Wednesday, 27 November 1985 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 229 citizens), Harradine (from 466 citizens), Puplick (from 294 citizens) and Richardson (from 185 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:- But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, recently discovered 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River Tasmania, equal in importance to those in the Vesers Valley in France, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. The constitutional basis for protecting historical and environmental assets remains weak. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a Referendum to amend the Constitution so that:- The Federal Government has the duty and a right superior to state and local governments to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore, those things we hold in trust for the future- Being relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance; To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, to manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and in any other matter which might be seen to be in the same spirit; In particular to prevent beach mining, preserve the Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and consider its extension into the Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Missen (from 22 citizens) and Vallentine (from 12 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 Senators Peter Baume (from 59 citizens) and Sir John Carrick (from 27 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 have great concern for the future development and research of the IVF programme and express that we are against ``Senator Harradine's Bill'' Human Embryo Experimental Bill 1985. The Bill threatens the provisions as a treatment for infertility because it defines as `prohibited experimentation': 1. Any manipulation of a relevant human embryo; 2. Any procedure undertaken on, or involving the use of, a relevant human embryo; 3. The creating of a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted or of using the embryo, or of having the embryo available for use, in any experimenting by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be prohibited experimenting for the purposes of this Act. 4. Wilfully destroy a relevant human embryo. 5. Wilfully allow a relevant human embryo to die. by Senator Coates (from 17 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 Crichton-Browne (from 51 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 therfore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, expecially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud: (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that Woodchipping and Clearfelling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway Forests for the future, and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Senator Button (from 43 citizens) To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned of we, the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth our concern at the drastic and untimely reduction of funding to early childhood services in our State. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 56 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 the 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 Territory 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 Button (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we urge that the Australian Government express its concern to Indonesia over consistent reports of widespread human rights violations in East Timor, as detailed by Amnesty International, and that the Indonesian Government be urged to take steps to prevent killings, torture and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, as has been recently reported. We would further humbly request that the Australian Government use its voice at the United Nations to lobby strongly for the reinsertion of East Timor to the Human Rights Commission Agenda; that the above human rights concerns be raised at the General Assembly when the Decolonization Committee makes its report; and that steps be taken to initiate UN conducted negotiations between Indonesia, Portugal and representatives of the East Timorese people, including Fretilin. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Cook (from 58 citizens) and Kilgariff (from 60 citizens). 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 Australian 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, the 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 88 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 Senator Vigor (from 341 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 1,783 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your petitioners: 1. Are deeply concerned at the impact the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has had upon the economic and social development of the Northern Territory. 2. Believe that the Act has curtailed the development of the mining industry in the Northern Territory, thus depriving the Territory of the income which would have otherwise been generated by the development of its mineral resources. 3. Are concerned at the effect of provisions in the Act which have led to the virtual dissection of pastoral leases, through the successful claims made upon stock routes. This has undermined the economic viability of some properties and created racial disharmony in the Northern Territory. Your petitioners most humbly pray that- The Government will amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to restore Aboriginal land holders to a position no more or less advantageous than their non-Aboriginal counterparts, particularly in relation to applications to explore for or develop minerals on their land, and to ensure that a date is set by which claims for land under the Act should be lodged. by Senator Kilgariff (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that we oppose the introduction of the Child Care Amendments Bill 1985, on the grounds that the proposed amendments to the Child Care Act 1972 will result in a serious lowering of standards in the quality of care available to Victorian children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: vote against the Child Care Amendments Bill 1985. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 341 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of URANIUM and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 18 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I inform honourable senators that the President, Senator Douglas McClelland, yesterday underwent surgery. He is out of hospital, at home, well and will be recuperating for a couple of weeks. Rather than move a motion, I just say that I am sure all honourable senators wish him well and we hope to see him back as soon as possible. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will ensure that those remarks are passed on to Senator McClelland. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 5 for this day of sitting, and Notices of Motion Nos 2 and 3 for three sitting days after today. I seek leave to postpone until the next day of sitting Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for this day, for the disallowance of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985. The matter is still under discussion. Leave granted. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends United States President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev upon their recent Summit talks in Geneva; (b) urges the two leaders to expedite the meetings of their respective officials towards achieving and ratifying an effective mechanism for massive nuclear and conventional disarmament to the lowest levels consistent with the maintenance of a viable deterrent and with full monitoring and verification; and (c) emphasises the great value of major and continuous dialogue in the removal of international misunderstandings and suspicions. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the recent statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that the contract or parts of the contract for the construction of submarines for the Royal Australian Navy is to be awarded to many, if not all, States of the Commonwealth; (b) expresses its concerns that South Australians are being misled by the State Labor Premier (Mr Bannon) into believing that he can deliver the submarine contract to South Australia; and (c) calls on the Minister for Defence to reconsider his decision not to grant the submarine contract to South Australia. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to postpone until the next day of sitting Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 6, standing in my name for this day, for the disallowance of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Tomorrow is the last day on which this Notice of Motion can come on. My motion is related to that of Senator Cooney, and I understand that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is still discussing issues concerning the Ordinance with the Attorney-General. I have therefore, like Senator Cooney, postponed my Notice of Motion of disallowance until tomorrow. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern- (a) the 2.6 per cent rise in the underlying inflation rate in the September quarter national accounts, as measured by the implicit price deflator for non-farm gross domestic product, which is the highest quarterly rise in inflation for almost three years and represents a rate far higher than the target of 7 per cent on which the 1985-86 Budget is based; and (b) the fall in the household savings ratio revealed in the national accounts, to only 11.3 per cent, the lowest level for 13 years. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) applauds New Zealand's inspiring and far-sighted stand in banning nuclear-powered and armed warships from its ports and supports that country's courageous refusal to be `bullied' into changing its policy; (b) condemns the heavy-handed rhetoric of Mr Peacock in describing the New Zealand Government as `delinquent' and his seeking, through a return to the policies and rhetoric of the Cold War era, to diminish the widespread aspirations of people in this region for a truly nuclear-free and independent Pacific; and (c) whilst appreciating the fact that the Australian Labor Government has refrained from intimidating the New Zealand Government into changing its policy, calls on the Australian Government to actively support New Zealand's position on the banning of nuclear warships and urges the Australian Labor Government to adopt a similar stand to that of its New Zealand counterpart. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Labor Government's proposal to outlaw legitimate business expenses will cause great hardship to many small businesses, not only in the restaurant industry, but in many other small businesses that are unable to afford expensive advertising campaigns and, instead, rely on personal contact to promote their product; (b) notes that this proposal presents the Australian Democrats with an opportunity to do something effective for small businesses; and (c) calls on the Australian Democrats to join with the National and the Liberal parties and reject Labor's anti-small business taxes. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 3 and 4, standing in my name for this day of sitting for the disallowance of the Meat (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 and the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —When the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee scrutinised the Meat (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 it raised with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) firstly whether inspectors with powers of entry should compulsorily produce evidence of their identity to the owners of premises they enter. The Minister has explained to the Committee that production merely on request was in keeping with the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority's endeavours to emphasise its inspectors' educative, rather than enforcement, role under the Ordinance. Secondly, the Committee suggested to the Minister that, where evidence of identity was produced on request, it should take the form of a photographic identity card rather than written evidence as is presently the case. It is administrative practice to issue photographic cards and the Minister has undertaken to formalise this practice with an amendment to the Ordinance. The Committee thanks the Minister for his co-operation and advice and pays tribute to him for his willingness to amend the Ordinance to ensure the protection of rights. When the Committee scrutinised the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985 it raised with the Minister two concerns: Firstly, in a prescribed action against the Red Cross by a person who contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion, the Ordinance provided a statutory defence to the Red Cross if, in supplying the relevant blood, it had obtained the appropriate declaration from a blood donor and tested the blood using approved equipment and methods. The Committee considers that the definition of prescribed action in which this defence could be used was so wide that it could have meant the defence was available even where there had been some negligence in the processes and methods of testing and transfusing blood which resulted in a person contracting AIDS. The Minister has agreed to amend the Ordinance and redraft the definition of `prescribed action' to eliminate this possibility. Secondly, the Committee was concerned that, if adequate insurance or a compensation fund was available for the Red Cross, there would be no need to have a statutory defence in the first place. The Minister has agreed to amend the Ordinance by inserting a sunset clause effective on 31 December 1986. The Committee thanks the Minister for his help in this matter, including his readiness to discuss personally the issues with the Committee during its hearing. The Committee pays tribute to the Minister for his interest in protecting rights in this difficult area. I was unable to give notice of my intention to withdraw these notices of motion because of discussions I was having with the Minister. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Resources and Energy-Annual Report 1984-85. 2. Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Sub-section 40 (3) of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. 3. Fertilisers-I.A.C. Report. 4. Australia's Foreign Policy-Text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 26 November. 5. The objectives, achievements and priorities in environment, conservation and heritage-report, and the state of the environment in Australia 1985-report-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to the reports made in the House of Representatives on 25 November 1985. 6. Australian Institute of Marine Science-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972. 7. Department of Science-Annual Report 1984-85. 8. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment-Annual Report 1984-85. 9. Department of Trade-Annual Report 1984-85. 10. Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. 11. Poultry Research Advisory Committee-Report for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1985. 12. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to Section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970. 13. Annual return of persons granted Australian Citizenship for 1983-84-Pursuant to Section 42 (D) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. 14. Grain harvesters and parts (bounty arrangements)-I.A.C. Report. 15. Election Funding and Financial Disclosure-Interim Report by the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to the December 1984 Federal Elections-pursuant to Section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. 16. Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Annual Report 1984-85. 17. Australian Bicentennial Authority-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to Section 25 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980. 18. Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 8 (1) of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. 19. Medical Research Council-Annual Report 1984-pursuant to Section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. 20. Government response to the Joint Committee's report on retail trading hours in the A.C.T.-text of a statement. 21. Government response to the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment on the preservation of Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island-text of a statement. 22. National Soil Conservation Program-Progress Report 1983-85. 23. Australian Archives-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 68 (4) of the Archives Act 1983. 24. Department of Social Security-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 148 (1) of the Social Security Act 1947. 25. United Nations Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination-5th Report on the Government of Australia under article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to one of the items on this list. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —The Opposition is very concerned that, included in this list of papers that has been presented, is item 4 which is a statement on Australia's foreign policy presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in the House of Representatives yesterday. The text of that statement is simply being tabled. I know that many ministerial statements have been creeping into the list of papers that is tabled which I think is a bad precedent. Ministerial statements should be made separately to give honourable senators the opportunity to debate them immediately they are made in a full way instead of their being tabled with other papers, reports and so on in relation to which honourable senators have a very restricted opportunity to speak. Honourable senators have only five minutes to speak to these reports as there is a limited time to debate them each day. At this stage I simply register our protest at that statement being included in this list of papers. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I seek leave to make a statement on the same issue. Leave granted. Senator CHIPP —I join Senator Durack in his registering a complaint about this matter. This involves not only item 4 but also item 5 and other similar matters on the list of papers. Item 5 is: The Objectives, Achievements and Priorities in Environment, Conservation and Heritage-report, and the State of the Environment in Australia in 1985-report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to the reports made in the House of Representatives on 25 November. Items 4 and 5 are extraordinarily important matters affecting Australia. The import of this is that, instead of honourable senators having 30 minutes in which to debate these very important matters, they will have their time reduced to five minutes each if they are lucky enough to even be called to speak. The chances are, looking at the list, that these matters will not even be brought on. I just want to register the Australian Democrats' protest along with that of the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I make the same point in relation to item No. 20, the Government's response to the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on retail trading hours in the Territory. It being item No. 20, we are not likely to have an opportunity to discuss it today. There was originally a dissenting report as well and there have been a number of changes. It is an important issue and I would have thought that time could have been allocated to discuss it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I certainly accept the points made by Senator Durack and Senator Chipp. I think it is really drawing a long bow to suggest that we should have a separate debate on item No. 20, but I know that matter is very dear to the heart of Senator Reid. Anything that even touches on the Australian Capital Territory provokes that sort of response. The reason the business has been arranged in this way is the same as the reason it has been so arranged in the past-because of the difficulties being created by what is happening in the consideration of the Estimates in this place. One has a responsibility to endeavour to get the Budget and the appropriations through on time. However, I will take on board what Senator Durack and Senator Chipp have said about those two reports and see whether we cannot make arrangements for better debate as I concede that they are hardly minor matters. There has to be a bit of give and take, and the sort of stone walling that has been going on in consideration of the Estimates does not make us particularly inclined to co-operate with anyone who carries on in the way a certain couple of senators have been carrying on in this place. Motion (by Senator Grimes on behalf of Senator Button) agreed to: That, for the purpose 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. Motion (by Senator Georges) agreed to: 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. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order be not proceeded with this day. Motion (by Senator Walters)-by leave-proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Joint Select Committee on Video Material meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 November 1985. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.22) —I had not been advised of this proposal. I am a member of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and I also have a very strong view about committees meeting when the Parliament is sitting. I am concerned about this, but I understand the reason why Senator Walters is moving this motion. I think she shares my view about committees meeting whilst the Parliament is sitting. We have notified persons desiring to give evidence to attend tonight and we are in a bit of a cleft stick. I just wish to register my formal opposition to the motion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.23) —in reply-I apologise to Senator Harradine because this was pretty rushed. We had to seek permission to continue our meeting this evening following the Government's announcement that it wanted to sit tonight. I apologise for not informing Senator Harradine that we intended to sit. No pairs will be granted and the Committee will adjourn should there be any divisions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a short statement concerning the motion on the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Leave granted. Senator ARCHER —Because of the unique nature of the motion relating to the AIDC that was recently put before the Senate and passed, I believe there is a need to have some information about it and find out the reason why this has happened. The motion is required by the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 and this is the first time that this particular section of the Act has been used. This matter is covered specifically in section 8A of the Act, which deals with enterprises or projects in the national interest. The Act goes on to say that this can only be implemented provided a report has been furnished to the Minister in writing in relation to the enterprise or project. That was the malaria vaccine investigation and production project. The Minister is then empowered to give such guarantees as will enable the Corporation to provide finance for or engage or participate in the enterprise or project. Sub-section (7) of the Act states: The Minister shall not give a guarantee under sub-section (6) unless each House of the Parliament has passed a resolution approving the giving of the guarantee. It comes before the Senate today for that purpose. It is a little bit more than that, because the whole matter of malaria is of great inter- national consequence. It is estimated that 2,000 million people in the world are subject to malaria and over 200 million suffer from it. It is not a new complaint; it has been recognised as having existed for something like 3,500 years. Incidentally, it was one of the things that I understand contributed significantly to the fall of the Roman Empire. Australia has been well and truly in the forefront of research into malaria for many years. I think that most Australian service personnel, of the Second World War in particular, came into contact with it. It is important to bring together the four organisations that are covered by this guarantee. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, opened only recently at a cost of $35m with something like 250 scientists working there, will play a very big part in this. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission has been in the forefront of sera and vaccine production over many years and has achieved a very high reputation. Dr McCarthy of CSL is recognised as being one of the very great men in this field. The Queensland Institute of Medical Research and Biotechnology Aust. Pty Ltd. is a consortium of considerable experience, excellence and high repute. Already considerable numbers of people are working in this-- Senator Grimes —Come on, this is not a short statement and you did not give any warning to anyone that you were going to do this. What is going on? Senator ARCHER —There are already about 50 people working on this project. I believe that that it is a very important project for Australia in what we are doing in our region and in our participation around the world. I do not think that it is as important that I sit down to satisfy Senator Grimes as it is that the Parliament and the people realise that Australia is participating in a matter of considerable importance. I hope that Australia will be able to play a leading part in dealing with the dreaded scourge of malaria. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: 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 meeting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 November 1985, be 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., 8 p.m. to 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 CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.29) —I rise more in sorrow than in anger about this motion, particularly about the way in which this chamber is being run at the moment. I do not blame Ministers. I do not want to attach blame to anybody; I just want to make the statement that this chamber is now so complex and the interest of senators to speak on issues is so high that the sitting times are not sufficient. The complexity of the political parties is such that the present circumstances and the present organisation of this chamber never ever permit any session of the Senate to be conducted properly. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) is one of the busiest Ministers and has one of the most unenviable portfolios in the Cabinet, and I do not blame him. The Minister who is in charge of the chamber, the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes), is one of the most hard-working Ministers in the Cabinet. He has enormous responsibilities, and I do not blame him. However, he is the person allegedly in charge of the House. I do not know what the solution is-whether the job should be passed to a junior Minister. The same problem occurred in the House of Representatives over the years and the Whips there were given much greater authority to act and negotiate than is given to the Whips of the Senate. Let me illustrate the problem. The Australian Democrats warned the Government three months ago that at the end of the session we would have a blockage or log-jam of important legislation that would have every one of the 76 senators wondering what day or week we are going to get up. I cannot tell anybody now whether we will be sitting here on 6, 13 or 20 December or whether we will be sitting in Christmas week. Not one person in this chamber can give me an answer to that. Surely, fully grown human beings ought to admit that this is an intolerable situation. Three months ago I suggested that we reduce the number of matters of public importance we debate. I do not blame the Opposition for bringing on matters of public importance for debate. However, the suggestion the Democrats put forward was that on broadcast day, Wednesday, we should let the Opposition bring on two matters of public importance and that there be no other matters of public importance for the rest of the week. On broadcast day honourable senators feel a sudden urge to speak that does not necessarily come over them on other days of the week. That is perfectly natural. I do not blame honourable senators at all for that. But let us face reality. Nothing was done. The matter was allowed to drift. On 12 November, the week before we got up we were presented with 47 Bills that had to be passed before the Senate rose. On 12 November we did some calculations. I wrote to the Leader of the Government in the Senate on a confidential basis and sent a copy of the letter to Senator Chaney. At that stage, we estimated conservatively that it would take 155 hours of debating time to get through the Bills the Government had said were essential, whereas if we sat until 13 December, only 65 hours of debating time would be available to the Senate to conduct Government Business. Senator Missen —Perhaps debate by computer would be better. Senator CHIPP —There is no room for debate at all. It would take 155 hours of debating time to get through the Bills-we were very conservative in working that out-but we have only 65 hours left. Clearly, if we are to get through even a modicum of the Bills the Government regards as essential we will have to sit until 20 December. I had one of the Clerks draw up an amendment to Senator Grimes's motion which reads as follows: (1) Leave out paragraph (1). (2) After paragraph (2), add the following paragraph: `(3) That the Senate meet each week day until 20 December 1985.'. Even that amendment, if agreed to, would not clear the backlog. When we met on Tuesday of this week I was informed by the Government that this week the Senate had to pass Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86-I remind the Senate that we have one and a half groups to go yet-plus Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 plus Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86, on which almost every honourable senator will feel compelled to give words of wisdom, plus the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 to which my colleague Senator Macklin has many significant amendments to move, as does the Liberal Party. It is very crucial legislation. It does not stop there. We have to get the Child Care Amendment Bill 1985 through this week-one of the most controversial Bills brought in this session. We have to pass the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1985, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1985, the sales tax Bills and the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 this week. That is enough legislation for three weeks. We have to pass those Bills and the appropriation Bills this week. We are now being asked to sit tonight. I have not mentioned the tax package. Is that to be introduced this week? Is the House of Representatives rising on Friday? Senator Missen —Thursday, I think. Senator CHIPP —I thank the honourable senator. What will happen if next week the Senate exercises its right to amend, say, the entertainment expenses part of the tax package? Will that mean that the House of Representatives will have to be called back again before Christmas? That is the sort of thing we find absolutely intolerable, and I just put on notice the Democrats' strenuous objections. I make the following statement without being critical of any honourable senator. I will not name anyone. I am informed that some departments have already run out of money and have had to borrow against the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Large payments are due on 2 December. I remind honourable senators that we are running perilously close to that date and we have not yet passed the Appropriation Bills, which in lay language are known as Supply. We are holding up Supply. I understand that the Appropriation Bills-the Supply Bills-must be passed today because it takes three or four days to get royal assent to them and the warrants issued. I make no accusations now and I will not mention names so that I cannot be accused of scoring points, but last night in this chamber two honourable senators took up two hours of time speaking on the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). Senator Sir John Carrick —It was necessary. I was trying to obtain information. Senator CHIPP —It may well be that it was justified. I am not saying that it was or was not. I am saying: What is the use of Estimates committees if honourable senators speak on the Appropriation Bills to a chamber in which only three or four other senators are present, with 15 to 20 highly paid public servants present in the gallery and another 15 to 20 highly paid public servants in the corridors outside waiting all night to be called? What is the use of the Estimates committees? Should not the systems of the Senate be changed so that we can get some sanity? I understand that a very significant report will be tabled in the House of Representatives today on the Nugan-Hand activities. Because a matter of public importance is listed for discussion in the Senate today-I do not deny the right of the Opposition to bring on MPIs-on trade union domination or some damn thing, the Senate will not be able to debate the report. Two important committees have to meet tonight, although the Senate will be sitting. I just wonder about next week. Has any honourable senator heard that there is an election on in South Australia? Does any honourable senator here think that there will not be an MPI every day next week? The situation is unreal. I believe that there ought to be urgent consultation between the party leaders in this place to try to get some sanity into the sitting arrangements for next year and also with regard to how this year's sittings will be concluded. It has to be done by consensus. I am not alleging that the Opposition is filibustering at this stage with a view to holding up Supply. That would be outrageous, and I do not even suggest it. What I do say to the Opposition is that some departments have already run out of money and last night two Liberal senators took up the time of this chamber for two hours. That is a fact; that is on the record. It may well be absolutely justified. I am only putting that down on the record-not by way of criticism but as a statement of fact. If anybody comes to the Democrats in the next two or three weeks or whatever and asks us to gag or guillotine legislation to get it through, the answer will be a flat no. We believe at this stage that that sort of legislation, all of which is crucial-- Senator Walters —Hear, hear! It is about time. Senator CHIPP —It is all very well for Senator Walters to say `Hear, hear'. She has to realise that the Government has a responsibility to get some legislation through before the end of the year because it is crucial for the processes of government. It will not get it through unless there is some give and take by all parties and all personalities in this chamber, without forcing legislation through. I have not been in politics for the time I have not to know that legislation can never be forced through the Parliament except through consensus. Senator Sir John Carrick said that many times when he was Leader of the Government, and I totally agree with him. What I am doing now is making a plea for some sort of sanity, some sort of give and take on the part of all parties and all persons represented in this chamber. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.40) —The Opposition would thoroughly agree with many things that Senator Chipp has said. There is no doubt whatsoever that there has been continued mismanagement of the Senate by the Government, particularly during this session. I do not know why, and I certainly do not want to point the finger at anybody, any more than Senator Chipp wants to, but one reason could be that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Grimes) was overseas for some period during the session. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the program for this session, both in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, is a real mess. The Government started off with a program for the Budget sitting beginning in August and running through with the two Houses more or less sitting in tandem for that period, but the Senate sat on its own for one week without the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives then sat on its own without the Senate last week. It is quite clear, with the House of Representatives absolutely determined to get up at the end of this week, that the Senate will be sitting for another week at least, probably two, and, if Senator Chipp's amendment is moved and passed, probably three weeks after the House of Representatives gets up. The Government is responsible for the incredible mess that has occurred in the running of this Parliament this session. The House of Representatives last week guillotined a number of important Bills. I do not know whether Senator Chipp is aware of what happened last week but there was hardly any time allowed for debate on a major Bill to amend the Companies Act. There were 200 clauses in the Bill and honourable members had less than three-quarters of an hour to debate the Bill. Clearly the Government cannot expect such cavalier treatment by the Senate as it will want to spend a good deal of time debating a Bill of that magnitude. There are also a number of other Bills of that magnitude on the list of Bills which are to be dealt with. The Government has, at a very late stage, made what the Opposition considers to be a genuine attempt to rationalise its legislative program. We now have a list of Bills which, once the Appropriation Bills are disposed of, will total in effect 40, with the possibility of there being only two or three weeks in which to deal with them. That should not have happened, and I agree with Senator Chipp about that. But there is at this late stage-at the eleventh hour-some realisation by the Government of the mess it has got both itself and the Senate into. We applaud that effort and we hope not only that it will be continued in the future but also that it will be done at a much earlier stage of any sitting. One of the most striking things about this list is that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which the Government has given great credence to, has been taken off it. That is no doubt a sensible move. Nevertheless, it indicates how little belief or concern the Government has about its so-called Bill of Rights, which I hope it will realise should be abandoned altogether. I instance that as an example of a genuine effort by the Government to cut down the debate that would otherwise have been required during this session before we rise for Christmas. The immediate question that Senator Chipp raises concerns the Appropriation Bills. These most important Bills, both for the Government and for the country, were not introduced into the Senate until 5 November. They have been introduced in the House of Representatives on Budget night, on 20 August, and did not get into this chamber until 5 November. We have not had any lengthy debate on the Appropriation Bills. They used to be the centrepiece of debate in this chamber during the Budget session. The Appropriation Bills are the Budget Bills. Senator Chipp —Eighteen hours of debate on them so far. Senator DURACK —That is very little debate for such important measures. They are the centrepiece of the Government's financial program. These Bills are vital for the Government. They were not introduced into the Senate until 5 November. They demand far more debate than 18 hours. If anybody listening to this debate heard that we were giving only 18 hours of debate to legislation which is passing $50 billion or $60 billion to be spent by the Government I am sure he would think that it demands much more debate than that. The Government has at no stage said to the Opposition, or I think to the Australian Democrats, but they can speak for themselves-it certainly has never said it publicly-that there is any urgent necessity for the Appropriation Bills to be passed yesterday or today. They are listed for passage this week along with several other Bills. This week extends until 4.15 on Friday afternoon. The Government's list of Bills that have been programmed for this week is relatively modest. Clearly the Opposition will co-operate in achieving what the Government wants passed this week. The fact is that the Appropriation Bills are still to be debated in this chamber this morning. There would be more sense in our spending less time talking about these sorts of things now and getting on with the Appropriation Bills. Senator Chipp has raised a spectre of the Government running out of money. That is obviously typically designed to get some headlines and attention from the Press. The Government has never indicated that sense of urgency to the Opposition or to the Senate. I do not think we can take much notice of some rumour that Senator Chipp has heard. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition will co-operate with the Government in getting the passage of the legislation it needs this week. I do not think that the Government is very worried about that, even though Senator Chipp may be. The Opposition agrees with the other points Senator Chipp has made, but we are certainly not going to curtail senators' rights and duty to speak on the appropriation Bills. There are a number of matters which do arise on these Bills which are not dealt with in Estimates committees. For one thing, the Estimates committees were sitting about two months ago. Questions were asked then which have not been answered even now by the Government, as we found last night. Other matters arise over a period of two months that need to be attended to. Senators have a right to comment on information that is obtained from Estimates committees. Senator Chipp does not seem really to understand what Senate Estimates committees do. They ask questions and get information, and senators have a duty to comment and debate the information that they obtain. Senator Robert Ray —Garbage! If that was what you were doing we would not mind. Senator DURACK —Senator Ray would not be interested in the subject at all. All he wants to do is comment on a few political issues that arise from time to time. He is not interested in the business of government. We are interested in the business of government. We are interested in the Budget appropriations and we intend to debate them as required. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.49) —I want to make a few comments on this matter, which has cropped up before. I think one has to take a little bit of time to debate this motion at this stage when things are in such a desperate mess. I will not go into the question of the Appropriation Bills. They have obviously been very slow in coming forward. We have to look at the question of whether there is some duplication in the questions asked in the Estimates committees and the questions asked when the Appropriation Bills are before the Committee of the Whole Senate, but this would not really be a problem if it were not for this great swag of Bills which have been carted into this House at this stage of the year. It is not as though this is a new factor. Immediately the Parliament returned in August I raised a question with Senator Button. Unfortunately honourable senators will not find it in Hansard because Hansard, with its glorious computer, cut out the question and answer, but I will make sure that every honourable member gets a copy. There they will see that in the first week we resumed in August Senator Button assured me that it was a terrible mess in June when there was a great mass of Bills. As Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I complained that that Committee was treated with contempt by the mass of Bills to be considered. This morning I staggered down with four volumes of Bills and we had a short meeting to discuss them. Again, the Government is showing contempt for the Parliament. This is not entirely a result of the Government's messing around; the Opposition also has to be responsible and cut down on some of the motions which are put forward. I thought we were doing that, but apparently we may not be. But it is basically a Government problem. Senator Button assured the House that the Government had learned a lesson from what happened last June and that the same mess would not occur, with the same gathering of legislation at the end of a session, which is an insult to the Parliament. It is designed to push through legislation without people having the proper knowledge of or a chance to look at the legislation. It is not an accident. It happened with previous governments as well as with this Government. We had the unctuous words of Senator Button in the first week of this session, saying that this would not happen. But it is happening as badly as ever. It is time for back bench members of this Parliament from both sides to take a hand in this and ensure that the Parliament is not turned into a laughing stock in the community as a result of its rushing through legislation which has not been properly looked at. I believe that, if necessary, we must sit longer in order to do the work properly. Obviously the Government has known for some considerable time that this problem would arise. Why has it allowed the Sir Humphreys and others in this community to hold back Bills that ought to have come forward weeks ago and should have been given close consideration by committees of the Parliament? I heard only the latter part of what Senator Chipp said but what I heard was basically correct-that this is an insult to the Parliament and the Parliament should not be treated in this way. The Parliament should not think that it has to agree to guillotines, to rushing legislation through, just because the Government is unable to handle the work in both Houses. I therefore raise my voice in protest too, and I believe many other senators have the same view, that as members of this Parliament we are insulted by the actions of a badly organised Government. We are insulted by being treated with contempt by the Government with its actions and its disregard for the proper processes of the Parliament in considering legislation. I hope that some notice will be taken of this. I do not expect an assurance from Senator Button, who is not here, but I will ensure that all members receive a copy of the question and answer to which I referred so that they can see the hypocrisy of the Government on this matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.53) —We have heard all this before, probably over the last 10 years or so. Senator Grimes —Eleven. Senator HARRADINE —Eleven years. There is one major problem with this motion and I will make a suggestion to overcome it. The major problem emerges from paragraph 1 which indicates that Government Business should take precedence over General Business for the remainder of the present period of sittings. Similar motions have been put for a number of years. It is disconcerting for private members, particularly those who are not in government but probably also for those in government, as they are unable to bring to the Parliament matters which are very important to their constituents. Such matters will now be ignored for the rest of this session with Government Business taking precedence. Those matters include quite serious ones that I have on the General Business sheet. I point out that I have been given no time for these General Business matters to be considered during this session. Of course, Senator Mason's Bill regarding the Chamberlains will not be discussed again this session. That is a matter of great moment for a large number of people in Australia. I suggest that between now and the beginning of next year the Government should think about this problem. In the early part of a session we do not have much legislation to consider-- Senator Robert Ray —We don't have any. Senator HARRADINE —That is right; we do not have any. So is it possible at least to extend the period for General Business at that time? I make that suggestion because last week or the week before-I am not sure when it was-I had only one day in which to move the motion of disapproval of the Remuneration Tribunal's determination relating to the issue of de facto spouses. People said to me: `But you are to introduce a Bill on that'. I replied: `But, look, the fact is that the Government will be forced to move a motion to supplant General Business, under which that Bill is included, for Government Business'. I knew that would happen. I ask the Government to think between now and February next year about allocating extra time in the earlier part of a session. If it has to give precedence to Government Business at the end of a session, it should allow more time for General Business at the beginning of a session. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(10.56) —in reply-I will not take much time but there are some things I must say. The first is that I must echo the words of Senator Harradine. I have heard this same debate every year for the past 11 years that I have been in this place. I have heard repeated many times the words that have been said by Senator Chipp, Senator Missen and others. By and large, I happen to agree with them. It is wrong that we have this log-jam at the end of the session. It is wrong that governments of any persuasion gag debate and rush through legislation. I remind honourable senators that the record is 43 Bills in one hour. The present Opposition when in government did not do too badly when Senator Withers put through 27 Bills in one hour. In the House of Representatives the Liberal and Country Party governments year after year gagged great chunks of legislation and pushed them through at the end of the session. It has always happened and it will always happen unless the system that we are endeavouring as a government to introduce on to an unwilling bureaucracy succeeds. We have proposed much more stringent time limits for the bringing forward of proposals to Cabinet and for the bringing forward of drafting instructions to parliamentary counsel who have a terrible time in this situation. We hope that we can change that and change it very quickly. I add that we have a particular problem in the Senate. We have an increased number of senators and senators want to speak more often on more bits of legislation than ever was the case when I first came to this place. Senator Townley —Sit more days then. Senator GRIMES —I am coming to that. We have matters of public importance almost daily. When the Government made an effort to sit for an extra week, as we did in order to consider the taxation legislation and have some legislation passed, only one piece of legislation was passed. Matters of public importance were raised every day and there were endless debates on all sorts of subjects. As I was away for the first couple of days and was jet-lagged for the next couple of days, I went right beyond the call of duty and read the Hansards of that week during the following week. Unbelievable nonsense went on that week. What Senator Missen says is right. If we are to succeed, I agree with Senator Townley that it is very likely that we will have to sit more often as a result of the increased number of senators. If we are to have 14 to 15 speakers on the most minor bits of legislation, so that honourable senators can wear their arms out pumping the parish pump, we will have to sit more hours. If we are to have matters of public importance raised almost every day of the week, we will have to sit more hours. If we are to give reasonable consideration to committee reports and papers, we will have to sit more hours, whether people like it or not. Over my years in this place I have noticed that the people who make the most fuss about this at the end of the year, about not wanting to cut short debate in the Senate and about wanting to sit more hours to have more time to consider things, are the first ones on the planes overseas when the Senate rises. They are the first ones to ask for a pair for the last few days of a session. It is hopeless and we have to stop that sort of hypocrisy too. Senator Mason —Let the Senate consider these things seriously. Abolish pairing at that time. Senator GRIMES —Maybe we should abolish pairing but I so not think that will succeed in doing very much. I am making the point that the people who rise frequently to make the most impassioned speeches are those who are among the first down at the Transport Office to get cars and those who are first on the aeroplanes out of this place. Although the Sir Humphreys about whom Senator Missen talks will obviously try to sabotage it, I believe that we are introducing a system by which we can overcome the sort of log-jams that we have overcome now. But clearly, we shall need co-operation in this place. The final place in which we shall need co-operation is, as Senator Chipp has said, on the Estimates committees and in the way in which we deal with appropriations. As Manager of Opposition Business in this place, I did not think that there was much point, and I did not think that it was particularly useful, in the way in which a couple of my colleagues went on about appropriations at that time. But it was very difficult to do anything about it-as it is, obviously, difficult for Senator Chaney and Senator Durack to do anything about it. If people are going to get up on the appropriations and carry on in the way that they have been carrying on in this place, there is nothing much that anyone can do about it without depriving them of their freedom of operation as senators. But we have had 18 hours of debate on the appropriations. We have had endless hours in the Estimates committees. Whether one likes it or not, people rise in this place and ask questions that have been asked and have been answered in the Estimates committees. They ask the most obscure questions about policy, knowing that frequently there is no one present who can answer them in detail. But above all, they get up and treat this place like a municipal council and go on and on about things which could perfectly reasonably be covered by questions on notice, by ordinary letters to Ministers, by the adjournment debate, and by any of the other mechanisms that we have in this place. An exercise that all honourable senators should go through is to read the Hansard reports of the appropriations debates and the Estimates debates. We are all at fault. In opposition I was at fault. In government I suppose I am at fault. But any reform of this type will take co- operation, on both sides; otherwise Senator Harradine will never get a private member's Bill near the Notice Paper, let alone after a couple of years, and we shall never have any reasonable debate on many of the important things brought before this chamber. In this chamber, I always think it is interesting that if we are presented with a piece of obscure legislation involving the expenditure of a couple of thousand dollars, or no expenditure at all, on something which affects small regional areas, we are just as likely to have 15 half-hour speeches and endless speeches in the Committee stage. When the social security Bill comes through, year after year, dealing with the poorest people in the community, we have three or four speakers and, in my time, hardly anything in the Committee stage. Senator Mason —That is because you put it on in the last two or three days. Senator GRIMES —Never! I am talking about social security Bills at any time of the year. On anyone's judgment, looking at the relative importance of legislation in this place, one finds that it is in inverse proportion to the hours that we spend in debate on it-with the exception of the appropriations, and the things on which we spend our time in the appropriations are frequently those which are nonsensical. I agree with all honourable senators that the way in which we go on at the end of sessions is mad; it is mad that we end up with this log-jam. But the fault lies on both sides. We shall need sensible co-operation, and part of that co-operation for which I ask is this motion, which would give Government Business precedence over General Business for the rest of the session-and would mean that we sit tonight. That is all that I ask. I apologise to Senator Harradine. I shall certainly take up his suggestion that we give more time for General Business early in the session. Considering the way that we shall have legislation left over this time, I think that we shall have a fair bit of legislation early next session. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 26 November. GROUP E Department of Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $243,624,000 Senator GRIMES(Tasmanian-Minister for Community Services)(11.04) —With the indulgence of the Committee, I should like to make a statement on behalf of Senator Ryan concerning a wrong answer that was given last night. During the debate on the appropriations for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism-- Senator Durack —Just as well we asked the question. Senator GRIMES —If she were wrong as often as Senator Durack is, we would be here all day. Senator Ryan informed the Senate on advice that the Government had not endorsed the decision for the Australian Institute of Sport to become a statutory authority. I wish to inform the Senate that the Government has agreed to the Australian Institute of Sport becoming a statutory authority. This was agreed to at a Cabinet meeting on 13 November and endorsed by Cabinet on 18 November. This information was conveyed to Mr Peter White, the honourable member for McPherson, in a letter dated 26 November from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). For the information of honourable senators, I will table a copy of the letter to Mr White. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.06) —How much has been spent on the policing at the South African Embassy since the picket started? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.06) —We have not got these details here, but I will get the figures for the honourable senator. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.06) —In relation to the same matter, could we also be told from what part of the Budget that money comes, and what other police services have been deprived of resources to enable that presence of up to three policemen at times to be maintained? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.06) —It comes out of the normal police budget. It is considered the normal policing of the Australian Capital Territory; but, I shall get further details. Senator Reid —Of the Australian Capital Territory? Senator GRIMES —Yes. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $1,129,023,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.07) —What evidence has the Government sought and received on nuclear missile testing by the Soviet Union in the atmosphere and oceans of the regions of Australia? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.07) —I believe that on an important issue such as this, Senator Walters deserves a considered statement and a considered reply. We do not have officers present who can answer in that detail, but I shall obtain it. Senator Walters —I presume, by that, that the Minister is saying that there has been some. If so, has the Government lodged any protest with the Soviet Union on any nuclear testing, and if so, could I be given the details of that protest? Senator Chipp —This makes the whole place an absolute farce. Why do you not put that on notice? Senator GRIMES —I agree with Senator Chipp; I think that this is a nonsensical use of the appropriations debate. However, we as a Government make a protest about all atmospheric nuclear testing. Clearly, I do not have the details. I shall obtain from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) the details of such protests as have been made. As we are discussing the appropriations, I assume that Senator Walters would like to know how much each protest cost-to get it back to the appropriations. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.09) —I say, with the best of good will, that in the earlier discussion of the extent of debate upon these estimates, it was suggested that the proper time to ask these questions was in the Estimates committees. I say to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes)-and I say it with good will - that I hold in my hand one document only, being 385 typewritten pages of answers that could not be given during the Estimates committees hearings and were given afterwards, and almost all of them lead to further inquiries. I say this with absolute good will because I intend to approach the matter in this way. I merely say that there is no question of time wasting at all. It is obvious that the questions that could not be answered at the time are the questions that need to be probed in the appropriation debate. That is the purpose of the probing. For example, when we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Resources and Energy last night I sought to probe the exact information that was given. Those who consider, as Senator Chipp apparently does, that this was time wasting fail to understand that it is the duty of this Senate so to do. I want to ask a number of questions. First of all, I direct the attention of the Senate to division 875, item 02, in the explanatory notes which deals with contributions to the International Year of Peace activities, for which some $1,828,000 has been appropriated. At the Estimates Committee hearing, I asked for clarification of the explanation. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) answered with a wry smile, realising that what I had said had some force. The proposal is: The primary benefit of this program will be to reinforce in the public mind the Government's commitment to peace and to educate it on Government policies, especially in the arms control and disarmanment areas. What right has a government to assume that, in connection with the activities of the International Year of Peace, it has a monopoly to spend taxpayers' money to assert its right and not the right of any honourable senators in this chamber, be they members of the Opposition parties, be they Independents or be they members of minority parties. It is true that in another item somewhere else there could be handouts. I repeat that Senator Gareth Evans admitted, somewhat whimsically, that it could have been better phrased-I think those were his words. I invited the Government to tell us not how it could be better phrased but what right it has to assume that it can use $1,828,000 for its own party political purposes. It is in the explanatory notes that the purpose of the program is to educate the community on Government policies. This is a blatant misuse of funds. I ask these questions with good will because in a few weeks time we will be entering into a year that has been named the International Year of Peace. I believe that, if there are misappropriations and misuse of funds, we will have a real war and peace. We will enter into a propaganda phase. Since this Senate has an absolutely primary duty regarding foreign affairs and defence - that is one of its major duties although it never gets round to it - I ask the Government whether it can clarify that item. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.13) —I would like to speak on the same topic because the Estimates Committee found it extraordinarily difficult to get any details about the International Year of Peace activities. Division 875, item 02 provides for an appropriation of $1,828,000. In division 315, subdivision 4, item 31, which deals with contributions for peace and disarmament activities, there is an appropriation of $263,000 this year, which takes to over $2m the amount the Government is giving to peace and disarmament propaganda activities this year. Senator Teague, who is not present in the chamber, asked in relation to division 315 whether a list could be given of members of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament and the State committees. The membership of the State committees was not provided as it was not available but 18 names were given for the national committee. It seems that the Chairman is the Honourable A. J. Grassby, AM, who is a model of objectivity and impartiality in such a role. As we go down the list of 18 names we find that there is a very clear and significant majority of people who have a unilateralist disarmament view. I ask the Minister: What criteria were used to select the membership of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.15) —According to my records, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said at the Estimates Committee meeting-Senator Sir John Carrick said that he said it with a wry smile; I find it difficult to interpret the smile on Senator Evans's face-that it could have been phrased better. I certainly agree that it could have been phrased better. The International Year of Peace is not only for government but for everybody in the community who is concerned with peace in our time. It may well have been better to have said `. . . the national commitment to peace and to educate it on national policy . . .'. I would agree with that. As both honourable senators have said, committees have been set up in every State. It is my understanding that those committees are more broadly representative than Senator MacGibbon has implied. For instance, the Returned Services League is represented in many of the States and whole communities have been asked whether they would be interested to nominate people to these committees. Senator MacGibbon said that the majority of people on this national Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament have a unilateralist view. The only one he mentioned was Al Grassby. I know that Al Grassby does not have the view that we should unilaterally disarm. I do not know the details of the other committee members. I certainly know that there are people in the community who would say that Senator MacGibbon has an extreme view in this area. I do not think we achieve a lot by getting up and saying that anyone who disagrees with us has extreme views. I notice that Sir William Keys is on the Committee. I hardly think he presents an extreme unilateralist view. I do not know the other members of the Committee. The Committee was established, after consideration by the Department of Foreign Affairs and by the Government, drawing from the people who were nominated to it, to give a balanced approach. I do not think it is surprising, bearing in mind the subject and bearing in mind that we have a Federal Government, that the majority of the people may lean towards or share the Government's view. I have no evidence-I would like to hear evidence sometime from Senator MacGibbon-that the majority of people on that Committee have a view that we should unilaterally disarm. Senator MacGibbon made that assertion but he gave no evidence. I merely say that I have no evidence either way, but I doubt very much, looking at the names of some of the people I know on that Committee, that that is the situation. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(11.18) —I should like to ask a question following somewhat in the vein of the question asked by Senator Sir John Carrick. It seems to me that the Government is allocating money to various groups only in line with its own policies. It is a good question to ask what right the Government has to spend taxpayers' money on promoting only its own policies. There are many different views about peace in our world. The whole thrust of the International Year of Peace is an educative one. It is not only about nuclear disarmament, it is also about conflict resolution at the personal level, at the community level and at the national level. All those aspects of peace building need to be carefully considered when the Government is funding various groups. The question I want to ask is related to the fact that the Government has made much of its budget for International Year of Peace-a budget of $3m. Of that I gather-I would like to have this confirmed-that only $185,000 will be available for community groups. Community groups around the country are being encouraged to put in submissions. Many community groups have put in many hours writing submissions to the International Year of Peace Committee. I think most of them will be disappointed because only $185,000 is available from the Commonwealth Government for the various groups. So what is the rest of the money going towards? Is it in fact going towards dressing up a lot of foreign affairs policies and activities which should normally be going on under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs but which are very conveniently being paid for out of this generous sounding allocation under the International Year of Peace budget? