) Which medical radioisotopes are currently produced on a commercial basis by the HIFAR reactor. (2) Which, if any, of these reactor-produced radioisotopes are being phased out of medical practice in Australia and overseas. (3) Can any or all of the HIFAR-produced medical radioisotopes be also produced by a multi-purpose cyclotron. (4) Are cyclotrons taking over from reactors worldwide as producers of medical radioisotopes. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The following radioisotopes for use in medicine are produced using the reactor HIFAR: Technetium-99m (70 per cent of production), Bromine-82, Chromium-51, Cobalt-60, Copper-64, Gold-198, Iodine-131, Potassium-42, Sodium-24. (2) I am advised by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission that none of these radioisotopes are being phased out of medical practice although the usage pattern does vary substantially from time to time and from country to country. The use of technetium in nuclear medicine appears to be rising worldwide. (3) I am advised that none of the above radioisotopes can be produced economically or in worthwhile quantities in a cyclotron. (4) No. In general, neutron-deficient cyclotron-produced radioisotopes have different properties from neutron-rich reactor-produced radioisotopes, and these are complementary to one another. While cyclotrons for radioisotope production have been established overseas, reactors have a continuing role in radioisotope production. (Question No. 578) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 9 October 1985- (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to (1) and (2) above. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) An amount of $9,000 has been allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment expenditure by the Department. (b) The following amounts have been allocated for hospitality/entertainment expenditure by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister has responsibility: $ Australian Federal Police... 10,000 Australian Electoral Commission... 1,500 Commonwealth Grants Commission... 5,000 National Crime Authority... 5,000 Remuneration Tribunal... 200 In addition, the following organisations within the portfolio have been allocated amounts for hospitality/entertainment expenditure: $ National Police Research Unit... 2,000 Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence... 2,000 Australian Police College... 2,500 Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry... 3,000 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug trafficking/activities of the Nugan Hand Group. Royal Commission into the Alleged Telephone Interceptions Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia Commission of Inquiry to Determine Appropriate Compensation to be Paid to Former Defendants in the Social Security Conspiracy Case. The Independent Review of the Operations of the ``Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976'' Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam (2) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure on hospitality/entertainment are those contained in Section 13 of the Finance Directions pursuant to the Audit Act 1901. (3) The Department of the Special Minister of State and agencies within the portfolio when meeting accounts for entertainment expenses incurred on and from 20 September 1985 carefully record and monitor those expenses so that, when the rules governing the liability for such tax are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to Consolidated Revenue can occur. (Question No. 586) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment accounts of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) $327,000. (b) Not applicable to Defence. (2) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 are in accordance with Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (3) Finance Circular 1985/18 refers. Existing recording and reporting procedures will allow identification of entertainment expenses that were incurred on and from 20 September 1985. (Question No. 598) Senator Withers asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment accounts of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) An amount of $3,500 has been allocated in 1985/86 to the Secretary of my Department for him, or other officers with his prior approval, to spend on official entertainment and hospitality. (b) The Australian War Memorial has allocated $9,000 of its running expenses in 1985/86 to the Director and Assistant Directors for entertainment, gifts and donations on behalf of the Australian War Memorial. The Defence Service Homes Corporation and the Office of Australian War Graves do not allocate funds for official entertainment or hospitality. (2) (a) (b) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 are those issued by the Department of Finance, contained in Finance Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14 and Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 of the `Finance Manual'. (3) Finance Circular 1985/18 requested departments and authorities to record and monitor entertainment expenses. This will enable the necessary transfer of funds to Revenue to occur when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled. (Question No. 603) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: Is there a sponsorship arrangement between the Army Reserve and the Victorian Football League (VFL) or any other organisation in respect to the VFL second eighteen competition; if so, what are the terms of such an arrangement. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Army has a sponsorship arrangement with Channel Seven Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd and the VFL in respect to the second eighteen competition as an advertising medium to publicise the Army Reserve within Victoria. The terms of the sponsorship provide Army with the right to name the competition `the Army Reserve Cup' which appears on football grounds' billboards and attracts considerable TV coverage. Also included are two Army Reserve commercial announcements during each televised match. The period covered by the sponsorship includes the 1985 and 1986 seasons together with an option for the 1987 season, the cost for these years being $152,940, $172,050 and $191,500 respectively. (Question No. 606) Senator Tate asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) Why has the transfer of the `Community Management and Services' and `Social Support' functions from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) involved the transfer of only three staff and an expenditure budget of just $2.5m, when a document prepared by the Department in 1983-84 stated that the transfer of these functions would involve 80 staff and a budget of $18m, or 100 staff and $34m inclusive of administrative costs and administrative support personnel. (2) Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs give an assurance that the balance of the program, which he directed should be transferred from the Department to the ADC on 1 July 1985, will in fact be transferred in the near future; and, if so, when. (3) Can the Minister give an assurance that the extent of the transfer of staff and expenditure will be determined by an independent arbiter, given the meagre offering of the Department in the transfer of the aforementioned functions. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The `Community Management and Services' and `Social Support' functions did not transfer to the Aboriginal Development Commission from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. There was, however, a transfer of `housing related projects' which had previously formed part of the `Community Management and Services' and `Social Support' functions. The monetary amount transferred was $5m. (2) Arrangements within my portfolio are subject to ongoing review and the matter of any further transfers will be considered in that context. (3) Agreement between the Department and the Commission in relation to staff and expenditure was reached prior to the transfer taking place and the issue is now resolved. (Question No. 609) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October: (1) Can the Government give a full account of the circumstances under which Greg Shackleton and his colleagues were killed during the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. (2) Has the Government ever conducted a full-scale investigation of the events leading to the tragic death of Shackleton and his colleagues; if so, why has Mrs Shirley Shackleton not been informed of the investigation and its conclusions; if not, why not and when will an investigation be undertaken. Senator Gareth Evans —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) Since mid-October 1975, officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs have attempted to gather as much information as possible about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the journalists. New information which has surfaced from time to time has been fully taken into account. The result of investigations carried out by the Department has been a substantial body of information, which is a mixture of direct and hearsay experience, containing major inconsistencies and contradictions. The accounts gathered can be broadly grouped into two categories. On the one hand, it has been claimed that the journalists were shot by Indonesian forces, on the other, that they were caught in crossfire between Fretilin and pro-Indonesian forces. The fact that the incident took place on foreign soil and involved foreign nationals over whom Australia has no legal power to oblige to give evidence has meant that the investigations cannot proceed beyond the compilation of these accounts. The Indonesian Government has co-operated to some extent in providing information surrounding the circumstances in which the journalists died but there is no question of applying Australian legal processes to an investigation of the incident. (2) The Minister for Foreign Affairs has written to Mrs Shackleton on several occasions explaining the difficulty of obtaining firm information about the fate of Mr Shackleton and the other journalists. In a letter to Mrs Shackleton on 15 November 1985, the Minister for Foreign Affairs provided a chronology of enquiries undertaken between 1975 and 1979 about the circumstances surrounding the death of the journalists. In that letter, the Minister also drew Mrs Shackleton's attention to the fact that reprersentations made by a delegation of the Australian Parliament which visited Timor in 1983 had failed to produce any further information on the matter. (Question No. 611) Senator Jessop asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Could Australia's present non-transportation energy needs be satisfied for thousands of years by exploiting our geothermal energy resources such as Hot Dry Rock (HDR), using existing technology in view of the recent estimates reported in April 1985 in the South Australian Chamber of Mines' Johnny Green's Journal. (2) Are there excellent prospects for this energy technology for Australia considering the ongoing, successful feasibility studies on HDR being conducted in Cornwall (UK) and Los Alamos (USA) (April and October 1985 issues of Johnny Green's Journal). (3) Is the Department of Resources and Energy, via the Bureau of Mineral Resources (BMR), conducting research into geothermal HDR energy resources in Australia; if not, will the Minister consider directing the BMR to undertake research into the location of suitable HDR sources in Australia, the technology required to extract the renewable heat from these sources, and the economics of exploiting these geothermal HDR sources in the future. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. Hot Dry Rock (HDR) technology is currently in its development stage and has not been exploited commercially anywhere. While extensive work has been carried out in the last few years in the United Kingdom and the United States it will be some time before it becomes clear whether the resource can be economically exploited. (2) Given the state of the technology it is premature to undertake extensive assessment of Australian resources until it becomes apparent whether the technology can be commercially employed. (3) No. See (2). (Question No. 627) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) What is the present status of the 18 twin-engined S-2-F `Tracker' patrol aircraft formerly in service in the Royal Australian Navy, which were declared redundant to defence requirements following the decision of the present Government not to replace the former aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne. (2) Have 15 of these aircraft, which were acquired from the United States (US) as recently as 1977 and have a replacement value in excess of $1m each, together with spare parts to the value of $20 million, been sold to the Australian subsidiary of a US based firm of aircraft brokers, for a total sum amounting to less than $2m. (3) Would Australia's national interest be better served by retaining these excellent maritime patrol aircraft for surveillance duties from shore bases in our 200 nautical mile coastal zone, using their highly qualified Naval aircrew in co-operation with our Naval patrol boats, as envisaged in the Defence White Paper of November 1976. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The aircraft have been transferred to the control of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The aircraft are located at the RAN Air Station Nowra NSW. (2) Negotiations for the sale of the aircraft and asssociated equipment are continuing. I understand when a sale is effected, my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will make an appropriate announcement. (3) No. On 30 March 1984 the Special Minister of State announced to Parliament (Hansard p.1154) the results of a Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and protection arrangements. The review, requested by the Ministers for Transport and Defence, was undertaken by the then Minister for Aviation in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. The Government accepted the Review recommendation that the RAN Tracker aircraft not be retained for operations in support of coastal surveillance. Detailed reasons are given in Annex D to the report but the main ground for rejection was that the Tracker aircraft were not as cost effective as other aircraft. (Question No. 633) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: Has the Department of the Special Minister of State undertaken any functions, investigations, or other duties for the Australian Bicentennial Authority, or have there been any negotiations or discussions with a view to such activities; if so, what was or is involved, what was or is the cost; how many (if any) staff were or are involved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: The Department of the Special Minister of State has not undertaken any functions, investigations, or other duties for the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA). However, discussions with the ABA have taken place on the following matters: (1) design and proposed production of a medallion to mark the bicentenary; (2) the need for the ABA to change its official colours to accord with the national colours; (3) the use of insignia or devices on souvenirs related to the bicentenary; and (4) the administration of grants to international conferences during 1988. The discussions were on the basis that the Department was offering advice and guidance on the issues raised. It is not possible to quantify accurately what the cost of the involvement with the ABA was, nor to identify how many staff were involved. Senator Button —On 12 September 1985 (Hansard, page 496) Senator Chaney asked me whether the Government accepts that trade unions must abide by the law and accept the rulings of the courts. Senator Chaney asked: If this is so, will the Government make its view clear to the Australian Council of Trade Unions? In my reply, I undertook to convey Senator Chaney's question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: Throughout the course of the Mudginberri dispute, the Government has made it clear that it could not condone the action of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union in taking industrial action against a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The AMIEU does, however, have the right to apply for a variation of the award and the Government has welcomed the union's initiative in seeking to bring the dispute before the Commission where the wider implications of the Commission's decision may be dealt with through the accepted industrial processes. Furthermore, the Government has, on a number of occasions, stated that it could not support the involvement of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in attempting to co-ordinate a campaign of industrial action in support of the AMIEU. The Government has defended and will continue to defend the law but this responsibility in no way detracts from the Government's view that the use of Section 45D is counter-productive to harmonious industrial relations and serves only to exacerbate industrial disputation. The Government's views on the Mudginberri dispute have been made known to the ACTU. Senator Walsh —On 8 October 1985 (Hansard, page 772) Senator Colston asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question without notice regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio racing service in Queensland: I understand that the Minister said that the service had been discounted, at least partially, because there was a duplication of services by the ABC and other Brisbane radio stations. Are we to assume from that that where there is any duplication by the ABC and commercial stations in Brisbane, for example, in breakfast shows and news reports, they will also be discontinued? The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is: Yes, the ABC Metropolitan Brisbane Radio racing service has been discontinued. However, the ABC has provided an alternative racing service to Regional Radio 3 listeners. The Charter of the Corporation requires the ABC to take account of the broadcasting and television services provided by the commercial and public sectors of the Australian broadcasting and television system. Therefore, if the ABC is to be an effective alternative to other broadcasters it is reasonable to expect that where there is a duplication of almost identical programs, the Corporation should devote its limited resources to serving the needs and interests of other listeners. Senator Button —On 16 October 1985 (Hansard, page 1317) Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Science, without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Science aware, and has he seen reports, that the United Kingdom is now contemplating withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation? Will he advise the Senate of Australia's position at this time, the values that we achieve and the intentions of the Government on our remaining a member of that organisation? The Minister with portfolio responsibility, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following the withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO at the end of 1984, I confirmed that Australia will continue to work within UNESCO to reform the organisation. Australia wants UNESCO to become a more efficient organisation, implementing more concentrated and carefully evaluated programs and monitored more closely by its governing bodies. Our efforts are concentrated on working vigorously to ensure more efficient evaluation, identification of priorities and program concentration in areas of greatest member support and need. We emphasise co-operation with other members, especially from developing countries, which support this objective. We also work to reduce politically contentious issues to acceptable levels. The Government draws some encouragement from the progress towards change made so far. It is important that pressure should be maintained to implement reforms and that our concerns on program concentration and zero budget growth should be reflected in the 1986-87 program and budget. It will be important for all member states to ensure that the momentum for reform is maintained. The Government looks to the UNESCO General Conference from 8 October to 12 November to confirm substantial reform in a range of management and policy areas. I hope that progress will be sufficient to persuade the United Kingdom to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the organisation at the end of 1985. (Question No. 333) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 30 May 1985: (1) Can the families and relatives of staff of Qantas fly standby internationally at extremely low fares, to the detriment of other Australian citizens who apply for stand-by flights; if so: (a) what is the income and seat/kilometres from flights of families and relatives utilising these subsidised stand-by fares; and (b) how much extra income would be expected from stand-by fares if they were related to levels of existing long haul air routes, domestically and overseas, and opened to all Australian citizens. (2) Why are Qantas stand-by fares not extended to all Australian citizens at profitable fare levels to maximise the financial return from 100 per cent of seats. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am informed that the Qantas staff travel scheme does permit certain close relatives of employees of the Company to utilise the Company's flights on a space-available basis. The facility is provided strictly `subject to commercial load' and is also subject to other controls and limitations, such as terms of eligibility, purpose and frequency of travel. Discounted fare levels are available to eligible relatives of employees, and the most commonly used level of discount being 80 per cent of normal or certain specified excursion fares. The company is of the view that this concession is not to the detriment of other Australian citizens since members of the public are never denied seats in favour of staff-related passengers. The discounted fares made available to staff and their eligible relatives are not subsidised since the revenue generated by the scheme exceeds the direct costs involved with the carriage of these passengers. Indeed this contribution helps offset the level of increases needed to cover fares and rates paid by commercial passengers and freight agents. (a) The company views the scheme as a whole and is therefore unable to segment the associated revenue and seat/kilometres into portions derived from staff and their eligible relatives. The forecast 1985/86 revenue generated from the staff travel scheme is $5.7m. The forecast revenue passenger kilometres for 1985 is 838,383,000. (b) Studies by the company of possible international stand-by fares out of Australia have shown that, should they be introduced (and no doubt matched by competitors), the company's overall level of revenue would be more likely to decline than to rise. The question, however, is speculative to such an extent that the company is unable to