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.20) —I do not know whether the Budget allocation specifically for community groups is $185,000, as Senator Vallentine suggests. What I do know is that if it were $180m we would still not have enough to cover all the applications for funds. Whatever government is in power, whatever government has to allocate funds, it has to make priorities and judgments about which community groups will get money and which ones will not. Money is being spent on the establishment of the State and national committees. I suppose there is an argument that, as they are made up of community representatives, that is part of the funding of community groups. I notice that a fair amount of the money will go on advertising and publicity, which seems inevitable in the international years that we have had so frequently in recent times. I understand Senator Vallentine's point that this whole process is an educative one, that it involves looking not only at nuclear disarmament but also at all levels of armament as well as tension, aggression and everything else in the world. The contribution of the Government to the International Year of Peace is to provide funds in support of this United Nations year to give some encouragement to those groups in the community, right across the political spectrum and, as Senator Vallentine says, with a broad variety of views, to have a close look at this subject and to expand people's approach, to expand their knowledge. That is what it is about. This is why people such as Sir William Keys are willing to serve on a national committee with the sorts of people that Senator MacGibbon does not like and under the sort of chairmanship that Senator MacGibbon clearly does not like. This is why those interested in the development of peace and attitudes towards peace can take some heart from the fact that in 1985-86 we can set up such a committee, that we can, as a government, support such activities and that the community as a whole will accept such activities without the screams of reds under the beds and other screams that we would have heard in previous years. Of course, we still hear them; some things never change. Some of those views that never change are represented in this chamber, and that is the way it should be. At least there is general acceptance in the community that we can and should do it. There will always be differences of opinion between Senator Vallentine, myself and others about how the money could better have been distributed, about which groups could better have got those funds. We as a government accept that there will be those differences and difficulties. All I can say is that we will do the best we can. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.23) —I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that I was not simply seeking a change of words. The explanatory notes show what the breakup will be. The breakup for assistance to non-government activities is $500,000 out of $1.828m, so the disproportion is very real. The amount allocated for government programs, $600,000, is larger than the assistance given for non-government activities; so here we have a disproportion. Of course, there is an amount for advertising and publicity of $728,000. Not only does the wording point to a partisan situation; so does the break-up of the money. The fact is that if the proportion to be applied to assistance for non-government activities is little more than 25 per cent, it shows where the weight goes. The Government ought to have clarified this. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.25) —I am sorry; I realise that I did not give a response to the detail of what Senator Sir John Carrick was saying. Again, this is a matter for judgment. I respect Senator Sir John Carrick's right and capacity to say that that proportion is wrong. I have heard the same thing said before. I am sure that I said the same thing when I complained about the amount of money going to government programs during the International Year of the Child. I complained particularly about the amount going on publicity and advertising, saying that the ones who would benefit most were the advertising agencies and the poster designers. It was the same for the International Year of Disabled Persons. There was a complaint that too much money was directed to governments, Federal and State. Senator Sir John Carrick is saying the same thing now. I do not quite get his point when he asks what right has the Government to spend taxpayers' money on promoting its own programs. We could have a long debate about some of the advertisements that went on television after the Budgets in Senator Sir John Carrick's time as Leader of the Government in the Senate but I do not think that that would achieve much. The Government has every right to promote its own programs in the International Year of Peace, as it has in any other year. Whether the proportions of funds spent are right is a matter for judgment. It is inevitable that people in the Opposition will say that the Government is spending too much money on its own programs; it is inevitable that the Government will defend its actions, and that is what I have been doing. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.27) —I direct the Committee's attention to division 315.4.22, which relates to the International Atomic Energy Agency's nuclear safeguards assistance program. The figures show that the amount appropriated for this year is 18 per cent less than the amount for last year. I raise this matter against the background that we had in August/September one of the most significant international conferences that one could have on disarmament. I refer to the Third Conference on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, a meeting of something like 130 nations in Geneva to talk for a month on how, first of all, to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and how, if possible, to beckon all others inside the Treaty so that the true concept of a nuclear-free zone-that is, a world of nuclear non-proliferation-shall exist. Anything flowing from that meeting must flow from the need to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency. The International Atomic Energy Agency is the one central monitoring force which is looked to by all members of the Treaty. It is the one agency capable of ensuring, within its scope of ability, that there is proper verification and no breach of the Treaty's non-proliferation provisions. I accept that the Government is utterly sincere in wanting to achieve nuclear non-proliferation. I accept that the Government's statement of policy that it wants to strengthen the IAEA is sincere. Indeed, one would want to see the Australian Safeguards Office equally strengthened. My point is that there does not appear from these appropriations to be any significant attempt to increase the quality and quantity of Australia's representation in Vienna at the IAEA. There is no significant indication of the building of a more expert secretariat. I am aware of the Government's announced policy that it wants to strengthen our representation on the IAEA. The Liberal and National Party coalition, against the background of the Geneva talks of recent days and against the background of all its desires for disarmament, is adamant that our representation on the IAEA should be strengthened. It is doubly important because we are on the governing body at the moment. One wonders whether we can survive there because we are in significant breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in that we do not supply member nations, under safeguards, with their requests for fissile material. I direct the attention of the Senate to the small amount of funds that has been put aside-indeed, the reduction in funds. There may be an explanation for that. I hope that in the future the Government will see fit to build a far more expert secretariat in Vienna-and that is no reflection on those who were there in the past-so that Australia can play an even stronger role in the whole question of nuclear non-proliferation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.31) —Senator Sir John Carrick has pointed out that there is an 18-odd per cent reduction in this item. He also accurately pointed out that that has hardly been explained in the text and it should be. The advice I am given, and I believe that this is correct, is that this does not reflect any change in the Government's desire to support the international agency. In fact, it reflects the ebbs and flows in the activities of that agency and the requirements of the Australian Government to participate in assisting those activities. This dip of 18 per cent reflects no more than that. At the moment we are also considering the Australian Science and Technology Council report on nuclear safeguards and from that further activity will come in this area. I will refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) Senator Sir John Carrick's view-in fact all our views-of the importance of Australia's function in Vienna and his view about the need to strengthen that. I will see whether the Minister wishes to reply in any way. In all nuclear disarmament activities and issues of arms control generally I do not think it can be said that the Government has been slack. We have taken an active interest over the last three years and we have raised the profile of Australia in this area. I am sure we will continue to do so. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.33) —I wish to speak on a related item-division 315, subdivision 4, item 34, which deals with the working group on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. I invite the Government to look at the title of that undertaking and consider whether it should be changed to the South Pacific Nuclear Non-Proliferation Zone. I do this in good faith because I do not think the Government would want, any more than we do, to misrepresent to the people of Australia or the world what is happening. The Minister will know and the people of Australia will know, on thinking about this matter, that there is no way of having a nuclear-free zone anywhere in the world and specifically in the Pacific while there are nuclear-powered nations operating freely in international air and sea space. The result is that the title itself of the zone gives an absolutely false assurance and perspective. I would support to my back teeth the concept of a South Pacific nuclear non-proliferation zone, and I would attempt to move it, step by step, throughout the world. I do not want to delay the Committee on this because I do not want to use up time unnecessarily, but I believe it is fundamental that we should not misrepresent to the people of Australia the concept of a nuclear-free zone. While there is a capacity for nuclear powers in this world to move freely around the world or to use nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, wherever they are targeted, no part of the world can be nuclear free. Radioactivity, the debris and the effect of the nuclear winter will ensure that in the cosmic mix everybody suffers. I raise that not as a trivial thing at all, but in the firm belief that we are doing a disservice to the people of the world, particularly Australia, in falsely putting up a concept. It is like some municipal council putting up a sign saying `This is a nuclear free zone'. The world knows that that is not so. The Government has acknowledged the concept of the nuclear winter and the fact that the world itself could be destroyed or vitally damaged in any nuclear onslaught, whether or not Australia were free of any kind of installations or nuclear weaponry. Whilst applauding the concept that throughout the world we should extend nuclear non-proliferation zones, I seriously invite the Government to consider altering the title or, at the very least, when explaining this concept-a concept which, incidentally, the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, helped to initiate and develop-to explain that in effect it means a non-proliferation zone and not a nuclear-free zone. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.36) —I will convey Senator Sir John Carrick's words to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), but I would point out that we always run into problems of semantics in this area. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty proscribes, as Senator Sir John Carrick knows, the stationing, the storing and the testing of devices and weapons, and also the dumping of waste material, so it goes a bit beyond even a non-proliferation zone. However, I think that this point should be referred to the Minister for consideration and I shall so refer to it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.37) —I raise one other matter, more in the generality of the whole estimates, and that concerns a statement that the former United States Secretary of State, Mr Dean Rusk, made deliberately and directed to the New Zealand Government. This statement was published as a letter in the New Zealand Herald on Friday, 12 April 1985. I raise this because in this chamber there has been a community of view between the Government and the Opposition as to the importance of ANZUS and its internal strength. The Australian Democrats and, I think, the Nuclear Disarmament Party reject ANZUS. Senator Chipp's view is that it is without teeth, that it has no commitment and that there is no proof at all that the United States of America would come to Australia's aid should we be attacked. I feel sad that one of the most significant statements made on ANZUS-that of Dean Rusk-and one that was made absolutely significantly in the context of the present New Zealand dilemma on ANZUS, was not taken up by the Australian Government and transmitted to the Australian people. The fact is that what Dean Rusk said was that he would give a clear example of how the trigger mechanism of the ANZUS Treaty would work and had worked in the past. I will quote from his letter in a moment. He said that during the 1963 Sukarno Indonesian confrontation in the South Pacific when there was a likelihood that Indonesian forces would come into conflict with Australian and New Zealand forces he, Dean Rusk, with the full force of Secretary of State, told Dr Subandrio, the then Foreign Minister of Indonesia, that if this occured it would trigger off the ANZUS Treaty and that in fact the United States would finds itself needing to act. There cannot be a more formidable statement or a more total refutation of what the Democrats have said than that. The whole letter should be read by all honourable senators, but the essential points come in these paragraphs: When the ANZUS Treaty was formed, it seemed to all of us to be a reflection of the natural state of affairs. From the United States' point of view, we took for granted that if Australia or New Zealand were attacked, the United States would have to be involved in their defence. On at least one occasion, the ANZUS Treaty worked to the advantage of New Zealand and Australia. When Sukarno, of Indonesia, was making hostile moves against Malaysia, I personally told his Foreign Minister, Mr Subandrio, that if elements of the Australia-New Zealand forces in Malaysia were subject to attack, that would trigger the ANZUS Treaty because those forces would be covered by its provisions. It is a matter of record that Sukarno backed away from his threats, but I do not know what part was played by my statement to Mr Subandrio. I believe that no clearer understanding or interpretation of the ANZUS Treaty has ever been made or could ever be made, since it was made by a very distinguished former United States Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and was made giving proof of how it works. His statement goes on to strengthen that and since then we have had many more such statements. I believe that the Federal Government, whenever it is making statements on ANZUS, should make it very clear to the Australian people that there is no question of some theorising about whether ANZUS is just some Treaty in defence against Japan, or that it has no teeth, or that America may or may not come in. The fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State of the time said-and I do not forget this: From the United States' point of view, we took for granted that if Australia or New Zealand were attacked, the United States would have to be involved in their defence. That is an absolute and fundamental refutation of what the Australian Democrats have said and what I understand to be the view of the Nuclear Disarmament Party, since the NDP and the Democrats both rejected the participation of nuclear-propelled and nuclear-powered warships in our ports or installations on our shores. I cannot think of anything that will reinforce more the value of the Treaty. I rise not only to bring the letter to the attention of the Minister-who may well have seen it and I am happy to give him the text of it-but also I ask him to bring it to his Government's attention and ask that whenever the ANZUS Treaty is being outlined by the Government, it should bring to the attention of the Australian people the clearest possible statement of the American regime that here is a very real, vigorous and totally valuable partnership, as a former Secretary of State put it. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(11.43) —I have several points I want to make briefly. I will start with the last point first, about the ANZUS Treaty. There is no guarantee whatsoever of American intervention to support Australian or New Zealand in a time of regional conflict. The update on Dean Rusk's statement can be found in the Guam Doctrine, which says that the allies need to be prepared to defend themselves; they cannot rely on the United States to come to their defence in times of need. The United States has many allies in the region, including Indonesia. We have only to look at one recent example in history to disprove what Senator Sir John Carrick has just said. That is the case of the Falklands crisis. The United States had extreme difficulty in deciding which ally to support in that crisis and came down on the side of neither. The South Pacific non-proliferation zone is called at the moment the South Pacific nuclear free zone. I agree with Senator Sir John Carrick that it should not be called a nuclear weapons free zone, because the treaty allows 13 out of 20 possible nuclear activities to be carried out in the region. More nuclear activities are allowed in the region than are banned by that Treaty, so it is true that the Australian people need to have that situation clarified for them. To call the South Pacific a nuclear free zone is ludicrous. It may be called a nuclear weapons free zone, if we were able to prevent the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from traipsing through the oceans of the region without any nuclear weapons on board. We have no assurances about that, either. Senator Walters asked a question about Soviet tests in the South Pacific. No Soviet tests have taken place south of the Equator since 1977. It is true that tests do take place in the northern region and many United States tests take place in the central and southern Pacific region. It is indeed amazing that there seems to be a lot of criticism of Soviet testing at the moment, when we are in a period of a six-month moratorium on Soviet testing. The Soviet Union has guaranteed not to make any tests whatsoever from 6 August-the fortieth anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima-until the new year. It is waiting for a response from America to the same effect. The peace movement in Australia is very opposed to all nuclear testing by all nations and we are supporting the Australian Government in its move to put in place a comprehensive test ban treaty. That is essential and it cannot happen quickly enough. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a twofold task, about which I wish to ask the Minister a question. The first task of the IAEA is to monitor nuclear activities and it needs full support to carry out that task. The second and contradictory part of its platform is to promote the use of nuclear energy. It is very contradictory for an agency which is meant to control the use of nuclear energy and explosives actually to promote the use of nuclear energy for nuclear-powered generation when many problems are associated with that industry; the main problem being that no adequate disposal of radioactive leftovers has been devised so far. I ask the Minister whether the Australian Government should not be placing a lot of emphasis in the Australian context on the dangers of nuclear weapons coming into Australian ports. The safeguards which are in place at the moment are totally inadequate for the possible damage and accidents that could result from nuclear-powered generators on board nuclear warships which come into our ports frequently and also the problem with nuclear weapons on board. I submit to the Minister that the Australian Government should be placing a lot of its attention on nuclear monitoring. What happens in the Australian context is that nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered generators are coming into our ports and the environmental protection safeguards in place at the moment are totally ludicrous. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.47) —It is not my intention to make this into a broad-based debate, although it is a very important matter. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from Dean Rusk in the New Zealand Herald of 12 April. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- `No Time for Games'-Rusk A former United States Secretary of State, Mr Dean Rusk, has written to the editor of the New Zealand Herald about the ANZUS dispute. In a letter from the University of Georgia law school, he writes: Sir,-It would be a pity if the attitude of the present Government in New Zealand about port calls by American warships should lead to a deterioration in the longtime, excellent relations between our two countries. Both our governments should make a special effort to see that this does not occur. I myself helped to negotiate the ANZUS Treaty and was present for its signing at San Francisco at the time of the Japanese Peace Conference. It is interesting to recall that one of the purposes of the ANZUS Treaty was to provide a guarantee against the revival Japanese militarism in the Pacific area. When the ANZUS Treaty was formed, it seemed to all of us to be a reflection of the natural state of affairs. From the United States' point of view, we took for granted that if Australia or New Zealand were attacked, the United States would have to be involved in their defence. On at least one occasion, the ANZUS Treaty worked to the advantage of New Zealand and Australia. When Sukarno, of Indonesia, was making hostile moves against Malaysia, I personally told his Foreign Minister, Mr Subandrio, that if elements of the Australia-New Zealand forces in Malaysia were subject to attack, that would trigger the ANZUS Treaty because those forces would be covered by its provisions. It is a matter of record that Sukarno backed away from his threats, but I do not know what part was played by my statement to Mr Subandrio. It is true that New Zealand is one of the least likely countries in the world to be attacked and only partly because of its geographic location. Any would-be aggressor would recognise that New Zealand would be a prickly porcupine to take on, particularly if the would-be aggressor remembered the brillant performance of the Second New Zealand Division during the Second World War. Such matters as the ANZUS Treaty should be treated with the utmost clarity and simplicity. It would be beneath the dignity of New Zealand to treat the United States as a call girl who is available upon request, but who is snubbed in between calls. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the present New Zealand Government simply to state that it considers that the obligations of the ANZUS Treaty are suspended. That would leave the way open for another government on another day to resume normal alliance relations. In August of this year, we shall have put behind us 40 years since a nuclear weapon has been fired in anger, despite the many crises since 1945. New Zealand has played a helpful and important part in making it possible to speak of these 40 years. When the American people have pledged their lives for the defence of another country, we should not play games with that solemn undertaking. If New Zealand wishes to resign or withdraw from the obligations of ANZUS, the American people would still greatly respect and admire the people of your fine country. Dean Rusk. Athens, Georgia. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Vallentine said, in attempted refutation of what I had said, that one proof that alliances would not work was that during the Falklands War America faced a dilemma. The American regime has made a very clear statement on this. When faced with the choice between an ally such as the United Kingdom and friendly Argentina, it turned to its ally and assisted it. It was the very significant assistance of the United States of America that aided the United Kingdom towards a successful venture in the Falklands. I suggest that Senator Vallentine should look at the facts in that regard. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.49) —Senator Vallentine answered the question I put to the Minister, but I would like the Minister to find out the factual situation, if he would be so kind. It is obvious that Senator Vallentine would know more about the authenticity or otherwise of Senator Grimes's statements that people are seeing Reds under the beds. I congratulate her in pulling out the Reds that were under the beds of her Party. I thought that she took a very courageous action when she pulled out the Reds under the beds of her Party for identification and moved away from them. I am sure that both she and honourable senators on this side of the chamber would be very concerned if money went to the groups that she identified within her Party. Indeed, she acknowledged that such groups would undermine the security of Australia. Senator Grimes's flippant assessment that the community no longer sees Reds under the bed is not accepted by Senator Vallentine, who has lately proved that it does occur in regard to all members on this side of the chamber. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.51) —Before answering, or non-answering, the questions put by Senator Vallentine, I will comment on Senator Walters's rather strange statement. I said that what I thought could happen, and what I believe is happening, is that a government in 1985 could provide assistance for International Year of Peace national and State committees and community groups to discuss the subject of peace and disarmament without being accused of assisting Reds under the bed or of being communist or anything else, as would have happened 10 or 15 years ago. That happens to be true. The fact that Senator MacGibbon says in this place that a clear majority of members of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament are unilateralist disarmers, and the only person he mentions on the Committee is Al Grassby,who is not-- Senator MacGibbon —I did that because I do not wish to name people outside this chamber. Senator GRIMES —Of course Senator MacGibbon does not wish to name people outside this chamber because he would be sued for doing so. Senator MacGibbon —I will go through them chapter and verse if you want me to, but I would prefer not to. Senator GRIMES —Why does the honourable senator not do it outside the chamber? Senator MacGibbon got up in this place and said that a clear majority of the members of the National Consultative Committee were unilateralist disarmers. He gave no evidence for it at all. He named only one person, Al Grassby, who is not. Honourable senators opposite can get up and make assertions like that during consideration of the Estimates because it is easy and they do not have to think about or justify it. I do not mind. Senator Vallentine is concerned about our being involved in the International Atomic Energy Agency and its dual functions. She and her group have always expressed that view, and I respect it. She and her group have expressed concerns about what she sees as the lack of safeguards when nuclear-powered ships visit our shores. It is not opportune during consideration of the Appropriation Bills to enter into a full debate about nuclear disarmament or our various views on the development of nuclear power. Therefore, I do not intend to go on with that. However, I will certainly refer Senator Vallentine's views and ideas to the relevant Minister. I agree with Senator Sir John Carrick. I think the debate on the Appropriation Bills in Committee is the time to probe answers that were given or not given during Estimates Committee hearings and to raise any subjects which have come up since then. As a Minister, I am certainly not going to be trapped into turning the debate into a full blown debate on the various views in this chamber on nuclear disarmament or otherwise. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Before calling Senator Sanders, I remind honourable senators that they have been roaming far and wide on general matters in this debate. It would be better if they stayed closer to the expenditure items in the Appropriation Bills. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.54) —I would like to ask the Minister about the International Year of Peace. It seems that many people in the community feel that there is a problem in that grants for the International Year of Peace will be given only to those programs and people whose views are in accordance with Government policy. This seems to be a difficulty with the program. Another concern we have with the International Year of Peace is that some members of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament are actively promoting war through the Pacific Area Defence Exhibition which is to be held in Darwin. Several people on the Committee are to be involved in that exhibition. I hope only that in the future the Government will take on board the very great concern in the community that the International Year of Peace will be for peace and will be concerned with the major issues of our time. In Australia this means our ANZUS ties. I hope that somehow-the Government is guilty of this as well as the Opposition-we can get away from the idea that there are Reds under the bed. There are not. The Russians really have no military goals in Australia. They are not the enemy. They are not a threat. They cannot roll into Australia. They cannot even roll into Afghanistan very successfully. They have no military goals here, and it is time we realised that. If we have the Government's commitment to the International Year of Peace, and I hope we do, we will see the Government examining for the first time in its history our potential safety or lack of safety in world terms. Who covets Australian territory? Who wants to invade us? Do we have to have an alliance with a rich, strong and powerful friend such as the United States to protect us from our enemies? If the International Year of Peace achieves its goal, it will do so through the analysis of the true dangers to Australia. Australia is not now threatened in any sense except by the presence of the United States bases on our soil and the United States ships in our ports. They are the threat. By being under the United States nuclear umbrella, we find that we are becoming a nuclear target. It makes no sense. During the International Year of Peace, if the Government is truly fair dinkum about bringing about world peace, it should address this problem and analyse what potential threats we face. In that analysis it will have to come to the conclusion that we face no threats other than the nuclear umbrella of the United States. Eliminate that nuclear umbrella and we can live in peace. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.57) —One of the difficulties in dealing with this subject is that everyone is an expert and everyone has different views. Few people tolerate others' views. I can only say about the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament that if in the one debate in the Senate Senator MacGibbon says that there are too many lefties on the Committee and Senator Sanders says that there are too many war-mongers on it, it must be a pretty balanced Committee. I leave it at that. The community groups which are applying for Government funds will be judged not only on whether they agree with Government policy in this area. If only those who agreed with Government policy in this area were granted funds, then none of the groups with which Senator Sanders is associated would be likely to be represented. I do not think that is so. The Minister has said that it is not so. We will get a broad spectrum, as we have on the National Committee. I remind honourable senators that many members of the National Committee do not agree with Government policy. We are trying to get a broad community approach but we will never get anyone to agree with everything we have done. The same thing applies in dealing with the whole subject of peace and disarmament generally. I have been involved as an individual with various peace and disarmament groups in this country for longer than Senator Sanders has been living in this country. Senator Sanders —Is that a migrant slur? Senator GRIMES —No, I welcome Senator Sanders. It is terrific. I believe the whole peace movement is important. It is also important that now the community accepts that, we can discuss this subject without calling each other Reds or Coms or anything else. It is a broad subject. I have expressed my personal view publicly, particularly in an interview some time ago, that one of the great difficulties with the peace movement in this country until recently and for a period of about ten years was that it was synonymous with the anti-uranium movement. So anyone who was concerned about peace, such as Sir Mark Oliphant and others, was excluded and derided because he did not take that narrow view. That view has changed. It is broadening. I think the International Year of Peace will broaden that view further. I hope that the Government's approach, by including a broad spectrum of people on committees such as the National Committee and on State committees, will expand the debate so that people talk to each other instead of shooting at each other from behind barricades. We all may then get to understand each other better and get some sort of consensus in the community. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.00) —During the examination of the estimates for the Department of Communications, one matter that I raised was said to be in the province of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I raised the rejection of an application from the Australian Coalition for East Timor to operate a transceiver for a few hours each week between Darwin and East Timor. The reply I received indicated that the Indonesian authorities had stopped telephone calls going into East Timor, for reasons not known to the Department of Communications. The reply mentioned obligations under the International Telecommunications Convention for the Indonesian Administration, which was in control of the territory at the other end, to be consulted by Australia. I wrote to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 7 October and 5 October respectively to pursue the matter of the obligations under the International Telecommunications Convention. I seek leave to incorporate those letters in Hansard. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE SENATOR DAVID VIGOR Parliament House Canberra Australian Capital Territory 2600 Telephone (062) 72 6595 10 Pitt Street Adelaide South Australia 5000 Telephone (08) 211 7656 7.10.85 The Minister for Communications, Parliament House, Canberra Dear Michael, I have on several occasions spoken out publicly on East Timor, and obviously have given strong support to those people who have asked for the granting of a radio communications station licence to the Australian Coalition for East Timor. Hence I was most disappointed to see your press release of 17th June in which it was stated that O.T.C. already had facilities for public communication with East Timor, and that Australia was under an international obligation to consult Indonesia before granting a licence. I now draw your attention to an answer given to me in Senate Estimates Committee C on 13th September: it was stated that since the time of your press release, the Indonesian authorities have stopped telephone calls going into East Timor from Jakarta, so that not even the previous unsatisfactory arrangements are now available. It was also asserted that Indonesian control of East Timor was sufficient for the International Telecommunications Convention to apply: could you let me have the exact wording of that part of the Convention which is relied upon to make this assertion? I repeat my disappointment with the original decision and hope that the information which has since come to light will enable you to see your way clear to granting the licence. Yours sincerely, D. VIGOR Senator for South Australia PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE SENATOR DAVID VIGOR Parliament House Canberra Australian Capital Territory 2600 Telephone (062) 72 6595 10 Pitt Street Adelaide South Australia 5000 Telephone (08) 211 7656 5th October, 1985 The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Parliament House, Canberra Dear Bill, During the Senate Estimates Committee hearing of 13th September, an officer of the Department of Communications mentioned that Foreign Affairs had consulted the Indonesian Administration and advised that that the Indonesians would reject any arrangements for radio communications station contact with East Timor. Could you let me know when that consultation occurred, and when the Indonesian attitude was formally conveyed? The same officer indicated that the question of whether or not the International Telecommunication Convention applied to Indonesia's claimed incorporation of East Timor was a matter for Foreign Affairs also. I would be grateful if you could let me have quite precisely the reasons why the Convention requires the approval of Indonesian authorities before such a licence can be granted. Yours sincerely, D. VIGOR Senator for South Australia Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Minister for Communications wrote back on 16 October setting out relevant details. In essence, the Indonesians could have objected to transmissions causing harmful interference to their radio frequency spectrum. Apparently, Foreign Affairs advised the Minister that Indonesia would object to the use of the proposed frequencies, and hence the Government decided not to apply for formal international registration of the frequencies. To save time, I seek leave to have the Minister's answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Minister for Communications Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 16 October 1985 Senator D. Vigor Senator for South Australia 10 Pitt Street Adelaide, S.A. 5000 Dear Senator Vigor, You wrote to me concerning the obligations on Australia to note the views of Indonesia when licensing an Australian transmitter to communicate with the Fretilin Forces in East Timor. The fundamental principle of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is international cooperation. The preamble to the convention sets out the basic principle of recognising the sovereign rights of members to regulate their own telecommunications while at the same time establishing the importance of international cooperation. ``Preamble 1. While fully recognizing the sovereign right of each country to regulate its telecommunication and having regard to the growing importance of telecommunication for the preservation of peace and the social and economic development of all countries, the plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Governments, with the object of facilitating peaceful relations, international cooperation and economic and social development among peoples by means of efficient telecommunication services, have agreed to establish this Convention which is the basic instrument of the International Telecommunication Union.'' The convention applies to members of the ITU who have signed and ratified the convention. Australia and Indonesia are both members of the ITU. The relevant section of the convention to the matter in question is Article 35 (Harmful Interference). ``158.1. All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or of recognized private operating agencies, or of other duty authorized operating agencies which carry on radio service, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations. 159.2. Each Member undertakes to require the private operating agencies which it recognizes and the other operating agencies duly authorized for this purpose, to observe the provisions of No. 158.'' Any high frequency transmission from Australia to the region of East Timor will by the very nature of radio-propagation at the frequencies proposed propagate into other Indonesian territory. It would be difficult if not impossible to restrict such signals only to East Timor. In view of Article 35 it would be necessary for Australia to comply with the Radio Regulations in respect of these transmissions, and the question of Indonesian sovereignty or control in East Timor is not crucial to the matter. Articles 10 and 12 prescribe the procedure by which formal coordination of the radio frequency spectrum is undertaken. This involves Australia notifying the International Frequency Registration Board of its intention to use specified frequencies. This notification is published and any member is entitled to object to the use of those specified frequencies on the grounds of harmful interference. On receiving notification of objections Australia is obliged to come to some arrangement with these members. It is normal practice for members of the ITU to seek the views of other members who are likely to suffer harmful interference before seeking registration of the frequencies with the IFRB. This practice enables proposals to proceed with the minimum likelihood of objection. In this case the Department of Foreign Affairs advised that Indonesia would object to the use of the proposed frequencies and under the circumstances there was little point in proceeding with formal international registration of the frequencies. I appreciate your dissatisfaction with the outcome; however my decision not to licence the Australian Coalition for East Timor was made after full consideration of the issues and after receiving the advice of my colleagues in the Government. Yours sincerely, MICHAEL DUFFY Senator VIGOR —As yet, I have not heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I wanted to know just what consultation had occurred with the Indonesian authorities. I also wanted to know why the International Telecommunications Convention required the approval of the Indonesian authorities in this instance. The information supplied to date makes me wonder whether the cutting off of telephone contact with East Timor was in fact a breach of that Convention and, more pointedly, whether Australian authorities were consulted beforehand by the Indonesians. I ask: What funds, efforts and manpower within the Department of Foreign Affairs have been put towards monitoring the Timor situation and, particularly, communications with Timor? I believe that it is absolutely disgraceful for us to behave in a cringing manner towards the Indonesians who, apparently, do not appear to have bothered with any of the diplomatic niceties either in this matter or in their general disposition towards the people of East Timor. I seek from the Minister some more information on this matter and, particularly, information on the funds, efforts and resources which are being applied in dealing with our relations with East Timor. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.03) —I will seek the information sought by Senator Vigor. I do not have it here, nor do the advisers who are here with me. I refute absolutely the remark that we are taking a cringing approach in our dealings with Indonesia, but as I intend to continue treating this debate as a Committee stage debate on estimates and appropriations and not one for party political rhetoric, I will refrain from answering further. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $5,739,612,000 Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.04) —I would like to ask the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is present in the chamber, whether the Department of Defence will be fully compensated for the effects of the devaluation of the dollar. When the Budget was put together, as the estimates show, the basis on which the planning was done was that one Australian dollar would be worth $US72c. Since then there has been a considerable erosion of that position. The Department of Defence estimates that this year's expenditure will be $6,535m. Of that sum, the capital equipment component is estimated to be $1,771m, an increase of $158m on the previous year. That figure of $1,771m is about 25.9 per cent of the defence vote, so it is a very significant component. As a large part of that capital equipment comes from overseas, exchange rate fluctuations are highly significant. By way of reference, I note that in 1982-83 the capital equipment component of the defence budget was 17.4 per cent. I seek an assurance that the manpower figures of the Australian defence forces and the budgets for operations will not be cut any further. While I am on this point, I come to the very relevant question of how the defence vote will grow in the years ahead, given the changes in the exchange rate. Does the Government propose to increase the defence vote? The Fraser Government's five-year defence plan provided for an average real growth of 6.3 per cent per year for the five years running from 1982-83 to 1986-87. When the present Government got into power its first action was to cut the five-year defence plan's projected average growth of 6.3 per cent per year to 4.5 per cent. In May of this year it cut the nominal figure from 4.5 per cent to 3.1 per cent. The present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) claims that, despite the projected target figure of 6.3 per cent in the five-year defence plan of the Fraser Government, that Government did not attain in its final year a growth rate greater than 2.8 per cent. I have not been able to confirm that figure, but if that is so, and I suspect that there may be an element of truth in it, it just shows that targeted figures are not attained by governments. If we reach 2.8 per cent, having had a target of 6.3 per cent, what are we likely to reach with the target of 3.1 per cent that we have at present? Again, the present Minister for Defence claims that the expenditure has increased on average by 3.3 per cent since the Labor Government came to power. I think that those figures are correct, but it is also relevant to point out that they are correct because the overseas suppliers of equipment under the foreign military sales contracts accelerated deliveries in the last two years and the Government has had to meet payments for those foreign military sale contracts. It had to meet something like $62m that was not budgeted for last year and, I think, $80m the year before because the suppliers made equipment available earlier than was intended and we therefore had to meet the bill. The effect of the accelerated FMS deliveries meant that the defence vote had to go up to cover for them. The devaluation of the dollar is a very real problem. The change in the exchange rate has become manifest since we dealt with this matter at the Estimates Committee E meeting nearly two months ago. I seek information on what compensation the Department proposes to make for the devaluation and how it will cope with the years ahead. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.08) —As I understand it and as Senator MacGibbon indicated, at a previous Estimates committee hearing it was stated that the devaluation of the Australian dollar to $US72c-I take it that is a trade-weighted index dollar-would result in an increase in costs of between $350m and $400m in the defence expenditure. That increase was reconfirmed by Senator Gareth Evans at the last Estimates Committee E meeting, based, if I am correct, on the figures of $US72c. If that figure is correct it will mean that, in the absence of substantial supplementary estimates in the future, there will be virtually no growth at all in the defence expenditure. I take it that this figure of $US72c was decided on in July. It is important to know whether it was decided on in May or July. Since that time there has been a very steady decline over an appreciable number of months in the value of the dollar. Whilst one cannot say what the extra cost will be, one must apprehend the trend in that. If that trend were to consolidate, and there is every reason to believe that the dollar certainly will settle below 72c-I think the Government holds that view-of course it would cost more than $350m to $400m and something would have to give way in the Defence estimates. I ask the Government: Are the figures that Senator MacGibbon and I have put forward correct? What were the bases of calculation? Is it proposed, in the presence now of a severe devaluation, to provide any supplementary finance to the Department to offset this very serious trend? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.11) —To answer Senator Sir John Carrick first, the Budget figures were calculated on the basis of the Australian dollar being worth $US72c-so it is the United States figure and not the trade weighted figure. As for the other figures he quoted, I have not got them here but I will seek them for him. As a result of the devaluation of the dollar-which, as Senator MacGibbon says, is important-the Department of Defence will have to seek, and in fact will seek, supplementation in the Additional Estimates to make up for those exchange rate fluctuations. The Department does this normally in any case. The fluctuation will obviously be considerably larger this year and those claims will be considered in a Budget context, as will future defence expenditure in the next few years. The Defence Department, as with any other department, will be considered as the Budgets come along. Senator MacGibbon was worried about targeting problems. What the Government has been doing, and what the Department is now doing, is deliberately moving to bring some reality into the targets and projections. What Senator MacGibbon said was right. The previous Government used to set very high targets, such as 6.8 per cent, and never reached them. We are trying to set reasonable targets and to achieve them so that people know where they are. That will bring some reality into the situation. The Department will be seeking supplementation and we will obviously be debating that in March or April, whenever we deal with supplementation. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.13) —I have two questions, the first of which relates to Jervis Bay. On 12 September the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Geitzelt, provided an answer from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to the effect that Jervis Bay has been assessed as suitable on environmental and safety grounds for visit by nuclear powered and nuclear armed capable warships. The Australian Democrats wrote to the Minister for Defence on 18 September to obtain the assessment documents, or in any case as much detail as possible. We have not yet received a reply. This is not particularly surprising as the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly in April 1984 passed a Labor member's nuclear activities prohibition ordinance to declare the Territory a nuclear free zone. No action was taken by this Government to acknowledge the expressed will of the Territory's representatives. I ask: When will the Democrats be provided with the relevant information on Jervis Bay? The second question is specifically to do with the FA18 aircraft. It has been made public that the FA18 is suffering fatigue cracks in the fuselage and empernage assembly. More disturbingly, we have discovered that the aircraft will not be used for close ground support because of its expense. Apparently our military advisers have now learned the lessons of the Falklands war-that one foot soldier, or one small unit, with a ground-to-air or other missile can knock down a $30m aircraft. They have publicly stated that the FA18 cannot now be used for close ground support because of its vulnerability. My question is: If the FA18 has been found to be inappropriate for close ground support, what are the plans for future close ground support aircraft? How are we going to be able to co-operate with the Army, with our ground forces, in a close ground support role if the FA18, which was to assume this role, is found not to be capable? I think this points up the difficulties that Australian defence finds itself in under the ANZUS Treaty. We are asked to buy American aircraft which meet American nuclear capable strategic roles, and to blend in with America's requirements, which in fact leaves us defenceless in a conventional sense against our only potential difficulty, which would be if Indonesia decided to move into East Irian, as that country calls it, or Papua New Guinea as we refer to it. If that did take place-I am not saying that it will-we would be very much in need of close ground support aircraft, transport aircraft-an airborne capability which we do not have because we are investing all our money in very high technology, state of the art aircraft such as the FA18, which we now find is not capable of meeting a ground support role. That leaves us defenceless in this area. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.16) —In answer to Senator Sanders's first question concerning Jervis Bay, I do not know when those papers will be available. If they are made available I will seek them from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I have no information on that here. Senator Sanders asked two questions about the FA18. The first one concerned fatigue cracks and the second concerned its close ground support role. The Minister put out a statement a couple of weeks ago about the fatigue cracks in the FA18. He also said in that statement, which Senator Sanders has not adverted to, that these problems are being addressed by the contractor at the expense of the contractor. So that matter is being dealt with. All sorts of planes have fatigue cracks, I dare say that Senator Sanders, being an expert, knows that. I think what Senator Sanders was speaking about in the second part of his question was a comment by the Minister about the wisdom of exposing a plane of the expense of the FA18 in a ground attack role. As far as I know, and as far as the advisers here know, the Minister has not said that they will not be used in such a role. In fact Paul Dibb, in his review of the Department of Defence, is looking at this and other questions. The report of that review will be out early in the new year and this matter will be covered in it. If there have been further developments since the last comment I know of by the Minister on this I will seek the information and give it to Senator Sanders. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.18) —I would like to raise two questions in relation to numbers. The first relates to the permanent members of the Australian Defence Force. What criteria were used to decide that the Australian Defence Force should be reduced by 1,049 members this financial year? Was the decision made solely to save money with respect to manpower costs? If that was not the reason, what are the reduced tasks that the Department of Defence has in mind for the Defence Force. Or what are the enhanced capabilities that the ADF has to compensate for this loss of 1,049 members, which is about 1.5 per cent of a very meagre force, a force that now consists of only about 70,333 members by the Department's estimate? Secondly, I ask: How were the ratios between the services set? Why was the Royal Australian Navy required to lose 523 members, the Australian Army required to lose 460 members and the Royal Australian Air Force required to lose 66 members? How were those figures arrived at? It has been suggested, rather unconvincingly, that the run-down in the Navy was to compensate for the loss of the carrier and the Fleet Air Arm. What the Navy did, with great gusto, was to disband the amphibious squadron in Brisbane, a squadron composed of HMAS Tobruk, as a heavy landing ship, and the five landing craft that formed the amphibious squadron at HMAS Moreton. The amphibious squadron is particularly important to Australia. It has been disbanded. Tobruk will be transferred to Sydney; two of the LCMs will go to survey vessel duty which is a very essential function for the Navy considering it has said on many occasions that at the present rate of progress it will take up to 50 years to update the charts of the Australian waterways; and the other three will go into reserve. But the function of the amphibious squadron was to provide training for the Australian Army. Under the training program for the Army, first brigade trains in mechanised and airborne operations at Holsworthy; third brigade in the operational defence force does the light scale and jungle warfare training but sixth brigade in Brisbane provided the training in the amphibious role. There is no alternative way this training can be provided now that the amphibious squadron has been disbanded. The proposal to disband the amphibious squadron was fought as strongly as it could be by the Army. That was confirmed by Brigadier Badman when the Estimates Committee E asked him whether the Army had opposed it. Then we had a statement from one of the witnesses, Air Vice-Marshal Funnell, that just left the Committee incredulous. I will quote from page 201 of the Estimates Committee E Hansard. He stated: I do not think that this is a correct conclusion-- referring to the loss of capability when the squadron was disbanded-- to draw from these decisions. Capability has not been lost. Tobruk will now be home ported in Sydney; Tobruk has not been laid up. The three LCHs that were taken from HMAS Moreton have been placed in reserve status and can be brought back into full operation within 21 days notice being given. Capability has been lost. Once the squadron is disbanded, the crews are lost. Crews cannot be posted to other posts within the Navy and maintain their competence as crews. That squadron cannot be put back together in 21 days. It is just not possible. The skills are lost; the expertise is lost and the familiarity with it. I do not believe that that equipment, after it has been inhibited for a year or two years up in Cairns where three of the ships are going, could be put back into service in 21 days however well it was maintained. But the essential point is that the Estimates Committee was more than a little disturbed that witnesses-it was not only Air Vice-Marshal Funnell, there were other witnesses-maintained that capability was not lost, that because we owned the hardware, the machinery in the form of the ships, they would be around somewhere and within 21 days we could re-establish the amphibious squadron. Finally, I ask the Minister: What effective proposals does the Department have in mind to provide the adequate level of amphibious training for the Army now that this squadron has been disbanded? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.23) —Senator MacGibbon has asked detailed questions, some of which I can go some way to answering and others I will have to refer on. He referred to the run-down of the armed services. The loss of 1,049 officers was achieved by several mechanisms, as he knows. First of all, there was a loss of 523 officers as a result of the carrier and the fixed-wing capacity in the Navy not being proceeded with. In the Air Force there was an over-achievement of 66 officers in the last year. In the Army there was a reduction of 423 officers, which was the balance of the program which had been started earlier. The decisions were made on the basis of operational requirements, strategic requirements and economic requirements. No one pretends that any of those three factors were not involved. I do not know the correct result of the dispute between Senator MacGibbon, Air Vice-Marshal Funnell and others. One says that their capability has been lost, the other says capability is being lost and the other says that, relatively, capability has not been lost. I will have to refer that matter to the experts in the Department of Defence because I certainly do not pretend to be an expert, unlike some people around here. I will have to get information on the details asked for by Senator MacGibbon from the Department. I will get that as soon as possible. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.25) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I want to pursue the question of the increase in defence capital spending involved as a result of the cost increase, in Australian dollar terms-as I understand from previous comments, something like $400m is the `go' figure at the moment-as a result of devaluation. I wanted to feel confident that in the light of the Government's particular balance of payments problem emerging from the deficit of $5,000m in the first four months there would be no suggestion that the defence forces would be obliged to reschedule their purchases in order to diminish the problem emerging from the balance of payments. I am seeking an assurance from the Minister along those lines, that balance of payments problems will not lead to any deferment of these capital spending programs which already appear to have been diminished to a fairly embarrassingly low level particularly when one recognises the large volume of purchases that will be upcoming and the risks that already exist of slippage in some of these programs. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.26) —I am informed by my advisers that if the present exchange rate stayed much the same for the year at 67c-odd as it is now, the difference would be between $100m and $150m and not the $400m which was previously quoted. I will check that with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). This year the Department of Defence will seek supplementation as a result of exchange rate fluctuations. It seeks supplementation every year. I have no indication and the Government certainly has not considered making any of the alterations that the honourable senator has talked about to capital expenditure. I have no reason to believe that that supplementation will not be available. Of course, I am not in a position to stand up here, swear on the Bible and say that it will not happen. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.27) —I wish to pursue the matter of how much of the defence budget is actually spent in Australia either directly or through the offsets program. I am particularly concerned at the need for affirmative action for Australian purchase. I was wondering whether the Minister could arrange for the tabling or incorporation in Hansard, if it is not too voluminous, of the latest version of the Department of Defence document entitled `Summary of prime contractors with outstanding offset obligations greater than $A1m'-- Senator Bolkus —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I allude to the comments made by Senator Chipp this morning about vexatious use of Senate time. This point has been raised a number of times over the years, especially during Estimates committees. Mr Temporary Chairman, I put it to you that we do have a vexatious use of this process at the moment in that Senator Vigor, by very quick inquiry, could find this information through many sources. I think he is wasting our time and the time of the Parliament. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! There is no point of order, but I would mention to Senator Vigor that he should really be addressing certain items within the votes that we have before us. It seems to me that the honourable senator's question ranges over the whole of the vote, but if he can get through it briefly I will probably turn a blind eye to it for a short time. Senator VIGOR —The difficulty is that it does cover the whole of the vote as offsets can apply to all items purchased. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —That is what I was alluding to. Senator VIGOR —The offsets program has had a number of problems over the years. I am particularly concerned at the current state of the unfulfilled offsets within the Defence Department and that information is no way readily available. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.29) —I have no knowledge and no officer here has any knowledge of the document referred to by Senator Vigor. I will have a look at it and let the Minister for Defence look at it but, quite frankly, if the information is already available in another document that can be obtained by Senator Vigor or anyone else, I really cannot see the point in having it incorporated or published in a Senate Estimates committee Hansard. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.30) —My next question about numbers deals with the reserves of the Australian defence forces. Evidence was given before the Committee on 12 September. Since that time nearly two months have passed. I was wondering how the monitoring of the advertising campaign for recruitment to the Army Reserve is proceeding. By way of information, the establishment for the Reserve is 30,000 members and the Committee was told that at 30 June 1985 the number of members of the Reserve stood at 23,772, of whom only 15,565 were efficient. That is a rather serious state of affairs considering that when the Government came to power the relevant figure for August 1983 was 33,000 members of the Reserve; it was 3,000 over strength. My next question is whether the Government will consider reversing its decision to tax the payments to reservists. One has only to talk to members of the Reserve to find out that the most unpopular feature of the present terms of service is the taxing of reservists' payments. Reservists are not paid anywhere near the same rates as members of the permanent defence forces; they are paid very much on a discounted basis, but previous legislation provided for their payments to be tax free. This is very important to reservists because many of them are self-employed, small businessmen and such people. When they go to camp for one month a year, it is important that they be reasonably well paid and be able to hire locums or people to replace them as managers to run their businesses while they are away. Most of them probably have above average incomes and pay tax at the top marginal rate. They are now taxed on their Reserve payments, which become part of their aggregate income for the year, and they simply cannot afford it. The Government has persisted with the belief that taxation has nothing to do with terms of service. It has put in a compensating factor but that compensating factor simply does not work. I ask the Minister: Is the Government prepared to see reason on this matter and to reconsider its decision with regard to the taxing of reservists' pay? I raise one final matter on the issue of Reserves. A paper came this week to the sub-committee on defence matters of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It listed the resignation rates from the Army Reserve from 1982 to 1984 and the recruitment rates. Putting those figures together, in 1984, which is the latest year which we have information, the output from officer training units, both officer cadet training units and university regiments, totalled 235 officers, yet for the same year there was a loss of 453 officers. In other words, we are losing about twice as many officers as we are gaining. The Army Reserve has many functions but its principal role is the training of officers and junior leaders in case we have an emergency and have to expand the armed services very rapidly. The value of officer training and non-commissioned officer training cannot be overestimated in the functions of the Army Reserve. In view of these figures, what proposals does the Government have to address this net loss of officers, and presumably of NCOs? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.34) —The retention and recruitment campaigns that have been conducted were not expected to have immediate results, given the normal lead time for processing inquiries and applications and the testing of applicants that goes on in the Army and that all of us can remember. The net monthly changes in the Army Reserve strength since the campaign began are: July minus 49; August minus 147; September minus 113; and October plus 27. I do not think we can take anything much from those figures immediately. As to the question on the future of the taxation of payments to the Army Reserve, that is a matter for the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I certainly do not know of any intention to change that. We have a strange principle in the Australian Labor Party that people should be taxed on their capacity to pay. We look askance at situations in which people in particular positions can receive amounts of money and not pay tax on them for reasons other than equity. We did introduce a Reserve allowance to offset the taxation changes. The reservists will also benefit from the pay increase recently given to the Services. Of course officer retention is a matter of concern. That is why the Government is looking at means of retaining current officers and recruiting people for officer training in the future. We will continue to do that. We are flexible. We will look at all methods, including the methods suggested by Senator MacGibbon. It is a bit unfortunate, though, if what Senator MacGibbon is suggesting is that a whole swag of people go into the reserve forces only because they do not have to pay tax on the money. Senator MacGibbon —I never said that, Minister. Do not misrepresent what I said. If I were asked why members join the Reserves, I would say that they do it for the national interest. They do it for the highest of motives. Senator GRIMES —I think they do too, but Senator MacGibbon said that they left because we put a tax on. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.37) —My concern, which I raised in the Estimates committee hearings, was with the make-up of the reduction of 1,600 Royal Australian Navy personnel in the combination of the last three Budgets. At the time of the Senate Estimates hearings, I asked how many of these were in fact tradesmen or professionals who had been trained at enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer. As a result of that question, some most interesting information was given; for example, that 34 professional officers, 770 technically qualified sailors and 84 air crewmen were among that 1,600 people who are no longer with the Navy. While I am grateful to the Department for providing the information that it costs up to $56,000 to train an apprentice electrical technical operative in the Navy and about $19,000 for the very basic marine turbine propulsion course, we do not know what it costs to train air crew. As I understand it, the Royal Navy, when it acquired 10 of Australia's former Fleet Air Arm pilots when this Government disbanded our Fleet Air Arm, took the view that those pilots were worth about $2m each to the Royal Navy. I have also been advised that in Australian terms it would have cost about $1m to train each pilot, something less for observers, and depending on their role, perhaps much less for other air crew. It seems from looking at these figures that the run-down purely of technical and skilled people in the Navy as a result of the Government's decision basically to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm resulted in the disbanding, if you like, the removal of skills that cost about $65m in total to generate. This $65m worth of skills that were available to the Navy are no longer available to the defence forces, and in many instances I am told are no longer available to Australia because many of those skills do not have commercial application. In fact, one of the best test pilots now runs two delicatessens in Nowra. There is simply not the capacity in Australia to provide tasks for him so that the skills he acquired can be properly used. I wondered whether the Minister had some general view, emerging out of the information provided in response to the Estimates questions, of whether my stab of about $65m is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the skills lost to the Navy as a result of the decision to run down naval personnel, largely as a result of the decision to wipe out the Fleet Air Arm. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.40) —I cannot confirm or deny the figures that Senator Michael Baume has put forward here today. I make the point, though, that this rundown was achieved by natural wastage. People were not shoved out of the Navy. The decision having been made that we no longer needed a fleet air arm, I am not quite sure of the point. I hope that Senator Baume is not putting the view that we should not have made that decision on the ground that we would, therefore, no longer employ technicians that we no longer needed. Senator Michael Baume —It is simply one of the hidden costs of making that decision. Senator GRIMES —I will get the details of those costs of air crew training and the other technical training for the honourable senator. I do not know that I would ever be able to get anywhere near an accurate costing of the effects on Nowra, Jervis Bay or wherever else these people were living and working; but I shall certainly see what I can do. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.41) —On the question of numbers, I refer to the Rapid Deployment Force in Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. Honourable senators would know that the role of that force is primarily to respond with some degree of immediacy to any kind of emergency. The information that we have been given in the past is that, should there be an emergency, a company group would be at the point of readiness and available in up to seven days. I remind honourable senators that a company group is, I suppose, somewhere between 120 and 140 persons-not exactly a formidable force for an aggressor, even one that is patient enough to wait for up to seven days. As regards availability, I also understand that a battalion, presumably a battalion group, would be available in up to 14 days. Would such a battalion be a depleted battalion-that is, a battalion minus a company, or with, perhaps companies minus platoons-or would it be a full battalion? At a guess, a battalion group could be somewhere between 600 and 900 or 1,000 people. I gather that in one month we could put a brigade group into the field. These figures have been stated and written repeatedly. They seem to have some element of absurdity about them. If we are to have a rapid deployment force, the very nature of it is that it must be able to respond with readiness. It is very hard to reconcile a permanent army of about 30,000-odd people capable of putting only about 120 persons in the field in up to seven days. Perhaps, over the course of the lunch break and the period until we resume consideration of these estimates, the Minister will be able to throw light upon where the defects are in what I have said, and whether there is any more instant solution. I am aware of the existence of Special Air Service units. But they are specifically not designed to be committed fighting troops; they have special roles. As I understand it, the Rapid Deployment Force is the fighting force, and I believe that the people of Australia could hardly reconcile that kind of program with any sense of urgency or immediacy. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to comments by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, on the AM program this morning when he said that company superannuation schemes would be untouched by the deal done to resolve the crisis brought about by industrial action by the Federated Storemen and Packers Union. Is it a fact that the settlement forced on employers at last night's talks with the Minister and the unions means that companies will be required to continue contributions to their own superannuation schemes and make additional contributions to union or other industry schemes? In other words, will last night's agreement require double superannuation payments by employers in respect of the same employees? Senator WALSH —It seems to me that Mr Olsen must have Senator Messner's assistance in preparing those shonky accounts that he is presenting to the South Australian electorate. I did not hear the comments by Mr Willis this morning but I do have a note which appears to be a statement put out by Mr Willis after last night's meeting-it is dated yesterday-in which it is said: The parties- that is, the various unions concerned- agree to the establishment of an industry superannuation scheme in the context of the Accord Mark II and subject to decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, including the decision in the National Productivity Case. The industry scheme to apply from 1 July 1986 and to apply to all employees including those in company schemes. The ACTU to co-ordinate union negotiations on the industry scheme. The FSPU to be involved in the industry scheme but with contributions for its members to be paid to LUCRF. I am not sure what the acronym LUCRF stands for. The note continues: The admission agreement for LUCRF to be in conformity with the industry scheme in all possible respects. The ACTU to seek to ensure that all other unions join the common industry scheme. That company schemes remain untouched by development of the industry scheme. I think the last point covers the one substantial question which Senator Messner asked. The note continues: Any agreement reached will be reported to the Commission. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of recent claims by a marine scientist that sugar cane growers living near coastal areas could switch from growing sugar cane to aquaculture and prawn farming? Has the Government given consideration to this proposal? If so, has it proven to be a viable alternative? Can the Minister say to what extent this concept has been tried in Australian conditions? Senator WALSH —I thought I had a note on that question. If I do, I do not seem to be able to find it. I am afraid that I shall just have to ask the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, whether he can supply any information along the lines requested by Senator Elstob. Senator PARER —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of a report that Australia's four major transport companies have received a telex from the Transport Workers Union demanding assent to a superannuation deal by 13 December under threat of industrial action from that date? What action will the Government take to thwart such blatant industrial blackmail, which runs counter to its own position on the timing of the introduction of new superannuation arrangements? Senator WALSH —I was asked whether I was aware of a telex allegedly sent by the Transport Workers Union. The answer is no, I am not aware of it. I will refer the rest of the question to Mr Willis for comment and reply. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. In view of the tragic loss of life in the Egypt Air seizure at Malta in recent days, at least partially attributable to the use of combustible materials in the cabin construction of modern passenger aircraft, would the Minister care to comment on developments in the use of alternative and safer materials in the Australian context? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Aviation has had this matter of the use of non-combustible materials in aeroplane construction under consideration for quite some time. I think the announcement this morning on AM is very relevant to the airline crashes that have taken place in Australia and, in particular, to the incident to which Senator Childs referred. It is interesting to note that the industry itself is taking steps to examine ways and means by which the incidence of fires in aeroplanes, particularly those involved in hijacks or crashes, would be able to be contained by the use of better non-combustible materials. As I understand it, the Department of Aviation has had a senior airworthiness engineer overseas studying this matter. Most honourable senators will be aware that a number of tragedies take place as a result of aeroplanes catching fire during a disturbance or a crash landing. The major aircraft manufacturers are seeking to establish new processes for outfitting the aeroplanes and, in so doing, reduce the incidence of fire on those occasions when a crash occurs. The Australian Government is already aware of the developments that are taking place. We have already proceeded with discussions with the main manufacturers of aircraft with a view to reaching the objective of providing a safer type of structure and outfittings in the airline industry. When these matters have progressed further the Australian Government obviously will be taking steps in the future to insist on the method of outfitting aeroplanes purchased in Australia by both the government airline and the private airline industry, the purpose being, of course, to make this new and growing industry a safer one from the passenger's point of view. One personal observation, having heard the statement on AM this morning of one spokesperson that the cost factor would have to be taken into account in any reconstruction of the airline industry, is that this seems to be of secondary consideration to the saving of lives. I hope that, in due course, those involved in the production of aeroplanes will be taking every step possible to reduce the incidence of fire should any difficulty occur. Senator SANDERS —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is aware of a report in the Hobart Mercury of 22 November 1985 in which the Minister for Primary Industry is quoted as saying that there will be no logging where National Estate values are taken into account in any logging plan. Was that Minister accurately reported? If not, will the Minister clarify that Minister's attitude to logging in sensitive National Estate areas? Is it a fact that that Minister would allow logging in National Estate or World Heritage areas, such as the Douglas-Apsley, the Lemon Thyme and Western Tiers, the Jackeys March-Quamby area, or the southern forests? If so, from which areas, during which period and under what conditions? I did give the Minister previous notice of this question. Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to newspapers in Tasmania and on the mainland carrying many articles speculating about woodchip export licences and likely Government decisions. It is a question of considerable importance because of its employment implications and the importance of the forestry industry to Tasmania. For that reason the Government will not be taking any decision on this matter lightly. The Government currently has the question of licence renewals before it and does not expect any decision to be announced before the middle of December. Indeed, it is unlikely that the question will be formally considered by Cabinet much before then. Therefore, Mr Kerin advises me that he is not prepared to comment further to either substantiate or deny any proposals or predictions that have been made in the Hobart Mercury or any other newspaper. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the comment made yesterday by the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, that the recognition of sacred sites and all the hoo-ha that goes with it hindered progress. That comment is taken from this morning's Courier-Mail. Does a statement such as this indicate contempt for the culture of Australia's first inhabitants? Senator RYAN —I can only regret that any person in public life in Australia would make such an insulting comment about this country's first culture. It is regrettable but unfortunately it is not atypical of the Premier of Queensland that he should seek to be derogatory about a culture other than his own. In respect of sacred sites, our Government has introduced and passed Federal legislation which gives some protection to sacred sites if they are threatened by mining or some other development, although for the legislation to work properly it needs complementary State legislation. Unfortunately such legislation does not exist in Queensland. The only encouraging thing is that the view expressed by the Premier of Queensland would be shared by fewer and fewer Australians as Aboriginal Australians themselves become more successful in communicating to the rest of Australia the nature of their culture and the importance of sacred sites to it. It has been heartening to see the increasing recognition of and support for Aboriginal culture by, among others, the Christian churches. It is unfortunate that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who claims to be a Christian, has not adopted the more enlightened views that a lot of Christians in this country have. They have expressed their respect for Aboriginal culture and sites of significance within it. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the answer which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations gave in the House of Representatives yesterday when he said that the public sector would be included in the superannuation deal made by the Government with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which will give productivity gains through superannuation. I ask: Can the Minister give an indication of how the agreement on superannuation will be applied to the Commonwealth Public Service; and further, will these arrangements improve the benefits which already arise from a scheme which is acknowledged as being much more generous than private sector superannuation arrangements? Senator WALSH —In response to the final part of Senator Rae's question, while it is probably generally true to say what he did, I am certainly aware of private sector superannuation schemes which are more generous than the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, particularly when one takes into account the fact that lump sum payments are the norm and therefore people can get benefits from a private sector superannuation scheme and still conceivably qualify for the social security pension. Senator Peter Rae —But generally, though. Senator WALSH —Yes, generally; but it is important to note that there are more generous private sector schemes. I do not know of the answer that Mr Willis gave and therefore I can only speculate on precisely what he meant. But in that context it is possible that he was referring to Commonwealth employees currently outside the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. A high proportion-as I recall, the majority-of blue collar Commonwealth employees, for example, are not in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and consideration has been given for some time by me and by Mr Willis to what might be done about this. So it is possible that he was referring to those principally blue collar employees of the Commonwealth not in the CSS, but I will ask him whether that is so and whether he has anything to add to it. Senator TATE —Has the Minister for Education been made aware of continuing media reports in Tasmania that the Federal Government will not honour its commitment to nurse education in that State? In particular, has she been apprised of comments by the Premier to the effect that the State Government believed firmly that the Federal Government would meet capital establishment costs and provide $3,000 for each nurse in training to cover the costs of getting replacement staff in hospitals? Is there any basis for this asserted belief by the Premier? Senator RYAN —There is no basis for the Premier or anyone else claiming that the Commonwealth at any stage undertook to provide capital funding for the transfer of nurse education to the colleges. Nor is there any basis for his claiming that the Commonwealth undertook to contribute to recurrent costs to the extent of $3,000 for each nurse each year. The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth has offered a fair and reasonable contribution to the additional costs involved in the transfer of nurse education. Mr Gray is attempting to conceal from the people of Tasmania the fact that State governments are already funded to provide nurse education, through the States' health grants. As everybody in this place would know, the cost of training nurses has always been borne by the States. The States have had the revenue to do this through the-- Senator Walters —That is not true. Private hospitals still do it in Tasmania. Senator RYAN —Mr Deputy President, it is a bit difficult to answer questions when the interjections indicate absolutely no knowledge of the policy development that has gone on for the past two years. The fact of the matter is that the funds now being made available by the Commonwealth to assist in the transfer are in addition to the funds already given to the States for nurse education. There has been no offsetting of the States' health grants; there has been no attempt to deduct from those grants the cost of contributing to the college-based training. So the States have their health grants intact, which up to this year have always covered the cost of nurse training, and as well as that they have additional funding. A considerable additional amount is available to them. For example, they have $1,500 per student-that is in 1983 prices, it is now considerably more than that; the cost of the tertiary education assistance scheme for those college-based nurse trainees who are eligible for TEAS is being borne by the Commonwealth; and we have already contributed over $3m for the retraining of nurses in the community who might like to be retrained to come back into the nursing work force. Just two weeks ago Dr Blewett and I announced a new package of assistance to the States to assist them in nurse training which consisted of another $4m for the retraining of nurses and $2.3m for curriculum development to assist those colleges that are now introducing nurse undergraduate courses, and an extra $1m for extra TEAS payments to any additional trainees that the States might like to support in colleges. All of this funding is in addition to the normal funds given to the States for nurse education. So the Commonwealth Government is making a net contribution to nurse education and the States have lost nothing. In fact, they have made a net gain because of the additional Commonwealth funding. The number of students that the Commonwealth is prepared to support next year in the Launceston College of Advanced Education is 50. Over the next period- that is, until 1990-we expect that States will phase in the development of the new policy so that no States will be faced with huge burdens at the outset. By 1993 when the transfer should be completed, if the States co-operate with our timetable, the Commonwealth will then take over the full cost of training nurses in tertiary institutions, although at that time it may be necessary to make some adjustment to the States' grants. I state in conclusion-I realise I have been somewhat repetitious, but the point seems very hard to get through to Premier Gray-that the States have made a net gain. They will get several million dollars more for the new form of training of nurses than they got under the old system and they are retaining the funds that they were getting for the hospital-based system. It is obviously a fair and reasonable contribution by the Commonwealth, one which has been hailed by nurses throughout Australia as the most progressive policy for nurses ever implemented in Australia and one which has the entire support of the nursing profession. It also has the support of most State governments but unfortunately Tasmania, as usual, has decided to go out on a limb. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Why is the Government deceiving the Australian taxpayer by pretending to reduce personal income tax while the lack of bracket indexation ensures an ever increasing tax burden? Further, is the leadership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions aware of this deception and therefore a party to these efforts to trick taxpayers into lower real wages? Senator WALSH —Naturally I do not accept the unsupported assertion that the Government is deceiving taxpayers. The Government has published the rate scales which will be applied for the next two years, provided that the taxation package proposed by the Government goes through the Parliament. It is ironic, to say the least, that Senator Sheil should be raising the question of fiscal drag-that is, the higher proportion of income which is paid in taxation if real incomes remain constant but money incomes rise and a progressive rate scale remains unchanged. I recall that when the Fraser Government was elected in 1975 it was elected on a firm promise of full annual tax indexation. It did it for one year and in the succeeding year it applied only 50 per cent indexation and then the year after, with another election behind it, it abandoned indexation altogether. Therefore, what Mr Fraser used to call `taxation by stealth' was then practised by the Fraser-Howard Government for the succeeding five years without, so far as I can recall, any word of protest from Senator Sheil. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. Recently a conference of State and Federal water, agriculture and environment Ministers met in Adelaide to consider the Murray-Darling basin. Can the Minister elaborate on the outcome of that meeting and the recommendations emerging from it? In particular, what are the prospects for the South Australian water supply and are there any changes for South Australia in the pipeline, so to speak? Senator WALSH —I do have a note on the outcome of those discussions. I am advised that because of the very heavy dependence of South Australia on the River Murray for much of its water supply, particularly during poor seasons in South Australia itself and therefore poor storage in the local catchments, South Australia has a greater interest than most States in taking measures to arrest the declining quality of the water. The only effective strategy for achieving that objective is one which takes the kind of integrated, basin-wide perspective as that which was initiated at that historic meeting of the Murray-Darling basin management Ministers in Adelaide earlier this month. The meeting agreed to establish a ministerial council, consisting of senior Ministers of the four governments, to address the problems of water quality. I interpolate that it is a pity that the Queensland Government is not involved as well, since a substantial part of the Murray-Darling catchment area is in Queensland. The council will also address the problems of land management, soil conservation and environmental degradation over the system as a whole. The Commonwealth will provide $1m in 1986-87 for water related research in the basin, including the establishment of a program of research at the Peter Till laboratory in Albury and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation irrigation research centre at Griffith. On other matters concerning South Australia's-and particularly Adelaide's-water supplies, the fact is that for some years, or in every Budget since this Government has been in office, the Commonwealth Government has provided significant financial assistance to the water filtration plants which the South Australian State Government is installing and which were mentioned by Mr Bannon in his policy speech for the present election. He said that the vigorous program was being continued to improve the quality of South Australia's water supply. The Morgan filtration plant which will provide water to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie will be commissioned ahead of schedule in July 1986. He also said that Adelaide's largest water filtration plant was now being constructed at Happy Valley which, by the time it was completed, would have the capacity to serve 40 per cent of Adelaide's population, by which time the vast majority of people in Adelaide would be receiving filtered water. This is an excellent example of a co-operative program between the State and Commonwealth Labor governments which has been working very well and making rapid progress towards providing the city of Adelaide and other towns in rural parts of South Australia which are connected to that water supply with the sort of water quality that is taken for granted in most other parts of Australia and to which the people of South Australia are entitled. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister gave a grant of $3,000 to assist the Bulletin flag competition, which involved a design for a new Australian flag and which ended up as such a debacle, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister assured members of the other place yesterday that the Government had no intention of changing the flag at the moment, will the Government give a similar grant of $3,000 to the Australian Flag Association to encourage patriotism through education of the appropriateness of the Australian flag? Senator BUTTON —I have not had the benefit of the Prime Minister's views on that matter, but I would strongly suspect that the answer would be no. Senator Walters —It is in Hansard. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters asked me whether the Government would give $3,000 to some other collection of people and I am telling her that I suspect that the answer is no. I have not discussed this matter with the Prime Minister, but I still suspect that the answer is no. I will discuss it with the Prime Minister and then I will give Senator Walters a conclusive answer. In the meantime, if I might offer an opinion, it seems to me that the two situations that Senator Walters has described are quite different. Part of the competition to which she has referred involves the consideration of what is the appropriate flag, whether it be a new one or the present one. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and it refers to the current interest, both in Australia and overseas, in the question of privatisation of public assets. I refer in particular to the Thatcher Government's privatisation program. Are there any lessons for Australia in this program and are there any similarities between the Thatcher Government's program and the privatisation proposals of the South Australian Opposition? Senator WALSH —There are certainly lessons to be learned from the British experience. The principal lesson to be learned is that privatisation is a device used by Tory governments to fund current expenditure by flogging off public assets so that they can promise tax cuts immediately before an election. For example, the issue before last of the Guardian Weekly referred to the Thatcher Government's recently announced plans to sell off the British Gas Corporation and the British Airports Authority, both statutory monopolies, and the statutory monopoly will be preserved after the so-called privatisation. The Guardian Weekly made this observation: The real reason for the sale of BGC and BAA is not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech. It is to raise cash for tax cuts in the run-up to the next election. British Gas alone (which made a cool billion profit last year) could command a price of anything up to #8 billion. If sold in three tranches this could add approaching #3 billion a year to the #2 billion plus privatisations already in the pipeline, and provide 3p in the pound of income tax reductions. That is an across the board reduction in the rate of scale of 3 per cent. The Guardian Weekly asked rhetorically: But who could seriously support income tax cuts financed by selling off the nation's capital assets? Well, the answer apparently is that the Thatcher Government could support it and the Olsen Opposition supports it and plans to do precisely the same thing in South Australia in the highly unlikely event of its being elected on Saturday week. Other similarities between the practices of the Thatcher Government and the proposals of the Olsen Opposition are that either, or sometimes both, of two conditions are applied. Firstly, the Government retains a majority equity in the organisation supposedly being privatised. For example, in British Oil the Thatcher Government retained a 51 per cent public equity, which happens to be precisely the same figure as the Olsen opposition proposes to retain in the South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation-that is, the majority of the ownership would remain in public hands. Similar arrangements apply in Great Briain to British Aerospace, British Telcom, British Petroleum, and Cable and Wireless. Secondly, in other public enterprises too numerous to mention a golden share provision applies. Irrespective of the level of equity, the public shareholder-that is, the Government-retains voting control of the companies allegedly privatised. Another feature of the so-called privatisation in the United Kingdom is that in some instances it has in fact led to an increase in regulation. Given that the objective of the policy is to cash out capital assets-to fund current consumption by flogging off assets-it is not surprising that the regulation is maintained. The regulation frequently confers monopoly powers on the corporations which are allegedly being privatised and, because of those monopoly powers, the capacity to charge monopoly prices. So as well as selling off the physical assets which are owned by some of these corporations, the Thatcher Government is capitalising the anticipated economic rent which flows from the statutory monopolies that the corporations, having had parts of their equity sold off, possess. There are lessons to be learned from the British experience-lessons which appear to be absorbed very effectively right now by the South Australian electorate-and there are also similarities. In both cases the underlying objective has been identical; that is, to deceive the people by funding tax cuts through flogging off physical assets owned by the public and capitalising anticipated economic rent. Senator MISSEN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I refer to the brochure recently issued to all householders by the Department of Communications, of which I have given a copy to the Minister, which gives details of the changeover from very high frequency to ultra high frequency for television broadcasting from 5 January 1986. Is it a fact that most television sets in Australia will not be able to receive Special Broadcasting Service telecasts unless they are so converted? Does this conversion include an additional UHF antenna, an outdoor feeder cable, and the cost of installation, being a total of approximately $130, together with a down converter costing approximately $120 for older sets? Have householders been advised to employ a competent technically qualified and experienced person to install them? Is the Government satisfied that there will be considerable loss of audience by SBS and a deprivation of services, particularly for our migrant community, if this plan goes ahead? Has any arrangement been made to compensate persons of small means, who will suffer the loss of these services, for these changes forced upon them? Senator WALSH —In relation to the first question as to whether most television sets will not be able to receive SBS telecasts, the answer is no. The best advice is that the great majority of Australian sets are capable of tuning to the UHF band. It is impossible to answer whether there will be costs to any particular household, because it may or may not be necessary to incur expenditure of the type to which Senator Missen referred. I suggest that Senator Missen might one day have a look at SBS in Canberra, or ask any Canberra resident, and he might then discover that many receive a satisfactory SBS UHF signal without resort to any such expense. As to the audience SBS has, that is a matter of pure speculation. Senator Missen's final question was whether any arrangement would be made to compensate persons to avoid the loss of the service. That is a preposterous suggestion, for this reason: The former Government, of which Senator Missen, if I remember correctly, was a member, commenced the SBS as an ultra high frequency service. To assist in the introduction of the UHF service it was decided by the former Government to permit the SBS also to broadcast simultaneously on very high frequency Channel O in Melbourne and Sydney for a limited time. The limited time was extended by this Government to assist the changeover in Melbourne and Sydney. Therefore, the idea of compensation in those sorts of circumstances is preposterous and would constitute a grotesque imposition on the rest of the taxpayers. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. Given the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority's recent clearance of a testing project for the extraction of uranium by the leaching method at Meninygee near Onslow, I ask: What arrangements have been made for the disposal of the six drums of uranium oxide already mined at Meninygee? Has any of the uranium mined at Meninygee been exported and, if so, to what countries? Is it not against Australian Labor Party policy to encourage uranium exploration while there is a prohibition on new uranium contracts? In view of the fact that the companies involved are French companies actively seeking French contacts, should not the Federal Government disallow this exploration, in view of the current moratorium on direct sales to France? Senator WALSH —I am advised that no arrangements have been made for disposal of the uranium oxide in question, although the physical security of the drums has been examined and approved by the Australian Safeguards Office. None of the uranium at Meninygee has been exported, therefore the second part of the question does not arise. Senator Vallentine's third question referred to it being against Labor Party policy to encourage uranium exploration. She then went on to ask why the Federal Government had not disallowed this exploration. The short answer to that is that exploration within the States is under the control of the State governments and the Federal Government has no power to prevent exploration in or on State territory. Even if it did have such power, the question would still arise of what is exploration for uranium and what is exploration for some other mineral. As for the honourable senator's reference to the company whose ultimate owner is Total Holdings (Aust.) Pty Ltd and which is substantially French-owned, all mining companies, whether French or not, are well aware of the Commonwealth Government's policy. Whether they choose to explore for any mineral or seek approval from State governments to do so is essentially a matter for their commercial judgment and for the policy decisions of the States. Senator VIGOR —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Will the deferred auction of the Tuggeranong retail complex site be open only to builders who guarantee that they will follow Government policy on the Builders Labourers Federation? Will tenderers for the Belconnen Mall have to give a similar undertaking in relation to the extra retail and office space that can be developed at that site? Will tenderers also have to agree to maintain occasional child care facilities in Belconnen Mall indefinitely now that the Department of Territories has realised that Mall tenants, and not the Government, subsidise those facilities? Senator GIETZELT —Three questions were asked of me by Senator Vigor. The answer to the first question is yes. As to the second question, tenders for the sale of Belconnen Mall were called prior to the announcement of the Government's industrial policy. Application of that policy with respect to the BLF to the sale of the Mall is currently under consideration. In respect of the third question asked of me regarding tenderers for the Mall and their responsibilities in respect of child care facilities and so on, tenderers have been asked to specify their intentions in relation to the long term provision of child care. Tenderers' proposals in this regard will be taken into account in assessing tenders. In other words, their intentions in regard to that responsibility and obligation will be considered by the Government and their applications accorded recognition depending on their response. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Commonwealth Banking Corporation developed an equal employment opportunity program or appointed an equal employment opportunity officer? Is there any requirement for the Bank to comply with equal employment opportunity provisions as they apply to the Australian Public Service? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is no, for these reasons: The Public Service Reform Act of 1984 makes provision for departments to prepare an equal employment opportunity program. For the purposes of legislation, departments are defined to include statutory authorities which are staffed under the Public Service Act and headed by a person with the powers of a departmental secretary. Other authorities staffed under the Public Service Act are covered by the EEO program of the Department to which they are attached. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation is staffed under provisions of Part VIII of the Commonwealth Banks Act and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation service regulations. It is, therefore, not subject to the Public Service Act or the Public Service Reform Act of 1984 and, consequently, is not legally required to prepare an EEO program. However, I understand that, notwithstanding the absence of any legal requirement to do so, the Commonwealth Bank is in the process of implementing a program similar to those which are being applied in the Public Service generally. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the view expressed by the Attorney-General yesterday that `it would be appropriate' to use the Bill of Rights legislation to change the electoral systems of Western Australia and Queensland. I also refer the Minister to the comment by Premier Burke of Western Australia that his Government had always maintained that the matter should be dealt with in Western Australia; in other words, by the State. Senator Cook —What about the Legislative Council of Western Australia? Senator DURACK —I am telling honourable senators what Premier Burke thinks about the whole subject. The honourable senator should listen to what his Premier-in fact, his boss-said. I ask the Minister: Do the views expressed by the Attorney-General represent a decision of the Federal Government? Does the Minister agree that any changes to State electoral laws should be dealt with by the electors in the States and not by the Federal Parliament? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question really depends on the circumstances which prevail. I cite the Western Australian case, for example, as Senator Durack has mentioned it, and the unscrupulous actions of the Western Australian Liberal Party to which he belongs and which for years justified electoral malapportionment in Western Australia on the grounds that people who live in remote and sparsely populated portions of the State are entitled to have a larger number of parliamentarians per capita or a fewer number of electors per parliamentarian than those who live in the metropolitan area. Having used those grounds for decades as a rationale for the Western Australian malapportionment, the last Liberal Government in Western Australia put through a redistribution which changed the boundaries of the four statutory seats-Murchison-Eyre, Carnarvon, Pilbara and Kimberley. It changed it in this way: The seat of Kimberley, which formerly had the second largest area of any of those four statutory seats, was enlarged to take in all the inland mining towns in the Pilbara, giving it a consequential enrolment greater than that of some seats in the metropolitan area of Perth and an area of about 20 per cent of the entire State, an area very much greater than the electorate of Carnarvon-also a statutory seat, that is, the boundaries being determined by statute-with three times as many electors as the electorate of Carnarvon and four times the area. Why were the boundaries changed to achieve that result? Senator Durack —Who won the seat? Senator WALSH —The Liberals miscalculated. They are not only shonky; they are incompetent as well. The boundaries were changed in order to put into the seat of Kimberley, which was already firmly held by the Australian Labor Party, the inland Pilbara towns which had a long tradition of recording heavy Labor votes, leaving in the residual seat, in the residue of the old Pilbara electorate, the coastal towns which until that stage had had a record of voting for the Liberal Party. So the whole purpose of that shonky exercise, organised by Charlie Court and supported by Hassell and all the other shonks in the Western Australian Liberal Party, was to- Senator Jessop —Mr Deputy President- Senator WALSH —There is another shonk. There is a speculator in Poiseidon shares, an inside player! Senator Jessop —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I resent the expressions that have been used by the Minister. He is normally a temperate person, but he is using the word `shonks' of members of the Liberal Party. I find that offensive. I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to request the Minister to withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Normally, collective descriptions are not against the Standing Orders, but in this case Senator Walsh also referred to a particular individual as being shonky and he should withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr Deputy President. Senator Button —The collective is still available. Senator WALSH —Yes, collectively, `shonky' is a description that fits the Western Australian Liberal Party very well. The purpose of the change in boundaries was to save the seat of Pilbara for the Liberal Party. I thank Senator Durack for drawing my attention to the fact that the Liberals miscalculated and lost the Pilbara as well. But the exercise demonstrates the extremes to which corrupt State branches of the Liberal Party, and the National Party of Australia in the case of Queensland, are willing to go, and the degree to which they are willing to manipulate the electoral system, to retain power for themselves. Senator Durack evidently takes the view that no matter what any State government does, no matter how corrupt any State government is and no matter how grotesque its electoral system, it is no business of any other part of Australia. I believe that is not a view which many people outside the Western Australian Liberal Party or the Queensland National Party would endorse. Senator Durack —I am putting forward the views of Premier Burke. Senator WALSH —As far as I know Premier Burke has never endorsed the shonky arrangements engineered by the Western Australian Liberal Party when the boundaries of the four statutory seats were redetermined in 1982. Indeed, I think that Premier Burke is on record many times as being highly critical of that, as he, of course, should be. As for Mr Lionel Bowen's alleged comments, I did see some reference to this in the Press. I am not sure of the context in which those remarks were made and I will ask Mr Bowen for a response. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. When I asked the Minister whether he agreed with Premier Burke's view that these matters should be left to the State, he said that it would depend upon the circumstances. Can the Minister tell us what are the circumstances in which such a matter should be taken over by the Federal Parliament contrary to the wishes of the State? Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to what I said before. Senator COATES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation seen the comments by the Liberal member for Bass, Mr Smith, criticising the present Federal Government for its administration of the two-airline policy, claiming that Launceston was being penalised? Is it not a fact that the Opposition when in government twice negotiated the two-airline agreement for lengthy periods, far longer than the Labor Opposition wished at each of those times, thereby preventing subsequent Labor governments from effectively reviewing the legislation? Further, does the Government have a response to the call by East-West Airlines for a three-airline agreement? Senator GIETZELT —I am quite amazed at the statements that Mr Warwick Smith from Tasmania has made on the two-airline agreement as, indeed, one can be amazed at the statement made by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Ian Sinclair, on that agreement and their suggestions that it ought to be turned into a three-airline agreement. I am amazed at the hypocrisy of the Opposition parties as they thrash about trying to establish some of their policies. They are aware, or at least they should be aware, of the circumstances behind the two-airline agreement. One could argue that Mr Smith was either ignorant or deceitful in his approach and in his public comments on the two-airline agreement. It is a notorious fact that on the eve of two Federal elections at the end of the eight-year cycle on which the airline agreement is negotiated both the McMahon Government and the Fraser Government in their dying days renegotiated the agreement. The present agreement involves the Commonwealth Government in a legal contract with both Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia which cannot be broken, no matter whether it is the wish of this Government or any other government to do so, until its expiry date-1990. As the public record shows in Hansard, when the two-airline agreement was being rammed through the Parliament in 1972 and later in 1981 Labor members violently opposed the legislation because it would hamstring a future government's attempts to renegotiate the two-airline agreement. It is rather hypocritical of Opposition spokesmen to attempt to say now that we are refusing to do anything about the two-airline agreement when it is not possible, even if legislation were to be passed in the Parliament, to break the agreement, which is a three-party agreement. It is all right for State Premiers and Opposition members to talk about breaking the agreement, but this Government's hands are tied. One can only come to the conclusion that a great deal of hypocrisy is being applied to this matter. Attempts have been made to portray East-West Airlines, which is probably sponsoring the Opposition's approach to this matter and which knows full well that the two-airline agreement ties the hands of government, as a small independent operator or a small business operator somehow or other caught up in a struggle against the giants of the airline industry. That might have been the position of East-West in its early days, but it has now been taken over by a big operator. It is now a large corporation. That corporation knew what the circumstances were when it bought out East-West Airlines in 1983. Therefore, no matter what views this Government might have, the Minister for Aviation and this Government can do nothing about the two-airline agreement until 1990. Let me inform the Senate that when the current Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Hunt, was debating this matter in May 1981, he said: I believe every minute of the 8-year period of agreement will be needed. It is common knowledge that the Prime Minister at that time forced the Cabinet to agree to that proposition. When we consider the attitude that was taken by Sir Robert Menzies when the two-airline agreement was first put into effect way back in the 1960s, what is happening to the Liberal Party today in respect of such matters as the two-airline agreement and its economic policy makes Sir Robert Menzies look like a left wing liberal. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I draw his attention to media reports of the New South Wales Government's contribution of $115,000 to the First Fleet Re-enactment Committee's $11m project to recreate the entire Plymouth to Sydney First Fleet voyage. The launching of this project was made yesterday by the New South Wales Premier and followed the cancellation of Saturday's launch by the Prime Minister of the Australian Bicentennial Authority's tall ships project launch. I ask the Minister: In light of the obvious conflict between two similar projects, what is now the status of the tall ships project and is the Federal Government likely to fund either or both of those projects? Does this mean that the Federal Government is all at sea with the Australian Bicentennial Authority or is it that it has no wind left in its sails? Senator BUTTON —As we are going in for wet jokes, I remind the honourable senator that there is no such thing as a free launch. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister did not proceed with that function last week. The answer to the substance of the question is that, as I understand it, the tall ships project is still proceeding. The Australian Bicentennial Authority is now under new chairmanship and it will be making announcements about its reviewed set of programs shortly. I imagine that the tall ships project will proceed. If I might volunteer a personal view, it may be possible to engineer some battle between the two fleets, and that might not be a bad thing. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the report in the Canberra Times of last Friday headed: `No mass job losses in restaurants: CES'? I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the article in part reads: Nationwide, the total number of hotel and restaurant vacancies notified to the CES during October 1985 was higher than at any time since October 1984, and represented a 25.9 per cent increase over the year. Do not the Commonwealth Employment Service statistics finally put the lie to the Opposition's claims of 30,000 jobs lost throughout Australia because of the business lunch tax? Senator WALSH —This is another issue which draws attention to the propensity of the Opposition to believe whatever it chooses to believe regardless of the objective realities. Senator Button —Senator Messner, particularly. Senator WALSH —Yes, Senator Messner in particular. The Opposition, under the tutelage of its temporary leader, is pursuing a policy of deregulation of the labour market and the abandonment of centralised wage fixing in the expectation that that will lead to a slower rate of wages growth, based on the assumption that this is a completely competitive economy with completely competitive markets for labour, services and commodities. It is not, but the Opposition continues to believe that it is. Likewise, the Opposition apparently continues to believe that there will be massive losses in the catering industry because of the termination of the free lunch. The story to which Senator Cook referred as well as the facts that he mentioned show that in all States other than Victoria or Tasmania there were increases in the number of vacancies in the catering industry following the termination of the free lunch. I certainly would not argue with or fall for the logical fallacy that this increase in the number of vacancies was necessarily caused by the termination of the free lunch, but I think it does demonstrate to any person with some sort of nodding acquaintance with reality that there was little if any correlation between the level of employment in the industry and the free lunch. I also noted that the demonstration outside Parliament House yesterday was not particularly well attended, which I suppose is testimony to two things: Firstly, that the people who are genuinely seeking employment in the catering industry are around at the CES offices, if they have not already got a job, getting the names of all those employers who want workers and who cannot get them. That is where the genuine workers in the catering industry could be expected to be. Secondly, whoever it was who organised the demonstration out there-I suppose this is an alternative point rather than a second one-did not have sufficient funds to rent a big enough crowd to make an impressive demonstration. Senator WALSH —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, pursuant to questions raised in the Senate on 14 November by Senator Colston regarding Australian Broadcasting Corporation coverage of race meetings in Queensland. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Minister for Communications Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 26 Nov. 1985 Senator M. A. Colston Senator for Queensland Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Senator Colston In response to your inquiries made during the Senate Adjournment Debate on 14 November 1985, I have raised with the ABC all the points with which you have taken issue. Below I have addressed each matter in turn, the answers being provided for me by the ABC. Point one-You have pointed out that you do not believe the reasons given to me by the ABC in response to an earlier Parliamentary Question asked by you regarding the termination of the ABC's race commentator, Mr Larry Pratt's radio contract. The ABC has assured me that the ending of race broadcasts in Brisbane and the termination of Mr Pratt's services were made as a means of adapting to current funding restrictions and also as a means of avoiding duplication of programs. The measures taken were those which had proved to be available to the ABC. This was because 4BC was also providing a racing service to Metropolitan Brisbane, therefore the decision taken by the ABC would not deprive this locality's race listeners of their only access to race broadcasts. As you are already aware in Brisbane the ABC now provides a mix of race results and other sporting features. Point two-You have queried the accuracy of the response to your question concerning the source of the ABC's regional racing broadcasts ie. that they are relayed from Brisbane commercial radio station 4BC's racing program and therefore do not constitute the ABC's own racing program. The ABC's regional racing program includes the use of Brisbane race calls made by a ``course commentator''. An agreement was reached between ABC and TAB management giving the ABC access to the course commentator for the race calls. This caller is also used by 4BC for that stations race broadcasts. However, at no time is the ABC regional race program that of 4BC's as the line from the race course goes only to the switchroom of 4BC; here the line is ``split'' i.e. the broadcast goes into the ABC studios at Toowong on one line whilst it goes to the 4BC studio on another. This means that there is no input into the ABC relay of any of 4Bc's studio programming. 4BC's programming occurs in the 4BC studio and utilizes the race call as part of its own program as does the ABC. The race call used by the ABC is in fact technically redirected to the ABC's studios before it reaches 4BC's studios. The only relationship between 4BC and the ABC is based on the fact that they use the services of the same Brisbane on-course race commentator. Also the ABC does not pay either the course commentator of 4BC for access to the Brisbane race calls. Point three-You disagree with the ABC's response to your query about whether or not there is accidental inclusion of commercials in the ABC relay. You suggest that due to delays and the ABC ``channelling in on the 4BC program'' it is impossible not to have commercials come over the ABC relay. Radio commericals are usually put to air within the program at the studio point of the broadcast either by the studio announcer or a technical booth operator linked to the studio. As pointed out above, the ABC does not channel in on the 4BC program, the split in the line for the ABC occurring before 4BC studio programming inserts are made. However what has occurred is that the ABC's Queensland Branch received some complaints from regional listeners because the ABC was crossing over to the race caller just before the start of the race and listeners felt they were missing the pre-race betting fuctuations and the pre-race build-up commentary. The ABC then decided to include this material where possible by crossing to the course earlier. This involved a foreseen but acceptable risk as to what the race caller might say if he had to fill in time. In the event there have been isolated instances of some commercial-related comments alluded to e.g. references to an airline-sponsored tour, going to air on ABC regional stations. However, no radio commercials as such have been broadcast on the ABC service. In this respect I refer to Sections 31 (1), 31 (2) and sub-section (2) (c) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 which states that: 31 (1) The Corporation shall not broadcast or televise advertisements. (2) Sub-section (1) does not prevent the Corporation, if the Board thinks fit, from broadcasting or televising- (c) a program supplied by any organisation or person other than a program that is, in the opinion of the Board, being used as an advertisement. The evidence seems to support the conclusion that whilst some commentary matters emanating from the race commentator could perhaps be construed as being of a commercial nature such matter does not constitute a program that is being used as an advertisement. Therefore I am satisfied that the ABC is not breaking any requirements under its Act in relation to commercial advertising. Point four-You have pointed out that there are some geographical areas where neither the ABC regional race program nor the 4BC metropolitan race program can be picked up. This is certainly true in the case of the Sunshine Coast. Under the new arrangements, this area does not receive ABC regional race broadcasts, however this state of affairs will be remedied when a new ABC radio station is opened as part of the Second Regional Radio Network. I am including below, for your, further information, a resume of what is broadcast on ABC regional stations for racing enthusiasts. 10.02-10.14 a.m.-Two way Turf Talk with Geoff Mahoney and Greg Miles discussing Sydney and Melbourne Racing. 10.14-10.20 a.m.-Geoff Mahoney with either Paul Colan or Michael Wrona discussing the Brisbane meeting. 12.00-6.00 p.m.-ABC Saturday Sport. Late previews of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane racing. Descriptions of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne racing and results from the Gold Coast and any other major race on which the TAB may be operating. As applicable, win, place, quinella, doubles, trebles, trifectas and six pick prices are broadcast as soon as they are available. Approximates for doubles, trebles and extra doubles are also given when available. After the last race, a full race roundup is presented of meetings at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast. I trust that the information I have now been able to give you satisfies the interest you have taken in this matter. But if there are further matters about which you may wish to seek clarification please do no hesitate to contact me again. Yours sincerely, MICHAEL DUFFY The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing order 28A, I lay on the table a warrant withdrawing, at his request, Senator Tate from the panel of Temporary Chairmen of Committees and appointing Senator Giles to the panel in his place. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The trade union domination of the Government, particularly on the superannuation issue, to the detriment of the Australian community. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.07) —The point at issue today could not have been put before the Senate at a more important time, as it was only today that we saw the Government capitulate in the face of union pressure on the question of the demands of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia for superannuation benefits on top of superannuation benefits which have already been provided by employers through normal superannuation schemes. This is a clear example of the way in which unions are exercising their power most successfully over the Hawke Labor Government. It is not only that it is occurring in that particular industry, the paint industry, which of course has devastating effects on the car industry. In addition, the way that this will impact upon South Australia is well known to many of us. The point is that as a result of this action we have seen clear evidence of the agreement of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, to an arrangement which in effect agrees to all of the union demands and makes sure that in future there will be a spread of further double superannuation benefits right across the industrial landscape of Australia. We have only to look back about 18 months to find out where the roots of this matter really lie. Mr Willis, in the House of Representatives on 31 May 1984, when talking generally about the way in which superannuation schemes would be extended across the community, said: One way in which we can do that- that is increase superannuation- is by tying up the superannuation scheme, including an industrial relations agreement which is the key basis on which the Government has supported the extension of superannuation in the building industry. It also has to be genuine superannuation and there must be an orderly extension of superannuation schemes after that. The ACTU has given us that assurance. He then quoted from a telex which he had received from Mr Kelty, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which reads as follows: . . . the ACTU reaffirms its commitment given to you verbally that 1. the proposed building industry superannuation scheme will not form the basis for flow-on of such schemes to other areas, and 2. the further development of occupational superannuation will proceed in a gradual and orderly manner. That was a firm and solemn commitment given by the ACTU to Mr Willis, the relevant Minister, some 18 months ago. But what has happened since? We have since seen the development of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia scheme, the development of schemes for the Transport Workers Union of Australia, for the Australian Timber Workers Union and other unions. In no way can they be referred to as being orderly developments; in fact they are the reverse. The classic example of that comes forward as a result of what happened yesterday, when we saw the Government forced on to the defensive, cowering before the demands of the trade unions. There has been a capitulation in the paint industry to the Storemen and Packers Union and a granting of an industry-wide, union based compulsory superannuation over and above the superannuation that is provided by the industry itself. In other words the pressure that is now upon the industry and, in particular, the Government in this regard has proven impossible to stop. Perhaps the worst aspect of the whole thing is that there is obviously no control over this development, notwithstanding what Mr Kelty said at some earlier stage and notwithstanding what the ACTU has said to the Government as to how this would be controlled. The fact is that the unions are running wild irrespective of their intentions in previous days as to how this development may occur. In fact, we now see a rash of industrial action breaking out all over the country which will obviously impact on places where industries find it very difficult to cope with such things. The present kinds of superannuation schemes are not about retirement benefits for employees but about naked union power. One does not have to be too clever to work out how it is that this development can lead only to compulsory unionism. We have already seen it in the building industry, where it is impossible to work on sites in Brisbane-Senator Parer will be developing that argument later-and in other places unless one is a member of the building industry superannuation scheme and unless one is by natural extension a member of a trade union. It is therefore through this means that the union movement will be extending coverage to all workers in the community by gradual extension of superannuation, wider and wider across the industrial landscape. At the centre of all these changes we have seen none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during his period as President of the ACTU from 1969 to 1980, at a time when he presided over the most disastrous unemployment figures, the most disastrous inflation and the most disastrous wage increases in Australia's history, that created such problems for the Australian economy that we are still learning to live with. We saw him as a business manager fail with ACTU-Solo, fail with the Bourkes stores and indeed create all kinds of other problems for the community. We have now observed this bull in the china shop approach by allowing superannuation increases and developments to go uncontrolled in such a way that there will be no ultimate benefit for the nation and which can certainly be described only as deferred wage increases. There is no attempt by this Government to develop guidelines upon which proper retirement schemes can be developed, in such a way that we can take the load off the Department of Social Security, and in such a way that we can improve the lot of individual Australians. That is where our basic argument on this issue stands, but the Government has merely capitulated in the face of union pressure on this matter. Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, is not only incompetent and vacillating but also obviously weak. Apart from that, he is also a liar. He lied in South Australia yesterday. Senator Tate —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I believe the honourable senator has been guilty of the most gross abuse of decorum of this place in using very unparliamentary language concerning the Prime Minister. I ask that it be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator Messner, you cannot refer to a member of the other House in that way. Will you please withdraw? Senator MESSNER —I withdraw, but I say that the Prime Minister is guilty of untruths. For instance, yesterday in South Australia he said that the policies of the Leader of the Opposition in that State, John Olsen, to reduce the size of government were illegal. He referred to the fact that the proposed Liberal government in South Australia would seek to sell off South Australian Housing Trust homes to those who need them. Olsen said no such thing. In fact the sale of homes under the Liberal Party's housing policy in South Australia will be done by renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. In no way can that be called an illegal act under that agreement. As the Prime Minister continues to reassert that untruth, I can refer to it only in the way that I did earlier. Obviously, that renegotiation of the housing agreement with the Commonwealth will be very important for South Australians. It will give South Australians an opportunity to own their own homes rather than to pay rent forever. Certainly the intention of the Liberal Party in South Australia is to ensure that that opportunity is extended. It will also produce the benefit of funds received from those people who finance their homes in that way being put into building more rental housing. It is only under the present Labor Government in South Australia that we have seen an abnormal rate of growth, a record rate of growth, in the rental housing list. We are finding that more and more people in South Australia cannot get rental homes through the South Australian Housing Trust. Mr Olsen has a worthwhile solution to that problem, but all the Prime Minister can say in a desperate attempt to defend his position is that the solution is in some way illegal. That is untrue. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, knows that it is untrue. The Prime Minister knows that it is untrue. Fortunately, the people of South Australia know that this is a worthwhile benefit. They will certainly explain that to the Hawke Labor Government when they vote on 7 December. We have heard much razzamatazz from the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia about things such as the Grand Prix and how the State is up and running. Yet the very project he is looking at-- Senator Tate —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. The Senate has before it a matter of public importance in terms which were submitted to the Deputy President this morning. I believe that the honourable senator is digressing, in total irrelevancy to the topic of superannuation and the alleged trade union domination of the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Messner, you were rather getting away from the terms of the matter of public importance. Will you return to it, please? Senator MESSNER —I will certainly obey your wishes, Madam Acting Deputy President. With the union domination that exists in South Australia, how is it that the Premier, Mr Bannon, can claim that he can deliver the goods. Let us consider the submarine contract, for instance. He has claimed that he is the only person who can deliver the submarine contract to South Australia, yet the other day the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, in the House of Representatives, acting under the union pressure, said that it has to be spread all over Australia. The Premier of South Australia claims that he is the only person who can deliver it. Of course that is not true. Most of all, Mr Bannon, under pressure from the trade union movement, is claiming full support for the economic and tax policies of the Treasurer, Mr Keating. We know that Mr Keating's words drip from his mouth and that they are nothing more than really crude vulgarities, but the point is that Keating is the man whom Bannon supports. Keating is the man who goes overseas to save the Australian dollar and costs us all another $4 billion as the dollar falls through the floor. While it is true that Premier Bannon would not speak in the way that Keating does, the point has to be made that he supports Keating's policies. Keating supports high interest rates; so does Bannon. Keating wants a capital gains tax; so does Bannon. Who wants a fringe benefits tax? Keating does and, of course, that has to be supported by Bannon. Keating wants to destroy the hospitality industry in South Australia, so does Senator Walsh, and so does Mr Bannon. Fairness and incentive in the way in which the tax system has operated will be destroyed by the Hawke Labor Government, and that has the full support of the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia, under union pressure emanating from Trades Hall. We know that all honourable senators on the Government side are subject to Trades Hall for their preselection. We know that they all have to give commitments to the unions in order to keep their places in the Senate. We ought to have a declaration of public interest to ensure that those guys tell us the truth about the commitments they give to people. That sort of thing applies not only at the Federal level but of course also at the State level. Senator Tate —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I find it highly offensive that the honourable senator has made an imputation against members on this side of the chamber, in particular in implying that I am beholden to any outside body in regard to my obtaining a position in this chamber. I ask that that be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Messner, insofar as there was any imputation against Senator Tate, I suggest that you withdraw it. Senator MESSNER —I am only too pleased to withdraw it. Senator Walsh apparently will not take part in this debate. I suppose that is reasonable because he gets his stories wrong all the time, and he has particularly done so with regard to the state of play with Mr Olsen in South Australia, which he repeated here today. Of course, one of the points about Senator Walsh is that he is a great non-succeeder as a Finance Minister, as we have seen. He cannot even get his expenditure cuts through the Cabinet, as was reported recently. The cuts to veterans' entitlements that he announced last May have not occurred. He cannot get any child care cuts through the Cabinet, and he has now faced an ignominious defeat on the issue of public authorities and trying to introduce rules and guidelines for them. I support that and so does my Party-that we ought to be able to control statutory authorities in a proper way. What is the argument put in the other direction? Apparently the Cabinet has knocked over Senator Walsh on that issue because it says that it does not want the Opposition to make any capital out of privatisation on the ground that statutory authorities are inefficient. If that is the case, Senator Walsh should talk to Mick Young a little more deeply about that matter. To return to the issue of the union domination of the Government in South Australia, I refer to Mr Bannon's support of Mr Keating's interest rate policy. We know what that means. We know that in South Australia interest rates are causing enormous problems with mortgages for people in the north-eastern and the south-western suburbs. People are struggling to meet their repayments under the Keating interest rate policy. But not only those people are affected. Obviously, Government senators in this place support that high interest rate policy. Mr Bannon certainly supports it. In fact on the National the other night, in response to a question from an interviewer about the interest rate policy, he said that he accepted that the pressure on interest rates will continue and that many more people will be in trouble. Apparently, his advice at that time was that interest rates will go down. Of course, we know where his advice came from. It was from Mr Keating, who has been promising that all through 1985. Mr Bannon continues to support Mr Keating's economic policies, which are proving so disastrous, in particular for South Australians. His policy of high interest rates is deliberate; it is important in supporting the price of the dollar before it collapses through the floor. We know that the cause of the falling dollar is the lack of competitiveness in this country, brought about by trade union pressures, which have not been assisted by today's announcement of the Government's cave-in to the paint industry. That is just part and parcel of the very real difficulties that Australians will face in the year ahead through these continuing high interest rate policies which are supported by the State Government of South Australia. I conclude by saying that, central to the whole economic policy of the Keating plan, the maintenance of a high interest rate structure in this country is merely as a result of the pressure from the trade union movement. The unions, through their domination of the Government, control its every word and deed, and that lies at the very core of our economic policies and difficulties. It is the Government's desertion of its responsibilities and its obligations to the Australian people in its failure to assert its political authority over the growing power and pressure of the trade union movement that brings in its wake enormous problems, anguish and despair to so many Australians. We have only to consider the benefits of such policies as lead to the operation of such firms as the Mudginberri abattoir to observe what can happen when there is a better approach to industrial relations, and how benefits can flow to workers more freely as a result of those kinds of policies. But no, this Government is pushed and absolutely cowed by the trade unions, which are going in exactly the opposite direction. However, the people of Australia can fight back. Next Saturday week, in South Australia, people can vote out the Bannon Labor Government and show Australians the lead. The opportunity lies not only in the streets of Adelaide but in the suburbs of the north-eastern and south-western parts of Adelaide, in Modbury, in Tea Tree Gully, in Warradale, in Brighton, in Whyalla, and in the timber towns of the south-east, and particularly Mount Gambier, which has been so ill-treated by this Government's policy in regard to road transport-something we have campaigned against strongly in this Senate. That will mean that Mount Gambier stays a strong Liberal seat in the future. That is the message from all Australians which, on 7 December, we can get through to the Hawke Labor Government, so that it understands that its policies are hurting Australians and are damaging the long term propsects of our economy-and that results directly from its domination by the trade union movement. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(3.22) —One always knows when the Liberals are not doing well in the polls; they bring on a union bashing matter of public importance. Again we have it here today. What an unimpressive performance Senator Messner has put in today. I do not think that it is up to his normal reasonable standard. But it is true to say that Liberals hate trade unions. I have never met a Liberal who does not hate trade unions. If there is one thing that unites all the disparate factions of the Liberal Party of Australia, it is their hatred of trade unions. If they did not have trade unions to hate, they would have to invent them. It does not matter whether a Liberal is a member of the Uglies in New South Wales or the Wimps in Victoria; it does not matter what part of the Liberal Party he comes from; it is a first tenet that a Liberal hates trade unions. That sort of union bashing has led successive Liberal governments to introduce more and more repressive anti-union legislation, with disastrous consequences. There has been no anti-union legislation in the history of the Hawke Government, and disputes are at a record low. If the Liberals want to know what path they are going down by following their policy, they have only to look at their brother government in Queensland to see where anti-union legislation leads. Its most recent legislation is not only anti-democratic; it breaks every civil liberty principle in the book. The road down which that is taking Queensland is the same road down which Louisiana went in the 1930s under Huey Long-some sort of know nothing popularism. Indeed, I often wonder who, when the leadership changes there, will inherit the deduct box in Queensland. Certainly it will not be deviants. They cannot even get a beer in Queensland at present. But that is the road that the Liberal Party will go down if it continues with its union bashing activities. I believe that we have these sorts of motions put forward because the Liberals have no idea of what to do in the industrial relations area. It may be true that in one or two other areas they are developing some policies in some depth; maybe. I have not seen them yet, but I will be charitable. However, certainly in this crucial area they have absolutely no idea of what to do. First, half of them seem to think that there should be a wage freeze. The other half says: `Let's deregulate the whole wage fixing process'. How do we have a wage freeze but not a centralised wage fixation system? I simply cannot understand it. If they deregulated the labour market, I have no doubt what would happen. The strong unions would get wage increases, and the weak unions would not. There would be a redistribution of income away from workers in weak unions to workers in strong unions. That is the last thing that anyone in this country should want. As to the Labor Party's relations with unions, it is an historical relationship that is well known. We are a Labor party-that is, we are made up of trade unions and branch members. At least 60 per cent of our State conferences comprises trade union officials and representatives. We do not try to hide from that. It makes us an almost unique party. There are only three or four others in the world like it, as a Labor party. We are not a social democratic party; we are a labor party. Yet, tragically, rarely in government has the Labor Party been able to use its relationship with the trade union movement for the benefit of the people. It is true to say that past State and Federal governments have had as much difficulty dealing in the trade union area as any Liberal government. I admit that readily. We looked at that problem in the early 1980s and decided that the only way to resolve it was to come to an accommodation with the trade unions in which a whole series of trade-offs are done-again we admit that-for the benefit of the Australian economy. From that emerged the accord-the very principles that the Liberal Party realises that it has to destroy before it can get back on to this side of the chamber. It has become quite clear over the last few weeks how desperate the Liberal Party has become to try to destroy the accord; for the Liberals realise that unless they do it, Labor will stay in government. In view of the history of the accord and what it has achieved, it is little wonder that when we go overseas and meet other parliamentarians, or when visiting parliamentarians come here, one of the first things that they want to discuss is how the accord works, so that they can take it back to their countries and try to apply it in their own way. What the accord has meant is a growth in the economy of this country. We have had economic growth rates of 5 per cent every year that we have been in government. No other country in the Western world has achieved such high rates of economic growth. We have also managed to create, since we came to power, 440,000 jobs-well on track to meeting our promise of 500,000 jobs in the first three years of government. All that, I believe, is due to having the accord as a central part of our economic system. Senator Walsh —Inflation has come down, too. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Walsh must be a mind-reader because that is the next item to which I go: Inflation has been reduced. The level of industrial disputes in the last financial year is the lowest in man hours lost for 15 years. One could imagine the joy on the Opposition benches if the Liberals had achieved any one of those indicators. In three years of government we happen to have achieved all four. The accord has proved to be a very flexible concept. When the consumer price index figures jumped, prompted by exchange rate factors that put an inflationary pressure into the CPI, what happened? We were able to renegotiate the accord. It allows for a 2 per cent discount next year, which should take a lot of that inflationary pressure out of the system. Senator Messner ended by saying that this Government is absolutely dominated by the unions, as though we were some sort of a toady government to which the unions issued orders. That is simply not true, and he knows what an invention it is. He should ask the food preservers whether they can order this Government around. The only group that hates us more than the Liberal Party would be the food preservers union. They bag us week in and week out. He should go and ask the confectioners union whether this Government accepts its orders. Or, finally, he should ask Norm Gallagher down in Lygon Street what he thinks of the Federal Labor Government. Of course they do not like it; and of course we do not accept orders of those particular groups. It is ridiculous to suggest that we do so. One thing the Liberal Party ought to learn is that to be a successful government it cannot just be confrontationist with unions. It may get the Liberals a few votes on odd occasions to go around union bashing; but, remember, once the election campaign is over, a government has three years in office. The Liberals have got to learn to live with unions and to negotiate with them. I am the first to admit that the Labor Party's approach to business many years ago was a negative, carping one. We had the same sort of attitude to business as the Liberal Party has to unions. We had to go out of our way to learn what business was about, how a growth economy occurred and how to apply those principles. We have done it and I suggest that the Liberal Party do the same. Have we, in fact, been harmful to various businesses? I argue that we have not. I cite some figures to prove my point. In 1980-81 average weekly earnings increased, under a Liberal Government, by 13.5 per cent. That was a time of virtually no economic growth, by the way. In 1981-82 average weekly earnings increased by 14.5 per cent. In 1982-83-I suppose we had three months' responsibility in that year-average weekly earnings grew by 11.4 per cent. In 1983-84, however, the increase was down to 8.4 per cent. In the last financial year, 1984-85, the increase was down to 6.8 per cent. Honourable senators should compare those figures. In the last financial year of the Labor Government average weekly earnings grew by 6.8 per cent compared with a high point of 14.5 per cent in 1981-82. Few employers would criticise that record. Let us look at another indicator, profit share, by which businesses often measure whether they are getting a fair shake in the economy. Under the Liberal Party, in 1981-82, profit share was 13.2 per cent. The following year it dropped to 12.7 per cent. When Labor came to office it went up to 14.8 per cent and the following year to 14.9 per cent. On the indication of the September quarter, it is now up to 16.2 per cent. Most of us realise that if we want a privately engendered recovery, we must get investment and investment, essentially, comes from that profit share. It has been restored to what it was 15 years ago. I would say that that is another result directly of the accord and the Labor Party's relationship with the trade union movement. I argue that business will eventually judge this Government by results and not by the empty rhetoric and ideology that spouts out of Senator Messner's mouth on every occasion. Let us move on to the two real subjects of this matter of public importance, union domination of the Government and superannuation. There has been no real growth in wages in the last three years even though we have had record economic growth. Instead of having a productivity hearing, in which an automatic wage award will be made, the unions have agreed to take it in the form of superannuation. I argue that anything that starts to develop as some sort of comprehensive superannuation scheme in this country, whilst it is 20 or 30 years too late, is, nevertheless, welcome. It is much more welcome than what has existed under previous governments. Much criticism has been made of union run superannuation schemes. I ask the honourable senators opposite whether they have examined any of the exisiting union superannuation schemes. Have they examined the scheme of the pulp and paper workers in Victoria or the storemen and packers? If they have examined any of them, why did they not bring up specific examples of mismanagement? In many ways they have been the best managed of any of the superannuation schemes. The reason they are very popular, especially in occupations which have a diverse coverage, is that they are portable. It is no use working for one company and being in a company scheme if, when a worker wants to switch to another company, he cannot transfer his superannuation. In union run superannuation schemes there is no bar in switching from one scheme to another. Superannuation on a company basis restricts employer mobility. They are restricted by having to stay at one firm, otherwise they get only a partial payout and basically, nothing out of the scheme. Many people might argue that we would be better off with a national superannuation scheme. Every government in the last 30 years has looked at implementing a national superannuation scheme and wondered exactly how to implement it. First of all, do we make it an investment funded scheme, that is, do we take money from people and invest it over an enormous area? Any honourable senator opposite could see how much money would come in and be invested by one unit. That could well be unhealthy. Do we make it a pay as you go superannuation scheme? That works terrifically after 10 years but the real difficulty is how to finance it in the first 10 years. The way to finance it in the first 10 years is by whacking up the rates. Any government that whacks up rates to that extent will not be in government in three years time. I am sure that people in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party understand that. The one major alternative at the moment is to have private superannuation schemes run by companies-I do not object to that per se-by unions or by independent groups. Why the opposition from honourable senators opposite to trade unions getting involved in running those schemes? They have proved in several instances that have come to my attention-I have watched them reasonably closely-that their investment decisions have been very wise. The return on their investments has been either average or above average in the superannuation field. The concept that trade unions would, in some way, use this power to get wage rises is absolutely ridiculous. If honourable senators opposite could cite instances I might start to consider such a concept but they have cited no instances here today. I believe we should try to encourage the taking of what people might call a deferred wage rise in the form of superannuation. When we consider the aging nature of our population and what the social security bill will be in 20 or 25 years time, it is an excellent development. I wrote down in my notebook some points to respond to from Senator Messner's voyage across the spectrum of politics. He spoke on the subject for five minutes but then wandered off into the South Australian election. I will not test your patience, Madam Acting Deputy President, by exploring that area in any detail other than to say that we are still quoting two to one on this side of the chamber and honourable senators opposite can see us outside the chamber later. Senator Messner made a rather desperate plea today to try to pull the chestnuts out of the fire in South Australia. The matter of public importance has nothing to do with South Australia. It has little substance. Nevertheless, I congratulate Senator Messner. He might as well have a little dive in to the South Australian election to see what he can retrieve. He might retrieve Mount Gambier, although I doubt it. If I were he I would start looking at a pendulum of around 4 or 5 per cent and start defending those seats. I will not have an opportunity to comment on the view of the Australian Democrats as Senator Siddons is to follow me. I was able to see a report of his comments on the Carleton-Walsh Report last night. It will come as little surprise to Senator Siddons to learn that I do not agree with any of his comments on this subject. I do not believe that unions will abuse their position in setting up superannuation funds. If it gives them some sort of economic influence and power over enterprise, so much the better. That fits in fairly well with some of the other concepts which Senator Siddons puts forward in terms of worker control and participation. I see nothing wrong with the working class of this country owning enterprises via their superannuation schemes or anything else. The more we diversify ownership and the means of production the better. It is a healthy situation to occur. I have one other point. The Government has been accused of not sticking to its general policy on superannuation. We have stuck to it. We stuck to it yesterday in our negotiations with the Storemen and Packers Union. It will not have any superannuation scheme until after 1 July next year. We are sticking to it in our negotiations with the Transport Workers Union. We have been absolutely consistent in saying to unions that they cannot get these schemes going until the agreement says so, and that is on 1 July next year. In conclusion, this matter of public importance has never been very important. It has never been of much interest to the public. It is another union bashing exercise by our friends opposite who are getting fairly desperate. Christmas is coming on. They are 4 per cent behind the Government in one opinion poll. Their bright, shiny new leader, Mr Howard, is collapsing even below the depths that Mr Peacock plummeted some months ago. He is not getting anywhere in the public opinion polls so the Opposition has brought on an MPI on union bashing. Even if that gets it a few votes in electorate land, it will still have to think in the long term. If it is to get back into government it will have to think what its industrial relations policy will be. I hope that Senator Parer, who is to speak soon in this debate, will be able to outline in some detail what is the Opposition's wages policy. If it gets into government, will it have a central wage fixing system? If not, will it become the law of the jungle again, as it did in 1980, 1981 and 1982 when we had a wages explosion? The Opposition has to answer all those questions if it expects to be taken as a reasonable opposition and an alternative government. As I have said, this matter of public importance debate today is nothing more than a union-bashing exercise. I am sure that, in 20 years time, whoever is standing around these benches-it will not be many of us-will look back on this era as a great development, when trade unions got into the superannuation field, took up the slack which no government or no other organisation has been willing to get involved with and gave its employees and workers benefits that they long deserved. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.41) —The matter of public importance that we are debating is the trade union domination of the Government and particularly the superannuation issue. I guess that that raises the question of the accord but it particularly raises the question of superannuation. I want to spend most of the time that I have talking about superannuation, but first let me deal with the accord. I believe that those who criticise the accord have a responsibility to say what they are going to put in its place. If we break down the accord how will we control wages in this country? I have not heard in this chamber any reasonable alternative up to this point. The sooner that members of the Liberal Party of Australia delineate precisely what their alternative is to the accord the sooner we will have a worthwhile debate on the accord. From where I stand I can only say that the accord at this point is working, and it is working well. Senator Robert Ray quoted some figures. He did not mention, of course, the fact that business is booming. If we look at the figures for the September quarter of 1983-84 we see that business profits rose by 17.8 per cent and if we look at the figures for the September quarter 1985 we see that business profits rose a further 21 per cent. So things are going well. The accord has given this economy the opportunity to expand without industrial disruption. We have only to look at history to see what has happened. During the Fraser years there was an attempt to break down centralised wage fixing. The powerful unions, particularly the metal workers, got into the act. They negotiated enormous wage increases. That immediately flowed on to all other sectors of the economy and we had a wage explosion the like of which this country had not seen before. If we are to debate responsibly the issues about union domination we have to say responsibly what is the alternative. Until members of the Liberal Party can give us a carefully reasoned alternative I believe that debating the accord is very unproductive. On the face of it, the accord has been successful to this point. I for one, speaking for the Australian Democrats in general, am very pleased that the Government was able to negotiate another two years of the accord. But, in doing so, it brought in some new issues. Let us just look at the history of what we are debating. the negotiations that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) undertook with the Australian Council of Trade Unions were to the effect that the unions would get the normal consumer price index wage rise, except for the first quarter next year when there would be a 2 per cent reduction, and then after 1 July next year the Government offered them superannuation in lieu of the productivity increase. At this point the Government has not brought down any guidelines on what it intends to do with superannuation. It has said that it will move to offer superannuation to all employees. The Democrats applaud the Government in that initiative. At present only 50 per cent of workers enjoy superannuation and the facts of the matter are that they tend to be the higher paid workers. So there is a crying need in the community for general superannuation benefits and we are pleased that the Government has taken that initiative. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not do it when they had the opportunity when they were in government. The Government has said that it will offer superannuation to all in three ways: First, through existing employer schemes; secondly, through union-based schemes; and, thirdly, through a safety net which will be a national superannuation scheme. Senator Parer —That's not the way it is working. Senator SIDDONS —That is what the Government has said it will do. Our principal concern is that if the Government is going to use these three types of schemes, is to give everybody the opportunity to contribute to a superannuation scheme, it is absolutely paramount that the contributor has a free choice as to which scheme he or she wishes to join. If there is a free choice I think at least 50 per cent of our problems will be over because that will force the competing schemes to be effective. I do not believe that we can do it in any other way. Having looked at the history of union superannuation schemes to date, we are in some fear as to what the Government guidelines will be. Let us look at what happened with the builders unions superannuation scheme. First of all, everybody was forced to join the BUS scheme. There was no free choice; they had to join that scheme. Secondly, the contributors were given the opportunity to cash in their superannuation when they went from one job to another. They were not contributing to a superannuation scheme; it was a disguised wage increase. If people can cash in their superannuation as soon as they go from one job to another that is not superannuation. That is not a nest egg to be built up for people for when they retire; that is a disguised wage increase. So we are very critical of the BUS scheme. We hope that the Government guidelines will put that sort of scheme to rest. We have just had a big debate on the Federated Storemen and Packers Union. As Senator Ray pointed out, members of that union tried to beat the gun to get union superannuation before 1 July next year as was agreed to under the accord and they involved themselves in a bit of industrial confrontation. Happily, I think the matter was resolved before it became too serious. Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, should be congratulated on his efforts to negotiate that dispute. It could have been very serious. As I understand it from the Press reports I got as I ran from one spot to another in this place today, it seems that this dispute has been negotiated on the basis that the contributors will be given a choice to contribute either to the union scheme or to the employers scheme. Senator Messner —No. Senator SIDDONS —If that is not the case I will be concerned. That was my understanding of it. The Democrats would like to outline what we believe are the essential principles that have to be addressed by the Government when it brings down its guidelines for universal superannuation. I believe that our first concern is that there should be portability. That simply means that contributors should have the opportunity not to be disadvantaged when they go from one job to another; their superannuation entitlements should be completely portable and there should be no problem or penalty when they change from one job to another. The second important principle is the one I have already alluded to, namely, that there must be a choice between competing schemes. There must be a choice so that the contributor can join an existing scheme, a union-based scheme or the national scheme, whichever he or she chooses to join. It seems to us that the third important principle is that it is essential that employees also contribute to a superannuation scheme. I believe that there was no employee contribution in the BUS scheme. If there is no employee contribution there is a tendency for people not to take an interest in what is going on and to look on it as a handout. In those circumstances, I think, the real benefit of superannuation tends to be lost. I come now to my fourth point. We have had a lot of talk today about union schemes, how beneficial they will be, et cetera. I do not believe that we would have any objection to a union scheme provided it competed on a fair basis with existing schemes. Senator Parer —It's not the real world. Senator SIDDONS —There are existing schemes. If the union schemes can match the benefits of existing schemes and the contributors have an opportunity to join one scheme or the other I think many of the problems will be overcome. I come to our fifth, and all important, principle: Who is to appoint the trustees to any superannuation scheme? That is a vitally important issue which I believe has not yet been addressed by the Government. Senator Walsh, who is reclining at the moment-I hate to wake him up-made the point when we were debating the Public Service superannuation scheme that we can trust the ACTU to appoint a majority of the trustees. Maybe we can trust the existing ACTU but I paint the scenario where an unscrupulous ACTU in the future decides to appoint the majority of trustees as its mouthpiece, as its front or as its stooge, to do what they are told. If the ACTU then said to the trustees `Take funds out of this industry and put them into that one.', or `We have an industrial dispute going on in the industry; take the funds out, or threaten to do so and we will really put some pressure on them.', the unions would be in an enormously powerful, even unassailable, position. That danger exists unless we have a satisfactory way of ensuring that the trustees will always operate in the best interests of the contributors and in the interests of nobody else. One can debate all the options for appointing trustees. The Democrats say again that there is no way that we will stand by and see trustees appointed on the recommendation of any one body, whether it is the merchant bankers or the ACTU. It makes no difference. We have to find a fair and equitable way so that the rights of the contributors are paramount and are protected. Enormous amounts of money are involved. In the Public Service superannuation scheme alone, $1m a day is invested. The trustees have control over where that money is to be invested and so have enormous leverage, if they want to exercise it, over the economy of this country. Who controls the superannuation funds controls Australia. It is as simple as that. So the issue is vitally important. I do not believe that it is good enough for the Government just to sit back and say that we can trust the unions. Maybe we can; maybe we cannot, but there has to be a better way of appointing the trustees to control these enormous amounts of money. We have given this a lot of thought and we say that the only fair way is to respect the rights of the contributors. They should have the final say over their money because it is their money, nobody else's, that is being invested on their behalf. Surely in the final analysis it is the contributors who should have authority over who is appointed to invest their funds. The only fair way to do that is to have an election at large to allow the contributors to vote directly on who are to be the trustees. I had a debate on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program an hour or so ago with Senator Cook and he maintained that if we let an election at large occur, the unions would dominate that election anyway and we would not get anywhere. I do not believe that that is true but the fact of the matter is that we can do no more than give the contributors the right, the authority and the power to elect the trustees. They are the people concerned; they are the ones who should have the final power. If they choose to be browbeaten by the ACTU or by the unions that is their business, but at least if the law says that there is to be an election at large the contributors can vote on who are to be the trustees, on who are to invest their funds and at least justice will be done. We can do no more. I would be happy to debate any scheme that is put up during this discussion or at any other time on the principles to be applied to the appointment of trustees for superannuation funds. It is the most important issue. There is no doubt that superannuation will be a major issue because of the Government's initiative and because of the accord. It will be the subject of major debate in this country for the next 12 months and the sooner we give it some very serious and careful thought and address the fundamental problems, the better. I have laid down five principles that concern the Democrats. We are happy to debate those five principles with the Government or with the Opposition in this chamber or anywhere else at any time. Senator PARER(Queensland)(3.55) —The purpose of raising this matter of public importance is to alert the Australian public in general, and of course the people of South Australia in particular, who are now making up their minds whether they will return another Labor government or put in a Liberal government, to this insidious and devious plan by this Labor Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to hand economic control of Australia over to the ACTU and militant union leaders. We have just heard from Senator Siddons, and basically the principles he has espoused are our principles. However, the Australian Democrats seem to be extraordinarily naive because even though Senator Siddons's principles are correct, if he would like to look at the practice in this country he would find that it is just not working. There is already Australia-wide concern about the influence the unelected ACTU has on the Labor Government. If the plan, under the guise of national superannuation, goes ahead, control of Australia will be totally in the hands of the ACTU. We see this as a crude attempt to socialise a free country by stealth. Let me say quite clearly that the Liberal Party has no dispute with genuine occupational superannuation which is employer and employee funded, the retirement benefits of which will mean in the years to come less government-provided old age pensions and so on. However, that is not what the schemes now being implemented are all about. It is estimated that the number of employees not covered is in the order of three million and because of the nature of the work of building workers and those in similar industries, which entails movement between jobs and different employers, it is not possible to introduce the type of scheme which promises a retirement benefit related to final average salary. The only scheme which can be introduced for workers who change employers is an accumulation or contribution-promised program. Under this type of scheme premiums are invested and the size of the benefit on retirement is simply a function of the performance of the investments made. The competence of the fund manager is therefore vital in ensuring that any investments are wise investments. It will be obvious that with a contribution-promised program there is no such thing as an actuarially sound or unsound fund. Poor investments only come to light when the benefit is paid. It is important to outline the history of union superannuation funds. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when President of the ACTU, was closely involved with other Labor ACTU figures in developing the storemen and packers superannuation fund. It is not hard to guess who the other figures were-one Simon Crean and a Mr Landeryou. Out of that exercise, which commenced over 10 years ago, emerged a plan that, if implemented, would result in a huge amount of money going into union coffers and, more importantly, billions of dollars being placed in the hands of the ACTU and its affiliated unions. The interest of the individual employee was third on the list of priorities. The implementation of the handover of economic power to the ACTU is close and the ramifications for Australia are horrific. Every Australian who treasures his or her individual freedoms must be made aware of what is about to happen. The union schemes that we know of to date include the building unions superannuation scheme, the allied unions superannuation scheme, the storemen and packers scheme, the metal unions superannuation scheme and the Transport Workers Union scheme. I am sure there are a few others. The background is important as it explains the proliferation of union schemes offered and the read agreement by the ACTU for national superannuation in lieu of productivity increase. The union schemes all have very similar characteristics. They involve only employer contributions; the trustee company is a company controlled by the unions; a management fee goes to that trustee company; industrial blackmail is being used to coerce employers and employees to join union funds; in the main competitive schemes are not acceptable; and trustees have no obligation whatsoever to explain their actions or lack of actions to anyone. If that pattern is followed in the national scheme to be introduced next year the long term effects in Australia will be terrifying. Any chance of our remaining a free country will be gone. Small and large businesses talk about what is being inflicted on them but rarely will they provide hard evidence because of fear of retribution. As all the schemes are the same or similar, I will use the building unions superannuation scheme to explain the structure of the schemes and methods of implementation. This is not the legitimate superannuation which existed until recently, the sole aim of which was to obtain the best return either on retirement or death for each and every employee. In this matter of public importance we are alerting every Australian to the industrial blackmail and even threats of physical violence which have become accepted as the norm and which we have read about only in the worst days of gangster-ridden lawlessness which existed in the United States in the days of Jimmy Hoffa and his cronies. Around Australia protection rackets are going on. What is happening is no different from the hoods in black cars demanding money so that decent people can stay in business. These standover tactics must be exposed. They are the sorts of tactics engineered by Labor figures and implemented by hoodlums. I notice that Senator Black is smiling. He is one of the more moderate people from my State and I know that he does not support the things that he knows go on up there among some of the people who are trying to implement these schemes in Queensland. The aim of the BUS scheme is to provide funds on retirement based on investment performance of contributions, portability and death cover. Apart from the fact that there are better schemes about in relation to the death benefit, there are many other aspects which cause concern. The contributions are to be made entirely by the employer, thus the sense of an individual contributing to his own retirement is absent. The trustee is BUS Pty Ltd-one can see the same pattern in all the others-and BUS Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of the unions. The trustee is not accountable to anyone. The language in the deed states that the trustee has absolute and uncontrolled discretion and is not bound to give any person any reason for or any explanation of its exercise, non-exercise or partial exercise of power. Already we see the ingredients of a totalitarian state or gangster-type method of operation. The initial contribution by the employer is stipulated at $11 per employee per week, with $9 going into superannuation for investment, $1 to the underwriter for death cover and management fee and $1 per week per employee to BUS Pty Ltd. Part of the premium is a contribution to the union, an extra union due, if you like, paid for by the employer. The employee is being penalised by between $26 and $52 a year which should either be invested on his behalf or go to a death benefit instead of going to the union. Some may still say: `So what, we have seen worse things'. And so we have. However, the pattern is emerging. With the trade-off between the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU for productivity to be set off against employer contributions to superannuation, it is not difficult to calculate that the introduction of another three million people would mean that, on a conservative basis, $100m to $150m a year would go to the unions and they would have investment moneys of more than $3,000m a year in the hands of the ACTU. As could be expected, some employees were already covered under existing schemes and other more competitive schemes appeared on the market. Naturally, it is not possible to compare investment performance until after the event, but other aspects can be compared. With proper shopping about, it is not difficult to find better schemes. If what we were looking at was freedom of choice, there would be no real cause for complaint. However, the crunch is that employees and employers do not have a choice. To support that claim I have here a letter which was written to the BUS scheme requesting exemption because the employer happened to have a scheme already through Legal and General which he thought was better. The reply came back: I have to advise that the trustees have given due consideration to your request for exemption. Such request has been refused. There we have it. Any talk about freedom of choice is an absolute nonsense. Those without existing schemes are precluded from considering competitive schemes even though they provide better returns. Failure to sign up with the union schemes has resulted in industrial bans, threats of bans and threats of physical violence. Having made comments like that, I find that it is usual for Labor senators who have been put here by the union movement to interject with comments like `Show us the proof of your allegations', `Put up or shut up', or words to that effect. That can often be hard to answer because of the real concern of people that if hard evidence is provided, their livelihood and physical well-being can be placed in jeopardy by an organised group of cheap hoodlums. However, there are some who have had enough and are so concerned about the back door takeover of this country that they are prepared to be counted. I have with me a list of 39 employers from one group in Queensland. These people have listed individual episodes in which they have been singled out for victimisation on the basis that if they did not join BUS they would be precluded from further work. Of course, many of them had no option if they wished to survive. I also have 11 statutory declarations from employers and employees who were forced by standover tactics to join the BUS scheme. They are all different but the thrust is much the same. I quote from one of them: We had stoppages on the job. This is because we did not join the Building Unions Superannuation scheme, but had offered our employees superanuation with another life office. The members of the union were told to stop work and if they didn't they would never work in the industry again. The men never were allowed to vote on the stoppage. Due to these stoppages and threats of further harassment on future jobs, we have now signed the BUS scheme. Is that what the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and Mr Greg Sword of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia call freedom of choice? I doubt it. I know that Australians do not call that freedom of choice. These people have been viciously atttacked. They are not only big companies, they are small business people as well. They are the little people who have always been the backbone of Australia. If there were just a few bad apples in an otherwise good box of union officials, we could do something about it. Unfortunately this is not so. These people are simply a few players in what must be termed a conspiracy inspired by the ACTU. The ACTU is the organisation which stands to gain from the union superannuation because of the fee received and the power that investment moneys will provide. As I said before, those investment moneys could be in excess of $3,000m a year. This threat to the freedom of Australia has not just happened. It is a result of work by the ACTU and associates of the ACTU in the Labor Party carried out over 10 years, with the support of the man who was previously the President of the ACTU and is now Prime Minister of Australia. I have made some serious charges today, backed up by facts and supported by statutory declarations in some cases. These charges must be answered. I look forward to hearing how Senator McKiernan and Senator Black will do this. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.10) —This afternoon, while we have not finished considering the Appropriation Bills and we have not debated the taxation legislation-nor have we debated a whole lot of other important pieces of legislation, such as child care, veterans' affairs and so on-we are tied up for two hours in a preposterous and absurd debate on a matter of public importance submitted by Senator Messner on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia. The matter of public importance reads: The trade union domination of the government, particularly on the superannuation issue, to the detriment of the Australian community. It is an absurd and preposterous assertion. It shows yet again how out of touch is the Opposition with the Australian community and the trade union movement. It shows again quite clearly how out of touch is the Opposition, particularly with the trade union movement-that is, if it ever was in touch, and that certainly has not been the case in recent years. The Opposition has not learned anything from its three years in opposition and it is unlikely that it is learning anything at the moment. Perhaps there are some bright lights on the horizon. Perhaps what we are witnessing and partaking in now is some indication that the Opposition might be getting its act together and might be providing this very efficient Government, under the Prime Ministership of Bob Hawke, with some opposition. After all, it has taken only two days for this matter of public importance, which was debated as a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives on Monday, to reach this chamber. The debate has been led by the big gun in the form of Senator Messner. It is unfortunate that Senator Messner got his notes mixed up on his way into the chamber and gave us an alternative election speech on behalf of the South Australian Opposition leader, Mr Olsen, because that was the essence of what Senator Messner had to say. It is an absurd and preposterous suggestion, as Senator Robert Ray has gone to some lengths to explain, to say that the trade union movement is dominating this Government. He gave some examples of individual unions which are worth repeating-the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia, the Food Preservers Union of Australia and the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. I can follow that up with many other instances of national unions and State branches of unions not being particularly happy with the performance of the Government in some areas. Senator Teague —Just name one. Senator McKIERNAN —In response to Senator Teague's interjection, I am a proud member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. That union has an enormous number of people working in towns, and in places where there are no towns, who from time to time are agitated by the performance of the Government and the union in entering into the prices and incomes accord, which they assert is holding down their wages. There are some statistics which can prove that wages have been held back over the term of the Hawke Government. If it were true that the union movement was acting as a homogeneous unit-acting as one-and dominating the Government, I would suggest to this chamber and the people of Australia that there never would have been any form of agreement whatsoever about discounting for the devaluation of the Australian dollar. The trade union movement, if it were in the position of dominance over the Government, never would have conceded to that particular thing. Furthermore, it never would have agreed over the past 2 1/2 years or so to accept wage increases that were compatible only with rises in the consumer price index. I suggest to the Opposition, as Senator Siddons has done, that perhaps we might have a repeat of the metal trades campaign in 1981, when the metals unions led Australia to gain increases of $25 per week, followed six months later by $14 per week, which also included a reduction in working hours from 40 to 38 per week. History records what happened when government and the trade union movement were not in kilter. Some of us can look back with pride, and some with not so much pride, at what happened in the life of the Whitlam Government. Senator Parer mentioned the wages explosion that took place at that time. We had the law of the jungle. Those unions which were strong went out and got wage rises by whatever methods were available to them. Unfortunately, those which did not have the industrial strength on the job to do anything had to fall back and wait some years to catch up. A great deal of suffering occurred to those lower paid workers who did not have the industrial muscle or strength at that time. If the trade union movement dominated the Government, we would have now firm control over prices of those consumer items that working people have to purchase week in and week out to maintain themselves in some degree of moderate living standards. Many products have no form of control over them whatsoever. The prices and incomes accord contains a clause which states that the Prices Surveillance Authority will have some power to control prices, but there have been criticisms from sections of the trade union movement and from its centralised body that the Prices Surveillance Authority is but a toothless tiger that will not deliver very much. We are to spend two hours debating this very negative proposition which really has turned out, having listened to Senator Messner, to be an alternative Opposition speech for the election in South Australia in a week and a half. The matter of public importance smacks very much of the Liberal Party's policy of privatisation and deregulation, with which the Opposition in general seems to be pretty happy at the moment. It is a policy that undoubtedly will be changed, or there will be moves to change it on 8 December after the South Australian Opposition has been defeated. Senator Robert Ray is offering odds of two to one on the outcome of the South Australian election, although I think that the odds will increase rapidly as the polls come in and show that the Bannon Government is retaining its position and improving it. The matter of public importance is nothing more than an attack on the trade union movement. It is not really about superannuation, although Senator Parer gave some attention to it and I will return shortly to his contribution. It is an attack on rational, reasoned industrial relations which this country is now witnessing under the prices and incomes accord, which was negotiated very early in the life of the first Hawke Government. We now see accord mark 2 in place, which includes a reference to an overall superannuation scheme in which, hopefully, all workers in Australia will have the opportunity to participate. The point must be reinforced that only about 50 per cent of the work force of this country now has access to or can join any form of superannuation scheme, irrespective of who runs it-the trade unions, employers, governments or private companies. Only about 50 per cent of the work force has the right to join a superannuation scheme. Senator Parer —What about free choice? Senator McKIERNAN —I will deal with free choice; do not worry about that. What we are putting forward in this proposal is that we open up the superannuation schemes, on the basis of equity, to the rest of the work force, who are forgotten by the Opposition, because in the main they are middle and lower income earners. They are not representatives of big business; they are ordinary working men and women who have been deprived of what should be a right. The Liberal Party, in leading this debate this afternoon, has shown yet again that it represents the privileged sector of the community; not those small middle income and lower paid workers. The accord mark 1 is proving to be an historic agreement-an agreement about social equity. The agreement is that after 1 July next year the Government will support arguments before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to allow a national superannuation scheme, or an umbrella scheme, to exist which will be open to all workers. That will be financed in part by 2 per cent of a suggested 5 per cent gain in productivity that we have had over recent years. Of course, this grates with members of the Opposition because they have had and still have-unfortunately, they have not learned anything in opposition-a view that any increases in wages and conditions for working people should be stopped at all cost. Some Opposition senators-thankfully not all of them-would have people in this country working and existing like some of our brothers and sisters in South East Asia and other parts of the world, who work for a bowl of rice merely to keep them alive to become part of the productive process the next day. If honourable senators opposite had their way with the privatisation and deregulation argument they would move to cut wages, as we saw in Western Australia. I will not fall for the trap, or try the patience of the Acting Deputy President, of making a pre-election speech on the forthcoming Western Australian election. We have a competent and capable leader who can do that and who will not need all that much help from us. It could happen. We saw it in Western Australia, where a very great campaign was organised to cut youth wages as the first step in the deregulation of the labour movement. There has also been quite a deal of agitation about penalty rates on weekends and so on, campaigns which, thankfully, at this stage have been stopped and negated. The current superannuation agreement is about social equity. We must put on the record that the economy has grown by 5 per cent in the last two years. Growth in productivity also has been about 5 per cent in the last two years. Senator Robert Ray gave us the figures on the growth in profits. They were backed up by Democrat Senator Siddons. The work force has also grown by 5 per cent. Workers are entitled to a share in that productivity growth. That share will be financed in part by 2 per cent of the 5 per cent productivity increase. It will take the form of superannuation. The superannuation agreement is a rational, reasonable and responsible agreement which will be recorded in history as such. The other benefit to the nation from the superannuation agreement relates to the fact that superannuation schemes are here, have been here and have been spreading over recent years. They existed when the Opposition was in government. The Opposition did very little about them, except to encourage the massive tax rorts that existed under the superannuation schemes, tax rorts that hopefully this Government has put an end to, bringing about some redistribution of the national income. The superannuation agreement can and will benefit the economy very significantly once it is fully instituted. The significant benefits will be in the form of savings which, instead of being fed directly into the consumer's pay, will be in the form of savings. Those savings will then be able to be invested, which will, hopefully, lead to further growth in the economy. We have an aging population. By virtue of the superannuation scheme those people will be less dependent on the social security system. They will have a degree of independence which will be good for them. I have one minute in which to talk about the freedom of choice. Very little freedom of choice exists in industry. I refer to my own experience. As a worker on the work place floor, on a number of occasions not only was I forced to work eight hours a day; I was asked to put in overtime to the extent of working 24 hours in one day. There was very little freedom of choice. The choice I had was that I could either work there or not work there. I conclude by commending the officials of the ACTU and the very good Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ralph Willis, for reaching agreement on this matter. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.24) —As a Liberal senator, I speak for this side of the House in saying that we are in favour of unions in Australia and of superannuation. We want to see provision for the future for everybody in Australia. What we are opposed to and what this debate is all about is the domination of governments by union officials to the detriment of Australia, of ordinary citizens and ordinary families and of our overseas trade. That is the issue. Senator McKiernan, who preceded me in this debate, rightly said that it is good for every person working in Australia to make provision for his old age. I agree that workers would then be less dependent on taxpayers through the social security system when they retire. We are in favour of superannuation. Senator Robert Ray, a Government speaker, said at the very beginning of his speech that one or two comments by the Opposition were union bashing. This matter of public importance is not union bashing. If you wish, it is government bashing, although I hope that it is more constructive than that. We want to point out in this chamber that the Government is being dominated by union officials to the detriment of Australia. Our criticism of the Hawke Labor Government and of the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia amounts to this: These Labor governments are so easily dominated by union officials that any push by union officials-whether it is for wages, for an employer-paid superannuation scheme or for more freedom of choice in superannuation schemes for the investment of workers-has been too easily accepted by them. We are opposed to this domination. We believe that the best solution to this problem is for the people of my State-I am a South Australian senator-to respond by ensuring that a Liberal government is elected in South Australia and that there is not a continuation of the Bannon Labor Government which is so susceptible to these extravagant pushes, at the expense of everybody, by union officials. As honourable senators know, Liberal governments have a clear record of not being susceptible to the extravagant claims of union officials. It is for that reason that today Opposition senators, one after the other, have spoken so favourably of the Liberal Party's policies and, because an election is on in South Australia, of their wish that my close colleague, John Olsen, become Premier, that he and other members of the South Australian Opposition become the Government in South Australia, thereby stopping this domination. Superannuation essentially involves making provision for savings. Out of the wages and earnings of today superannuation puts aside money to be used in one's old age. The Liberal Party has a long record of encouraging everyone in Australia to make his own provision for superannuation and, indeed, for there to be discussion between employers and employees with a view to seeing in operation jointly funded superannuation schemes. The real crunch is who makes the payments that will lead to those savings. The next question is who will maintain the investment of those savings in the interval between working now and retiring later. Where does the money come from and who will manage it? The easiest cop-out is for union officials, pulling the wool over their own union members' eyes, to say: `The easiest way ahead is to get this money from our employers. The employers can provide all of the money for our superannuation schemes. How are we to manage it? The union officials, those of us who already have your confidence, ought to be the ones who make decisions about these investments'. That is what all the strife is about. That is why for the last several months the newspapers have been saying that superannuation looms as the biggest industrial relations question of the coming 24 months. It has been referred to today by Senator Siddons and others in exactly that way. One might say that it is the nature of union officials to overbid. We have all heard about ambit claims, whereby union officials go for the sky-that is, ask for wages beyond a level which Australia can afford and for tax cuts that will particularly affect union members-but will settle for less. The great new push of the next 24 months will be for a superannuation scheme at the expense of employers and controlled by union officials. That is why last night and early this morning the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) was pushed into a corner by officials of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and by other union officials to come up with the agreements to which he has referred today. That is the sort of push that we in the Opposition are concerned about. That is why we believe that this massive push for wages, superannuation and tax cuts that will serve only one part of the community needs to be resisted, and it can be resisted only by Liberal governments. What is the net result of the close harmony between Labor governments and trade union officials? No honourable senator has denied that there is a close harmony between the ACTU, union officials, the Hawke Government and the Bannon Government. What is the result? It may be true to say that the harmony is so good and that government has given in so much to these unions that they are not as disruptive as they were in some earlier periods. But the real cost of this domination by union officials of Labor governments can be seen in the economic indicators that, as we all know, have been mentioned in the front pages of our newspapers for weeks and weeks. The devaluation of the Australian dollar, the massive level of unemployment and the highest ever real interest rates in Australia are all direct consequences of the agreement between union officials and Labor governments. That is why the people in South Australia, for example, need to take note that there is a direct reason for their mortgage interest rates going up and for the increase in unemployment in that State. The best way of dealing with those problems is to elect a Liberal government such as the Olsen Government that not only will repair the damage and has policies that have been so well announced to take the State in a different direction towards smaller government and tax cuts but also will resist the excesses of union officials. In South Australia three years ago the average housing loan was $28,000. It is now $44,000. That is an increase of over 50 per cent in the average housing loan during the period of Labor governments in that State and in the Commonwealth. We want to see an end to that situation in South Australia. That is why in this discussion in the Senate there has been so much reference to the importance of South Australia electing a Liberal government in 10 days time. Let us take interest rates. Three years ago, at the end of the Liberal period, both federally and in the State of South Australia, the average housing loan repayment was $331 a month. Now, after three years of Labor being in power in the Commonwealth and in the State of South Australia, that average mortgage repayment loan of $331 a month has now become $513 a month. That is an increase of over 50 per cent. Not only have direct Labor government taxes and charges gone up by 55 per cent during the three years of the Bannon Government but also there has been an increase in the amount of money one needs to borrow to buy a house and an extraordinary hike in mortgage repayments. These are the direct results of the so-called harmony-the agreement-between union officials and the Labor Government. While Senator McKiernan and Senator Robert Ray-I will not presume to speak for Senator Black who will follow me-may emphasise the rosy graden aspect and the harmony between the ACTU officials and Labor Ministers, they and the people of Australia should concentrate on how the level of unemployment has increased as a result of these cosy agreements, the devaluation of the Australian dollar or the high interest rates of which I have just spoken. On the direct issue of superannuation, the excessive demands of union officials, have led this week to 1,200 workers at the General Motors-Holden's plant at Adelaide being stood down. So that even in the rosy garden that the Government would have us believe exists in the area of industrial relations, there are such dislocations, and 1,200 workers have been stood down as a direct result of the excessive superannuation push of union officials. We are not opposed to superannuation. We are not opposed to the union movement; we are opposed to governments that so easily give way to excessive demands of union officials. I turn to unemployment. During all the period of the Bannon Government, we have been calling for a fair go for young people; yet, youth unemployment has increased over the last three years. We wish to place before the people the opportunity for young people to have reduced wages so that they may gain jobs that will give them skills. With more maturity, more skill and experience they can rightly compete with everybody else at the full adult wage level. Why deny young people the opportunity to offer themselves in the market-place at a price which will enable them to win their way? It is this domination by union officials that has led Labor governments in the State and in the Commonwealth to deny implementing this constructive idea put forward not only by John Olsen and the Liberals in South Australia and by the Liberals here in Canberra but also by Liberals in Victoria and, in fact, throughout the country. Senator Parer —By young people. Senator TEAGUE —Young people have said: `Give us a go'. Why is it that they do not get a go? It is because union officials will not allow the sacrosanct award wage to be undercut, they say, by these young people. They say that if the young people got the jobs it would lead to some of their precious union members no longer being able to meet the competition. We should note, especially in South Australia, that unemployment, the devaluation of the dollar, and the high interest rates are a direct consequence of that cosy arrangement. I know that whereas the Premier of South Australia, John Bannon, has a deplorable record in all these respects, the people of South Australia can expect a complete change with a Liberal governtment. Liberal governments will not be dominated by the union officials. They will not be dominated by excessive claims. Liberals do support unions; they do support superannuation; they do support a fair go. But they support these principles with responsible policies that will not operate at the expense or to the detriment of the Australian community. I can hope only that in South Australia especially, we will all get behind the Liberals in this coming election. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(4.39) —I have some degree of sympathy for the Opposition, particularly those Opposition senators from South Australia, because they are in a difficult position. It seems that their campaign for the State election in South Australia was going to be based on high interest rates and on the penalty that they imposed on people who are buying homes in the outer marginal seats of South Australia. It seems that the only assistance that could be provided for the Liberal candidates in marginal seats by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was to argue in favour of the removal altogether of the current ceiling on bank mortgage interest rates. I understand that that proposal was reported yesterday in the Melbourne Age by Mr Philip Chubb as an example of `ludicrous inpetitude', a comment that I am sure is endorsed by all honourable senators on this side of the chamber. In order to try to make up for that example of ludicrous ineptitude, we have had this farce of a debate this afternoon, which basically comprised an attack on the Bannon Government, something to which I will refer later. I would, however, remind honourable senators opposite that at least the Opposition in South Australia can win with 50 per cent of the vote, which is a considerable improvement on the position the Liberals have left us in in Queensland, where we need something like 55 per cent of the preferred vote. Senator Boswell —You never got 50 per cent of the vote in your life. You never got more than 44 per cent of the vote. Senator BLACK —Senator Boswell has just reminded me of his presence in the chamber. I point out that the National Party of Australia in Queensland can ensure its continued survival, after the latest redistribution, with only 36 per cent of the first preference vote. I worked for a union for some time and all of the ballots in that union were organised, administered and run by the Commonwealth Electoral Office. We needed 50 per cent of the vote to win, I point out to Senator Boswell, and that is something I would commend to the National Party. Senator Parer talked about blackmail, about the lack of democracy and about the abuse of civil rights. If Senator Parer is concerned about blackmail, why did he not support my proposal for an inquiry into National Free Enterprise Ltd, something close to Senator Boswell's heart? That would have to be one of the greatest examples of blackmail by a body outside the elected representatives of this place that has ever been seen. That body donated some $300,000 to the last National Party campaign and the origins of that money have never been disclosed. If Senator Parer is concerned about a lack of democracy, why does he not urge his colleagues in the Queensland Parliament to vote with the Australian Labor Party to ensure that we have a fair redistribution in Queensland, something they have been invited to do on just about every day of every parliamentary sitting for the last few years? If he is concerned about civil rights, I ask him why his colleagues in the State Liberal Party in Queensland supported the outrageous National Party amendments to the Liquor Act, and even went one step further and tried to add homosexuals to the list of deviants and child molesters who are currently prohibited from getting a drink in Queensland. I am pleased to see Senator Boswell smiling because in doing so he is acknowledging that the Nationals thought that that was a bit too much. Senator Teague also spoke about the record of the South Australian Government. I am indebted to my former workmate in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet of South Australia, Senator Maguire, for providing me with some more recent figures, which perhaps have escaped Senator Teague's attention, about the economic record of the Bannon Labor Government. As it seems that most of the Opposition speakers have concentrated their efforts on this, perhaps I should put these on the record. I point out that between 1984 and 1985, the period for which the latest statistics are available, total unemployment in South Australia fell by 10 per cent, total employment rose by 2.8 per cent, and youth unemployment, which was referred to by Senator Teague, fell by 24.8 per cent. Retail sales went up by 11.5 per cent and new car sales by 7.9 per cent, accompanied by a private investment increase of 43.4 per cent, and bankruptcies fell by some 14.8 per cent. I would back the figures provided to me by Senator Maguire against any of those provided by Liberal Party researchers. In late 1982, when the Bannon Labor Government was elected, the South Australian economy-- Senator Boswell —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I do not think the speech Senator Black is making relates to the matter of public importance, which reads: `The trade union domination of the Government, particularly on the superannuation issue, to the detriment of the Australian community'. As far as I can see-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! I have been listening to Senator Black carefully and he has been using many arguments to tie in with the matter before the Senate. There is no point of order. Senator BLACK —Before the Bannon Government was elected three years of Liberal Party Government, under Mr Tonkin, had produced falling employment and rising unemployment. In fact, for 33 consecutive months South Australia had the highest unemployment rate of all the mainland States. After just three years of responsible economic management by the Bannon Labor Government all of that has changed. One of the major priorities for the Bannon Government, together with the union movement in South Australia, which of course is one of the topics of this debate, has been to ensure that that situation has been maintained. Between the three months to October 1984 and the three months to October 1985 the total number of employed persons in South Australia increased by an average of 15,500. Over the same period the number of persons unemployed in South Australia fell by an average of 6,000, which is down by the 10 per cent to which I referred earlier. The level of youth unemployment decreased by an average of 3,800 persons-that is, down nearly 25 per cent. In relation to job vacancies in South Australia, in August 1982 there were 50 unemployed South Australians fighting for every job vacancy. That ratio is now down to 14.6 unemployed people for every job vacancy, which is a much more normal position, and the trend is continuing downwards. This key indicator of labour market strength has shown a rapid improvement under the Bannon Labor Government. The healthy economy has meant new investment for South Australia. The level of private investment is expected to be 43.4 per cent higher in the current financial year than it was last year. This new investment will mean more jobs and more job opportunities for South Australians in the future-under a Bannon Labor Government, I point out. That Government has also presided over a generally much more prosperous private sector economy. When an economy is performing badly there is no more striking indicator than the level of bankruptcies. In the days of the Tonkin Liberal Government bankruptcies in South Australia reached record levels. Liquidation and receivership became the only growth industries. Under the Bannon Labor Government the number of bankruptcies has declined dramatically. Between the 1983-84 and 1984-85 financial years the number of bankruptcies in South Australia declined from 775 to 660, a fall of 15 per cent and the lowest figure for some 15 years. Senator Maguire —Queensland is going up. Senator BLACK —As my colleague Senator Maguire has pointed out, the number in Queensland is continuing to rise, setting new records in that area. I want to deal now with some of the benefits of the prices and incomes accord that have been passed on to all Australians. I contrast some of the figures relating to the economy prior to the accord with some of those which now apply after the first three years of the accord. Before the accord the number of working days lost due to industrial disputes was at a record high. Since the accord the number of working days lost due to industrial disputes has fallen to its lowest level in 17 years. That has been due to the relationship between the Hawke Federal Labor Government and the union movement, which I believe has been one of the hallmarks of this Government and has succeeded in maintaining real wage levels and at the same time ensuring that some of the economic growth we have been experiencing has been channelled off into employment growth. That is something we should all commend. As far as unemployment is concerned, in the days before the accord one in every 10 Australians was out of work. In the year before the accord some 190,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment has fallen below 600,000 for the first time in three years. In fact, between April 1983 and July 1985 some 410,000 new jobs were created. As I have said, that is due to the fact that we have been able to build up a relationship with the unions which has ensured that any increase in demand in the economy has not been siphoned off into wage increases. We have also been able to bring inflation down from its pre-accord level of 11.5 per cent to where it has been almost halved. Before the accord, economic growth was declining by some 1.5 per cent on an annual basis, which was almost the worst performance in this country's history. Since the accord economic growth has been running at about 5 per cent on an annual basis and is continuing to do so. As far as investment is concerned, before the accord private fixed capital expenditure in 1982-83 fell by some 17.6 per cent. By March 1985 this investment expenditure was increasing at an annual rate of some 5.4 per cent. Part of the debate has been devoted to superannuation schemes and their relationship to the accord. I remind honourable senators opposite that the second stage of the accord provides for a 3 per cent equivalent resulting from next year's productivity case to be taken in the form of improved superannuation benefits. I believe that this move is long overdue because nationally history has shown that pre-existing schemes were biased strongly against a number of workers in the Australian community who were least able to fend for themselves. They were biased against casual or part time workers, against women, against low income earners and against private sector employees. A number of union officials found this completely unacceptable and certainly a number of Government politicians have found it unacceptable. The employment benefits survey for August 1984 showed the total number of workers benefiting from superannuation schemes to be 39.5 per cent-a figure about 5 per cent lower than the equivalent superannuation survey data, but I will rely on it for the purposes of comparison. The earlier figures before superannuation started to be discussed seriously in the Australian community, before about August 1984, showed that of the private sector employees only about 29.5 per cent benefited from superannuation schemes whereas in the public sector the figure was about 61.3 per cent. The total number of females benefiting from superannuation schemes was 24.7 per cent compared with 49.1 per cent of males. Of course, the most disadvantaged sector was females working in private enterprise, of whom only 16.7 per cent benefited from superannuation schemes. In addition, schemes in existence at that time provided benefits mainly to upper income earners. Of workers earning $600 or more a week, 72.6 per cent benefited from superannuation schemes. Of workers at the lower end of the scale, that is, those earning between $200 and $240 a week, only about one in four benefited from superannuation schemes. Those figures clearly show that the systems in existence up to that time, and which to a large extent are in existence now, were inadequate and militated against the less advantaged sections of the work force. I also point out that there is an increasing need for superannuation schemes as shown by demographic profiles of the age of the Australian population. In 1983, 10 per cent of the Australian population was aged 65 or over. In the year 2021 some 16 per cent of the population will be in that age group. This means that there will be an increasing drain on Commonwealth Government resources to pay for pension benefits for those people. With regard to pension benefits, the proportion of Commonwealth revenue going to age pensions has increased from 6.9 per cent in 1953-54 to 8.8 per cent in 1963-64 and to 10.9 per cent in 1983-84. That shows that existing schemes of superannuation disadvantage those workers in the work force least able to look after themselves. If that is married to the data on the aging of the Australian work force and the Australian population, the information clearly shows that there was a demand on the Australian Government and on the Australian union movement to respond to those movements. I believe that the arrangements currently being made between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government in that area more than adequately respond to those movements. I move: That the business of the day be brought on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to address some remarks to the 1984-85 annual report of the Department of Resources and Energy. The Department has very diverse responsibilities covering a range of Australia's resources. Today I want to address a few remarks to the issue of water, which is a vital subject dealt with by this Department, and particularly vital in my State of South Australia which is the driest part of Australia with 90 per cent of the State receiving less than 10 inches of rain a year. I want to refer to the Federal water resources assistance program under which last financial year some $62m was spent on water resource projects throughout the nation. Of that amount, $1.3m went to the River Murray Commission to administer the Commission and also for certain capital works. Some $5.7m was allocated under the water resources program for water filtration improvements in South Australia. The quality of water in South Australia has been very poor and these works, which have been partially funded by the Federal Government, have been very long overdue in improving the quality of drinking water in Adelaide to bring it up to an acceptable standard. As I indicated, last financial year some $5.7m was allocated for water filtration in South Australia overall. Of that allocation through this Department, some $3.2m was made available by the Commonwealth Government to assist the Bannon Labor Government to improve water quality in the Adelaide metropolitan area by continuing further water filtration works. I am pleased to say that a further $2.5m was made available by this Government to the Bannon Government to improve water quality in the northern towns of South Australia, the largest provincial city of which is Whyalla. The availability of high quality filtered water to the northern cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie is long overdue. It is very pleasing to note that the allocations made under the 1984 and 1985 Budgets through the Department of Resources and Energy have enabled work to proceed and to continue on the water filtration plant at Morgan on the River Murray where the pipeline which serves the northern towns, including Whyalla, begins. Work has been proceeding on that water filtration plant to improve water quality in the northern cities. In 1984 a further $600,000 was made available to South Australia under the water resources assessment program, which contributes to an assessment of the quality and quantity of Australia's surface and underground water resources. A further $700,000 was made available to South Australia from the 1984 Commonwealth Budget for works on River Murray valley salinity mitigation. That is under a co-ordinated three-State plan involving South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria to improve the water quality of the River Murray. Of course, water quality and reduced salinity are of vital importance in the Riverland region of South Australia. Even more important was an allocation of $722,000 for urban flood plain management. That was a contribution to flood plain mitigation in respect of the River Torrens in the Adelaide metropolitan area. In recent years we had floods from the River Torrens into neighbouring suburbs, including the areas of Campbelltown, Paradise and Athelstone and flood damage occurred. These allocations from the Commonwealth Budget to the State Government in South Australia, to reduce the risk of damage from flooding in those important suburban areas in Adelaide in the Campbelltown local government area, are very welcome. Of course, last financial year, the year to which this annual report refers, saw a special allocation to South Australia of some $20.25m for further works to improve water quality in South Australia, to enhance water filtration both in the metropolitan area and in the northern towns, including Whyalla. I am pleased to note that in the current Budget for 1985-86 a further $7.9m has been allocated by the Federal Government to Mr Bannon's State Government for further works on the filtration of water and to improve the general quality of drinking water both in the northern towns and in the metropolitan area. It is very pleasing to note that the Morgan water filtration plant, which will be of vital importance to the northern towns, will be commissioned ahead of schedule in July 1986. That will be of enormous benefit to the residents of Whyalla and the other major towns in the north of South Australia. It is tremendous to see that that plant will be commissioned ahead of schedule as a result of the partnership between the Federal and State Labor governments. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.59) —In looking through this annual report of the Department of Resources and Energy for 1984-85, I was particularly struck by two aspects of our energy resources and the attitudes of the Government and the Department to them, as indicated by the report. The first one is a quite lamentable lack of interest shown by any Federal government in recent years, or, indeed, at any time, in renewable energy resources. Figure 2 in the report indicates total energy demand by fuel type for the periods 1973-74-that is, a decade or so ago-for 1983-84-which is quite recent-and for 1993-94-which is, of course, a decade into the future. It shows, to my great surprise, that in 1973-74 demand for renewable energy was equivalent to 7.5 per cent of total energy demand; by last year that had been reduced to 6.3 per cent; and the Department forecasts that by 1993-94 demand for renewable energy resources will have dwindled to only 5.9 per cent of total energy demand. This is in contrast to a situation in virtually every other country in the world, where the use of renewable energy is, of course, being encouraged, often at very great expense to the country concerned. One only has to look at Japan, where the major corporations and the Government are spending millions on millions of dollars on research, particularly into the new forms of solar cells, the new generation of cells, unlike the earlier silicon cells which are much cheaper and much more adaptable to mass production of electricity. Although that is happening elsewhere in the world, our Government appears to have set its face against it, and I think that is very regrettable. The obvious reason for this decline in the use of renewable energy is, of course, that research and development funds for these energy types are also dwindling, so that the only energy resources which will eventually be left to this country-the renewable resources; they are the only ones which will remain to us in time-are being deliberately retarded by this Federal Government, as the Fraser Government did before it. The only difference is that this Labor Government is worse in this regard and is doing less than the Fraser Government did. It seems to the Australian Democrats that it is only reasonable and sensible for us to give as much encouragement as we can to the development of these resources in order to preserve our increasingly diminishing and increasingly expensive finite resources, especially of the fossil fuels. When most of the work is being done overseas and when we do not have to do the research but merely go overseas and ask to have access to it, it seems even more culpable that we are in this position. The Department has noted a continuing move away from petroleum products to other fuels, obviously because of our increasing awareness of our dependence on an important finite resource. That brings me to the second point which particularly disturbed me about this report. I cannot understand why the Government has permitted and is permitting increasing exports of Australia's fast-dimishing oil resources. This report reveals that 18.5 per cent of oil from the Bass Strait field is now being exported. There has been a steady increase in oil exports, even though it is public knowledge, and has been for many years, that our resources of oil in this country are very limited and that we face a situation in the very near future in which the percentage of our fuel available from our own resources will decline significantly. Indeed, the report notes that the Department expects a decline in Australia's petroleum self-sufficiency from 79 per cent in 1983-84 to 42 per cent in 1993-94 in the absence of further oil discoveries. Recent experience has been that the very large fields that we might have hoped for in this country are not forthcoming. It is madness on our part to believe that they will be forthcoming, and that this resource, which ought to be held in this country as a strategic reserve apart from anything else, is now being exported increasingly and with the connivance of a Labor Government whose members, when in opposition, got up in this place time and again and spoke about the need for renewable resources and the maintenance of our own finite oil resources. The fact that we have increased our exports of this diminishing resource to about 31 million barrels last year presents an ironic contrast. However, this report is not, at first glance, entirely bad. The Government's energy conservation programs appear to be worthwhile initiatives and ones which should be supported and applauded. The national energy management program, the national industrial energy management scheme, and the Commonwealth energy management program appear to be very useful. The Department is obviously beginning to realise the massive importance to Australia and, indeed, to the world, of energy conservation. That, at least, is a step forward. If that could just be made the basis of all policy decisions in the Department, the future would be much brighter for energy use in this country. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.04) —It is to be welcomed that the Department of Resources and Energy has continued the policy of making available an annual report to the Parliament. We hope that this will become in due course an obligation on all departments and a regular source of information for the Parliament. I notice that this report was submitted to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) by the head of the Department on 31 October this year, which was six weeks or more after the Estimates of the Department were considered in the Senate. I hope that in future there will be greater effort by departments to make such reports available, even if only in draft form, for Senate Estimates Committees. It is very valuable, and better consideration is given to them in that context than we can give here in five minutes that is available to senators for speaking on reports. In the brief time available to me, I should like to comment on one or two matters, the first being the Government's resource rent tax and resource rent royalty proposals. As to the resource rent royalty, there is legislation in the Parliament which we shall be debating next week, and I do not propose to say very much about that. But the Government's agreed resource rent tax proposals are of very great significance to the industry and to Australia, and they are of great concern to the Opposition. One of the matters of greatest concern is that we still do not know the details of the legislation. In this report we have the statement that resource rent tax became effective from 1 July 1984. Nearly 18 months later we still have not got the legislation. Senator Button is absolutely staggered; well he might be. I suggest that he make some inquiries as a senior Minister of the Government. Here is a tax which became effective from 1 July 1984. No legislation is yet in sight. I understand that there are very great difficulties with it. Perhaps we could hear something about that from the Government. The resource rent royalty legislation takes effect from, I think, 25 June 1985-or at least, it applied to the Barrow Island production of Wapet from 1 July 1985. That legislation is very complicated. There were 41 amendments suddenly put on the table in the House of Representatives when it was debated the other night. So these are fairly worrying indications about the Government's ability to administer these highly technical and important matters of the taxation of this industry. On the section of the report dealing with cash bidding for exploration permits, I am bound to say that the comment on that proposal is very misleading, and I think that quite a wrong impression is given about the issues involved in that. It is also interesting to note that the report records that at the end of June this year, the Government was considering alternatives to cash bidding, particularly modifications to the existing work program bidding system. There was a lot of talk floating around through the industry about signature bonuses, retention premiums, and so on-all of which apparently turned out to be smokescreens by the Government to divert industry from its efforts to reintroduce cash bidding, which, of course, it did in a very sudden fashion a week or two ago after it had managed to split the Australian Democrats on the issue, as a result of which the Democrats changed their tune, as we all know. Unfortunately, as time does not permit me to make other comments on this report, I shall have to leave it at that. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.10) —I note that the annual report of the Department of Resources and Energy is fairly complete but it lacks one basic ingredient; that is, an overall energy strategy for the country. There simply is no overall energy strategy. How will we manage our resources? How will we martial them for the future when our non-renewable resources run out? The whole program is deficient, the whole report is deficient in any description of how we will support renewable energy-the energy sources that can take us into perpetuity. Almost everything in this report is based on the concept that we should be able to dig it out of the ground, sell it off to industry and make a big profit out of it. The whole idea of modern marketing is to control the entire resource. We own the mine, the refinery and the outlets and make a lot of money. I once had an exploration person from the Exxon oil company address my class in California. One of my students asked him why Exxon was not interested in solar power. He answered: `Because we cannot own the sun'. That is a very prevalent attitude, not only in industry but also, apparently, in our Government. Studies are carried out in Australia about renewable energy, but they are just studies. We are lagging behind the rest of the world by at least 20 years in some aspects. We do not need to study whether these procedures work. We need to implement them. We need to implement wind and solar power-the things that other countries are going ahead with. Furthermore, we need to encourage the use of alternative technologies and renewable resources by tax incentives. One of the biggest power producing utilities in the United States is the Tennessee Valley Authority. It has found that it pays to subsidise the use of wood and solar heaters to save electricity. It will actually install equipment, allow people to use it and charge them over a 10-year period. Furthermore, in countries other than Australia there are tax incentives to install solar powered equipment, wood heaters and the like which use renewable energy. We have nothing here; in fact, we have disincentives. In my home State of Tasmania the Hydro-Electric Commission will actually charge a person more for power if he puts in a solar water heater to heat his water. It will charge him more for the booster electricity. We have seen around the world a burgeoning in wind power. Denmark has developed an industry which now employs 3,000 people building windmills which are then exported. There is no technical reason why this could not be done in Australia. The reason it is not done is that the Government is simply not interested. Big business-the big oil companies and mining companies-is not interested. In Hawaii I recently visited a field of 250 windmills made by the Jacobs windmill company, a division of the Control Data Corporation. It furnishes one-tenth of the electricity to the grid of the big island of Hawaii. More recently, I met a representative of Control Data and the Jacobs wind power division. He was looking for places in Australia to build windmills for Control Data, a very large firm, but he was having no luck in interesting any governmental agencies in providing support. We are cutting off not only our employment possibilities but also our energy possibilities. Another matter is ethanol. We have heard over and over again that ethanol cannot be competitive. It can compete. It could be produced from our grain surplus and our sugar cane surplus. It could be combined with petrol as a fuel. Once again, the oil companies are not keen to do this and it does not go ahead. We desperately need an overall energy strategy for Australia and the will to make it work. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.15) —Between 1971-72 and 1984-85 minerals and energy exports increased 12 times by value from $1.2 billion to $14.9 billion. The resource sector, including mineral processing, accounted for over 8 per cent of gross domestic product and 49 per cent of total export receipts in 1984-85. Those figures show why the annual report of the Department of Resources and Energy for 1984-85 commands some significance in terms of Australia's role in world resources trade and the importance of that trade to the Australian economy. We have heard a number of contributions to the debate, all of which, I think, offer, a government senator a smorgasboard of opportunity for reply. Let me comment on an aspect in this report that is an important new development that can be proudly, although I think in a proper level of emphasis somewhat mutedly, reported to the Senate. The report refers to the establishment of, in the course of this Government's incumbency of the Treasury benches, in the coal industry the Australian Coal Consultative Council and in the iron ore industry the Western Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council-two consultative bodies that bring together and harmonise the interests of unions, workers, management and government, State and Federal, in the two industries. They are positive initiatives taken by this Government and supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Australian Labor Party prices and incomes accord. They are aimed directly at addressing what has been an issue of some public controversy in this country, namely Australia's reliability as a supplier given its volume of exports in this field. It is fair to say that in the early stages of the establishment of those two bodies one ought not make too heroic assumptions about the successes they have so far achieved. It is, however, possible to say, modestly and honestly, that they have made a significant and important difference-I am not trying to oversell that difference-to the harmony of these two industries. The coal industry has suffered major closedowns and a need to rationalise pits, particularly deep pits, in New South Wales. The Australian Coal Consultative Council has achieved, in a highly disputatious industry, a reduction in the level of disputes which would have occurred had those consultative mechanisms not been open. A comparison of dispute statistics in the iron ore industry in Western Australia over a two-year period indicates that disputes this year are one-sixth of what they were two years ago. There are a number of reasons for that. One of the key reasons is, I believe, the contribution that the Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council has made to bringing about some degree of harmony and a common concept of the need of all groups in the industry to protect and advance the causes of that industry in the international arena. It has brought about that common recognition and a common responsibility to do so. As I said, it is early days and one does not want to make too many heroic assertions about what can be achieved but the early returns are very promising. I think, in a modest way, they should encourage this Government to go further. I will stick with, for a moment, the iron ore industry. Last year, we achieved a significant first in completing the whole round of award contract renewals in the Pilbara without a single dispute. Hitherto, award renewal negotiations have been attended by massive disputation. For the first time ever there were no disputes. In 1984 when India, as a major competing supplier to Australia for the Japanese iron ore trade, was dropped out of the trade because of disputes in that country, because of Australia's harmonious industrial relations position Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd and other major producers in Australia were able to supply the Indian shortfall to the Japanese market and pick up huge windfall gains in exports. This occurred because of what we were able to achieve in the iron ore industry. Those two developments-the Australian Coal Consultative Council and the Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council-show that unions, if brought into the ambit of responsibility for their industry to protect its trading position, shoulder that responsibility because, in the end, they recognise that it means jobs for their members as well as a more prosperous livelihood. The returns are, as I said, early; they are returns about which we need to be modest and not heroic-but they show that the figures are very promising. Attitudinal change to the need to increase productivity, and deal with new technology in an harmonious way, is such that the whole industry benefits, which means better profits for the companies, longer tenure of employment for the workers and better returns to the public purse. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.20) —I wish to commend the Department of Resources and Energy for which I have great respect and affection and to offer some constructive criticism. Those constructive criticisms arise basically out of information that has been supplied to the Senate through the process of examining the appropriations and the Estimates committees. I commend the Department, which does much to assist Australia's development and I commend its officers who serve it very well indeed. The matter of energy conservation has been raised, and I have to say that fact after fact that was produced to this Senate on the failure to conserve energy suggests that programs which were laid down some six or eight years ago are now falling into disrepair. For example, I point out, as I have done previously, that the projection made in 1982 for oil usage over the rest of this decade was that we would increase usage by only one-half of one per cent a year. America is managing 0.6 of a per cent a year and the figures that I have before me suggest that we are increasing usage at about 2 per cent a year. There have been suggestions that we are not conserving and converting to other energy sources. The greatest form of conserving energy is simply to use it to better avail. It has been demonstrated that it is possible to save up to 30 per cent of energy, whether it be electrical energy or automotive energy, just by adopting practical measures. We have a program to convert from petrol to liquefied petroleum gas of which we have an abudance at this moment in Australia. We were told in the Estimates Committee that the program was to convert 3,000 government vehicles a year to LPG. We were told in the Estimates Committee that we have 144 LPG-powered vehicles in a Commonwealth fleet of 15,300 vehicles. There are 417 converted vehicles in the statutory authorities out of 31,000 vehicles. There has been a total collapse of this program. There is evidence that the conservation of fuel in buildings, including Commonwealth buildings, is not working fully. Some comment was made earlier about the need for us to move into renewable resources. Coal and oil are non- renewable. Work in Australia in the past on solar and wind power-energy renewable resources-and biomass was at a high level and respected around the world. It is important that we keep up that work. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that those renewable resources can replace either oil, coal or nuclear energy. The fundamental fact of the matter is that we should direct our minds both towards saving costs and fuel in Australia primarily to achieve a 30 per cent saving of energy if we can and, where we cannot, to convert to other fuels, whether they are renewable or non-renewable. Above everything in this world, we should realise that we are not dealing with non-renewables in terms of oil and coal. They cannot be replaced and they ought to be preserved as far as possible. I do not see evidence of this in the report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under Sessional Orders for the consideration of Government papers has now expired. As there is no Thursday General Business and the papers will otherwise disappear from the Notice Paper, those honourable senators who wish to speak to those papers should seek leave to move a motion in regard to them. They should do so by groups if possible to save the time of the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment on the preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment tabled its report, The Preservation of the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island, in the Senate on 2 November 1983. Overall, the Committee expressed general satisfaction with the current measures being taken to preserve the bird. Guidelines and agreements already in force between the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island (PMCI) and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) were seen as adequate framework for the protection of the Abbott's Booby. The principal concern related to the limited amount of reafforestation and rehabilitation of mined out areas. The committee also expressed concern over the future of Christmas Island and the need to investigate the viability of alternative industries. The recommendations of the report relate to four main issues: (1) funding of the Abbott's Booby Monitoring Program (2) investigation into an extension of the National Park (3) increasing the rate and area of rehabilitation (4) investigation of alternative industries for the Island, particularly the tourist industry and the possibility of establishing a research centre on the Island. Specifically, the first and second recommendations of the report relate to the joint funding of the Abbott's Booby Monitoring Program by the ANPWS and the PMCI. These recommendations are being implemented; the Program has been fully operational since July 1983. ANPWS and PMCI have recently confirmed their continuing commitment to the program. The third recommendation calls for an investigation into the possibility of extending the Christmas Island National Park to include Block 22A and Smithson's Bight Terraces. ANPWS has investigated the most appropriate boundary for the extension. On 4 July 1985, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife issued a public notice of intent to submit a report on the proposed declaration of two areas of Christmas Island as National Park. Public representations on the matter were invited. The two areas will include Abbott's Booby habitat in or near Block 22A and significant nesting areas of other seabirds on the terraces at North West Point. The fourth and fifth recommendations deal with increasing the rate and area of rehabilitation. PMCI recognises its responsibility for rehabilitation of areas mined out both before and after the establishment of the Company. The PMCI program of backfilling, topsoil spreading and nursery tree planting is proceeding. Research is being conducted to investigate more efficient methods of rehabilitation particularly suited to Christmas Island conditions. In conjunction with ANPWS, areas of priority for rehabilitation will be decided when land use studies now being initiated are available, probably later this year. Recommendations six and seven state that guidelines and agreements already in force between PMCI and ANPWS should be the basis for future negotiations regarding mining and conservation. The guidelines and agreements mentioned in the report have served as the basis for further developments in discussions between PMCI and ANPWS in May and October 1984. The package of guidelines and agreements was consolidated at meetings between ANPWS and PMCI in May 1985. Reflecting the May 1984 advice of the Expert Panel which supervises the Abbott's Booby Monitoring Program, clearing proposals now give greater emphasis to retention of unfragmented forest used by Abbott's Booby and less emphasis to protection of Abbott's Booby sites marginal to existing clearings. Accordingly, some fields which lie in unfragmented habitat and which were originally to be cleared will now be retained intact. However, other areas with marginal sites which were to be protected by revision of mining boundaries will now be cleared subject to existing safeguards. The final recommendation of the report concerns the need to investigate the viability of alternative industries if a population is to be maintained on Christmas Island after the mining operation ends. The land use studies presently underway will cover the possible development of several proposals covering tourism, small businesses, limited agriculture, and other ventures. These are being analysed to determine their suitability for the Island. They must be compatible with conservation of the Island's flora and fauna and outstanding natural qualities. At this stage, there are no plans to establish a scientific research centre on the Island, although relevant activity is undertaken by the ANPWS. The Government intends to encourage the Australian scientific research community to take a greater interest in Christmas Island. The Government is committed to the conservation and protection of the Island's unique flora and fauna, including of course the Abbott's Booby and other endangered Island species. The Government's plans for the Island include maintenance of self-sufficiency through the development of local industry to replace the declining phosphate mining. With sensitive planning and management, development and conservation aims can be achieved. The Inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee found that current procedures should not have an unduly detrimental effect on the Abbott's Booby, and made several recommendations to improve safeguards for the species. The organisations involved are either implementing these recommendations, or taking steps to investigate their feasibility. The Government thanks the Committee for its detailed investigation of this complex situation and for its interest and support. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the sixteenth report of 1985 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985, the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, the Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill 1985, the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1985, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Bill 1985 [No. 2], the Postal Services Amendment (Continuance of Postal Services) Bill 1985, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985, the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985, the Veterans' Entitlement (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 15 dated 27 November 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the reports relating to: 1. Fitout of office space at Canberra National Convention Centre, Canberra City, for Commonwealth use. 2. Telecom Australia, construction of new accommodation at resources management centre, Clayton, Victoria. Ordered that the reports be printed. Consideration resumed. GROUP E Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $6,212,321,000 Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.30) —I should like to ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) whether the decision made some months ago not to proceed with the armoured personnel carrier replacement, Project Waler, is irrevocable or, in the light of the considerable adverse comment that has been made about that decision, whether the Government is prepared to reconsider its decision. By way of explanation to the Minister, I point out that for the Army there are two essential qualities-mobility and firepower. Earlier today someone was talking about close air support for the Army and the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force was not able to provide it. With modern technology we are not able to deploy unsophisticated aircraft over a battlefield because of the ability to destroy such aircraft with relatively cheap weapons. The answer to that firepower question is to increase the artillery component of the Australian Army, which at present is very small. Project Waler relates to mobility. We simply cannot move troops onto the battlefield wearing only the shirts on their backs. They have to be protected against small arms fire; they have to be protected against shell fire. The Auditor-General's report that came out some months ago dealt with the M113A1 vehicles, the vehicles in question, which were to be replaced by the Project Waler vehicles. The Auditor-General reported: This report, however, does raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the M113A1 vehicles to meet efficiently their operational and training objectives. This vehicle has been in service with the Australian Army for 20 years. Its design is about 30 years old; it is the first generation of armoured personnel carriers. It will carry a section of troops and give them some protection against limited small arms fire. The design has developed very considerably in the last 30 years and we are now into the third generation of these vehicles around the world. Australia had about 800 at one stage and Project Waler would have sought to replace those with a more suitable vehicle for the years ahead. Not only would it have given us a great deal more protection for the troops but also it would have been the first instance of an armoured design and building capability in this country. Australia does not have any capability to build armoured vehicles such as tanks or personnel carriers, and that is something we ought to overcome. One of the great benefits of Project Waler would have been that it would have taken us the first step down the path to self-sufficiency. The Auditor-General has reported that we have had one death because these vehicles have mechanical problems. In 1982 a soldier was killed as a result of a differential brake assembly failure, and the Auditor-General points out that the vehicles are hard to maintain and that there are supply difficulties, particularly with tracks. Because of this the previous Government instituted Project Waler and phase one of that project was carried out, resulting in some preliminary design studies. This Government sat on phase one, and it was common knowledge in the industry that it was not going to proceed. Instead of having the courage of its convictions and saying 18 or 20 months ago that it would not proceed with Project Waler, it just sat on it, kept everyone on tenterhooks, and then declared that it would not go ahead. The Government has announced that it will spend money on upgrading the old APCs, but to do so is just throwing money away because, as I said before, the design of those vehicles is 30 years old. It is a first generation vehicle which has no defence at all against present threat munitions. Despite that, evidence was given to Estimates Committee E by various people. One of the deputy secretaries said that the vehicle was adequate up until the year 2000. I quote him: The advice given to the Minister from the senior military and civilian advisers was that it would adequately meet the needs of our Defence Force to the year 2000, and that is still the situation today. The witness was misleading the Parliament and the Senate when he gave that advice. At present the APC is not proof against anything but the lightest of small arms. A .5 calibre machine gun will go right through it and simple rocket projectiles such as the RPG7 will destroy it. When the Minister at the table and the public servant claimed that it would be adequate for the needs of the Australian Defence Force to the year 2000 it was very clear that their little pink bodies would not be inside it in any sort of hostile situation. The spending of money on these carriers is just a waste of public funds. Furthermore, the evidence given misled the Committee on a second point. The view was expressed that the United States Army, and in another place the German Army, were going to upgrade their M113s. The implication was that these vehicles were being upgraded for first line use, but in fact the United States and German armies are upgrading only a small number of them, and they are for rear echelon service, not front line service. I come back to this point: If we have to use these vehicles in a war situation we are giving no protection at all to our troops, bearing in mind the threat munitions that exist at present. These are simple, cheap munitions that are readily available. Those vehicles will be knocked out and the lives of the soldiers in them will be thrown away. The money we spend on these vehicles will be money wasted. The Government has not come up with the details of precisely what it is going to do, but it is clearly intended that none of the upgrading kits will be manufactured in Australia; they will just be brought in from overseas, from the United States, and fitted in the Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshops. So there is no benefit to Australian industry from this. I ask the Minister whether there is any light at the end of the tunnel. Is the Government prepared to reconsider its decision to cancel Project Waler? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.37) —Senator MacGibbon added little in his speech to what he said in Estimates Committee E. I should deal with a couple of issues he has raised. First of all, there is nothing new in what was said about Project Waler in the course of the Estimates Committee. I have had a personal interest in this matter because of the industry implications; industry understands that. Nonetheless it has been said to me that Project Waler, in spite of not being brought to fruition, was of great benefit to industry in terms of the technology transfer involved. Senator MacGibbon commented about evidence given to the Estimates Committee and suggested that it had been implied that the United States would upgrade its M113s. He threw some doubt on that evidence. As I understand it, the United States does not intend to upgrade the M113s to a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-type battle vehicle, and Australia's decision to upgrade the M113s was proceeded with on the basis of the strategic consideration that we in this region would not be using such a vehicle in a NATO-type context. I do not think there is anything I have to add to that which was not dealt with in the hearing of the Estimates Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.39) —The Department of Defence estimates clearly reflect a problem associated with the retention of reservists. I put to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) a suggestion by the Citizen Military Forces Association that a housing loan scheme could be used to aid the retention of reservists. As long ago as 10 years a number of authoritative sources argued that a housing loan scheme for reservists would have the effect of retaining their skilled services. Among those in favour of such a scheme were members of the Millar Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces. The Millar report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 4 April 1974. That recommendation of the Millar report was for a housing loan scheme to be introduced for all serving and future members of units in the Reserve, but unfortunately the government of the day placed a low priority on the retention of reservists with the result that over the years many thousands of non-commissioned officers and officers, trained at great cost to the taxpayer, have left the CMF. Besides this cost to the taxpayer, the exodus has created substantial organisation, training and motivation problems amongst reservists. I am aware of the Government's recruiting campaign for reservists but when this gathers some momentum, as it is doing now, its success will require the retention of trained NCOs and officers. Otherwise, once the recruit returns from his recruit course, keenly motivated, he may soon leave if units are unable to supply the essential training, promotion and guidance which are necessary to retain the services of those reservists. I have sent the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) a letter which includes a financial exercise which was prepared by the CMF Association. This has been done since the Estimates committee met and it indicates that were such a retention incentive scheme, by way of subsidised housing mortgage repayments, to be applied, it would save the Government of the order of $2m a year. I put it to the Minister that it is worth while considering this aspect because I know that this sort of scheme would be more attractive to most reservists than simply a financial inducement. I believe that this is something the Minister should consider and respond to, particularly as it has been worked out to save the Government money ultimately in retraining and recruitment costs. The money saved there would far outweigh the amount of subsidy that would need to be paid for the reservists to obtain preferential home loan finance. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.43) —The Government has no present plans to introduce a housing loan subsidy scheme for reservists in order to retain them in the reserves. As Senator Harradine has pointed out, there is a recruitment campaign. He suggests that if it succeeds it may be inadequate in terms of retention. I understand that he has written to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) about this matter so I will draw that letter to the Minister's attention and see that Senator Harradine gets an appropriate response as soon as possible. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.44) —These estimates deal with the provision of funds for the project definition study for the replacement submarine for the Royal Australian Navy. The original estimate was for $26m and that has now blown out to $32m. Is there an end point on the project definition study funding? Has it a definite upper limit or will it just go on as the study team wishes? Senator Button —It is expected that the present funding will be adequate. Senator MacGIBBON —I thank the Minister for the non-answer. My next question is: What controls will Australia have on the technology that is developed through the project definition study? By way of information I would say that it was one of the fundamental points of the contract or the selection of the new submarine that it not be a paper boat, that it be a design either in service or coming into service very soon with an established navy. The Royal Australian Navy, for reasons of its own, broke that clause of the contract and thereby earned itself considerable disfavour among tendering companies. We are now in the position where the Australian taxpayer is to put $32m into an attempt to make sure that a paper design works. In the process a whole lot of new technology has to be developed and it will be developed for the Germans through HDW-IKL or for the Swedes by Kockums in order to make these two designs work. In view of the meagre amount of money that the Government puts into industrial research and design in Australia and the meagre amount it contributes to military research and design through the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, I ask: What procedures is it taking here to ensure that the spending of $32m of the Australian taxpayers' money is of benefit to the Australian nation and not a free transfer of technology to two firms-one a private firm in Germany and the other a government-owned firm in Sweden? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.48) —The project definition study is about securing appropriate technology for the Royal Australian Navy's submarines. There is a naval team working on that project definition study and that is one of its tasks. In a sense the apprehension that Senator MacGibbon has expressed is slightly premature. If he is not satisfied with the results of the project definition study then undoubtedly that will be a matter for comment at that time. I do not think that Senator MacGibbon can have it all ways. Certainly his Party cannot have it all ways-he might not speak for his Party; a lot of the Opposition senators do not. There has been some criticism of the decision to build the six submarines in Australia. Opposition members cannot, in the Budget context, have the right of their Party leaders to chastise us about spending too much on research and development in Australia and at the same time have Senator MacGibbon make his little cracks about the meagre amount of money being spent on research and development in Australia. They cannot have it all possible ways. Insofar as the information sought by Senator MacGibbon is concerned, I have given it to him in terms of what is available at the present time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.49) —Further to this project definition study, how far down the track has the Government gone in respect of Australian industry participation? This is particularly relevant for the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce at present. Are all Australian industrial manufacturing facilities and companies on an equal basis, or have the options been closed off by commercial alliances between Australian companies and overseas prime contractors in relation to the platform, the hull and the engine building for this submarine? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.50) —In respect of the two major tenderers, it is common knowledge that they have selected teams, in each case, involving Australian industry and the prime contractors. The fact of the matter is, however, as Senator MacGibbon well knows, that the sophistication and the technology of a submarine are such that the benefits of building these vessels in Australia will be very widespread throughout industry. The sub-contract work will be enormous. There have been very widespread discussions with Australian industry throughout the Commonwealth. I do not think that Senator MacGibbon would find any dissatisfaction in Australian industry about the consultation that there has been at all levels about this process. Of course, there will be dissatisfaction when the submarine tender is finally selected, because there will be winners and losers in that process, as there are in any tender. Again, I think that Senator MacGibbon's comment has an implicit premature quality about it which is fairly characteristic of the Opposition. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.51) —I am provoked by the Minister's last comment. The only company in Australia that has any experience in overhauling submarines is Comeng-Vickers at Cockatoo Island in Sydney. No one else in this country has that practical level of engineering expertise. It is fair comment that no other company in Australia today could build, overhaul or maintain submarines. Yet the Royal Australian Navy and the Government have had no serious discussions at all with Comeng-Vickers at any stage of the submarine program. There have been a few phone calls, probably, and the odd conversation over a cup of coffee, but the Royal Australian Navy has not made a formal approach to Comeng-Vickers-not to discuss whether it wanted to be the builder or anything like that, but just to have a general discussion about what is involved in the technology of building a submarine in Australia. That has to be set against the rather glib comments the Minister has just made. I come back to my first question: Is it an open market for companies in Australia to compete for this submarine contract, or has the deal been done already with the Premiers of the various States as to where the shares will go? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.53) —No deal has been done with the Premiers of the various States; there could not be and will not be at any stage. In so far as Comeng-Vickers is concerned, there have been discussions about the project with that company, but not over a cup of coffee-we did not have a cup of coffee; it was not the right time of day. Those discussions have taken place, as they have taken place with a variety of other companies. I come back to the point I made: Two tenderers have been selected for the contract. They have made arrangements with various other companies in Australia-that is their business. It is an open tender and the results remain to be seen. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP F Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $900,732,000 Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $176,363,000 Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $443,734,000 Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.56) —I take this opportunity on the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 to make an appeal on behalf of the northernmost Australian citizens, the Torres Strait Islanders. There are 17 populated islands and 78 unpopulated islands in Torres Strait, and 5,000 Torres Strait Islanders live on the outer islands and Thursday Island. There is a problem in Torres Strait. As the 17 islands are mostly small sand cays of 400 or 500 acres, transport is very difficult. Most of the communication and transport is done by light aircraft flying between the islands. It is very difficult in cloudy and inclement weather for the pilots to pin-point the islands. There will be a time when there will have to be an emergency flight out to the islands in inclement weather and there will be problems if the pilot is unable to locate and identify the islands. For an amount of $70,000 it would be possible to have a distance measuring equipment beacon installed on Horn Island. It is absolutely essential that this beacon be installed in the Torres Strait. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), to see that it is installed before a tragedy occurs, rather than after one occurs. The amount of $70,000, which is an insignificant proportion of the vote for the Department of Aviation, is all that needs to be spent to look after the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islands are the front door of Australia. They are tremendously important for Australia on the aspects of quarantine and foreign affairs. Many people now are going into Irian Jaya from Indonesia and it is very important for Australia to hold these islands and keep them populated. Many Islanders have shifted over to the mainland because of the difficulties experienced in travelling and obtaining work on the islands. I ask the Minister to ascertain from the advisers when this distance measuring equipment beacon can be placed on Horn Island, adjacent to Thursday Island, which the Minister visited only two or three months ago. It is absolutely essential, as it is only a matter of luck that a tragedy has not occurred on the Torres Strait Islands. The way Murphy's law works, the worst thing will happen at the worst possible time. I seek the Minister's assistance in getting a beacon on Horn Island as soon as possible. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.01) —I am advised that the airways facilities are reviewed regularly-in fact, on an annual basis-including the requirement for distance measuring equipment. The points the honourable senator has just made with respect to Horn Island and Thursday Island will be taken into account at the next review. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.02) —I ask the Minister to confirm information that was given to us in the form of advice at the hearing of Estimates Committee F. It occurs, I think, on page 307 of the transcript, which unfortunately I do not have in front of me, and relates to the briefing office at Hobart Airport. There seems to be some conflict between the advice I was given at that Estimates Committee hearing and the advice I have been given by people in Hobart who think that the briefing office is to be closed. I would like to know who is right. Maybe the Minister could let me know. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.03) —My advisers believe that it is not the case, but we will get precise information for the honourable senator. Senator Townley —It is not to be closed? Senator RYAN —No, my officers believe not. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.03) —Is an investigation being carried out into the feasibility of closing the office? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.03) —The officers are not aware of any particular inquiry, but they point out that all the services are constantly under review. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.04) —If there is an inquiry, would the Minister let me know? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.04) —Certainly. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.04) —The Minister will probably know that one of the urgent problems confronting the Tasmanian apple and pear industries, because of the lack of freight equalisation for exports, is the non-availability of cheap air freight facilities to overseas markets. The industries have to get their apples and pears to Sydney and Melbourne without any freight equalisation benefits prior to exporting them to overseas markets. Is it a fact that overseas-owned freight aircraft, which regularly bring goods into Australia, fly out of Australia without a full load? Is this policy pursued in order to protect the interests of Qantas Airways Ltd? What other reason would be given for prohibiting the apple and pear industries from using air freight space available to Hong Kong, for instance? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.04) —That information is not available at the moment, but the officers will see whether it is possible to get information in answer to the honourable senator's question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.05) —The matter is fairly urgent. Can the Minister tell me when we can have an answer to that question? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.05) —It will probably be in the next couple of days. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Territories Proposed expenditure, $181,750,000 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.05) —I refer to an article which appeared in the Good Weekend several weeks ago in relation to the lease of Bowen Island at Jervis Bay wherein it is suggested that the Government has decided not to extend the lease to the people who have leased it, I understand, for about 30 years. Is that the case? What is the cost expected to be of resuming the houses, boatsheds, water reservoirs, jetty, fire fighting equipment and other property on the island if the island is not to be re-leased? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.05) —I can confirm that the Minister has decided that the lease will be terminated on 31 December. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.06) —What will be the cost of the resumption of the property on the island? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.06) —I will provide those figures as soon as possible. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.06) —This is a matter, I should think, of some interest to those who have been on the island for 30 years. I can find no reference in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 which indicates that provision has been made to pay out the lease for the items of property on the island. If the lease is to be terminated on 31 December, I would have thought that one would be able to find in this year's estimates the amount of money expected to be paid out. If that is not the case, I would think the lessees are entitled to have the lease extended, at least until such time as they receive the money to which they will obviously be entitled. It ought to be possible to know now whether the allocation is in this year's estimates. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.07) —The situation with payouts of this kind is that because the timing involved to reach settlement and the amounts involved cannot be known at the time of the formulation of the Budget, no precise amount is allocated for them. I draw Senator Reid's attention to the explanatory notes of the Department of Territories, Division 959, sub-division 1, item 01, `Purchase of improvements on withdrawn leases' under which is listed an appropriation of $326,000. That is a contingency item which would cover such costs as Senator Reid raised. If that amount were not adequate, the Minister would have to seek a further appropriation at the time of the Additional Estimates to cover the payouts. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.07) —Perhaps the Minister could tell us when the decision was made not to extend the lease. That might be helpful. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.08) —The officers will have to find the precise date of that decision for Senator Reid. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.08) —The concern in regard to Bowen Island is really the native flora and fauna and the fairy penguins. The colony of fairy penguins on the island is at the most northerly point. My concern is that there will not be the same sort of protection as has been the case. Can we be told what ranger service will be available to protect the flora and fauna of Bowen Island? If the one person who lives there permanently is thrown off the island on 31 December, what will be the arrangements for the protection of Bowen Island thereafter? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.09) —Bowen Island will be incorporated into the Jervis Bay Nature Reserve, which is managed by the Australian Capital Territory Parks and Conservation Service. As a part of that reserve it will receive the same attention and care that the rest of the Jervis Bay Nature Reserve receives. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.09) —So there will not be the same sort of attention given to Bowen Island or the same sort of surveillance as has been the case? It will merely be a ranger who may or may not have time to visit it from time to time. Are we to take it that the present rangers down there looking after this park have time on their hands which enables them freely to look after Bowen Island? A person has been living on the island full-time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.09) —It is the intention of the Government to develop a management plan for Bowen Island and to ensure that adequate attention is paid to the preservation and conservation of its flora and fauna. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.10) —I point out that it is just about possible to walk out to Bowen Island at low tide, and it is certainly not too difficult to get there. As somebody is living there now, I suggest that it is not adequate to wait for a management plan to be developed. The sensible thing would be to renew the lease until such time as the Government knows what it will do and until it knows the cost of its proposed actions. We have seen no financial impact statement on the cost of getting back the property and providing a reasonable ranger service on Bowen Island or having somebody stationed there permanently. I gather it has been suggested in some correspondence that that would be the case. I would have thought that the cost of having a ranger stationed there would be not less than $50,000 a year, which is an extraordinary amount of money. What protection will the island have that is not provided now without cost to the Commonwealth? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.11) —I think I can give Senator Reid a general assurance that the concerns she has expressed will be adequately addressed in the management plan. A considerable amount of work has already been done to prepare for the incorporation of Bowen Island into the nature reserve. The Australian Capital Territory Parks and Conservation Service has prepared a detailed management plan for the reserve, including the island, to provide a blueprint for future conservation of the Territory's natural resources. In particular, the provisions for Bowen Island reflect its status as one of the important conservation areas along the east coast of Australia which is of national and international significance. Given that that significance has already been recognised in the development plan, I think I can say confidently that those concerns expressed by Senator Reid will be adequately addressed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.11) —My concern relates to what will happen between now and when something is actually done. Another aspect of concern relates to the flora as well as the animals on the island. I do not know whether any other senators wish to pursue this matter. Perhaps I could ask when we might get some answers. In the last couple of days many promises have been made that answers would be provided in the future. When are we likely to know more about this matter? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.12) —The management plan will become a public document. Although I do not have a time for when that will happen, I am sure that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) is conscious of the need to have this sort of information in the public domain at the time of the changeover to the nature reserve, and I will certainly pass Senator Reid's queries on to him. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.13) —I asked the Secretary of Estimates Committee F to hand some questions to the Department of Territories for reply. I believe that the Secretary is not here today and I have not been able to follow it up. The questions related to a couple of fairly simple matters within the Australian Capital Territory. I will give them to the Department tomorrow once the Secretary comes back. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.13) —At the Estimates hearing we were told by the Minister, or by an officer, perhaps, that no permission had been granted to those people camping in the vicinity of the South African Embassy. Is it still the case that those camped there are doing so without permission from the Commonwealth? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.14) —Yes, it is the case that no formal permission has been given, and the matter is with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.14) —Given that this matter is the responsibility of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and given the length of time those people have been there, it was not appropriate to pursue this question as a matter of policy at the Estimates Committee meeting. However, can we now be told why they have been left camping there; why they have not been removed, and when they will be removed? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.14) —I can say only that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is giving consideration to the foreign policy implications of either granting formal permission or withdrawing the latitude that has been allowed to the campers to date. As Senator Reid will be aware, this is a very controversial matter and one that the Foreign Minister has under consideration. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.15) —One of the statements that appeared in the article I referred to in relation to Bowen Island-I do not know whether there is any substance in it-was that one of those people who had been involved in the lease for some 30 years alleged that the tenants would squat on the island. If they were to do that after 31 December, could we be assured that they would have the same rights to camp on Commonwealth property as others around Canberra are being allowed, or would these people be bundled off? Why are some people, such as the Vietnamese a few months ago, bundled off Commonwealth property when others are allowed to stay there? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.15) —I have to say that the Government considers these matters separately. I do not see significant parallels between the situation of potential squatters on Bowen Island and the situation outside the South African Embassy, where views are being expressed with which Senator Reid may or may not concur-views which are held very passionately and strongly by many people in the Australian community. I think the foreign policy implications of that situation, and the implications in terms of the right of free political expression in our society and so forth, make the case a very different one in all significant respects from the hypothetical case Senator Reid has constructed for us of persons wishing to squat on Bowen Island. Senator Reid also referred to the decision taken with respect to some South Vietnamese protesters, who were allowed to spend several days, as I recall, right outside the Parliament, very freely expressing their views on the Government's policy of allowing overseas students to study in Canberra. Again, I think that that was a different situation with different consequences. I can say only that the Government would examine each case on its merits. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.16) —What I am trying to get at in a sense is what the criteria are so that people will know. That is the answer we need. I agree that one issue is environmental, and perhaps that does not matter, and the others are political. The Vietnamese were in the normal place opposite Parliament House, where many camps have been set up, and they were left there for less than two weeks, I think, when they were unceremoniously removed. As to the protest outside the South African Embassy, I totally agree with the point the protesters are trying to make. I am opposed to apartheid, but I find that the breach of the Vienna Convention by the way they have behaved and what they have done to the Embassy is embarrassing and unacceptable. I do not believe that they are making a statement on apartheid, but they are an embarrassment to Australia. I have no quarrel with the apartheid statement the protesters seek to make but I am concerned about the light in which this country will be seen because of the way they have behaved and the unsightly affair that has been erected there. Senator Ryan —I have nothing to add. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.18) —On 22 April this year I placed on notice question No. 240 relating to trips to the Cocos (Keeling), Christmas and Norfolk islands by departmental officers and other people. Some information appeared in the back of volume 2 of the O'Donovan report of the Inquiry into the Community Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory, which was a rather strange place to find it. I raised the matter again in the Estimates Committee meeting. I pointed out that the question was fairly straight forward and that I did not really want details down to the last cent. Despite the passage of an extra two months, the Senate still has no further information on this matter. Can the Minister guarantee that all the records are intact? When are we likely to get the answer, and what has been the hold-up over the last two months? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.19) —The reply requires extensive research and it is being prepared. It will be available to the honourable senator when the Minister for Territories has completed the preparation of the answer. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.19) —I want to raise the question of Bowen Island, which has already been raised. I have visited it often. I have seen the most effective management that has taken place there and I really cannot yet understand from the responses by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) why 31 December has become some magic date by which the leaseholder will be forced to depart. There is no clear program, as is evident from the replies this afternoon, to take the place of that private sector management which, as I understand it, has been notably successful and notably cheap to the Commonwealth-it costs nothing. Is it impossible for the Commonwealth to allow the leaseholder to remain there, say on a monthly basis, until some appropriate arrangement is made? An appropriate arrangement has not been made. As I understand it, we have been asked to take the present arrangements on faith. To ask the chamber to take those arrangements on faith does not seem to me to be sound enough. We would certainly like to know what the evidence is that the flora and fauna are at risk on that island. After 30 years there is no evidence that I know of to show that the leaseholder has failed in his management. Has the risk suddenly increased so much that by 31 December the leaseholder is to be turned off the island? What is the evidence of his failure? Is it in fact the result of a ministerial whim following a visit by the Hon. Tom Uren on 14 November 1983, who inspected Bowen Island and-I refer to a letter from the Secretary to the Department of Territories-`subsequently made it clear to me that he was strongly of the view that the lease on the island should not be renewed after 1985'. It seems to be all very well for Ministers to go round converting their prejudices into reality without there being any sensible or effective replacement for the arrangement that had existed. That seems to me to be the important issue here. Why must it be 31 December? We have not got an adequate response to what Senator Reid asked a little while ago. In fact, I submit that there has not been an adequate response to the letter of 30 October 1985, written by Mr David Fuller to Mr Enfield, the Secretary to the then Department of the Capital Territory, which made some very cogent points that, it seems to me, demand a coherent reply, which we have not yet been favoured with, certainly not in this chamber. The relevant parts of the letter state: . . . I am sure you will have been able to appreciate the care we have taken to maintain ecology on the island to the fullest. I hope that you will now more closely understand our feelings of injustice over the decision your Department has made to terminate our leasehold from 31 December 1985, after thirty years of careful and meticulous management. Is there any evidence that that is not so? The letter continued: Your letter dated 26 August, 1985, mentions your Department's deep concerns `about the condition of the lease area and the impact of current use and management of the area on the significant ecological features and values of the Island'. I have to point out that I, the lessee, have never received any reports or itemised concerns and am unable to provide any clarification or criticism . . . Our letter of 24 September, 1985, addressed to the Minister for Territories, proposes that your Department adopts the proposal of Mr R. J. Corrigan, the First Assistant Secretary of Lands, dated 26 February, 1981. His proposal was to lease only the improvements on Block 6 for a further ten years and incorporate the remainder of the lease in the Jervis Bay nature reserve. This proposal, in our opinion, achieves the aims of the Department without undue cost to the community of purchasing the improvements and establishing a full time ranger on Bowen Island. It seems to me that, in the first place, we have undue haste; secondly, we have undue arrogance in refusing to reply coherently and properly to the matters raised here; thirdly, we seem to have a ministerial whim; and, forthly, we seem to have a risk. Bowen Island might be a very pleasant place for a ranger to set up and live but, if there is to be the same protection of the resources on that island as now exists, a ranger will have to spend full time there. Let us recognise, this: The fairy penguins are on that island between sunset and dawn. That is the time they are at risk. Are we going to have a ranger on that island at the only time the penguins are there-apart from the chicks, of course-which is between sunset and dawn. Unless we have some coherent response about whether there will be a ranger there at that time, it seems to me we have every reason to query the common sense behind this arrangement. If the Government is going to put a ranger there all the time, living on the island, it will, as Senator Reid said, face a higher expense than I believe chamber has been led to understand. I think it would be reasonable for the Government to take the view that even if it is determined to terminate this lease, as it seems to be, at least it should leave the people there on a temporary basis until we can be assured that the Government has an adequate, proper and examinable proposal to replace the present one. It has not yet provided the chamber with anything like that. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.26) —I do not want to commit the sin of tedious repetition of Senator Michael Baume, who has just asked questions that have already been asked by Senator Reid and answered. The only point Senator Michael Baume raised that requires an answer is in relation to the date of the termination of the leases, which is 31 December. The last of the privately owned holiday leases on the island will not be renewed when it terminates on 31 December. That is the reason why that is the date on which the land will be resumed to become part of the Jervis Bay nature reserve. The management plan and the work that has already been done by the Department are quite extensive. There has been extensive consultation with conservation groups which I think will result in a very reassuring management plan being available shortly for public scrutiny. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.27) —The Minister underlines the dilemma. She is confident that the position will be as she has said. Is that really what the Committee is supposed to accept? She is confident it will be, so we are to go away comforted by that. This arrangement has been satisfactory for 30 years and no evidence that it has been unsatisfactory has been presented to this chamber or even to the leaseholder. In the absence of that information we are to go away comforted by the Minister's assurance. I certainly do not go away comforted by that assurance. I cannot see any reason why some permissive occupancy cannot be extended beyond the end of the lease. The Minister did not address herself to that essential point. I also ask: Does the Government intend to bring to an end the lease of Commonwealth property on the mainland of that area held by the Australian Railways Union? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.28) —The officers have no information about the lease on the mainland referred to by Senator Michael Baume. We will see whether we can get some information on that. I have nothing to add to my previous answers. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.28) —On page 7 of the Auditor-General's report relating to last year's financial statements, the Department of Territories is listed under the heading `Departmental Deficiencies'. Apparently there were problems in the processing of cheques and the reconciliation of bank accounts. I would be pleased if the Minister, as we look at the current estimates, could give an undertaking that the accounting and payment procedures of the relevant branches will be or have been reviewed and that appropriate procedures will be introduced so that we can relate the estimates that we are now getting with the figures that we will have to match them with. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.29) —The particular defect that was referred to in Senator Vigor's question, namely, the time lag in the issuing of cheques, has been corrected. New procedures have been implemented and there is now no time lag. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.29) —I have several questions on the sale of the Belconnen Mall and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and the housing loan schemes, which I would be quite willing to put on notice if I can have an undertaking from the Minister that they will be answered. Senator Ryan —Certainly. Senator VIGOR —I seek leave to incorporate the questions in Hansard. Leave granted. The questions read as follows- -Belconnen Mall Sale: I wish to follow up some answers about Belconnen Mall provided to Estimates Committee F. It seems strange that the government is stripping a major revenue-producing asset on the verge of A.C.T. self-government. Since the Whitlam government injected $1 million in the midseventies, the people of the A.C.T. have essentially paid the interest on the $40 million loan needed to fund the Belconnen Mall project. That debt has been reduced to about $34 million, and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority has reserves of around $10 million. In a few years time, the Mall could have produced the equivalent of about $8 million at current value, for the local governing body. I don't want to go into the chopping and changing since the A.L.P. was in opposition, not since the time when the previous minister instructed the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to prepare the new shopping complex at Tuggeranong. However, about $600,000 was used on planning work under ministerial instruction. Will that money now be returned to the people of the A.C.T.? My second point on Belconnen Mall is about the sum promised for the building of community facilities that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority has not been allowed to undertake. Different sums have been mentioned by different government sources. $5 million is one amount given, $4 million has been mentioned by others at public meetings, and there has been a further suggestion that only $3 million will be provided if the successful tenderer guarantees occasional child-care facilities at the Mall in perpetuity. I ask just what the people of the A.C.T. will get out of this sale? My next point is about child-care facilities at Belconnen Mall. Both the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, wrote to the Estimates Committee F that tenderers needed to guarantee child-care facilities for two years. The Authority was a lot more enthusiastic than the Department about retaining the child-care facilities indefinitely. I ask the Minister whether such undertakings will count for anything when tenders are evaluated, or will the government just accept the highest bidder automatically? I also draw to the minister's attention the fact that the provision of child-care facilities at a peppercorn rental is a condition of tender for the Tuggeranong site. Why has Belconnen been treated differently? Can the Minister say when the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was told about the sale of the Mall? What arrangements have been made with the staff of the Authority over its winddown? Department of Territories-Homelessness and social welfare problems: On Page 95 of the Estimates Committee F written replies booklet, we are told: ``The Department has examined the Homelessness Report and has acted on a number of its recommendations. A report on implementation progress, together with recommended responses to the remaining recommendations is being prepared for the Minister's consideration.'' The Homelessness Report was published in January 1984. When is the Department's report on implementation likely to be available to the Minister? When will we be getting a statement on what is going on? Why has it taken so long to get even this far? At page 93 of the written replies booklet circulated by the Estimates Committee F, we are told that an inter-departmental committee has given the government its work on the Vinson Report. When will the government's response be available? Will the interdepartmental committee's paper be made public? When are we likely to get an indication of changes in administrative operation that are said by the Department to be in train or in prospect? On 18th July 1985, the Minister for Territories announced that he would appoint a consultant to look at various alternative housing strategies for the A.C.T. When was the list of names of people competent to make the review handed to the Minister? Why have there been such delays in making the appointment? Will the Department be able to provide the consultant with backup information and analysis on successful community housing programs in other states? On page 93 of Estimates Committee F written replies, we find that Mr Fisher conducted his investigation of the Commissioner for Housing Loans Scheme independently of the Department. What opportunities did he have to question staff? What problems did he identify, and what action has been taken to deal with them under the new arrangements announced for the re-start of the scheme? Commissioner for Housing Loans Scheme: In the Canberra Times of 2nd November, the City Reporter, Frank Longhurst, wrote that the Commissioner for Housing Loans Scheme had lost nearly two thirds of the applicants from its waiting list. What further developments have there been since that time? How many people on that list have now written to say that they still qualify for assistance and are keen to buy a house or unit? Is there a cut-off time by which those people who were frozen out last year, have to respond before they lose their previous place in the waiting list? I am seeking information about reporting structures for staff within this scheme last year, and to follow up a most unsatisfactory answer that Estimates Committee F received. I asked this question on notice: ``What steps were taken in July last year and the first half of August, to alert the Minister to the potential magnitude of the commitments made? Who, if anyone, took such steps?'' This is what we have received: ``A briefing was provided to the Minister by the Commissioner for Housing on the 20th August 1984 concerning the overcommitment of loan funds.'' The 20th August is not in the first half of August in my calendar. This opens up the whole area of reporting structures within the Department. I find it nearly beyond belief that senior officers were not demanding regular reports as soon as the problems surfaced-up-to-date information at the close of business every day or couple of days was definitely needed. Can we get a statement of how the reporting processes changed during the crisis period so that appropriate lessons can be drawn? Proposed expenditure agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $535,978,000 Rent (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $70,776,000 Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $41,763,000 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.01) —On behalf of Estimates Committee F I wish to bring a matter to the attention of this Committee. In the examination of the estimates of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, the Committee's attention was drawn to the unresolved issue concerning disposal of surplus government property in Williamstown, Victoria. Although the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations reported on this issue in June 1978, the old Customs House, the Wiltona Hostal and the Williamstown rifle range remain unsold. The Committee understands that several of the ceilings of the old Customs House have now fallen in, that the electrical wiring has been condemned, that the slate roof leaks badly and that no money has been spent on this building since 1978. As yet, no successful sale has occurred and the Customs House is continuing to deteriorate. The Senate Standing Committee of Finance and Government Operations recommended in 1978 that disposal of the Wiltona Hostel and the adjacent Williamstown rifle range be negotiated in order to overcome delays. However, only in 1985 have these properties now been declared surplus to Commonwealth requirements. As these three properties continue to deteriorate, the situation which has remained unresolved for the last seven years seems no closer to resolution and the Committee believes that a further inquiry should be undertaken. The Committee recommends that this matter should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for a further report, and I move: That the Committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee F, recommends-That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The delay in the disposal of the Customs House, Wiltona Hostel and the Rifle Range, Williamstown, Victoria. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.04) —Neither I nor the Government has problems with such a motion. We will happily let the Standing Committee busy itself with that subject. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.04) —I just want to ask a question about two buildings-the Keith Campbell Centre and a building at 71 Dundas Court, Phillip, in the Australian Capital Territory. Is there space in each of these buildings which has been rented by the Government but is not presently occupied? How long has it been rented and what rent is being paid? How long will it be before the space rented in either of those centres is occupied? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.04) —I am sorry, no one here has the details of those buildings, but we will certainly obtain the information as quickly as we can for the honourable senator. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.05) —On 17 September Estimates Committee F was told that the Office of Local Government was writing to unsuccessful applicants for grants under the local government developmemt plan, explaining reasons for rejection. This is recorded at page 607 of the Hansard record. I will read part of one of those letters of explanation: Only $4.65m was available in total last financial year for grants to projects spread across Australia. It is not surprising that the total value of requests for funding greatly exceeded the monies available and I regret to advise you that your request has been unsuccessful. A phone number was given for people who required elaboration on any aspects of the project or the local government plan. I just hope that the information available to them at that phone number was a good deal more illuminating that the explanation offered in the letter. When applicants have no real idea of what was deficient about their proposed project, they can be justified in feeling angry. Can the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) provide an assurance that detailed reasons for rejection are available to unsuccessful candidates, or was the Senate Estimates Committee misled? Applications closed on 31 October for grants in this financial year. I would like to know how many applicants put forward proposals and what would be the total cost of those proposals? The guidelines for the 1985-86 year give no weighting to the criteria for assessing projects. I would like from the Minister some idea of whether there is any predetermined allocation for each State. At a later date I would like to have incorporated in Hansard the written instructions that have been given to officers assessing those projects. I believe it is extremely important with grants of this kind that information should be available to the public and to the people applying for those grants. This should be a matter of course. A better type of answer should certainly be given to people who have put an enormous amount of effort into preparing an application for a grant. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.07) —It is my understanding that, under the system as it was, the management structures and the staff available were not sufficient to provide in writing the detailed information that Senator Vigor and various clients required. It is for that reason that they received the letter to which Senator Vigor referred, with a phone number so that they could get further detailed information. In future that will be rectified. I am also informed that under the new applications the period for application had been extended to the end of the year. So we cannot give Senator Vigor the details that he requires now. The guidelines for applicants are available. They come in the form of a manual and been released to every local government body. I will seek from the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) approval for such a manual to be made available to Senator Vigor but I do not think it is sensible or possible to have such a manual incorporated in Hansard, any more than it would be sensible or possible to have similar manuals from other departments incorporated in Hansard. Senator Vigor —I thank the Minister for that. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill, including postponed clauses 1 to 8-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without requests, but with a recommendation; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 10 September. In Committee Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Committee approves the Statement, for the year 1984-85, of the Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charge thereto, pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.15) —The Senate is debating-somewhat suddenly-the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. When Senator Messner was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Fraser Government, he set up a joint committee with the Returned Services League and various other ex-service organisations to examine the Repatriation Act 1920, with its then some 90 amendments and other associated legislation, with a view to removing anomalies and rationalising, updating, simplifying and consolidating the whole in one Act and in a form that was readily understood. That avenue of consultation was put in place by the coalition, and for a while it was maintained by the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the present Government. But then, instead of consultation, this Government, in the absence of this Minister, who was then overseas, embarked on a savage attack on veterans in the May mini-Budget. Ex-servicemen who had already fought for their country should not, at this stage of their life, have had to fight for their rights to be heard and consulted, but they had to do so. In May 1985, 40 years after the end of World War II, 35 years after the Korean War, and 10 years after Vietnam the Federal Labor Government selected Australian veterans for particular and unwelcome attention. Before then, ex-service organisations and the Parliament had had an opportunity to consider an exposure draft of the new legislation. In the May mini-Budget the Government introduced the nasties from the proposed legislation and included them as a Budget measure. The coalition parties reacted responsibly to this devious Budget measure strategy. As a responsible opposition, we could not oppose the Budget measure; but we did, with the support of the Australian Democrats, succeed in inserting a sunset clause in the Bill. That forced the Government into bringing the measure back into the Parliament before the end of this year, and we made it clear to the Government at that time that it would have to consult extensively with ex-service organisations. We received much criticism-some of it personally hurtful-for allegedly not supporting the Democrats in some of the views that they were putting forward at that time. But, in fact, the Democrats were only posturing as to views which might win them votes from veterans, well knowing that they would never have to act in government. But by forcing the Government to consult with its clients-in other words, the ex-service organisations-we now have a better Bill. It still, of course, has its shortcomings and, clearly, the courts ultimately will have to determine the meaning of some areas of it. But most of it is acceptable to the clients, and, with some amendments which I hope we shall carry during this debate, it might be made an even better Bill. On the other hand, as a responsible opposition, we must remember that this is a government measure and respond accordingly. By shooting from the hip in May, this Government caused enormous and unnecessary worry and concern to many older veterans and created an unnecessarily emotional and tense atmosphere for the discussions and consultations which followed the May mini-Budget. Much credit must go the veterans' organisations for their responsible approach. In particular, the key role played by the National President of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys, should be acknowledged. The Senate is now faced with a complex piece of legislation full of legalities. It certainly will not be readily understood by veterans who try to read it and the Government, in fact, acknowledges that the key measure in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, clause 119, will need to be tested in the courts. That is one of the things which cause the Opposition much concern. We suspect that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has such a hang-up about the two cases known as Law and O'Brien that it is spoiling for a fight in the High Court of Australia to test the current legislation. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to describe the Bill which we are debating tonight as a breeding ground for litigation. The explanatory memorandum comprises 162 pages which, alone, is an indication of the complexity of the legislation. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has 10 pages of reservations in respect of lack of parliamentary scrutiny, reasonableness of time and place, self-incrimination, liability, non-reviewable decisions and discretions, ministerial determinations and burden of proof. In the Committee of the Whole I will move some amendments that reflect that Committee's reservations. The valuable contributions made by the Veterans' and Defence Service Council and its Chairman, Rear-Admiral Guy Griffiths, along with the roles of the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association, Legacy and its co-ordinating council, the War Widows Guild, the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association, the Vietnam Veterans' Association and many other organisations should also be acknowledged. It says much for the good temper of these organisations that breakthroughs have been achieved, in particular the deletion of the iniquitous 40-year rule. Veterans' organisations have been responsive to the fact that, at present, Australia's economic climate is very bleak and fiscal restraint must be exercised. At the same time, they have sought assurances that adequate funds will be provided and used efficiently and to the utmost effect in looking after our veterans. Despite its long period of gestation, the Veterans' Entitlements Bill contains a number of drafting errors which, I understand, will be corrected by the Government in the autumn session. Those areas apparently relate to hazardous service in particular. The Liberal and National parties have always cared for our defence forces. We must ensure that those presently serving receive their just entitlements. The Opposition recognises that a number of general improvements have been made to the new Bill compared with the original draft exposure. Of course, the Minister would like the Senate to believe that there are a great many improvements but the list of voiced and written concerns of the veterans speaks for itself. I understand that the Minister has given representatives of ex-service organisations an assurance that, in the autumn session, the Government will rectify drafting errors in the Bill and that those amendments will be backdated to 5 December or the date of commencement of this Bill. In due course, I will seek that assurance from the Minister. In May the coalition parties assured ex-service men and women that where their claims were dealt with between May of this year and the passage of this Bill we would ensure that they were not disadvantaged. We will move an amendment to that effect. The centrepiece of this legislation is, without question, clause 119 replacing section 47 of the previous Repatriation Act. It attempts to set out the standard of proof. The new clause 119 has a revised definition which the RSL and other ex-service organisations, but not all in the veterans' community, have been prepared to accept. It seems that the Government or, in any event, departmental advisers were concerned by comments made in the High Court about possible interpretations of the old section 47. Those comments were just that-obiter by the judges and not binding on future decisions. I believe that the Law case would have succeeded under the new clause 119 on its merits. I also believe that the O'Brien case might also have succeeded under the new clause 119 on the evidence produced. However, the Government has reacted by introducing this measure. It is complex and, in effect, it takes particular comments of High Court judges and adopts or counters them. So reasonable hypothesis is adopted and presumptions are negatived. The purpose seems to be to prevent an application from simply establishing service, war service, and a condition, or a medical condition, and then saying that the determining tribunal should prove that the condition is not a result of war service. The legislation states that the tribunal is not allowed to presume that conclusion and before granting the claim it must be of the opinion that the material before it raises at least a reasonable hypothesis connecting the condition with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person. I doubt that the old section 47 would have been so interpreted in the ultimate by the High Court but the Opposition accepts that it is the Government's prerogative to introduce this measure to counter its fears. I have some concern that the new clause might, in fact, have gone too far. I raise, for example, the consequences of sub-clause 119 (5) (d). I hope that the sub-clause will not be used to disadvantage a genuine claimant who is unable to establish some minor proof and needs the Repatriation Commission to make a minor presumption. I understand that the Minister has given representatives of ex-service organisations an assurance that no part of clause 119 will act in an unfair way to the detriment of veterans and I will seek, in due course, an assurance from the Minister to that effect. I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider what assurances he can give to the Senate about the possible interpretations of clause 119 in relation to claims by veterans. In fact, the Opposition will move an amendment to clause 119, not an amendment which goes to the kernel of the clause but an amendment which will simply make it clear that claims prior to 15 May 1985 shall be considered under the old section 47 and claims since then shall be considered under the legislation we are debating at present, not under the amendments which were carried in May this year. It may very well be that the measure, as presented in the Senate tonight, covers the second possibility but, in any event, we will move an amendment to make sure that there is no doubt about it. With some 90 existing statutes to be consolidated in this measure it is not possible to detail all the clauses which embrace a measure of controversy. But key areas are, firstly, the iniquitous assets test on service pensioners. Our belief is that 13,272 veterans have had their pensions reduced or cancelled by the assets test. Secondly, there are problems concerning the assessment of rates of pension and those people whose disability worsens after leaving the work force. While the legislation does not prevent someone over 65 from receiving a totally and permanently incapacitated pension, it requires that there be a loss associated with remunerative work as a consequence of the condition of the veteran. The veterans' organisations and the Opposition seek an assurance from the Minister that this area will be reviewed. I understand that the Minister has indicated to veterans' organisations that the Government will investigate the concept of what has now become known as an exceptional disability allowance. The Australian Democrats have an amendment in this regard, but, in our view, no responsible opposition could impose this provision on a government simply because it seems like a good idea. It might seem like a good idea but, clearly, the Government must be given the opportunity to explore its ramifications. I turn to the Democrats' proposal to extend the definition of allied veterans. I assure the Minister that, when we get around to that provision in the Committee stage, I will be seeking from the Minister some details as to what would be the costs of adopting the Democrats' amendment in relation to the definition of allied veterans. Our shadow Minister in the other place has been told by an officer of the Department of Veterans' Affairs that the cost will be $20m. I am not sure whether that is $20m per annum or $20m cumulative. I am not sure, but I think it is $20m in 1989-90 dollar terms. I think that is what was put. I will be seeking from the Minister details of how that is made up. It is estimated that some 4,000 people will be eligible for that allied veteran's entitlement by 1989-90. I would like to know how the Government has been able to estimate that 4,000 allied veterans have managed to get to Australia. We are talking about ex-Vietnamese soldiers serving in the Vietnamese forces, who, having been overrun in late 1972, early 1973, managed to escape and make their way to Australia. How many Thais and United States servicemen have come to Australia in that period? The Government's advisers have been able to estimate that there are 4,000. Quite frankly, that seems to me to be a nonsense, an absolute guess. I would be interested to get the details of how that-what I think is a guess-is made up. Under the legislation introduced by the Fraser Government, those people would be entitled, as allied veterans, to the pension at the earlier age of 60 instead of 65. This Government is saying with regard to those people: `If you are an allied veteran who served in the Vietnam war you will not get any benefits when you come to Australia.' To my mind, that indicates this Government's approach to the Vietnam war. The Government brought back our troops in November 1973 as if it was ashamed of them, instead of bringing them back proudly. Now, in effect, it is saying: `There was something different about the Vietnam war. It was not a war like the other wars that Australia fought in. This Government will not allow any benefits to these allied personnel who served with Australians in Vietnam'. I will not have a bar of any suggestions that there are difficulties of proof; that is up to the applicants. The applicants themselves will have to establish that they were serving in the regular Vietnamese army, or whatever the force was. Those are questions of proof. I am talking about the legal situation in regard to allied veterans who, under the Fraser initiative introduced in 1979, would currently be entitled to be treated as allied veterans but who, under this Government's legislation, will be chopped off apparently because in 1990 dollar terms-this has been estimated by someone in the Department using some statistical information or whatever-it might cost $20m, and I presume that that is per annum. Thirdly, it is iniquitous that after 30 December 1985 recruits to our defence forces will be ineligible for repatriation cover. The Government says that it will introduce a military compensation Act but that, in the meantime, these recruits will be covered by workers compensation. Being in the Services cannot be equated to being in a civilian job. Much more is expected of service personnel, and opportunites to promote their own causes are severely limited. They cannot go out on strike. If they are required to work 50 hours a week, they have to work 50 hours a week. Indeed, the inadequacy of workers compensation for service personnel was the main reason for bringing peacetime defence forces under the repatriation umbrella in the first place. Given this Government's shabby treatment of service personnel and its May 1985 attack on repatriation benefits, should this Government be trusted to provide an adequate military compensation Act? The Opposition says: Let us see the package first. I must say, though, that I welcome the deletion from this legislation of the miserable arbitrary 40-year rule introduced in May this year. It imposed on war widows a more stringent standard of proof 40 years after the conflict in which their spouses were involved. The deletion of this miserable provision in itself is justification of the sunset clause we introduced in May this year. Many other areas of the legislation are the subject of some degree of controversy, not the least of which are the different levels of entitlements and categories for allied veterans which are embraced by the legislation. There are, of course, limits to the financial resources available, but successive Australian governments made commitments to Australian service personnel and their dependants in war and, until now, they have honoured those commitments in peacetime. It should be noted that in May this year the Government made it clear that the purpose of its amendments was to save money. That purpose has been continued in this legislation. Estimated figures and statistical costs were quoted in May by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in the absence of the Minister. Those figures and costs failed to recognise that Australia was in World War II from the very beginning, with a high percentage of our population in the forces, and that most of our troops were serving overseas, or at least very long distances from their homes and families. More and more of these ex-service men and women are passing the age of 65, not 60, which is the requirement for a service pension. These men and women are now exceeding the age of 65 and they would be entitled to an age pension anyway. In my view, the figures quoted in May this year by Senator Grimes-he has walked into the chamber-were statistical nonsense, designed to confuse the people as to the benefits being paid to our veterans. The difference in costs is actually the difference between medical treatment under repatriation and medical treatment under Medicare. That should be insignificant. If it is not insignificant, that is the Government's responsibility, not the patient's responsibility. The Government should be looking at its own costs and whether or not a simpler, less expensive system could be introduced which would do away with the enormous administrative burden of this legislation. I ask: What is the cost of administering legislation that is so complex and clearly a breeding ground for litigation? As John Howard recently said, ex-service men and women `should be treated with the greatest generosity that responsible government can afford'. Surely that is little enough for the community to pay where veterans have service-related disabilities and health which cannot be restored. One amendment that is welcome is the removal of an anomaly with the decision to cover some defence personnel who served in Vietnam and had previously been denied benefits and also to cover the crews of HMAS Sydney and other support ships. But the cut-off date of 11 January 1973-the official date of Australian withdrawal from Vietnam-may fail to cover Australian forces retained in Saigon to protect our embassy until July 1973. This must be clarified as they should be covered by repatriation benefits. It is sad to note some of the Government statements which sought to prove by statistics that the Australian repatriation system was the most generous in the world and that it remains so regardless of these changes. The Government uses these statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp post-for support rather than illumination. Those statistics are irrelevant. Firstly, we can only judge our repatriation system in relation to the Australian community. Secondly, the numbers it is required to support result principally from the structure of our forces at that time, their periods in combat, casualty rates, numbers of prisoners of war and their treatment, the environments they fought in, the opposition they were up against, and the ratio of combat to support forces. Thirdly, there is the question of the cost-effectiveness of the administering department. We would be hard pressed to convince those war widows who have struggled to bring up families on the war widows pension that the system is generous. They will tell us of the debt they owe to Legacy and other voluntary organisations. We would be hard pressed to establish that our repatriation hospitals were the best in the world. In particular, there is a strong feeling among Vietnam veterans that the Department is unsympathetic to their problems and that it lacks staff with experience of the Vietnam war that could assist and counsel them. I urge the Minister to appoint many more Vietnam veterans to the Department. To some degree this is also true of Korean veterans and those who served in the Malayan emergency. I think it is timely to remind this chamber of the debt Australia owes to its veterans. Few of our allies were sent into battle quite so ill-prepared or ill-equipped. I remember Wirraways against Zeros, ships without adequate anti-aircraft guns and troops, desert trained and clothed, dumped on the Kokoda Trail. They were engaged in more military misadventures and in battle for longer periods than those of most other nations, and they suffered on a per capita basis some of the worst casualties of war as a result of enemy action, incarceration and endemic diseases, and in the case of Vietnam the Whitlam Government brought them home as if they were in disgrace instead of proudly honouring them. Notwithstanding the repeated admonition not to, we do forget. Senator Tate —You are a bloody disgrace. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator LEWIS —The Opposition will not oppose the second reading of the Bill but I now move as an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate- (a) expresses its concern in relation to- (i) the reimposition of the Government's assets test in respect of veterans' service pensions because of its iniquitous impact, (ii) the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the date of commencement of the new legislation without a new military compensation Act being in place, (iii) the creation of different levels of entitlement, and categories, in respect of allied veterans and war widows and, (iv) the degree of anomaly associated with the retrospectivity implicit in various aspects of the proposed changes; and (b) calls on the Government to monitor closely the operation of the new legislation because of the significance of the changes and the many new definitions and provisions it introduces into the administration of veterans' affairs''. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I remind honourable senators that interjections are disorderly and bad language is grossly disorderly. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.45) —The Veterans' Entitlements Bill, as Senator Lewis indicated, has had a long and somewhat tortuous history. When Senator Messner was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs he launched an inquiry into the whole area of repatriation legislation. It is an area which, over the years, has seen many amendments but rarely a consolidation. Indeed, this is the first major consolidation of this legislation since the 1920s. When Senator Messner announced the inquiry into the operation and, hopefully, consolidation of the legislation he also announced that no attempt would be made during that inquiry to lessen any of the benefits then available to pensioners and beneficiaries under the Repatriation Act. Senator Gietzelt repeated that assurance upon becoming Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Labor Government in 1983. Hence, what we should be looking at tonight in this legislation is how well that consolidation has taken place and whether improvements still have to be made and, if so, whether they should be made in the Committee stage of the consideration of this Bill. I would hope that we can make many amendments at this stage because I believe that quite a number of those amendments are fairly straightforward. The need for some of them is obviously as a result of oversights and they ought to have appeared in the legislation before now; however, others are matters of principle. Obviously the Government's policy on these matters differs from the policy of the Australian Democrats and we will see when the various amendments are moved whether the Government's position differs from that of the majority in this chamber. This veterans legislation is still a very complex document. It is still a document which will be fraught with difficulties of implementation and I urge the Government to set about now, at the earliest possibility, the establishment of a monitoring team with a view to investigating problems in the legislation as they arise-many of those problems will arise only as the legislation goes into practice-so that we can have rapid and effective amendments to the legislation brought in. One of the lessons we should have learned from the history of this legislation since the 1920s is that many of those problems can linger on simply through the failure to amend the legislation effectively once problems appear. Hence, one sees a sorry history of many of the veterans being put off side simply by want of an amendment which is necessary and which in the past has ultimately come about but not until many of the veterans have been disillusioned with the operation of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, of the Repatriation Commission and in recent times of the various review tribunals. With regard to the cost of implementing this Bill, we all understand that it is one of the major cost items borne by any government. It is an item that is difficult to estimate as strictly a veterans' entitlement item. By that I mean that the service pension, for example, with some differences with regard to age entitlements, is identical to the age pension. Many of the repatriation benefits which are provided in the various repatriation hospitals around Australia are identical to those provided by Medicare. Hence it is really not fair to say that the totality of the amount of money which appears in the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs would appear there if those other areas were not allocated to their proper places. The extra amount which is paid to veterans over and above that which would be paid if they were other members of our community is the amount that is specifically earmarked for those people who have been on service or in the defence forces of Australia. We are talking about a much lesser amount. With regard to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, the principle enunicated by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, when she was talking about another area, is pertinent. She said this: I support the Caucus view-- this was in respect of university fees-- that majority areas of philosophical commitment, such as that to public education-- and judging by the speeches of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs I assume that there would be an area of major philosophical commitment to veterans' affairs as well-- ought to be maintained, even at a time of economic hardship. That seems to me to be a reasonable principle, one which surely should apply in this area. It is a principle which I hope the Government will apply in this area. When we get to the Committee stage of this Bill and we are talking about costs, we need to bear that in mind. The other thing that we need to bear in mind is the attitude that the various political parties in this place are taking on the current tax reform package, part of which is before the Senate. Certainly, the rest of the package will be before this House in a matter of months. The amounts of money contained in some of those Bills is well in excess of $150m and in some it is $200m. Public announcements have been made that many of those Bills will be opposed by the Opposition parties. These are revenue raising exercises. I must say, I would prefer the Government to be able to raise money in order to fulfil its obligations to veterans, rather than knock back those Bills and then say: `We're sorry, we can't fulfil our obligations'. Fairly obviously, the Government must be able to raise revenue in order to be able to pay out in this area and to fulfil the commitments made, not only by this Government but by every government in Australia's history. The dollars which the community currently provides in this area are provided by way of compensation to people who still carry in their bodies or in their minds the scars of the wars in which they have fought. The cost of a war does not finish upon the declaration of the end of that war. It is carried by many of our citizens and their families. Providing such compensation was a solemn obligation undertaken at various stages when Australia was in dire conflict, a solemn obligation that must be fulfilled. We should be very careful when we say that we cannot or will not continue with any of the benefits which we have provided in the past because of the cost. We have to be very careful about what we are saying when we say that, because we know that if Australia were engaged in a war tomorrow we would find the money. Undoubtedly there is money to fight wars, but it is interesting how, in times of peace, money is never available to pay for the cost of wars in terms of human suffering and in the lives of the families of the people whom we ask to fight them. The last speaker, Senator Lewis, raised a pertinent issue-and this is the last point that I wish to make about the costs in this area until we get to the Committee stage-and that is the cost of the administration of this particular exercise. In the past I have suggested some ways in which we could streamline the administration areas where we could save on administration and spend the dollars on the veterans. I have made suggestions taken from various examples around the world and I have gone to the extent of introducing private members Bills on these matters, so I do not wish to reiterate the points I have made previously. However, I suggest that there are some areas in which automatic acceptance is and should be possible. I have suggested in terms of the complete computerisation of the operation, which is now under way within the Department, that we may find a certain coming together of various problems. Take the example of the soldier who has been in a concentration camp for six months and has certain diseases-we may find on going through the system that such people have an acceptance rate of 80 per cent or 85 per cent. We can easily do the figures that show that to put them through the system costs more than to give them the automatic entitlement. Quite frankly I would prefer the few who are not entitled under that system to get the extra dollars getting them, to that money being spent on the operation of the system itself. It is the system which brings the whole thing into disrepute so often. Indeed, as the Minister has said before-and I would certainly support him in this-we do have an extremely generous repatriation system in this country. Why then are there so many problems? It is not because of the generosity of the system, it is the operation of the system. I would much prefer us to work out ways in which that system's operation does not involve putting everyone through it and does not exacerbate many of the illnesses that those veterans suffer as they grind through the bureaucratic mill. I wish to point to another interesting fact about the Department. People may draw their own conclusion from the statistics. For every 1,000 surviving veterans, the number of public servants available to process their applications was 11 in 1966, 12 in 1971, 17 in 1979 and 22 in 1984. In other words, between 1966 and 1984 the number of public servants for every 1,000 surviving veterans rose from 11 to 22. I have put this proposition at quite a number of meetings of veterans' organisations around Australia: Has the operation of the system doubled in efficiency in that time? Let us be very clear what we are talking about when we mention costs. There are places where reforms can be undertaken and there are places where costs can be saved. But let us not save those costs at the expense of the veterans. Let us have a look, or ask our public servants to have a look, at saving the costs amongst themselves. Let us try that first, if we have to save dollars and cents. I turn now to what I consider to be one of the interesting parts of the debate that has gone on over the past year or so with regard to the changes the Government has mooted in this area; that is, the changes made to old section 47 of the Act, which is now proposed new section 119. The Minister said in his second reading speech-it is a line that the Minister has been using in quite a number of places: The Government does not accept that a pension should be payable where there is no evidence to suggest a war service relationship to the claimed disability or death. The Minister said that with regard to the O'Brien case and suggested that that was what the majority judgment of the High Court of Australia said in the O'Brien case. I quote this section from the end of the majority judgment in the O'Brien case: The question for the Tribunal is whether it is satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim; it will disallow a claim if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that `any fact necessary to establish entitlement' . . . does not exist. That is the High Court's interpretation of the law. I wish that the lawyers who have been running around in the Department spreading this particular view would shut up. Plainly, it is not what the judgment of the High Court said, if anybody ever has bothered to read it. What is more, it is not the judgment of Mr Justice Brennan in that case. It is obvious, in terms of the briefing notes that have been given to the Minister, that his advisers have not even read the judgment of Brennan, because Brennan's dissent from the majority judgment was not with regard to the standard of proof but with regard to the medical evidence. Yet the Minister has been floating around this nation saying that he has to change the Act because the O'Brien case will allow unfettered licence. It would do nothing of the sort. The High Court judges in fact were interpreting the law as it was laid down. That interpretation is very clear; people must be able to establish the context and the tribunal has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim. In other words, it is the reverse onus of proof, which has been a very important function. The start of that reverse onus of proof came from a previous Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Dr Evatt. It is often entitled the Evatt amendment because he fought for many years to have it included after the Second World War. I emphasise this particular point on the O'Brien decision because I think that it illustrates a mentality that has set the veterans against the Department and the Department against the veterans. It is an unhealthy development that has taken place over a number of years, not only during the term of the current Government, which I do not think is useful for this area. Certainly it is not beneficial, either for the Department or for the veterans, yet anyone who knows the area knows and understands what is going on. There is an understanding amongst veterans that the Department is an adversary. The Department has no brief to be an adversary. The Department in most of its operations is not an adversary and in most of the things its staff do it is very supportive of the veterans and their problems. Hence, where does this feeling come from within the veteran community? When one looks at the day to day handling of individual cases, in almost every case it is exemplary. Where are we looking for the problem? The problem clearly is in the presentation of cases at the various levels-the operation whereby the lawyers, the various people who present the cases, the various appeals that are made and the taking of cases through higher and higher courts leads to the point where this type of statement has been made by the High Court judges: With all respect and despite the valiant advocacy of the Solicitor-General, we consider it to be a surprising conclusion. They then go on to talk about why they thought it was a surprising conclusion. When one reads the judgment, one has to ask why this case ever happened at all. Why do some of those cases ever seem to take place? It has been established, I think, in the minds of many veterans that there seems to be a group within the Department who think that it is their God-given duty to do the work of the Treasury. The duty of the Department is to look after its clients, the veterans. It is the duty of Treasury to look after the Treasury. I think that we could have a much better system operating if those two operations were not so confused by some people at senior levels within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Without that, from the counter staff upwards, most of the clients who have to deal with the Department would find that their dealings always were done in the most exemplary manner. This particular Bill will not affect the operations of the Department. That Bill went through at the end of last year and we have yet to see whether that particular operation has borne the fruits that this Government hoped it might bear. I believe that quite beyond the legislation there must be attitude changes to accompany this consolidation and, hopefully, those attitude changes on the part of people in senior positions within the Department will enhance the operations of veterans' affairs in this country. I will deal with the Bill in more detail in the Committee stage, but I will rehearse briefly where we are since a previous change to this legislation took place at the end of May this year. The Government has looked again at this, has had discussions with many veterans' organisations and has dropped a number of the proposals it had in that previous legislation. It has taken the opportunity also, hopefully in cognisance of the types of things that the various veterans' groups have been telling them, to rectify what I hope-I suppose in charity I should say that-were omissions. One omission which particularly intrigued me was the one in proposed section 85 (2) which again eliminated pulmonary tuberculosis. I would have thought that would have been one which would have got in, considering the history of that particular problem in the Senate in the past five years, but for some reason or other that was eliminated in the first draft, but has now been put back in as one of the acceptable areas. There are a number of other matters at which I wish to look in the Committee stage. I will propose some 17 amendments in the Committee stage and, hopefully, we can discuss those in detail. I wish to point to a couple of amendments, other than the one dealing with proposed section 119, that will be necessary in this area and also in the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, with regard to the retrospective development of this legislation. Undoubtedly there is a retrospective element that applies to people within the system-those people who have gone into the system and sought determinations and have been in there at the time of the promulgation of the legislation in May. During the Committee stage of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill I raised a question as to whether clauses 69 and 70 were retrospective. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) who was acting for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs at the time said that they were not. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills said that it thought they were. However, the problem with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was that it could not work out why two clauses were in the legislation which said exactly contradictory things. The reason given was that the draftsman was given two different and separate briefs and decided to include both of them in the Bill. I think it has now been accepted by the Minister that undoubtedly the legislation applies to all those whose applications and appeals are in the determination system. The problem with this exercise is that, in the normal course of events in changing these types of determinations, in most government areas dealing with social security the date at which the Bill is promulgated becomes the date for the operation of the new legislation. So those people who, for example, put in applications under the former home loans system-applications which would have been allowed under the previous rules-after the date of promulgation of the new legislation have to be assessed under the new set of rules. I think that is fair. Quite obviously there is a disadvantage in having a cut-off point, but there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. Making the legislation retrospective to include the people who are in the system involves some major inequities and injustices. I say that because once a person has gone into the system seeking a determination he does not really have any control over how speedily his determination takes place. I am quite sure that all honourable senators in this chamber who have been here a while can go to their filing cabinets and pull out a drawer in which they have a list of files of various cases they have taken up on behalf of constituents. Many such cases involve people who have been wandering around within the system sometimes for two, three, four or five years. In fact I had one case which had been in the system for seven years. At the end of that exercise some of these people are granted pensions. Others are granted part pensions or disability allowances or are rejected. However, whatever the outcome, the ability to influence the pace at which the determination moves through the system as often as not is outside their control. Sometimes it is within their purview but often it is outside it. I am concerned with those people whose purview is outside. They have presented all the material they have. Their files are lost. They receive bad advice from somewhere, so they put in another claim, which means that their files are pulled out of the system where they were proceeding at a reasonable pace, and shunted off somewhere else. There is a whole host of reasons why these problems can occur. They happen even in the best-regulated operations. I do not want to look at what actually happens, except to say that it does happen and that it is outside the control of the person involved. I think that those people who went into the determination system prior to the date of the previous legislation ought to have their determinations made under the previous rules. Likewise, those people who have had determinations made but against which there may be some appeal operating-either one they have launched at some stage or one which has been lodged against them at some higher level; it is not important who initiated the appeal-ought to have their determinations made under the previous rules. Determinations which are now in the system will now be assessed under a new set of rules. That hardly seems to me to be fair to those people. I ask the Minister to look very closely at this issue. I will certainly be moving an amendment to have a closer debate on it. I hope that at that stage we will have some details from the Minister as to the numbers involved, the extent of the operation, and the probabilities and possibilities of injustices that may have already occurred and are likely to occur in the future. For the benefit of the Minister I also flag now an amendment I have already circulated in the chamber and which I will move in the Committee stage with regard to the statement the Minister made about the people who were on board the various vessels that went to South Vietnam. I draw the Minister's attention to that amendment. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.15) —The Opposition supports the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and will support amendments to be moved by Senator Lewis in the Committee stage. The object of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is to reconstruct the original legislation that goes back to the 1920s. Since the 1920s the legislation has been amended about 90 times. The legislation deals with benefits payable to veterans in the form of repatriation benefits. The Bill seeks to streamline and consolidate a very large body of interlocking legislation. Much of that legislation is cumbersome, some of it is obscure, and some of it is outdated. The existing legislation has attracted a considerable amount of criticism on the record, both from judges and by the Repatriation Commission. They have drawn attention both to the very high legal costs associated with the legislation and to its high administrative costs. They have referred to the delays that are inherent in the application of the legislation in the way it has been drafted. It is incumbent upon all of us in this Parliament to honour the repatriation benefits that the Australian people, through this Parliament, in earlier times undertook to provide as recompense and support for those who served overseas and for their dependants. Those repatriation benefits are in return for the sacrifices made. In too many cases those sacrifices were of the supreme kind and no adequate compensation can be made for them. I well remember a time in the late 1950s, nearly 30 years ago, when I was driving through France. I had driven past a whole line of signs in the Somme Valley which said `Imperial War Graves Commission', such-and-such cemetery. I stopped at a small, beautifully neat cemetery, the Adelaide Cemetery. I walked into the cemetery and found all the headstones neatly ordered in their serried ranks. They all had their backs to the road. When I reached the rear of the cemetery, by the stone of remembrance, I turned and looked back. I think there were only about 600 graves in that cemetery, but over 90 per cent of them had the rising sun on them of the First Australian Imperial Force. I still remember the great emotion I felt when I recognised that these were Australians on the other side of the world who had never come home. If one goes through the Somme one comes to the great Australian memorial at Fouilloy on the ridge north of Villers Bretonneux. On the scrolls at either side of the main tower-there is a painting of it just off King's Hall-are inscribed the names of 10,000 Australians of the First AIF who have no known graves. It is for these people and for those who survived and to make some compensation for the injuries they sustained, for the sacrifices they made, for the careers that were interrupted or destroyed, that the repatriation benefits were instituted by the Australian Parliament. We made a promise we have to honour. That promise is not measurable solely in terms of money. We have to honour the spirit in which that promise was given. It is very demeaning for the veterans of Australia to have to ask for their entitlements. They should never be placed in that position. None of those veterans enlisted for repatriation benefits. They enlisted to serve their country. The benefits were very secondary to them. We made that undertaking. It is an undertaking that has had bipartisan support from the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party through the history of this Parliament. The need for vigilance is now greater than it ever has been. We now have the lowest number of veterans in this Parliament that we have had since 1918. Senator Gietzelt has indicated that we have five in this chamber. I do not know the number in the whole Parliament but it would be very low. We have fewer than we have ever had and we will have fewer in the future. So the responsibility is on us here to honour those agreements. I can do no more than to echo the statement by Dr Evatt who, speaking of the Labor Goverment which was in power some 30 or 40 years ago, said: The Government regards the honouring of the promise made to fighting forces and dependants . . . as an integral part of its war efforts. It is, regrettably, true that the present Labor Government has allowed the priority for veterans' affairs to be set at a lower level than its predecessors in the Labor Party have permitted. The low water mark was the legislation which was introduced in May of this year, namely, the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, the Bill that this Bill seeks to supplant. The biggest mistake that the Labor Party made in that case was in not consulting with the veterans and their organisations about the contents of that Bill. Those of us on this side of the chamber in the Liberal Party and the National Party were left with the sole recourse of inserting a sunset clause so that that Bill would expire in six months, and it expires on 5 December. We did that with the purpose of allowing the Government to consult the organisations that represent the veterans of Australia. The Government has had effective discussions with those bodies. In fairness, it must be said that they have largely supported the present Bill that the Government has now brought down. But that earlier lack of consultation should never have occurred. The veterans' groups are disciplined. They are visible. They are easy to communicate with and they are easy to observe in the Australian community. There was no reason on earth for the Government not to be able to enter into effective dialogue with them earlier this year. In a sense, this Bill had its origins when Senator Messner was Minister for Veterans' Affairs and he started a review. He set up a committee with the Returned Services League and other groups and had discussions with them as to what changes needed to be made to update the legislation. Referring back to the Bill introduced in May of this year, Senator Lewis mentioned the criticism that the Liberal Party and the National Party suffered as our actions were misrepresented by our political opponents. All I did in return was to say to the many people who approached me asking why we took such action on the Bill: `We need to provide a mechanism for you to consult with the Government and we need to give the Government a chance to have a second look at this legislation. All I ask from you is to judge the Liberal Party and the National Party by our record in government since 1918 with respect to supporting the spirit and the intention of repatriation legislation'. I think it is very clear from the legislation that is before us tonight that the position taken by the Liberal Party and the National Party in the Senate enabled the Government to get off the hook it was on as a result of the bad legislation that it introduced in May of this year. This Bill was debated for a very long time in the House of Representatives, and tonight we have had the benefit of an excellent speech by Senator Lewis. It is not my intention to go through this Bill clause by clause. There are some salient features to which I would like to refer. I will deal first of all with the good points of the Bill. Clause 119, which will replace section 47 of the Repatriation Act and which deals with the standard of proof, is a very considerable improvement on the proposals in the previous Bill. The Returned Services League and other organisations, but not all the organisations representing veterans, have indicated their support. The Opposition's view is that it is a considerable improvement on section 47 of the Repatriation Act, but we make it very clear that there is a need to monitor its operation very closely to see that it operates fairly and objectively. The second good point in the Bill is the deletion of the 40-year rule, which would have related to war widows. The 40-year requirement was a mealy-mouthed Uriah Heep action of the Government which did it no credit at all and, ultimately, it would have had no signficant savings for the Treasury. The Government was moved in making changes in the May legislation by the Law case and the O'Brien case. In a legal sense, I think that the O'Brien case was correct. There is a real concern with respect to the liability of the Commonwealth relevant to the spirit of the legislation that the O'Brien decision caused. It certainly created significant financial implications for the Commonwealth. We recognise that the Government had a responsibility to correct those anomalies, not that it is our view that the Government should restrict funding for veterans' affairs. We believe that there must be adequate funds and that those funds must be used effectively. I can do no more than echo the words of the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr John Howard, when he said recently that ex-servicemen should be treated with the greatest generosity that the responsible government can afford. The Government does believe that it has corrected the anomalies created by the O'Brien case and that just claims that arise from war-related disabilities will be covered. The Opposition will be watching to see that this is so in practice. Let us look briefly at some of the bad points that are in the legislation. First of all, the iniquitous assets test is still applied to service pensioners. In the last financial year 13,272 service pensioners have had their pensions either reduced or cancelled under that test. We make it very clear that when we are returned to government we will restore the entitlement to those 13,272 pensioners who have lost it under the assets test of this Government. The second bad point in this legislation is that it will remove from new enlistees in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy the entitlement for repatriation cover after 30 December this year. It is the intention of the Government to introduce some military compensention legislation to cover those new enlistees, and the Opposition supports the introduction of a military compensation scheme. We believe that repatriation benefits should be intended for overseas service and that the type of service that is involved for members of the Australian defence forces in peacetime is of a different nature from that involved in wartime. But we cannot go along with the view of the Government that somehow or other the service personnel who are not covered by repatriation benefits for the 12 months, 18 months or two years that it will take for the military compensation legislation to come in can be covered by workers compensation-that is, if Mr Holding, who represents Senator Gietzelt in the House of Representatives, is to be taken as echoing decided Government policy on this issue. When this point was made in the House of Representatives he interjected and said that servicemen and women would be covered by workers compensation. Just as we recognise that there is a difference between war service and peace service for members of the Australian Defence Force, we recognise also that there is a very big difference between servicemen and civilian personnel. It is an absolute nonsense to equate the risks that servicemen and women run with civilian life. Tonight, the Navy will have crews at sea on small ships, on patrol boats, in bad weather on wet decks in Bass Strait. We will have DDGs and frigates at sea, training for war operations. Members of Army units will be out on exercises. Patrols and training groups will be in the hills of Canungra on live firing exercises, coping with all the risks that are involved in night operations of that type. Air Force crews could be flying just subsonically in F111s at about 200-feet on a terrain-following exercise, with the errie sensation of the red light from their rotating beacons flashing back from the trees, the rocks, the hills and the valleys of the border country of Queensland and New South Wales as they fly past, knowing that if one bird comes through the windscreen of a plane, both crew members will probably be dead. These are the sorts of risks our servicemen are running every day of the week in following their calling, and it is nonsense to equate them with people in a civilian occupation. That is why we will be moving the amendment that, until such time as a military compensation scheme is introduced, the service men and women of this country should remain under a repatriation benefit scheme. It is not as though the service personnel are paid so well that in some way they are covered for the risks they run. We all know that the terms and conditions of service personnel today are at a very poor level. This Government allowed the pay scales for service personnel to remain static in four years and then granted only a 5.9 per cent increase which had no retrospectivity to it. I have many examples of families of servicemen in the lower ranks-privates and corporals-who are living below the poverty line today. Some months ago I was rung up by a medical practitioner in a suburb near Enoggera in Brisbane who told me of the case of a mother who had brought her baby in to see him. The baby had a bad cold and the mother apologised for the fact that the child had a cold. In the course of conversation she explained that she had to take the child with her because she could not afford to pay for child care facilities and that she worked at night stacking food back on the shelves of a supermarket. She was forced to do that because the pay that her husband earned as a private soldier was so low that he alone could not support the family. It cannot be argued that service personnel today are covered financially for the great risks they run. The final point I make with respect to service conditions in relation to repatriation benefits is not directly covered by the Bill. I refer to the dental benefits part of the repatriation benefits, and I do so as a former dental specialist. This Government has granted an amount of $300 per year as being the level of payment that it will make for the dental health of a veteran. We are dealing with men and women veterans of the Second World War who are at least in their sixties. Those who have their own dentitions are very probably at a stage where they need quite significant dental treatment. The figure of $300 is inadeqate to restore one tooth if a crown is required, and I say that as a former crown and bridge specialist. To look at it in aggregate and say that the veterans are entitled to $300 a year over 10 years that is $3,000 and that will buy them a lot of treatment, does not go to the point of the issue. The point is that a lot of this treatment needs to be done at one time. Six, eight or more teeth might need to be restored at the one time with patients of this age. To commit these veterans to an inadequate standard of dental health, when we have made an obligation to support them through their dental health, is quite wrong. To add insult to injury, the Minister has agreed that those veterans who are full denture cases shall have the right to go to prosthetists for their dentures. That really is committing and consigning them to second rate treatment. It is not a professional form of treatment, even though some States recognise the right of dental prosthetists, who are simply dental technicians, to deal directly with the public. This is something which clearly breaches the spirit of the repatriation legislation. In summary, the Opposition views this legislation as being a considerable improvement on its predecessor of May this year. The Parliament does have an unavoidable responsibility to scrutinise and to keep a careful surveillance on this legislation. The Parliament has to honour the obligations that it accepted many years ago. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.36) —Tonight we are debating the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and cognate Bill. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill is the successor to a piece of legislation that was before the Senate in May this year. I note that this is the first time in the 65 years history of veterans' benefits that any government of any political persuasion has tried to remove benefits from the veterans of Australia. All that the returned service men and women of Australia, many of whom are now in their twilight years, at the moment want is a little bit of peace. They do not want the confusion, the worry and the drama of their pensions being put in question. They have been terribly worried and frustrated about this over the last year. I think everyone in the Senate would have had deputations from returned service personnel. The Government could have avoided all this worry and confusion if it had consulted either the Returned Services League or any of the other returned airmen or airwomen's organisations. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, may say that he sent out a draft Bill for consultation, and he may well have done that, but he certainly did not tell the people what was going to happen in the May mini-Budget. There was no warning of what the Government was going to do in that mini-Budget, when the Government reversed the onus of proof requirement for veterans seeking government help. I believe it was only because the Opposition-the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia-had the foresight to put in a six months sunset clause that these people now have some sort of legislation. It may not be perfect or as good as they had, but it is certainly better than what they were going to get in May. This sunset clause has allowed for consultation. It has allowed people from the veterans' organisations to make representations to the Government. If it had not been for the Opposition I believe the veterans would have been looking down the barrel of a very much worse piece of legislation. Everyone on this side of the parliament supports the new legislation. It is something that Senator Messner took up many years ago, I think in 1979. The Opposition recognises that the Bill will probably benefit veterans, and it approves of the change. But what the Bill does not cover is some of the benefits that have been taken away from the veterans. For instance, transport and travel allowances have been drastically reduced. Medication allowances have been reduced also and severe limitations have been introduced for veterans who need dental or optometry work. As I have said previously, this is the first government in 65 years that has sought to reduce veterans' war service pensions and entitlements. It is made clear in the Hansard of 16 May that the new arrangements that were introduced for the supply of spectacles and dental services and the care of veterans in psychiatric institutions would reduce the amount spent by $7.4m. It is interesting to note that when that legislation went through the House the whole brunt of the May mini-Budget was carried by the veterans and the rural people of Australia. Something like 75 per cent of the Government's reductions were carried by them. The key clause of the Bill is clearly clause 119, which sets out the standard of proof definitions. Whilst not every veteran in the community is happy with it, I believe the definition set out in that clause is reasonable. Sub-clause 119 (3) has the effect of invalidating the decision in the O'Brien case. Clause 119 also deletes the 40-year rule and the necessity for war widows to provide proof of war service of their spouse once 40 years has elapsed since the conflict in which the spouse was involved. That section of the Act had to be changed. It was one of the components of the former legislation which gave the most worry to war widows. The money saved was minimal but the confusion and heart- ache that it caused was dramatic. Another key clause is clause 54 which imposes an assets test on veterans. A great many people in Australia have already lost their pensions. As a result of this legislation, 13,000 veterans who had provided for their retirement will now lose their pensions. Those people have been frugal and have provided extra money to tide them over in their retirement, to give them a bit of comfort and luxury. They have worked hard to do that. But, of course, this Labor Government has taken away their pensions as a reward for their having been prepared to provide for their retirement. That is not uncommon. We have seen that happen not only with this legislation but also when the Government tried to impose an assets test on pensions. The Government has not changed; it is still pursuing the same policies. We see such policies coming through again and again. The Government is socking the people who have been thrifty and provided for their retirement, it penalises those people. The veterans are very interested to know what has happened to the money that the Government has saved from the assets test on pensions. The Minister for Community Service (Senator Grimes) has said on many occasions that the $116m saved as a result of the assets test will be spent on assisting veterans. But the veterans have not seen any of this $116m. I hope that in his reply the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will pick up this point and tell the veterans of Australia what benefits they have enjoyed from this $116m saved as a result of the assets test which penalises the thrifty veterans who have provided for their retirement. The clause which will allow war widows to remarry but retain their entitlements deserves commendation. Many of those widows have nursed and looked after their ex-servicemen husbands; this will be a great worry off their minds. One thing that concerns many people on this side of the House is that the legislation does not provide any coverage for future members of the armed forces. Any people who enlist in the Australian armed services from the date that this legislation is proclaimed will be excluded from any benefits under the repatriation system unless they are engaged either in a peacekeeping mission such as the one in the Middle East or in what is rather loosely defined as hazardous duties. I understand the Minister of the day will decide what constitutes hazardous duties. I know that the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has expressed concern that such a definition should be put in the legislation and not left to the discretion of a Minister. The Opposition will move an amendment to this part of the legislation so that new enlistees in the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force will not be deprived of repatriation cover as would occur under this legislation as it stands. I understand that the Government is examining a new military compensation package to replace the current provisions. If the Government wants to change the current provisions, it should be fair amd make such changes in another Bill. The Navy, Army and Air Force should enjoy the cover provided in the existing legislation. It is no good this Bill being passed and then in two, three or four years time bringing in new legislation, leaving those people in the armed forces uncovered in the intervening period. Under this legislation veterans who fought in two world wars alongside Australians for the same cause are allowed access to repatriation hospitals only when there is an empty bed which is not required by an Australian veteran. If a hospital is full, an allied veteran cannot get on the waiting list. We on this side of the House can see the reason for and the thrust of that clause in the legislation but we do not support it. We believe that men who fought beside Australians in any threatre of war to protect our way of life should be entitled to exactly the same benefits as those enjoyed by Australian veterans. In conclusion, apart from the matters I have raised on the clauses which the Liberal and National parties will seek to amend, I support the Bill. I just say again that it is a shame that the Government was forced into having avoided all that by consultation with the Returned Services League and other service organisations. What happened was unnecessary and caused a great deal of concern to people who should not have had to go through the agony of worrying about their pensions and entitlements at the time in their lives when they should have been lying back and enjoying their retirement. It was unnecessary. It is because of influences outside the Parliament that we have a piece of legislation that goes a long way towards fulfilling the needs of the veterans of Australian. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(9.48) —From what I can gather from what has been said by honourable senators opposite, there is general agreement with the thrust of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. In other words, the whole of the Senate supports the general thrust of this Bill. Perhaps that should be stressed from the start. However, several matters have been raised which we should perhaps look at. Senator Boswell asked where will the $116m saved as a result of the assets test be spent. He raised the question of whether this Bill adds benefits to those in the existing legislation. Indeed, there are benefits in this Bill additional to those in the existing legislation. I will read out a few of them. Under this Bill, eligibility for a disability pension will be extended to veterans who were domiciled in Australia immediately before either World War I or World War II and who served in war as a member of an allied force. The eligibility provisions for disability pension and war widow's pension will be standardised on those now applicable to service during World War II. The definition of `child' will be expanded to include a child dependent on the veteran at the time of the veteran's death. The preparation of a guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions will ensure consistency in assessment of the rates of pension payable to veterans and members of the Defence Force for incapacity related to service. War widows will not lose their pensions if they remarry or have remarried since 29 May 1984. Domestic allowance, a special pension supplement of $12 per week, will be payable to all war widows. And so it goes on. For example, going further down the list, one sees that the recreation transport allowance will be extended to a category of veterans who are limited in their powers of locomotion to the same extent as certain amputees, enlistees in respect of any hazardous service, and so on. I simply point that out to indicate that there are additional benefits given in this Bill to veterans. I do that because in spite of the concession from the other side that in general the Bill is in accordance with what is desirable, it is said that in some way it is niggardly. That is just not so in view of what is going on. I should like to quote some statistics quickly. Senator Lewis said that statistics could be used in all sorts of ways and that they do not necessarily reflect what they might first seem to reflect. Perhaps he was anticipating, as a good lawyer ought, the sort of argument that can be put up. Although statistics are not always a true indication of what is going on, at least they are prima facie evidence of what the situation is, and evidence to the contrary ought to be produced before they are thrown out of the door. One can use anecdotal evidence, but unless that is extensive enough it is not sufficient to rebut what the statistics put up. I simply put this forward not in any way-lest it should be later suggested that I am doing so-to say that the veterans are not getting more than they deserve. Indeed, that is not the proposition I put. It is not the proposition that the veterans are getting any more than they deserve. It is simply an illustration to rebut the Opposition's suggestions that the provisions of the Bill are not as generous as a responsible government should allow. That is the test put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. Let us look at a comparison of average annual spending per surviving veteran in 1983-84, expressed in Australian dollars. In Britain, $200 is spent; in New Zealand, $400; Canada, $1,600; United States, $1,400; and in Australia, $4,500-and so on. The number of compensation pensions paid per 1,000 surviving veterans is as follows: In Britain it is 50; in New Zealand, 240; Canada, 150; United States, 140; and Australia, 270. I simply put those statistics forward to indicate that this Government has kept up the tradition of all former governments and has treated the veterans as well and as generously as responsible government will allow. I turn quickly to the question of the onus, to section 119. As I understand what has been said, that is generally accepted throughout the chamber-except, perhaps, by Senator Macklin. He wants to add an extra sub-section to section 119, which reads: Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision by the Minister under sub-section (7) determining service to be hazardous service. In one breath Senator Macklin says that the procedures through which a person must go to get a pension are too onerous, that he has to go through too much administrative detail and administrative trouble to get it, and yet he seeks to create a further provision which will require people to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to get finality in their claim. Senator Macklin —To allow, not to require. Senator COONEY —To allow, if you like. Senator Haines —There is a difference. Senator COONEY —Allow in one sense. What was that? Senator Haines —There is a difference between allowing and requiring. Senator COONEY —Of course there is a difference. I will explain the sense in which I use the word `require'. One must reach some finality at some stage. Finality is reached by provision being made to stop any sort of process. Senator Macklin wishes to add another step in the process, which will require-Senator Haines will understand this with her outstanding ability in English-a veteran to go to that before finality is reached. Certainly he does not have to go there; but before he has exhausted all these processes, he is required to do that. Senator Lewis —Perhaps the honourable senator could mention that Senator Haines has just arrived in the Parliament today. Senator COONEY —What was that, Senator? Whilst Senator Lewis is talking, perhaps I should correct a statement that he made. It is proper that I should do so at this stage. He said that the Whitlam Government brought the veterans back, as it were, as if they were in disgrace. Senator Lewis —That is right. Senator COONEY —That is not right at all. What he did was to bring them back from a war to which they should never have been sent. Senator Lewis —That is your opinion. Senator COONEY —There is no criticism. Senator Lewis —There were no marches in the streets. Is that right? Senator COONEY —Hold on. There can be nothing but praise for heroism and for the commitment that the troops that went to Vietnam had to that war. The criticism that the Whitlam Government had was certainly not of the veterans who fought for this country in Vietnam; it was for the Government and for those processes that sent them to a war to which they should never have been sent. Senator Lewis —That is your opinion, but they should have been given some recognition when they came back to this country. Senator COONEY —They are certainly given recognition, and they are given recognition in this Bill. I just want to correct that because Senator Lewis is a very eloquent speaker here and he may well have created the impression that in some way the Whitlam Government had other than the highest admiration for the Vietnam veterans, and that would be incorrect. I simply make those points. I do not want to take-- Senator Haines —To take up the time of the Senate. Senator COONEY —To take up the time of the Senate. Of course I do not, I thank Senator Haines. The reason I do not do that is that it is important that this Bill, amongst others, be got through this chamber as soon as possible. It is important that the entitlements, to which all members of this chamber, I hope, are committed to giving these veterans, be given to them as soon as possible. The other place will be rising on Friday. It is important that I sit down leaving this thought with this House: I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but if debate proceeds for too long, in reference to a Bill the general thrust of which everyone agrees to, it will not be this Government's fault that is does not pass through in time. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.58) —I support the views of Senator Lewis, who opened the debate this evening so very well. Senator Haines —Eloquently. Senator BROWNHILL —And so very eloquently, for the Opposition. I also support the views of Senator MacGibbon, who spoke with great feeling and contributed a great deal, as did Senator Boswell. Senator Haines —What about Senator Macklin? Senator BROWNHILL —This legislation is certainly overdue, if only to tidy up the enormous amount of regulation and other bits and pieces that deal with repatriation. It has been said to me that Senator Macklin also made a contribution to the debate-but maybe it was not as good as those of others in this place. However, I can give no credit to this Government for the haphazard and frightening way in which it introduced part of the legislation in the mini-Budget package last May. After promising the veteran community that legislation would be introduced in such a way as to allow consultation, the Government tried to slam it through. Only the action which the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia took in this place prevented the Government from getting its way. Yet this Government, which has caused chaos, is claiming the credit for it. Even now this legislation contains drafting errors that are yet to be amended. The way in which this legislation has been managed has caused heartbreak and worry to thousands of old and not so old people. But then, a government that remembers Armistice Day as the day a discredited former government was sacked rather than as a remembrance for the end of World War One obviously has scant regard for those people who risked their lives to defend out country. Some of the changes have been prompted by the O'Brien case, together with an increase over the past three years of nearly 55 per cent in disability pensions and an increase of 70 per cent in war widow's pensions. Considering the age of the people involved, this must obviously occur as more women become widows and more people become disabled. I consider that our commitment to these veterans should never be judged in purely monetary terms. The Opposition's veterans' affairs policy states: . . . one of generosity within the constraints of responsibility to the Australian taxpayer. As we look after the unemployed, so too we should not hesitate to look after our veterans. But there is an important difference here. Help for veterans and war widows is not social welfare; it is compensation for loss and disablement during wartime in the defence of our country. Even though this Bill is an improvement on the original Bill there are still a number of areas that worry me. The onus of proof clauses, while improved, are still yet to be tested in litigation. The shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who is also a veteran of the Vietnam war, has already said that the Opposition will monitor that area very closely to ensure that no one is unfairly treated. The Bill reasserts the assets test for veterans' pensions and it has already resulted in 13,000-odd veterans having their pensions reduced or cancelled. A letter I received from a constituent is typical of those who have been affected by the assets test. The letter was written to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and it states: This is an appeal against the recent decision of the Department to deprive me and my wife of the small service Pension which for a few years we enjoyed. . . . . There are times when I wonder whether this is indeed the country for which we fought. Did the flower of the Country's youth swelter in the desert, rot in the jungles, . . . burn in agony in crashed aircraft or drown in the ocean for this? They risked their lives daily on land and sea and in the air and it doesn't seem fair that in the sunset of their lives and at a time when comfort and security are needed they should be abandoned because they have little political influence. The letter goes on in reference to his land: I am now too incapacitated to work it effectively. In recent years we have relied on our pensions to subsidise the operations of the property although we have been able to provide little more than enough for essential maintenance. With the loss of the pension I do not know how we will carry on and it is obvious that the place will deteriorate. What a worry it is for those older people in the community who have fought for their country now to have the problem of the assets test. Why is this Government continuing its attack on the elderly? The second area that concerns me is the qualification of totally and permanently incapacitated and disability pensioner. There are still anomalies in the legislation. It is a fact, for example, that the pension previously paid to the wife of a disability pension recipient is now no longer paid. This seems to me to be a penny-pinching sort of action, even taking into account the current parlous state of the economy. The third area that worries me is the interpretation and treatment of allied veterans. I understand that the Government's first commitment must be to Australian veterans but I hope that appropriate consideration will be given to veterans from our allies who now live in this country. Allies who helped to defend our country beside our own veterans deserve better than this. The last area of concern is that current serving members of our defence forces have now been excluded from repatriation protection and coverage. We have been told that a defence compensation scheme is to be introduced eventually, but what happens to those Defence Force personnel in the meantime? What, for example, will happen to those men from the Royal Australian Navy injured recently in the explosion on board the HMAS Stalwart? Are they to be covered or must they somehow be fitted into the Public Service workers compensation arrangements? I am concerned that there are still a number of veterans' groups that are less than happy with the new legislation, and that includes the Returned Services League, the War Widows Guild, the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Federation, regular Defence Force welfare associations and others. There are a number of areas that concern them, some of which I have already mentioned. I have mentioned the coverage for current full time members of the defence forces and the interpretation of the onus of proof rule. The Opposition welcomes this legislation because it is necessary and will improve the operation of repatriation services. Certainly there needs to be a streamlining of services. I have numerous cases coming into my office of veterans experiencing delays of up to three years in trying to get disability pensions. In some cases they are fearful that they will die before their cases are assessed and their dependants will miss out. I hope that this new legislation will make the determination of these cases more efficient. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.06) —The Veterans' Entitlements Bill has had a very adequate airing, both here and in the House of Representatives. I know that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) would like to reply tonight to this second reading debate, and as an ex-Minister for Veterans' Affairs I am only too happy to accommodate him. The Bill is a comprehensive one and it replaces the old Repatriation Act that was brought in in 1920. We have only to read some of the debates that took place at that time, in this place and in the other place, to realise the deep sense of gratitude we had for our veterans. It was called the Repatriation Act because one had to be repatriated in order to be covered by it. The Act was written with a broad brush and with very loose terms and conditions, especially for the purpose of being able to accommodate the requirements of returned men. Experienced people were put on the various boards to establish not only the degree of disability but also the degree of pension entitlement. They were given these loose terms and conditions so that should there be any doubt about the disability of a veteran this could be accommodated under the old Act. Gradually, over the years anomalies started to appear. I remember when I was young doctor and first started out as a local medical officer for the Repatriation Department that one could write a prescription for just about anything a veteran required. If a veteran needed Johnson's baby powder or Kleenex tissues or what one might call grocery lines, which were things other than prescription lines, it was possible to prescribe them. Gradually, over the years, as veterans learnt how to work the system they would come in to the local medical officers with what one might term a grocery list asking for Aktavite and all sorts of things. Quite a few of the LMOs used to prescribe these things for them, and then they would go down to the pub and flog them. Of course, it did not take long for the Department to learn that this was happening and so it had to impose the first series of restrictions on prescribing. As other abuses crept into the system the whole Act was repaired in a patchwork way. Gradually, as time passed, with the applications for pensions people learnt that because the Act was written in such an open way it was possible to appeal, under the auspices of the legal profession, in order to get pensions granted. I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I refer to a couple of cases, the Law case and the O'Brien case. The Law case concerned a chap who had cancer. Under the Act if it could not be said that the war was not the cause, the veteran had to be given the benefit of the doubt. This case went all the way to the High Court of Australia and the High Court said that it could not say what was the cause of the cancer, it could have been the war, and so under the Act he was granted a pension. Why the High Court did not realise that there are an awful lot of cases of cancer in people who have never been to war I do not know, but it decided that the disability could have been war-caused. Similarly, in the O'Brien case the chap had high blood pressure and as nobody seemed to know the cause of the high blood pressure the High Court said that it could be due to the war and therefore he was entitled to the pension. An awful lot of the people who have high blood pressure have never been to war. These cases caused a flood of applications for pensions and, of course, the Department flew into a panic because it did not have the money to supply all these entitlements. Then the Government and the Department over-reacted. They wrote a Bill that threw the whole of the veterans' organisations into panic by putting on so many restrictions that the veterans felt that they were no longer appreciated by their country. During the progress of this Bill I do not suppose that any of us have not been called out to major meetings of veterans' and war widows' associations. Everybody is terribly worried about the provisions in the legislation. However, amendment to the Repatriation Act was obviously necessary; it had to be done. Quite a bit of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill could not be argued with and it was for that reason that the Senate added the sunset clause to observe the operation of the legislation as it went along. Just as well it did because the anomalies have shown up to quite a considerable degree in the six months that the amended Act has been in operation. The previous Bill was brought in without adequate consultation with veterans' and widows' organisations and related welfare groups, or with the Department or the Minister, but time has elapsed now and those consultations have taken place. Most of the anomalies and worries have been taken out of the legislation, but not all of them. Quite a lot will be raised in the Committee stage. I will not go through all the amendments foreshadowed but I do want the Minister to pay attention to this exceptional disability allowance which is still an outstanding anomaly. There are half a dozen of them. I will be pleased to deal with them in Committee. Other senators have raised the issue of workers compensation coverage for new enlistees. We have to be sure that currently serving peacetime men and women in the forces are covered by the Repatriation Act. I will not hold up the passage of the legislation any longer. I hope that we can get through the Committee stage and wind up with a satisfactory Bill. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.13) —I wish to support the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and express some views on it. I realise that there has already been a fairly full debate and I do not intend to go into matters in great detail. The Bill has been covered extensively by Senator Lewis in his admirable speech earlier this evening. There are many ways in which one can criticise the Government for the way it has handled this matter. It has been handled in such a way that it has caused a great deal of worry and distress to people often in poor health or approaching old age and who are affected and worried more than might otherwise be the case by a situation in which they see that the provisions they thought were generously to be made available to them in their older years are perhaps to be taken away. We have here a Bill which replaces the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, which was hurried through the Parliament shortly before we rose last June. That legislation has proved to be very unfortunate and the Government has learnt a number of things from that experience. It has changed things in this Bill. There was inadequate consultation with the ex-service organisations, such as the Returned Services League. Adequate consultation should have happened before the previous Bill was put through. There has been much more consultation now, led by the National President of the RSL and members of other bodies, and a great deal of consideration has been given to the anomalies found in the existing legislation. In some ways this has been brought about-it has been brought home to the Parliament very forcibly-by a sunset clause. In some respects it has been a little inadequate because a number of people have suffered in the meanwhile. Their cases have been dealt with and now they are not covered. They might have lost their rights and not be adequately covered. That is unfortunate. By and large it has meant that this Parliament has had to consider at length, and at some more leisure, the problems that have arisen under the existing legislation. Among the improvements which appear in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is the proposed new section 119, the onus of proof provisions. The Government caused itself a great and unnecessary amount of worry over the O'Brien case by misreading the situation and by altering the legislation in such a way that it did a great deal of injustice and imposed much unfairness on pension applicants. This section has been reconstructed by a number of learned people who have advised the ex-servicemen's organisations, and only time will tell whether it will adequately meet the current situation. We must accept it now as it is a proposal which the organisations believe will cover them reasonably. We will have to continue to have a good look at this situation over the next few years to see that it does indeed do that. We also see in the new Bill the removal of the 40-year rule, which has been spoken of by many honourable senators tonight. That was obviously a rather disgraceful provision, making it very hard for war widows and others to obtain evidence at a very late stage and probably in regard to matters about which their husbands had not spoken to them. That has gone, and that is to the good. Of course, a number of matters are still under review. There are matters which the Opposition has referred to. For example, as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, said to me in a letter he wrote some time ago: Our ongoing concern includes questions of the assessment of T. &P. I. criteria, questions over the drafting of standard 119 with particular reference to sub-clause 3, and concern at the fact that there will be no retention of Repatriation cover for new enlistees after December 1985. No doubt these things will be questioned in the course of the debate. I also want to refer to three matters which have been raised in very extensive correspondence from branches of the Returned Services League in Victoria, in particular, in regard to the Bill. I will read what they say because it is important that we consider this carefully. I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will deal with these matters in the course of his reply. The RSL branches say that the following matters should be considered: Exceptionally disabled persons who have retired from remunerative activity and are not now eligible for a special rate of pension, should be eligible for the intermediate and special rate pension, regardless of age or whether they have left the work force. An example of what is meant here is that at present there is a case of a former POW of the Japanese who has sixteen accepted disabilities and because of financial and family problems he worked until he was forced to retire at the age of 65 years, even though he should have left the work force years before. His application for an increase in war pension was refused because he had retired from the work force. In other words, he could now never become T &P I even though his accepted disabilities could send him to a nursing home. That is one problem that has been raised. The second question raised in correspondence with me and other members is that the standard of proof provision contained in section 47 (2) of the Repatriation Act prior to 6 June 1985 should apply to undertermined applications or appeals to the Repatriation Determining System as at 6 June 1985. In other words, no retrospectivity should apply. I will refer to that again a little later. Thirdly, the RSL branches claim that dependants' allowances should continue and therefore be reinstated with the option for those presently entitled to receive the commutation equal to five years of pension, not the three years as now included in the draft Bill. I hope that those matters will be considered by the Minister in his reply. The matters of concern also include the problems which have been raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in regard to this Bill. I know that the Committee's report has only come down today. As Deputy Chairman of that Committee, I urge the Minister to indicate to what extent he will comply with the many findings in the report. I will not go into them now but I point out that in many cases they show a lack of parliamentary scrutiny of provisions; they also include ministerial determinations which give no possibility of appeal-- Senator Peter Rae —You should seek leave to incorporate the relevant sections. Senator MISSEN —Yes, I think I will do that. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the section of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report which relates to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, which I think will be useful to honourable senators. Leave granted. The report read as follows- VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985 This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 16 October 1985 by the Minister Representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The purpose of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 is to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the entitlements available to members of the veteran community. It represents the most important and comprehensive overhaul of the repatriation system since its establishment over 60 years ago. The Committee draws the attention of the Senate to the following clauses of the Bill: Clause 84-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Sub-clause 84 (6) provides that the Commission may determine a scale of charges in respect of the treatment at its hospitals and institutions of veterans (otherwise than for war-caused injuries or diseases) or persons other than veterans. Under sub-clause 84 (7) the Commission may determine that persons in a specified class of persons are to be exempt from paying the charges fixed under sub-clause 84 (6). There is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of the scale of charges or of the exemptions determined by the Commission. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (v) in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficient to parliamentary scrutiny. Clauses 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107 and 108-Non-reviewable discretions Under Part VI of the Bill the Commission may grant to a veteran a clothing allowance (clause 97), an attendant allowance (clause 98), a decoration allowance (clause 102), a Victoria Cross allowance (clause 103), a recreation transport allowance (clause 104), special assistance or benefits (clause 106), a temporary incapacity allowance (clause 107) and a loss of earning allowance (clause 108). The Commission may also grant a benefit towards the funeral expenses of a veteran, a dependant of a deceased veteran, or a service pensioner (Clause 99, 100 and 101). There is a right of review in respect of only one of these allowances and benefits, namely the attendant allowance (see clause 134). In respect of the grant of the other allowances and benefits the Commission's decision would be final, subject only to challenge as to its legality pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Because no criteria are given for the exercise by the Commission of its discretion in the grant of these allowances and benefits the scope for such review would be limited. The Committee draws these clauses to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (iii) in that they may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Clause 105-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 105 empowers the Commission, by instrument in writing, to establish a Vehicle Assistance Scheme for the provision of motor vehicles to veterans and for the payment of allowances towards the cost of running and maintaining the vehicles so provided. The instruments establishing, varying or revoking the scheme must be approved by the Minister but they are not required to be subjected to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (v) in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 110-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 110 states that a veteran or a dependant of a deceased veteran who travels for the purpose of obtaining treatment and an attendant accompanying such a person are to be entitled to the payment of travelling expenses `subject . . . to such conditions so the commission determines'. Such determinations by the Commission are not required to be subjected to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (v) in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 116-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 116 empowers the Commission, by instrument in writing, to establish a Veterans' Children Education Scheme to provide education and training for eligible children. As with the Vehicle Assistance Scheme the instruments establishing, varying or revoking the scheme must be approved by the Minister but are not required to be subjected to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (v) in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Paragraph 119 (7) (b)-Ministerial determination Under paragraph 119 (7) (b) the Minister for Defence may determine service in the Defence Force of a specified kind to be `hazardous service'. Where a claim is made in respect of the incapacity from injury or disease of a member of the Forces or the death of such a member which relates to `hazardous service' rendered by the member the Commission is required to determine that the injury, disease or death was defence-caused unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. If the service of the member of the Forces is not determined to be `hazardous service' then the member or the dependant of the member does not have the advantage of this criminal standard of proof: the Commission is merely required to decide the issues relevant to the claim to its reasonable satisfaction. Despite the importance of determinations of `hazardous service' to the claimants concerned there is no parliamentary scrutiny of such determinations. The Committee drew attention in its Eighth Report of 1985 to the lack of such scrutiny in respect of similar determinations under section 107J of the Repatriation Act 1920 as amended by clause 25 of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. The Private Secretary to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responded to this comment on 16 August 1985 indicating that what might be designated as `hazardous service' had yet to be decided: `In some circumstances, it might be possible to define it by a generic description of the service (e.g. parachuting duties), at other times on the basis of service with a specific Defence Force group (e.g. service with the Special Air Service Regiment), or by a description of particular incidents (e.g. neutralising an unexploded device). The Department of Defence has advised, however, that the Minister for Defence may consider a highly sensitive operation should be declared as `hazardous service'. In these circumstances, issues of national security could require that such a determination not be made public. Even if there were to be a legislative provision requiring the tabling of determinations, it would need some companion provision whereby the Minister for Defence was enabled to issue a conclusive certificate to avoid tabling specific determinations. This in turn raises the further question whether a conclusive certificate would be required to be tabled. Whether legislative provisions of such complexity can be justified in the present circumstances would require further consideration.' The Committee assumes that it has been concluded that tabling and disallowance of determinations of what constitutes `hazardous service' cannot be justified since the provision remains unchanged in the present Bill. However the Committee still takes the view that the determinations are of sufficient significance in the scheme of the legislation that some mechanism should be found whereby the Parliament may be informed of such determinations (other than those which may concern matters of national security) and may debate the making of a determination or the failure to make a determination in respect of particular service. The Committee also notes that it would be concerned at the use of conclusive certificates if the issue of such certificates were not to be clearly restricted to situations involving considerations of national security. The Committee draws the provision to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (v) in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 122-Non-reviewable decision Clause 122 enables the Commission to pay to the legal personal representative of a person who has died or to distribute among the dependants of such a person any accrued amount of pension, allowance or other benefit unpaid at the death of the person or any amount which has become payable after the death in respect of the grant of a claim made before the death of the person. Such an amount may be not insubstantial since the Commission may grant pensions with effect from a date 3 months before the date on which the claim for the pension was lodged with the Department. By virtue of sub-clause 122 (4) the Commonwealth is not to be liable to any action, claim or demand in respect of any amount paid or distributed in accordance with the clause. The effect of this clause is to prevent any review of the exercise by the Commission of its discretion under the clause. Thus, for example, if the Commission were to distribute an amount unequally among the dependants of the deceased, a person who felt aggrieved by that decision would not be able to challenge it. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (iii) in that it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Paragraph 127 (1) (c)-Reasonableness of time and place Sub-clause 127 (1) empowers the Secretary, by notice in writing, to require persons to furnish information, to produce documents and to appear before a specified officer to give evidence or produce documents. While in each case not less than fourteen days notice must be given for the person to comply with the requirement, there is no limitation as to the reasonableness of the time and place at which a person may be required to appear before an officer. Failure to attend at the time and place notified would constitute an offence carrying a penalty of a fine of up to $1,000 or 6 months imprisonment or both unless the person concerned was incapable of complying with the notice. The Committee has expressed its concern in relation to a number of similar provisions that the failure to require that the time and place specified be reasonable may result in the provision operating harshly in some cases. Accordingly the Committee draws the provision to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 128-Self incrimination Clause 128 provides that a person is not excused from furnishing information, producing a document or giving evidence on the ground that the information or evidence or the production of the document may tend to incriminate the person. The clause is subject to the usual proviso that any information so furnished, evidence so given or document so produced is not admissible in evidence against the person except in proceedings for a failure to furnish information, give evidence or produce a document or for furnishing information or giving evidence that is false or misleading. As is its usual practice the Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that the removal of the privilege against self incrimination may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 131-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 131 provides for the payment of travelling expenses to persons attending before the Commission to support claims or as witnesses and to persons accompanying such persons as attendants. As in clause 110 the entitlement to travelling expenses is in each case expressed to be `subject to such conditions as the Commission determines'. There is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of such determinations. Furthermore, whereas under sub-clauses 131 (1), (3), (5) and (7) the relevant travelling expenses are to be prescribed, the travelling expenses to be paid to attendants under sub-clauses 131 (2), (4), (6) and (8) are to be such as the Commission `considers reasonable'. If it is intended that the Commission will determine these expenses inaccordance with a standard scale then it is suggested that any such scale should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. If, on the other hand, the Commission is to determine such travelling expenses on a case by case basis then it is suggested that its decision should be subject to review by an independent, quasi-judicial body like the Veterans' Review Board. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principles 1 (a) (iii) and (v) both in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny and in that it may make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Clause 206-Blanket statutory defence Clause 206 creates statutory defences where a person sues the Commonwealth, the Commission, a medical practitioner working at a hospital or other institution operated by the Commission or an employee of, or a person working for or on behalf of, the Commission claiming that he or she- (i) contracted Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) by reason of having been administered blood supplied by the Commission or the Australian Red Cross Society (the Society); (ii) contracted AIDS by reason of having been involved in the taking, testing, handling, producing, supplying or administering to a patient of blood so supplied; (iii) contracted AIDS from a person who contracted the disease in a circumstance specified in paragraph (i) or (ii); or (iv) is a dependant of a person who has died as a result of contracting AIDS in any of the above circumstances. In such an action it is to be a defence that- (a) the blood administered had been tested using equipment and methods approved under the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985, similar State or Northern Territory legislation or the Regulations and had been certified free of antibodies to the virus HTLV III; or (b) the Commission or the Society, as the case may be, complied with the requirements prescribed by the Ordinance, similar State or Northern Territory legislation or the Regulations in respect of the taking of the relevant blood and the testing, processing and handling of that blood. The Committee is concerned about two aspects of this provision. First, it places persons who have contracted AIDS or the dependants of persons who have died as a result of contracting that disease in a different situation from other persons in pursuing an action for negligence because it elevates into a statutory standard a particular method of testing blood and particular procedures to be followed in the taking of blood and the handling of blood. If the blood has been tested in accordance with that method and if the prescribed procedures have been followed then the person is not to have a cause of action even though they have contracted AIDS. Secondly the Committee suggests that the provision as drafted leaves in some obscurity the standard of care to be met in complying with the prescribed requirements in respect of the taking of blood and so forth. To the extent that those requirements are not a simple matter of following a step by step check list but involve matters of judgment-for example in determining whether the statements made by a blood donor in a declaration that he or she has not engaged in certain sexual activity are true or false-some standard of care would seem to be envisaged but none is specified. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the clause `will not provide blanket protection where, for example, negligence on the part of the Commonwealth, the Commission or a medical practitioner is shown'. However the Committee is concerned that the clause may provide the Commonwealth, the Commission and medical staff with protection from suit on the basis that the prescribed requirements were carried out even though those requirements may have been carried out in a less than satisfactory manner. Accordingly the Committee draws the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that by limiting the scope of an action for negligence brought by a person who has contracted AIDS or the dependant of such a person who has died of the disease it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Paragraph 208 (1) (a)-Strict liability Paragraph 208 (1) (a) provides that a person shall not make a false or misleading statement in connection with a claim for a pension, allowance or other benefit under the Act. The more usual form of such a provision would be to create an offence only if a person `knowingly' makes a false or misleading statement (see, for example, sub-clauses 127 (5) and 168 (2)). Because the requirement that the person making the statement knows that it is false or misleading has been omitted in paragraph 208 (1) (a) it may be thought to create an offence of strict liability: that is, it would be sufficient to secure a conviction if it were proved that the statement was in fact false or misleading even if the person making it believed it to be true. The Committee draws the provision to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. General Comment The Committee notes for the information of the Senate that clause 119 continues in force the change in the standard of proof for the determination of veterans' entitlements made by the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985. By virtue of that change the Commission is requested not to grant a claim if it is reasonably satisfied that there is no material before it raising a reasonable hypothesis that the injury, disease or death giving rise to the claim was war-caused. Previously, in order not to grant a claim, the Commission had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were insufficient grounds for granting the claim: see Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien (1985) 58 ALR 119 per Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ at 128. The Committee recognises that this change in the standard of proof for the grant of repatriation benefits is clearly a matter of government policy. The Committee also recognises that in strictly legal terms a claimant bears no onus to prove his or her claim before the Commission. While the Committee therefore takes the view that the change in the standard of proof is not a matter on which it should formally make comment under its Terms of Reference, it draws attention to its concerns with provisions which reverse the traditionally accepted onus of proof in other contexts, most particularly in criminal proceedings: see pages 26 to 32 of the paper on `The Operation of the Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills 1981-1985', tabled in September, and see also the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings (Parliamentary Paper No. 319/1982). VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 16 October 1985 by the Minister Representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 will provide arrangements for the transition from the existing Repatriation Act 1920 and other supplementary legislation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. The Committee draws the attention of the Senate to the following clauses of the Bill: Clauses 42, 43 and 44-Retrospectivity The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 altered the standard of proof applicable in respect of claims for pensions by requiring that the Repatriation Commission not grant a claim if it was reasonably satisfied that there was no material before it raising a reasonable hypothesis that the injury, disease or death giving rise to the claim for a pension was war-caused. Previously, in order not to grant a claim, the Commission had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were insufficient grounds for granting the claim: see Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien (1985) 58 ALR 119 per Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ at 128. In its Eighth Report of 1985 the Committee drew attention to the fact that sections 69, 70 and 71 of the amending Bill (as it then was) applied the altered standard of proof to claims made before 15 May 1985, to applications for review by the Veterans' Review Board made before 15 May 1985 and to certain applications for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made before 15 May 1985. The Committee suggested that such retrospective alteration of entitlements might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Private Secretary to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responded to this comment on 16 August 1985 stating that: `It is a matter of Government policy that the [reasonable hypothesis modification intended to overcome the effect of the High Court decision in O'Brien] should be applied in a consistent manner to all decisions made after the date of effect of the Amendment Act. It is the Government's view that personal rights flow from the determination of Commonwealth liability to pay a pension rather than the mere act of lodging a claim.' Clauses 42, 43 and 44 of the present Bill are similar in effect to sections 69, 70 and 71 of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 although the Committee is pleased to note that the terms of these clauses have been clarified so as to overcome any doubts similar to those which the Committee also raised in its Eighth Report concerning the continued application of the more advantageous criminal standard of proof to claims lodged before 15 may 1985. While it is clear that this provision will put applicants in a new and less advantageous position, the Committee indicates as a matter of record that it accepts the Government's view that the application of the altered standard of proof in the determination of claims and appeals after the date on which the amending legislation came into operation does not involve any retrospectivity (even though such claims and appeals may have been lodged or initiated prior to the commencement of the amending legislation). Clause 59: Reasonableness of time and place Clause 59 amends the Acts set out in the Schedule including the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. New paragraph 30 (1) (c) to be inserted in that Act is in similar form to paragraph 127 (1) (c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Committee's comment on that paragraph also applies to this provision. Self incrimination New section 31 to be inserted in the Act is in similar form to clause 128 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Committee's comment on that clause also applies to this section. Strict liability New paragraph 58 (1) (a) is in similar form to paragraph 208 (1) (a) of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Committee's comment on that paragraph also applies to this provision. MICHAEL TATE Chairman 27 November 1985 Senator MISSEN —I wish to make one comment about the matters raised in this report. There is a statement on pages 27 and 28 with which I do not entirely agree and I do not think that it quite represents the decision of the Committee. I will read the relevant section relating to the question of retrospectivity: While it is clear that this provision will put applicants in a new and less advantageous position, the Committee indicates as a matter of record that it accepts the Government's view that the application of the altered standard of proof in the determination of claims and appeals after the date on which the amending legislation came into operation does not involve any retrospectivity (even though such claims and appeals may have been lodged or initiated prior to the commencement of the amending legislation). While that may be technically correct, it still led people into the position where they commenced applications while this onus of proof provision was in a different condition. They proceeded with those matters, often incurring considerable expense and they then found that they were subject to a very great difference in the law as it is now. Those who brought applications which have not been heard find themselves in that difficult position. I suggest that the matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee require considerable attention in this debate. There are many factors involved in the whole system of repatriation which require attention. Not least of these is one which I hope may be overcome by this legislation. That is the question of delay. I refer the Committee to remarks made in the case of Perrott at the Federal Court by Mr Justice Kirby when he drew attention to the beneficial intentions of the Repatriation Act, as it was. He went on to say: The veterans and their dependants are an ever dimnishing number of persons in Australia especially deserving of generous treatment within the law. The costly time consuming proceedure of appeals and reviews has been referred to a number of times in this Court. His Honour concluded that public funds may be better expended on veterans and their dependants, rather than `upon the costly and time consuming administrative and legal proceedure about compensation et cetera. I believe it is necessary to put those factors before the Committee because I am not sure that this legislation will do anything to overcome those problems. I hope that this will be considered and that some attempt will be made to overcome them. Finally, I refer to the letter which the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers' Association of Victoria wrote to me on 17 July. I concede that the Bill has been improved since that date, but these words express the feeling that was widespread at that time: The veteran community is most incensed at the proposed Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985; it is looked upon as repressive and effectively repudiates the Government's obligations to many of those who, without qualification, answered the call to serve their country when its very existence, as we have known it, was under threat. Those veterans are now in the twilight of their lives; it must be accepted that in those years the call on the Department designed to foster their interests must increase. However, in this legislation, the Government proposes to institute draconian changes to entitlements and benefits. The savings expected to flow from this legislation are, we suggest, infinitesimal in the overall budgetary considerations; at the same time they assume gigantic proportions to the now prematurely aged (because of his service to his country) war veteran, not only to himself but for the welfare of his widow should he predecease his wife. I hope that the Government and the Parliament will take account of that sort of sentiment. There is a strong feeling that we in this country should have looked to what we were doing for the veterans. We should not just be concerned now to change matters when they are in the process of receiving the benefits. We have known for a long time that these people would get old. We have known that they served their country and that they deserve excellent consideration by this Parliament and the people in it. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.28) —I wish to refer very briefly to the situation in relation to certain veterans, predominantly Tasmanians, who served in the Indonesian area-not the 2/40 Battalion who were in the Sparrow Force in what is now Indonesia and who suffered greatly but acted magnificently as history shows-but rather some of those who came later into the area who were members of the 12/40 Battalion and who saw operational service in Timor, Java and Sumatra from September 1945 to November 1946 and also in French Indo-China from September 1945 to November 1946. These men were involved in a number of actions-putting down hostilities and pacification. They assisted the Dutch authorities in putting down uprisings that took place. I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) is listening to what I am saying and not just discussing something else with the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). In case he is not listening I shall wait until he is prepared to listen. If necessary I will say it all again. If the Minister has any interest in veterans' affairs at all, I hope he will listen to what I am saying-- Senator Grimes —Don't be offensive. Don't be stupid. It is unnecessary. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Grimes tells me not to be offensive. I had endeavoured to raise a question to which I hoped the Minister would listen in relation to the position of those people, primarily Tasmanians but not entirely, who were members of the 12/40 Battalion and who saw operational service in Timor, Java and Sumatra from September 1945 to 30 November 1946 and also in French Indo-China from September 1945 to November 1946. These people were involved in the pacification of areas in which there were war operations taking place, even after the conclusion of the Second World War. For example, they assisted in operations relating to an uprising in which HMAS Arunta was involved, as was the SS Moreton Bay. There was an uprising, apparently, by Japanese and other forces involved in the area after the conclusion of the war. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under Sessional Order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.30) —I wish to apologise to the Senate for the use of highly disorderly language in interjecting in part of a speech delivered by Senator Lewis this evening, but I wish to say in self-defence how I was provoked by a remark he made in the course of that address to the Senate which was to the effect that the Whitlam Government had brought home veterans from Vietnam without a fanfare, as though that was the major sin of Australian governments against Vietnam veterand. I think it is fair to say that the Australian community as a whole was so divided and exhausted by the domestic ramifications of the particular conflict abroad that it was not psychologically able to create a conducive atmosphere for the reception of Vietnam veterans on their return, as they should have been greeted as soldiers returning from a job which they had been required to undertake by their Government. The question is: Which Government sent them? That is what stuck in my throat and I make no apology for this. There was no mea culpa from Senator Lewis about the government which sent those veterans, including my school mates, into the jungles of Vietnam in order to kill, to be wounded and slaughtered and to bear the physical and mental effects immediately and over the long term in relation to that particular conflict. Senator Lewis —The way you brought them home was absolutely disgraceful. You brought them home as if they had done something wrong. If you want to attack us, attack us; but don't attack the troops. That is what you did-your government-Whitlam. Senator TATE —The Opposition sent them into Vietnam. Senator Lewis's political movement sent them to Vietnam. I am proud to be part of a political movement which brought them back from Vietnam. That is the point I am making. I believe that the mood of the Australian community is now different from that which prevailed 10 years ago. Senator Grimes —How old are you, Lewis? Why weren't you there? Senator Lewis —I was too old. Senator Grimes —I served for six years in the citizen forces, which is more than you did. Senator Lewis —That is exactly what I did. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is too much background argument. Senator Grimes —You did it because you had to. You could have gone to Vietnam, but you didn't. You are gutless. You didn't go like the rest of them. There was a whole swag of them over there. You were old enough to go and you didn't go. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes and Senator Lewis, cease your argument. I call Senator Tate. Senator TATE —The cenotaph in Hobart has been marked with the titles of the post-World War II conflicts including that of the Vietnam war, largely at my instigation and that of the Vietnam veterans, with the co-operation of the Lord Mayor of Hobart, for the Anzac Day ceremony this year. In fact, I believe that for the first time this year in any capital city, a Vietnam veteran, David Beresford, led the march through the streets of Hobart to the cenotaph. I believe from my experience at a dinner of the Vietnam Veterans in Launceston two Friday nights ago that the self-esteem of the Vietnam veterans is restored and at a very high level and the camaraderie and general good will which prevailed at that dinner is a testimony to the fact that the healing process has reached a point where the Australian community as a whole can better deal with the Vietnam veterans within our midst. Indeed, the Vietnam veterans feel once again part of the general community. I do not believe that that healing process is helped by the cheap political jibes of Senator Lewis about the Whitlam Government bringing those veterans home. I am pleased to have been part of a political movement that achieved that, not part of a political movement which sent them into the jungles of Vietnam. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.34) —I want to raise a matter which some people may think is rather parochial, but it is important in the Australian Capital Territory. For a long time now we have been agitating for, and for some considerable time the Government has agreed to, the introduction of a subsidy to enable the Medicab which operates in Canberra to provide some subsidised services for certain disabled people who need that form of transport. It is particularly important for some young people who have employment, but who are not able to travel otherwise than by the use of the taxi, and it is important for a number in our community in wheel-chairs who need this form of transport to have outings or to visit their families. I will not go over the whole history, but it has been going on for some years. The Aerial Taxi Cab Society Ltd, which is a co-operative of the taxi drivers in Canberra, supported the cab for a long time. It was then able to take only disabled passengers. Subsequently, it was allowed to hire on taxi ranks, the same as other taxis and it has managed to survive. There is an agreement whereby there will be a taxi subsidy for certain persons using it, but for some reason this has not been brought into effect. The Australian Capital Territory Society for the Physically Handicapped has written to the Department of Health and made representations. In a letter of 22 November 1985, it set out two case histories. I will not go into them in detail, but they merely illustrate how two young adults would be able to live more independently if they were able to avail themselves of this service. I ask the Minister whether he will take the time to look at the matter and let us know when this subsidised service will become available. It is rather cruel in a way to say that the scheme will operate and then not to bring it into effect. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.36) —I want briefly to raise the matter of ultra-high frequency and very high frequency transmissions by television stations, following some remarks made earlier today by another senator. The concern I have relates to regional television stations, in particular WIN4 operating out of Wollongong, which has been required to vacate the VHF band and to move totally to UHF. This will involve not only converting the station, which is a modest cost as I understand it, but also many of the people who receive WIN4 on the South Coast and Illawarra region will be obliged to have their receivers converted and to make different arrangements for their aerials, which will involve considerable expense in some cases. The response we heard earlier today was that it had been established that the great bulk of television sets in use could receive UHF. I must say that that is supported by the evidence I have in the Wollongong region, where a survey has shown that something like 80 per cent of television sets in homes have the capacity to receive UHF without converting the set. To that extent, that 80 per cent will not be inconvenienced by the Government's requirement that WIN4 convert to UHF. Nonetheless, it means that 20 per cent of the viewers will be disadvantaged and will need conversions costing approximately $150, or will be obliged to purchase a new set. That is not an inconsequential amount in an area of about a quarter of a million viewers. I take the Government's point that it is by far the small minority of people who will be so affected. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that about 90 per cent of the people in the region will be obliged to get a different aerial, costing approximately $110. Clearly this will cost viewers a considerable amount of money, particularly in an area of the greatest unemployment in Australia, despite promises given to that area before the 1983 election by the present incumbents in office. It is unreasonable to put that burden on those people unnecessarily, particularly in the context of a decision that is discriminatory and unfair. It is discriminatory because the obligation to leave the VHF band is not being imposed on the metropolitan networks of Sydney, which can be picked up in Wollongong as rivals to WIN4. They can be picked up by people who have the appropriate receiving capacities or, who are lucky enough to be on a hill so that with normal aerials they receive Sydney stations. The fact is that WIN4 is to be specifically disadvantaged by a discriminatory decision by the Government forcing it out of the VHF band into the UHF band, whereas the same requirement is not being imposed on Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 or Channel 2 out of Sydney. The immediate consequence of that is that many people in the Wollongong area who may well decide not to purchase a new aerial at $110-90 per cent of people would be in that situation-or the 20 per cent of people who choose not to alter their sets to receive UHF, will significantly diminish the market available to WIN4. The only way WIN4 can survive is if it has a viable market. By this discriminatory, unfair and unjustifiable act, the Government is benefiting the metropolitan networks to the disadvantage of the only locally operating commercial television station on the south coast of New South Wales, which extends from Wollongong to the Victorian border. It seems to me extraordinary that this Government would seek to discriminate against a regional television station to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. It seems to me to fly in the face of at least the rhetoric of this Government about adopting a fair approach to the smaller local organisations which are tying to do a decent job. I certainly urge the Federal Government and the Minister involved to recognise that they have a responsibility to avoid undertaking discriminatory action which removes the viability of a station on which the local people in that region depend. WIN4 is the only station-I stress that-on the south coast which can provide the local service that the local people demand, going down as far as the Victorian border. I urge the Government to reconsider its unfair and discriminatory decision. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.42) —Tonight I wish to discuss the report that came down today recommending the removal of the subsidy arrangement on phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers. The report recommends that the subsidy arrangement should cease on 30 June 1986, when all the bounties on these fertilisers will be lifted. The National Party of Australia is prepared to support the removal of the subsidy if steps are taken in other areas to lift the restrictions and regulations which raise unnecessarily the cost of fertilisers. Last year the subsidy amounted to $12 a tonne for phosphatic fertilisers and $20 a tonne for nitrogenous fertilisers. If these subsidies were removed, it would cost the average farmer over $55m a year. In particular, cane farmers in Queensland would be severely hit. Currently, they use over 30 per cent of all nitrogenous fertilisers in Australia. Farmers in Queensland overall use 45 per cent of all fertilisers. We all know that Queensland cane farmers are going through a very tough stage. They are fighting for their very survival and they need a lift in the cost of fertilisers like they need a hole in the head. The report gives some fairly sound reasons why the subsidy should be removed but, as I often pointed out to Senator Grimes-I do not seem to be able to get through to him; there are none so blind as those who will not see-the average farmer pays $13,000 a year in tariff protection to protect the jobs of city people. I will continue to say that at every opportunity I get. It is unfair that farmers, who receive precious little government assistance, and very little since this Government has ripped it all off them, are asked to bear this burden when the Government could reduce fertiliser costs if some of the unnecessary costs were removed. I refer particularly to the anti-dumping levy placed on imported fertilisers and the prohibitive shipping costs caused by the Government giving the Australian National Line the monopoly of transporting unprocessed phosphate from Christmas Island. In 1970 the Government imposed a levy of $70 to $80 a tonne on imported fertilisers because it was suspected that multinationals were dumping excess fertilisers on the Australian market and unfairly under cutting the local producers. It is 15 years down the track and, if any dumping on the Australian market were going on, one would think it would have been sorted out by now. In the meantime the Australian fertiliser industry has been reduced by 50 per cent. So the levy has not done the industry much good. Surely this anti-dumping levy is no longer justified. It is time the Australian farmers, who ultimately have to pay this levy, were relieved of this cost. When there is no evidence of dumping, as is the case at present, there is no justification for an anti-dumping levy. The second unnecessary cost comes from the ANL's monopoly on sea transport of phosphate from Christmas Island to Australia. It is estimated that if the monopoly were removed, the price of fertilisers would fall by $17 a tonne. ANL is protected from the rigours of competition by its agreement with the Australian Government allowing it to be the sole carrier of phosphate into Australia. The inbound freight rate for bulk carriers into Australia is extremely competitive because of the relatively low levels of bulk cargo coming into Australia and the high levels going out-cargoes such as wheat, coal and sugar. Foreign vessels coming into Australia to pick up our bulk cargoes of primary products are desperate for any sort of incoming cargo. It is immeasurably cheaper coming in than going out. There is no doubt that if these three measures were taken together-the removal of subsidies, the removal of the anti-dumping levy and the removal of ANL's transport monopoly-the cost of fertilisers to farmers would fall. The National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia are not being unreasonable in calling for these measures. If one is to remove a government mechanism which decreases farmers' costs it is entirely fair that one should remove the government mechanism that increases farmers' costs. Taken on its own, the National Party cannot support the recommendation to lift protection from Australian fertiliser manufacturers. However, if it were accompanied by the other two steps we would support the recommendation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.48) —Today I looked at the annual report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for 1984-85 which was on the list of papers to be discussed in the Senate. As happens so often at this time of the year when the sittings of the Senate are coming to a close, we have such a rush of reports coming in from so many departments that we never really get the opportunity of discussing them. It is not my intention to discuss this report tonight other than to say that I commend the authors of the report because I believe that it is very comprehensive. I have not doubt that the matters discussed in the report will bring about many debates. Certainly I find that much of the report is very realistic and I believe it takes a quite accurate approach to the situation today. I refer tonight to an issue which was raised by the Secretary of the Department, Mr Charles Perkins, in his preface to the report. Mr Perkins said that Aboriginals are finding themselves in a situation of hardening community attitudes. He comments that this has been the unfortunate reality of the past twelve months. I wholeheartedly agree with him and I believe that it is extremely unfortunate, but to a degree it is not unexpected. In the Northern Territory, in particular, community feelings are running high over issues such as Aboriginal land rights. I have indicated over recent months and weeks that I will be introducing a private member's Bill to rectify the problems as I see them within the present legislation. I envisage that my amendments, if successful, would go a long way towards ending the confrontation and ill-feelings over land rights in the Northern Territory, for I believe that my Bill is a fair one. However, I do not want to dwell tonight on my proposed legislation; instead I wish to raise another matter which I think is having an impact on community attitudes in the Northern Territory today, as it did yesterday and as no doubt it will tomorrow if the problem is not overcome. I refer to the matter of anthropological evidence used in Aboriginal land claims and the fact that until now the bases on which anthropologists have reached their conclusions have been shrouded in secrecy. I think that it is understandable that people in the Northern Territory have not always been satisfied by the decisions reached by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner regarding land claims, because there has been no disclosure of the evidence. For instance, no field notes gathered by the anthropologists representing the claimants have been produced. There was a lot of interest and support for Mr Justice Michael Maurice, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, when he took steps earlier this year to obtain the working documents of some of the anthropologists involved in the Warramungu land claim. I am referring to a large area of land near Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. Mr Justice Maurice made the point, in ordering that certain field notes and other documents be produced, that it was doubtful that any land claim heard thus far in the Northern Territory had involved so many people having so many diverse interests. The Warramungu people are claiming about 10,000 square kilometres near Tenant Creek. When we are talking about that amount of land, I think we are entitled to be sure that it is being granted to the true traditional owners. In order to achieve this aim and to be sure we have to examine the basis upon which those expert witnesses have reached their conclusions. The flow of information in these land claim cases is very much in the control of the applicants and their advisers. It is they who decide who will give evidence and what material will or will not be put before the Land Commissioner. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to say that not all of the right people have been called before the Commissioner, that the composition of groups called is such as to stifle real discord and disagreement, and that embarrassing points have been judiciously glossed over. With the controversy which surrounds many land claims, I believe that the Commissioner is entitled to ask for all the information-I mean all the information-which will assist him in determining the traditional owners of the land. When I speak of controversy, it is not just controversy between Aboriginals and the rest of the community, but between different Aboriginal groups which are represented by opposing interests and for which evidence is given by various anthropologists. Recently, there was a lot of disagreement between the anthropologists, all supposedly specialists in their field, over the question of who were the rightful owners of the Katherine Gorge. It is an interesting scene when conflicting viewpoints are put forward by anthropologists. When even the anthropologists cannot agree, surely it is time to examine closely the basis for evidence coming before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in the Northern Territory? However, as I have said, there has been strong opposition to this suggestion from some anthropologists and the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority of the Northern Territory. Supposedly, the anthropologists do not divulge their field notes because of the confidential nature of the information which they may collect from their Aboriginal sources. While this may be the case, I believe that surely the Land Commissioner in the privacy of his chambers ought to be permitted to examine those notes to assist him in his deliberations. Even so, the confidential nature of these notes must be minimal. The most recent development since this request by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the document to be made available is that a court order from the Federal Court has been issued restraining him from obtaining them. The order is still in force and a further hearing of the Federal Court early next year will hear an appeal from the Northern Territory Government against the decision. Frankly, I believe that it is time for a house cleaning. On the general theme of reducing community opposition to land rights, I think that it is worth noting the remarks of Mr Justice Edward Woodward, the architect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, who, speaking at the twenty-third Australian Legal Convention earlier this year, called upon Aboriginal groups and their advisers to moderate their demands for more and more land. Mr Justice Woodward said that claims for land not based upon traditional ties were similar to heritage claims for areas to be set aside as nature reserves and should be dealt with in the same way by State and Territory governments on a case by case basis. Mr Justice Woodward even went so far as to suggest that in some cases Aboriginal groups should consider handing back some land. He said it was clear-this opinion is held by him and by many people-that the tide of public opinion had turned since the early days of the push for land rights, and public sentiment was not with Aboriginal aspirations to the extent that it had been in the past. That is perhaps what Mr Charlie Perkins was saying in his preface to the DAA report which has been tabled today. I think that is something which is recognised by people, both black and white, by many politicians and by the people living in areas such as the Northern Territory where there is a substantial Aboriginal population. There are very many problems, and I believe that action must be taken to put an end to the mistrust and confrontation among Aboriginal people, their advisers and others in the community. Part of the answer to the problem lies, I believe, with those claims that the Aboriginal people are making. Perhaps they should consider moderating their demands. Hopefully, we could achieve a more conciliatory atmosphere in places such as the Northern Territory, where the Aboriginal land rights Act has caused so much continued division. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.59) —I believe that I have no alternative but to respond to the despicable personal attack made on me earlier this evening by the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes. Some honourable senators know that sometimes Senator Grimes adopts his medico, bedside technique, and appears to be all sweetness and light, but frequently in this chamber he turns his head away from the Chair so that it will not be obvious that he is speaking about someone and he makes despicable personal attacks on honourable senators on this side of the chamber. He has frequently made the sort of attack that he made on me tonight on other senators on this side of the chamber. Then he responds by getting up and giving us his famous statement. `If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen', as if that is some sort of salve to his conscience. I assure Senator Grimes that I can stand the heat and I will be in this kitchen for as long as he will and I will give him as much as he wants to give me anytime. I respond to Senator Grimes on behalf of all of those on this side who have had to suffer this attack-because he says it so frequently in this place to us on this side he probably says it to others outside the chamber-that he does not know the personal circumstances of any individual that determine whether or not he served in any force. There were people during World War I who were handed white feathers who were not deserving of the criticism that was being made of them by the people who were handing them the white feathers. There were people during World War II who, for their own reasons, might have been unable to go away on service. I say to Senator Grimes, and to all honourable senators on the Government benches, that they want to be very careful in what they allege about people who may or may not have been able to, or have wanted to, serve in any force at any time. I say that on behalf of people generally. I now turn to my record in the Services, because I am proud of it. In 1951, when attending my first year at Melbourne University and before any question of national service training was mentioned by anyone, I joined the Melbourne University air squadron and I was delighted to be one of the six selected out of 380 applicants for the air crew. I was proud of being in that situation and I served the Melbourne University air squadron from 1951 until the end of 1953 as a member of the air crew. At some stage during 1951 the then Menzies Government introduced national service training and I applied for the Royal Australian Air Force, for which I was selected. I served in the Air Force for two periods of three months during consecutive university vacations, commencing in December and serving through January and February, and again I was pleased to be selected for air crew in national service training. So I gave a total of six months service in two periods in national service training. In 1953 I applied to join, and was successful, the No. 21 City of Melbourne fighter squadron, again in air crew, where I trained on Wirraways and more advanced fighter aircraft. In 1956 I was very seriously considering taking a seven-year short term commission with the Royal Air Force, which was available to me. I had to choose between that and going into the practice of law. I made the decision to go into the practice of law, but I could very easily have been a permanent officer in the Services. By the time Australia got around to sending troops to Vietnam it was 10 years later. I had not flown for 10 years and I was a father of a young family. Although I wanted to volunteer to join the Services I thought it was sensible not to do so. That is not to say that I did not consider doing it, even though I was in my late 20's. I ask Senator Grimes whether he can match that record, because if I understand his interjection correctly he was probably required under the Menzies Government to do national service training and did the Army service training of about three months short term training and then served for two weeks a year for the next five years. He somehow or other thinks that that equates with my six years of service in the Air Force, of which, as I say, I am very proud. But the fact that 10 years later, for a variety of reasons which I do not intend to go into, I decided that I would not volunteer to go to Vietnam-and I was clearly far too old to be called up to go to Vietnam-is a matter for my conscience and not for Senator Grimes. Senator Aulich —It certainly is for your conscience. Senator LEWIS —Senator Aulich says it is a matter for my conscience. I would be interested to hear what his record is. Let him tell us what his record is. He may have served in Vietnam for all I know, but let him get up to tell us rather than interject. He wants to lay it on the line. Senator Aulich —I was a conchie and proud of it. Senator LEWIS —He was a conchie and proud of it. Let me now turn to the main point of this discussion tonight. I do not think I know any servicemen who served in Vietnam who were not proud of it. By a device, the Vietnam troops chosen by Australia were the cream of Aus- tralia's youth. Let me tell honourable senators how it was done. First of all there was a ballot based on the date of birth but as a result of that ballot the number of people available was more than double the amount required. So the doctors-I do not know whether the honourable senator even knows this-selected the cream of those who had been called up. The result was we sent to Vietnam a cracker-jack force, a force equivalent to the volunteers we sent to World War I. They were the cream of Australia's young men. We always need to remember that and be proud of them. That is why I am so concerned that they are now suffering the conditions they are suffering. I do not believe it is the result of agent orange; it is the result of a combination of events because the cream of Australia's young men served in that war, came back here and now suffer all these problems. That is as matter which the coalition Government should have done something about; we tried to do something about it. This Government should have been doing something about it. One of the reasons Vietnam veterans are now facing these problems is the way in which they were treated by the Whitlam Government in 1973 when it brought them back. Instead of proudly marching them through the streets of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth and saying `These are the fine men who we sent to Vietnam. These are the people who you can be proud of', instead of giving them a warm welcome back, they were sneaked into the country as if they had done something wrong. Senator Kilgariff —That is why they feel as they do now. Senator LEWIS —Senator Kilgariff is quite right. That is one of the reasons they feel the way they feel now: They were never treated properly by the government of Australia when they were brought back here in 1973. That is why I responded to Senator Tate tonight when he made an attack on me in relation to this matter. If the Government is critical of the Liberal-National Party Government for sending troops to Vietnam it should criticise that Government but it should not criticise the troops. That is what the Government did, in effect. I believe that the Government was pandering to its left wing. The Australian Labor Party would not have been game to say `What a fine body of men; aren't these marvellous troops' because members of its left wing would have gone right off their minds. They were off their minds anyway over Vietnam. That is what went wrong and that is why I say that one of the causes-I am not saying it is the only cause-of the Vietnam veterans' problems today is the folly of the way in which Whitlam and his Government treated them in 1973. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.09) —I will seek information about the subject raised by Senator Reid, medicab and its possible subsidy, and the transfer of WIN 4 station in Wollongong from VHF to UHF, which was raised by Senator Michael Baume. I have no knowledge of what is happening there. It certainly seems difficult for WIN 4. I will seek information on that matter from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Senator Boswell gave what he sees as his Party's view on the problems of farmers in Queensland and their need for fertiliser. He wants the anti-dumping levy and the Australian National Line monopoly removed. Well he may. I hope he sought the same thing when the previous Government was in power. Senator Kilgariff's views on land rights are well known. He gave a long and detailed discourse on this tonight which I am sure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will be interested in. We then heard Senator Lewis. If I have ever not been concerned about anything I have said in this place, I certainly am not concerned about anything I have said tonight after hearing Senator Lewis speak, both on the adjournment and during his speech earlier tonight on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Firstly, I point out to the Senate-several people are present now who were here at the time-that I did not turn my head away from the Deputy President and make any comments. I actually got vigorously excited, thumped the table, looked directly at Senator Lewis and said what I had to say. Senator Lewis got somewhat agitated, and I am sorry that I agitated him as much as I did. But I remind honourable senators that this episode started tonight during Senator Lewis's speech when he chose to condemn the Whitlam Government-I became a member of parliament soon after these events-for the way that it brought people back from Vietnam. On the adjournment, Senator Lewis attributed many of the difficulties faced by Vietnam veterans to the way that they were brought back. But not a word was said about the way that they were sent to Vietnam. The comment I made was simply-- Senator Walters —They were volunteers. Senator GRIMES —They were not all volunteers. The comment I made was simply that there are people in this Parliament and relatives of people in this Parliament who at that time vigorously supported the sending of troops to Vietnam, who at that time vigorously supported the parties who were sending those troops to Vietnam, and who were young enough themselves to volunteer to go but did not have the guts to go because they were in their late twenties and it might have cost them money. We heard tonight that they might have lost income. Those of us who opposed the Vietnam episode- Senator Walters —Who were traitors to it. Senator GRIMES —They were called traitors by the likes of Senator Walters. They were called traitors for standing up and expressing their views. What do we find out now, after the Vietnam war? We have found that the then Australian Government was not even asked to take part in that war or to contribute. We know now from Cabinet documents that have since been released that the Menzies' Government requested the United States Government: `Please ask us to send our troops to Vietnam so that we can big-note ourselves'. Senator Walters —What were you doing-undermining our fighting boys? Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters should not talk to me about Menzies. Menzies is the best example of someone whose brilliant military career was ruined by the onset of war. He got out of the Army as soon as World War I started. Those of us who opposed the Vietnam war had the courage-Senator Walters may not think it was courage-in small groups, in small towns and cities, to stand up for our beliefs. We were called communists and were abused by the likes of Senator Walters who had a great time in Hobart using language-I say this to Senator Lewis-about people who were walking down the street expressing their views, much worse than any language I used tonight about Senator Lewis or anybody else. But there were people in this Parliament, in the Liberal Party and the National Party, who supported the Vietnam war, who were fit enough and young enough to go to war but who would not volunteer to do so because it might have hurt their pockets. They are the ones who are traitors to this country. They are the ones who are gutless. They are the ones who said to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds: `Go over there; fight in that miserable war. Go and spend some of those hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend on death and destruction, but we will not go'. I opposed them going there, but what I did not do-- Senator Walters —What did you do? Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters was raising money and saying: `Send these kids to Vietnam and let them get killed'. It is people such as Senator Walters who are responsible for the death of the 400 Australians in Vietnam, not me. It was people like Senator Walters who egged them on and said that what they were doing was defending democracy and all this sort of thing. What happened in the end? Unfortunately what happened in the end was what people like me and others said would happen in the end: They came home to a divided society about what they had done. It was not their fault. They were glad to get home. In the first three years after they got home the government of the day was the Whitlam Government. Soon afterwards I became Opposition shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I held that position for a long time. I remember the words of the Returned Services League, which is a very conservative organisation. In its annual report it said that the Government-that is, the Whitlam Government-had done more for the conditions of veterans than any previous government since the Second World War. What is said was true. We realised that we had a duty to do by our veterans, be they veterans of Vietnam, the Seceond World War or anywhere else. We realised that there was a responsibility in this country to do that. We improved the conditions of those Vietnam veterans. All these years later we see Senator Walters in this place pouring out all the vitriol she used to pour out in those days. As people expressed their views in Tasmania she used to say that we had no right at all to express views contrary to the views held by the government of the day. I wonder what she would say if we had the cheek to get up today and say: `Look, the people of this country have a duty to support the Government's line and no one else's'. We had a debate about that this morning. In those days Senator Walters said that. She said that it was our duty not to disagree with our involvement in Vietnam, not to disagree with the sending of conscripts to Vietnam and not to disagree with the blood, the carnage and everything else that was going on over there; it was our duty to support the government of the day-our country-right or wrong. That is not my philosophy. I am sorry that I upset Senator Lewis tonight. I am sorry that he is so sensitive about the issue. If Senator Lewis is willing to get up in this place and say that the Government of which I was a member and a supporter behaved in the way he says it behaved, I do not think he should be surprised at the response of people such as Senator Tate. I assume, from the things he has said in this place in the past, that he has a much higher regard for Senator Tate than he has for me. Senator Tate got very upset and agitated. He was so upset that he used language in this place that he is not used to using even outside this place and he was reprimanded by the Deputy President. He felt so strongly about the matter that he got up in the adjournment debate to explain why he felt that way. The problem with people such as Senator Lewis and Senator Walters is that they have double standards. They think that it is perfectly all right to get up in this place and make the remarks they made about me and my colleagues. Tonight Senator Walters used the word `traitor' about us and Senator Lewis said that we treated Vietnam veterans in a disgraceful way when we brought them home. Senator Lewis —I said the Whitlam Government treated them and I still say it. Senator GRIMES —It is perfectly all right to say that. I do not mind if Senator Lewis says that. I do not care if he says it. This is a robust political House. But if he says that sort of thing, he must cop a bit back, and I have said that before. Senator Lewis —I have copped it. Senator GRIMES —You have copped it? You got up and whinged. Senator Lewis got up and whinged and screamed and cried about it. It is a pointless exercise. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GRIMES —I am responding as the Minister on duty, and I shall continue to respond. That is my privilege. I am allowed to respond in this way. The simple fact is that they were difficult and troubled times, when there was a severely divided society and when people on both sides of the debate held their views firmly and conscientiously. I am not denying that Senator Walters did not have very strong views and believed that we should have had people up there. People on our side had opposite views. The problem is that Senator Walters believes that, in expressing our views, we were being traitors and we should not have expressed them. She believes that we should have remained mute about what was happening in Vietnam and the difficulties that were facing our troops there. Senator Lewis is, of course, right. They were an excellent fighting force. They were the cream of-- Senator Walters —You didn't say that at the time. Senator GRIMES —What we said at the time was-and Senator Walters never heard me; I find that offensive and insulting, but I find the things she says frequently like that-that the government of the day was wrong to send those troops to Vietnam. We said that the government of the day was wrong to involve this country in what was happening in Vietnam. We said that the government of the day was wrong to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in raining death and destruction on that benighted country. We said that we would be better off being not involved, as others would have been in being not involved. We expressed that view very strongly. We did not at any stage-certainly I did not do so and neither did others in my presence-condemn the individual troops who were there, and we believed very strongly that when they returned they should be treated properly and treated as any returning soldiers who had done their duty by their country should be treated. I believe very strongly that we did so. The record of our Government in those days in the treatment of Vietnam veterans and other veterans was much better than that of the Government that preceded it or the Government that followed it. Whether or not the Opposition likes it, that happens to be true, and that is a matter of record. The troops came home to a divided society and, as a result of that, they suffered-as the American veterans did. The problem for the American veterans was that they came home to a divided and difficult society. I shall finish on this line. I think that the greatest tragedy of Vietnam was the people who stood on the sidelines and egged the Government on, saying not only `You are right in sending the troops you have sent' but `Send more, and send conscripts to Vietnam and spend more money on the war'. Despite the fact of what was happening at that time, the tragedy is that people such as those have learnt nothing and would do the same thing again and again and again. The worst people who said that were those who did not go, and particularly the people who did not go but could have gone. I accept what Senator Lewis says. He had served six years in the Air Force in this country, in the reserve, so he felt that he had done enough; and it is fair enough that he felt that he had done enough. There are others who sat in this Parliament, actually, who could have gone. There are plenty in this Parliament now who could have gone and who were very vocal at the time but who did not go. That was the reason I made my remarks, and I shall make remarks of that type again if Senator Lewis chooses to make the remarks he did about the Whitlam Government. I expect people such as Senator Walters to call people traitors. In fact, I say to Senator Lewis that Senator Walters is like the women in the First World War who unthinkingly and unknowingly handed out white feathers to people who were not in uniform, without questioning why they were not in uniform or why they did not go to war. There will always be the Senator Walterses of this world. They will always stand on the sideline, egging people on to kill each other and destroy each other. But some things never change and I suppose that is one of the enduring features of this world. I apologise to Senator Lewis if he took so much offence at the heated remarks I made. But I make no apologies for responding to what I think were the offensive remarks he made, in the same way as Senator Tate responded to them. I do not believe that the rules of this place are sensible in that they allow people collectively to blackguard one side. But people get very sensitive if that collective blackguarding is turned into individual blackguarding by those who were receiving it. If they do not like it, they should not do it. But they should not expect me to desist. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.26) —We have just heard vitriolic remarks of the type that we are so used to hearing from Senator Grimes. Senator Grimes —You should have been here earlier. Senator WALTERS —I did miss his earlier outbursts, I believe. But I will not have that man carry on in that way about me. He has said that the people who stood on the sidelines and egged the Government on were the worst. I believe the people who marched in the moratorium marches, who raised money to support the enemy, the North Vietnamese, the people with whom Senator Grimes marched-indeed, Senator Grimes was one of them-who undermined our troops in Vietnam when they were under fire, when they were being killed, are the people who did the most damage to the reputation of those boys and to the feelings of those boys when they came home. Members such as Senator Grimes actually raised money to support the enemy when our boys were there-whether he liked it or not-fighting for him to be able to enter those marches and, because we live in a democracy, to raise money to support the enemy. I was never in my life so disgusted with any group of young men as I was during that period. While so many of our Australian soldiers were fighting in Vietnam and offering their lives, people at home were marching in our streets undermining, as was the Whitlam Government, which was in office at the time, the soldiers who were brought home. As Senator Lewis said a little earlier, they slunk into the country because no government was willing to welcome them home like heroes, which is what should have happened. Senator Grimes is well aware of my feelings in this matter. He is well aware that I, along with many other people in Hobart, set up an anti-moratorium march and marched under banners which proclaimed `support our boys while they are fighting for us in Vietnam'. But he was in that other crowd which was taking donations and sending them to North Vietnam. For him to accuse anyone on this side of the House of not going to Vietnam while he was deliberately undermining those heroes who did go, I believe, is an absolute disgrace. He knows that by far the majority of them were volunteers. I believe that for him to carry on in this way is an absolute disgrace but typical of the man who is the Minister in charge of the chamber at the moment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 300, 301. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 302, 303. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 299, 311. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 310. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 305, 306, 308. Defence Act-Determinations 1985- No. 69-Attendance Allowance and others. No. 70-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 71-Field Allowance and Travelling Allowance. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 307. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 298. Registration of Deaths Abroad Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 304. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 309. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 555) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has the Attorney-General seen newspaper reports of a decision by a Victorian judge upholding a 17th century English legal principle that a husband cannot be held guilty of raping his wife if they are living together; if so: (a) did the awful violence inflicted on the wife in this case occur when the husband found her packing to leave and that she had not told him earlier of her intention to leave precisely because she feared more violence. (b) are the deficiencies thus revealed in the Victorian law the same or worse in most of the other Australian States and Territories. (2) Will the Attorney-General undertake to work with State Attorneys-General to achieve uniform laws which would overthrow outmoded legal principles and provide real protection for wives at risk from their husbands in this way; if so, will the Attorney-General undertake to do this as a matter of urgency to avoid any repetition of the situation referred to. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions. (1) I am aware of the newspaper reports of a decision by a Victorian judge upholding a 17th century common law principle that a husband cannot be held guilty of raping his wife where they are living together. (a) The prosecution in question arose under Victorian law and I am only aware of the facts insofar as they were reported in the Age of 14 and 16 September 1985. (b) Legislative responsibility of the Commonwealth for laws relating to sexual offences is limited, in Australia, to the Australian Capital Territory. So far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned I understand that under existing law the 17th century common law principle that a husband cannot be guilty of raping his wife, currently only applies to traditional sexual intercourse and not to anal or oral intercourse. Accordingly under existing Australian Capital Territory law a man is not immune from conviction for unlawful anal or oral intercourse by virtue of the marriage immunity. In the latter part of last year my predecessor forwarded to the then Minister for Territories and Local Government a draft Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance and Evidence (Amendment) Ordinance for reference to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. These Ordinances contain substantial reforms to sexual offences in the Australian Capital Territory and are part of the ongoing review of the criminal laws of the Territory. One of the objectives of the proposed reforms is to restate sexual offences in a more contemporary and relevant manner so as to include forms of penetration other than traditional sexual intercourse. A further objective of the proposed reforms is the recognition of the equality of status of all persons. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly assented to the proposed reforms on 22 October 1985. The Proposals provide for the abolition of this ancient immunity and I expect the Draft Ordinances will be made shortly. I understand N.S.W. similarly abolished this immunity in 1981 and currently the Victorian Parliament is considering legislation that will abolish it in that State. (2) Legislative responsibility for laws in relation to sexual offences is primarily a matter for the Governments of the States and the Northern Territory. The Australian Capital Territory reforms, once enacted will, however, prove a model for other jurisdictions. (Question No. 614) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: Is a private organisation called the Defence Manufacturers Association of Australia planning to hold an exhibition of arms and military equipment at the Sydney Showground and that it is planned for October 1986 which is International Year of Peace; if so, what action is being taken to communicate the Government's disapproval; firstly at this arms bazaar and secondly at its particularly bad timing. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Sydney based company, Desiko Pty Ltd, has cancelled arrangements to stage the Pacific Area Defence Exhibition (PADEX) in Sydney in May 1986. The exhibition was to have been supported by the Defence Manufacturers Association of Australia. (Question No. 681) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: Will the Minister for Transport inform the Senate whether or not the Government has concluded its consideration of the Interstate Commission Report on Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme which was presented on 18 April 1985 and precisely when it intends to implement the Commission's recommendations. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government's decision on the Inter-State Commission's Report on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme was announced in my Media Release of 26 July 1985. In that announcement I advised that the Government had decided to continue the Scheme and had accepted the Commission's judgement on the rates of assistance it considered were justified. The rates of assistance recommended by the Commission apply to eligible cargo shipped on or after 1 September 1985. Senator Ryan —On 28 May 1985 (Hansard, page 2598) Senator Lajovic asked me a question without notice concerning funding for the School of Slavonic Studies at Macquarie University for the 1985-87 triennium. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Following advice received from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in Volume 1 of its Report for the 1985-87 Triennium, the Government agreed that grants for community language programs would no longer be specifically earmarked. Funds would however continue to be made available within general recurrent grants which were increased by the amounts involved, for this purpose. CTEC considered that the original purpose of earmarking grants, ie, highlighting a need, had been achieved. While the funds made available to Macquarie University for Slavonic Studies are no longer earmarked as such, an appropriate provision has been made in the total grant to enable the courses commenced under the Community Languages Program at Macquarie University to continue through 1985 to 1987. I understand this includes programs in Croatian, Macedonian, Polish and Serbian languages. Studies in Ukrainian are also available in 1985. Senator Gietzelt —On 17 October 1985, (Hansard, page 1407) Senator Peter Rae asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice concerning the arrangements being made for the meeting of a consultative committee concerned with the lightstation conversion program. The Minister for Transport has provided the following information: I refer the honourable senator to my statement to the Parliament on 11 October 1984 concerning the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on ``Lighthouses: Do We Keep the Keepers?''. In that statement I said I would develop and announce to the Parliament a Program for amongst other lighthouses, Swan Island, after having the benefit of any further community reaction and the benefit of comments from the relevant State Government. I also said that in the development of the Program I would follow the decision making arrangements recommended in the Report. The procedure being followed in the case of Swan Island is exactly that recommended in the Report. Discussion with Tasmanian Government officers took place on 29 August 1985 and resulted in agreement on the form of the consultative committee meeting and its venue at the Australian Maritime College, Launceston. Arising from this meeting the Tasmanian Government officials provided a list of representative organisations they proposed should be included in the discussions. Discussion with representatives of these organisations has been taking place since 11 September 1985. The meeting date and place were covered in these discussions. No organisation has suggested that Launceston is either inappropriate or inconvenient for a meeting concerning a lighthouse off the North East coast of Tasmania. On Wednesday 16 October 1985 the Australian Lighthouse Association representative raised the question of payment to attend the meeting. In the maritime area the Department of Transport is responsible for two statutory bodies established under the Navigation Act. In these cases members are formally appointed by the Minister and fees and expenses are prescribed by the Remuneration Tribunal. There are many other consultative meetings where participants are responsible for their own fares and expenses. This Lighthouse Conversion Program meeting is only the first of many such meetings. No funds are allowed in the budget for such purposes and it would not be appropriate to establish a precedent of this nature. Certain national organisations interested in being represented at the meeting have arranged for Tasmanian resident delegates to attend. This is entirely appropriate for an issue that primarily is of concern to Tasmania. The Australian Lighthouse Association may also wish to consider this approach.