provide a specific indication of the net revenue effect. (2) Studies undertaken by the company have shown that stand-by fares are simply not a viable proposition other than for domestic flights, and therefore the company has not made international stand-by fares generally available to the public. Clearly, in the present domestic aviation framework, the company is unable to consider the development of public stand-by fares for travel within Australia. Furthermore, it is the view of the company that with the exception possibly of the Australia/New Zealand routes, the stand-by fare concept is not a viable one having regard to both the need for all the additional travel documents versus the domestic passenger's requirements, as well as the fact that if a passenger did miss his target flight, then the next alternative flight would certainly not be on the same day and in some cases may not be until several days later. (Question No. 503) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Did the Department of Aboriginal Affairs allocate a $6,000 establishment grant to enable the Kalkadoon Tribal Council Ltd to be set up, together with a $40,000 grant for employment. (2) Has the Department now cut off funds to the Kalkadoon Tribal Council; if so, why was this action taken and will any further funds be made available to the Council. (3) Has the Kalkadoon Tribal Council's submission for the preservation of the Kalkadoon culture been refused; if so, why. (4) Has the Department now registered a group known as the Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Association Corporation. (5) Were the members of the Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Corporation born into the Kalkadoon tribe of Kalkadoon blood and with knowledge of that tribe's culture. (6) Are the members of the Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Corporation also members of several Government agencies; if so, of which agencies are they members. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department provided $6,000 to the Kalkadoon Tribal Council in 1983-84 as an establishment grant, and $35,400 in 1984-85 for the employment of staff. (2) No. (3) No. The Council is currently in receipt of funding for the employment of an Administrator whose work consists in the preservation of the Kalkadoon culture. (4) An association known as the Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Association has applied to be incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. The application is being considered by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. (5) The Registrar made enquiries and believes the members of the association to be of Kalkadoon heritage and eligible to use the name Kalkadunga Tribal Aboriginal Association for incorporation under the Act. (6) Four of the members of the Kalkadunga Tribal Heritage Association are known to be employees of government departments or agencies. Their employers are the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Aboriginal Development Commission. (Question No. 528) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) What was the duration of the strike recently concluded at the Mudginberri Meatworks in the Northern Territory. (2) How many man days/hours were lost as a result of the strike. (3) What were the costs of the strike in lost production and subsequent loss of sales. (4) Were any of the meat inspectors who refused to cross the picket line receiving wages while refusing to work; if so, how many. (5) If the meat inspectors were receiving wages, how much were they receiving and for what reason. (6) What penalties, if any, will those meat inspectors incur in terms of calculation of eligibility for annual leave, long service and other leave entitlements. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) members did not take strike action but rather established a picket at Mudginberri and other meatworks in the Northern Territory. The picket at Mudginberri was in force from 10 May 1985 and was lifted on 6 September 1985. (2) Details of the man days lost from 10 May 1985 to 24 June 1985 are not available. The refusal of Department of Primary Industry meat inspectors to cross the picket line, and the periodic unavailability of stock prevented Mudginberri station from killing cattle in the early weeks of the picket. On 24 June 1985, Mudginberri began slaughtering for supply to the domestic market under the supervision of veterinarians and stock inspectors of the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production. (3) Mudginberri Station is currently preparing estimates of the cost of the dispute as part of their Federal Court action to recover damages from the AMIEU. The Minister for Primary Industry has advised that the answers in respect of questions (4), (5) and (6) are: (4) No. (5) None of the inspectors were receiving wages while they refused to cross the picket line. (6) In accordance with Australian Public Service conditions, service without pay involved will be debited from the inspectors' long service leave entitlements. Annual leave and sick leave will not be affected. (Question No. 557) Senator Black asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: (1) How many places have been allotted to Queensland branches of the Woolworths and G. J. Coles companies under the Special Youth Employment Training Program. (2) What amount of subsidy has been received by the 2 companies, both of which recorded large sales and profit increases in 1984-85. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Over the period 1 January 1980 to 30 September 1985 the number of trainees placed in Queensland branches of Woolworths and Coles, under the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP), was 114 and 71 respectively. (2) Based on unit costs of SYETP placements in Queensland, it is estimated that expenditure on SYETP subsidies for these trainees was Woolworths $105,000 and Coles $65,000. (Question No. 593) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on Wednesday, 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The sums allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended are: (a) By my Department-$19,000; and (b) By Statutory Authorities within my portfolio: (i) Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-$100 (ii) Australian Institute of Marine Science-$7,000 (iii) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-$58,500 (iv) National Standards Commission-Nil. (2) Guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account were: (a) the Department: Finance Direction Section 13/1 and 13/2 and Guidelines Nos 1 to 14; and (b) Statutory Authorities: Finance Direction Section 13/1 and 13/2 and Guidelines Nos 1 to 14. (3) In accordance with advice received from the Department of Finance, my Department and Authorities within my portfolio will record and monitor expenses incurred for entertainment pending finalisation of the rules governing the liability for such tax, at which time the necessary transfer of funds to Revenue can occur. (Question No. 597) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) $16,000. (b) (i) Aboriginal Development Commission, $12,900; (ii) Northern Land Council, $5,000; (iii) Others, nil. (2) (a) Finance directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/4. (b) (i) Aboriginal Development Commission: Management Circular 1985/1 issued on 13 March 1985. (ii) Northern Land Council: Entertainment expenses for Director at his discretion. (3) Finance Circular 1985/18 requested departments and authorities to record and monitor entertainment expenses so that, when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. (Question No. 616) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) Has Mr Ted Stapinski of the Australian National University developed a new generation single quantum photon detector; if so, what is (i) the present, and (ii) the potential frequency range of this detector. (2) Are there any proposals for this detector or a development of it to be flown as part of the United States Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) project on the Explorer or other NASA spacecraft; if so, what are the details. (3) Does this sensor have any application or potential application for the detection of so called `space junk' in the form of decaying satellites, third stage rocket boosters and the like which may reflect solar UV and be trackable thereby. (4) What other applications are envisaged for (i) the photon detector, and (ii) FUSE, Lyman and similar UV instruments. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question: (1) Mr Ted Stapinski is manager of the team that developed the new photon counting detector. (i) 10 to 180 nanometres (10-8m to 1.8 x 10-7m) (ii) 0.1 to 800 nanometres (10-10m to 8 x 10-7m) (2) Yes. Letters of Agreement between Australia and ESA, and between Australia and NASA have been signed which outline the collaboration between NASA, ESA and Australia on the definition and planning of the FUSE/COLUMBUS mission. Australian participation in this project may include the provision of photon counting detectors for the telescopes science instrumentation. In August 1984, the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board of the then Department of Science and Technology funded the Australian National University (ANU) $2 million specifically for the further development of these detectors. This program will see the production of an advanced prototype which is planned to be fully tested on the proposed ANU 2.3 m Advanced Technology Telescope. Subsequently the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce placed a $2 million contract in August 1985, with the ANU to space-qualify these detectors. With this objective in view, a request has been made to NASA to fly two `Get Away Special' payloads carrying the detector as part of a UV telescope. This experiment is code-named Endeavour and is planned to be carried into earth orbit by Space Shuttle in June 1987. (3) No. (4) (i) Earth resource satellites. Medical x-ray techniques such as computer assisted tomography (CAT). Chemical analysis using spectrographic techniques. (ii) None. (Question No. 661) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What is the present situation between Australia and Indonesia with regard to negotiations between those two countries on the future ownership of the disputed area of the Timor Sea. (2) Does the agreement signed by Australia and Indonesia in 1971-72 still stand; if so, what is the Australian Federal Government's present attitude to the Timor Gap. (3) If agreement, in principle, has been reached between Australia and Indonesia in regard to a joint development zone within the disputed area, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs outline the ramifications of the agreement and its likely future effect for both countries. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australian and Indonesian officials have been discussing delimitation issues between the two countries since 1979. The latest round (the seventh) of discussions was held in Canberra on 21-25 October. The status of resources in the disputed area of the so-called Timor Gap (that is, the undelimited area south of East Timor) was the main subject of discussion at the talks. (2) Yes. The Government believes the Timor Gap boundary problem can be resolved on a fair and equitable basis. (3) Joint development is an option under active consideration for resolution of the Timor Gap problem. Any agreed arrangements would be extremely complex. They would, however, provide for an equal sharing of any benefits deriving from development.