Tuesday, 11 February 1986 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1986 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT (THIRD PERIOD) The Senate, on 6 December 1985, adjourned to 11 February 1986, unless the President fixed an earlier day of meeting. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate passed on 6 December 1985, the Senate met on Tuesday, 11 February 1986, at 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform honourable senators of the death on 30 January 1986 of Mr Ray Thorburn, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Cook from 1972 to 1975. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-Ray William Thorburn was elected as the member for Cook in 1972 and re-elected in 1974, serving during the Whitlam period. Unfortunately, due to longstanding ill health-asthma, which had certain complications-he passed away on Thursday, 30 January this year. I first met Ray Thorburn soon after he was elected to the Sutherland Shire Council, at which time he was active in local community affairs, having spent many years in the ambulance service as a voluntary worker and assistant to that important organisation. Subsequently he became Secretary of the Council of Progress Associations in the Sutherland Shire. Inevitably that led him to take an interest in political matters and he joined the Australian Labor Party and was subsequently elected from the Cronulla riding to the Sutherland Council, where he served from 1964 to 1973. He was elected President of the Shire of Sutherland for 1971-72 and in the same period, as the endorsed Labor candidate, he was elected as member for the seat of Cook. Ray Thorburn was orphaned at a very early age, and his early experiences led him to his long-standing involvement in assisting disadvantaged people and in local community activities. He also decided to improve his education, and he subsequently moved out of the New South Wales railways to become an electrical engineering officer for the Sydney County Council. When he became Shire President of Sutherland he was elected to the executive of the Local Government Association, and when he became a member of parliament he took an active interest in Aboriginal affairs. He was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. When Ray Thorburn lost his seat in the election in 1975, that did not stop his participation in community affairs. Subsequently he was appointed to the board of the Sutherland District Hospital and a few years later he became the President of the Cronulla Workers Club, a position he held for some eight years. Ray Thorburn's whole life was devoted to his fellow men and women and to community affairs. His death is not only a loss of a fine colleague in the Australian Labor Party but also a loss for the citizens of the Sutherland Shire, who turned out in great numbers at his funeral a week or so ago. I pay tribute to a very fine citizen. Australia has lost a very valuable person in community life, and we mourn his passing. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-Many honourable senators on this side of the chamber knew Ray Thorburn well. On behalf of Opposition senators I want to express our sympathy and support the words which have been offered by Senator Gietzelt. We knew Ray Thorburn well as a member of Parliament. Indeed, many of us came in while he was the member for Cook, having been elected then on two occasions. We knew him later as a candidate as he stood unsuccessfully for the Australian Labor Party during the times that were difficult for that party. We knew him as an opponent in the Parliament and on the hustings and we had nothing but respect for him. In my capacity as a doctor in the Parliament I had other associations with him as he frequently came to discuss his chest condition and the asthma which Senator Gietzelt has mentioned and which has unfortunately contributed to his early death at the age of 55 years. Mr Ray Thorburn came up through local government and was a member of the shire council for 19 years. He was the Shire President for the last two years before he came into the Federal Parliament. Indeed, the shire he represented makes up the large part of that great electorate of Cook which he represented and in which I was a voter for a long time. I am sure, Mr President, in view of your home suburb, that you knew Ray Thorburn very well and had close associations with him as well. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia and on behalf of my colleagues in the National Party, and, I am sure, on behalf of my friend Don Dobie, I would like to say how sorry we are that Ray Thornburn has died at such an untimely early age. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-Ray Thorburn, like me, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1972, re-elected in 1974 and defeated in 1975. We served the whole of the three years of the Whitlam Government together and we served on at least one committee together. He was another hard working Australian Labor Party member of parliament whose seat was unfortunately too marginal. I regret that I did not keep up contact with him, as with so many others after 1975, but I have good memories of him from that hectic three-year period. I also regret not having been able to attend his funeral but I do now express my sincere sympathy to his family. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that on 16 January 1986 I received a letter from Senator Peter Rae resigning his place as a senator for the State of Tasmania. In accordance with section 21 of the Constitution I notified the Governor of the State of Tasmania of a vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator Rae. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 January 1983 the Latvian born nursing sister Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was arrested by the Soviet authorities and subsequently sentenced to sixteen years in a strict regime enforced labour camp with an additional three years in exile. She had been charged with maintaining contact with Baptists abroad and for being in possession of a copy of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and of having a list of the Soviet Union's transgressions of them. Since Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was only exercising her rights as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a cosignator, your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate will intercede with the Soviet authorities on her behalf and so secure her early release. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 185 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that the autocratic decision to terminate the appointment of His Honour Commodore E. E. Johnston, A.M., O.B.E. as the administrator of the Northern Territory is an affront to the people of the Northern Territory and abhorred by them. Further, such an action denigrates the position of the administrator of the Northern Territory. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ensure that His Honour, Commodore E. E. Johnston, A.M., O.B.E. is appointed immediately for a further five years as administrator of the Northern Territory and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 341 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 whereas there is no evidence of a clear public demand for a Bill of Rights; and Whereas many rights included in the Bill of Rights never have been nor are now in danger in Australia; and Whereas many rights deemed precious to all Australians are not included in this Bill, e.g., the right to own property and the right to choose not to belong to a trade union without incurring penalty, and Whereas this Bill confers on a non elected, non representative body [the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission] powers, better vested in the judiciary: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government desists from proceeding with a Bill of Rights, until, by referendum it ascertains if (a) Australians believe their freedoms are in jeopardy; and (b) Australians believe such a Bill needs to be introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 159 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 their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bolkus (from 116 citizens), Button (from 93 citizens) and Sir John Carrick (from 135 citizens). To the Honourable the President and 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 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Gietzelt (from 991 citizens) and Ryan (from 982 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 a Government decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, will place in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the Senate to protect the interest of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the Government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 2,057 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 Archer (from 89 citizens), Bjelke-Petersen (from 27 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 151 citizens), Chipp (from 61 citizens), Gietzelt (from 81 citizens), Puplick (from 76 citizens), Richardson (from 223 citizens) and Robertson (from 355 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in 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 Elstob (from 355 citizens), Gietzelt (from 90 citizens), Haines (from 257 citizens), Macklin (from 193 citizens), Robertson (from 687 citizens), and Vanstone (from 172 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: 1. In the aging Australian society children are our most precious resource. 2. We request that any changes to the Child Care Act should ensure the protection of these children by providing for quality care by mothercraft nurses or other trained child care professionals. 3. We urge that funding provided under the Child Care Act should ensure the maintenance of the present standards of 75 per cent of award wages and conditions for approved child care professionals. 4. We also ask that available child care places be provided according to the needs of the children rather than through restricting access according to the work-related needs of parents. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 62 citizens), Grimes (from 833 citizens), Robert Ray (from 62 citizens) and Robertson (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe that our protected wildlife are not suitable subjects for laboratory experimentation and that repetitive and needless experiments should be prohibited. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 89 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have- 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Support the Constitutional Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- The long, drawn out, prolonged effect of ever expanding interest rates has and will continue to tear this country apart as home purchasers are given temporary easement or extended time payments, paying a mere pittance off the original loan with a complete disregard for the final result, i.e. the selling of small business and an intolerable position for the early or young home purchasers, also social disruption at its worst for the last 15 to 20 years. Therefore no government or opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2 per cent annually for the next five years or until it is down to 6 per cent. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. Your petitioners in duty will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 310 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Elstob (from 52 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions and make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Customs Administration Act 1985, and for related purposes. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 30 May 1986, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in August 1986, without any Question being put. (2) That this order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in August 1986. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: In view of the- (a) strongly held desire of the majority of Australians that the present Australian Flag be retained; and (b) need to ensure that any change to the flag is put to a referendum, calls upon the Federal Government to proceed to debate Senator Durack's Flag Amendment Bill 1984, in the House of Representatives, without further delay. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, in view of the- (a) several million dollars already outlayed for the re-development of Darwin Airport, in the capital city of the Northern Territory; (b) grossly inadequate facilities for domestic and international travellers provided by the airport; (c) outstanding efforts of the Northern Territory Government and private enterprise in the Northern Territory in developing multi-million dollar tourist facilities, which are being cancelled out by the poor impression left in the minds of travellers and international airline operators by the Darwin airport; and (d) failure of the Federal Government to report on its re-appraisal of the airport re-development within the six months the re-appraisal was expected to take, calls upon the Federal Government to recognise the need to proceed without delay with the re-development of Darwin Airport, and urges the Government to re-commence the project forthwith. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, in view of the heavy reliance of outback and remote region pilots on the face to face services provided by regional meteorological services and the potential danger to pilots and their passengers as a result of diminished access to reliable and up to date warnings of hazardous local weather conditions, which will result from the planned reduction in services and eventual closures of a number of regional meteorological services, calls upon the Federal Government to defer its decision to close these stations until such time as an inquiry into the safety implications for pilots and air travellers is held, and the Government is able to assure the Senate that these people will not be put at risk by the current proposals. 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. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Reports 1984-85-pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976. The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements 2. Department of Education-Annual Report 1984-85 3. Cherries in brine or other preservative, from Italy (anti-dumping)-IAC report 4. Biological control of Echium species (including Paterson's Curse/Salvation Jane)-IAC report 5. Passenger concessions-IAC report 6. The Heavy Engineering Industry-IAC report Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table two Government responses to Senate committee reports. I seek leave to incorporate the statements in Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- STATEMENT ON THE REPORT OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL WELFARE ``EXPORT OF LIVE SHEEP FROM AUSTRALIA'' For the information of honourable senators, I present the Government's response to the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare titled ``Export of Live Sheep from Australia''. 1. The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare ``Export of Live Sheep from Australia'' tabled on 20 August 1985 has been considered by the Government. The report is the first to be made by the Committee and relates to exports which are a more common concern of the general community than most other forms of animal management and handling. 2. These concerns were clearly recognised by the Committee and it canvassed the alternatives. In its General Conclusions, it concluded that on pure welfare grounds there is enough evidence to stop the trade as conducted at present. However, the Committee agreed that the animal welfare aspects of the trade are interwoven with economic and other considerations. 3. This trade is highly significant to rural Australia. It stabilises the value of all sheep by providing competition through additional markets thus helping to cushion the effects of droughts and broadening the range of management strategies available to the sheep industry for both livestock and crops. When the live sheep trade began expansion in 1973, the national flock had been experiencing an unprecedented decline. While sheep numbers are currently at a 10-year high, and a fairly stable turn-off averaging under 29 million sheep and lambs per annum to local slaughter has been maintained, saleyard prices of sheep for slaughter are currently depressed and loss of this market would have a significant industry impact. 4. It has been claimed in some quarters that placing restrictive limits on live sheep exports would lead to an increase in carcass exports. However, the preference in Middle East countries for ``fresh killed'' meat is deeply rooted in religious and/or cultural customs. In many cases, the lack of bulk chilling or freezing facilities poses a further barrier to substitution of carcass trade for the present live sheep trade. While a market does exist in the Middle East for processed meats, chicken and beef imports are currently preferred over frozen mutton. 5. Proponents of the view that restriction of the live sheep trade would improve employment opportunities in the local abattoir industry have also suggested that Australia'a dominant position in the live trade could be used to coerce Middle East consumers to alter their eating habits. While Australia is the biggest supplier, there are seven other traditional suppliers and two new entrants into the trade, New Zealand and China. New Zealand producers reportedly have contracts to supply up to 1 million lambs to Saudi Arabia in 1986 and China has agreed to sell 160,000 ``fat tail'' sheep to Kuwait this year. Both New Zealand and China have the capacity to expand sales in future years, should live sheep not be available from Australia. Argentina, Uraguay, Brazil and South Africa are further potential new entrants into the live sheep trade. The investment in shipping and on-shore facilities in the Middle East is very great. New ships are being brought into the trade and feedlots and abattoirs are being continually upgraded and new ones built. The clear alternative to sheep from Australia is sheep from other countries, not frozen mutton from Australia. 6. The General Conclusions of the report clearly confirm the position of the Government: the trade should continue provided that the welfare of the sheep is given the proper high priority it requires. 7. The Government agrees that adequate supervision and greater research and development is required. It believes that more information exchange and openness would foster development in the industry and help dispel any feeling in the community that conditions and husbandry of the sheep are open to criticism. The Government looks to the industry to provide leadership on these matters so that improvements can be made to the health, husbandry and welfare of sheep exported from Australia and to improve the public image of this important industry. It is only in this way that this industry can be assured of continued support from the Government. 8. Central to the research and development need is the Shipboard Veterinary Clinical Service which was recently established on a pilot basis by the Department of Primary Industry. It will arrange for either Commonwealth or State veterinarians to accompany selected ships transporting live sheep so that they can undertake animal health and husbandry observations and measurements and encourage research and development. The aim is to establish the data necessary to identify the action required to minimise shipboard mortality and trauma. The Senate Committee strongly supports this initiative and recommends that it be given a high priority. 9. A number of the recommendations relate to supervision of the industry and specific legislative requirements. In examining the scope for legislation, the Government will ensure that there is the necessary broad legislative base for officials to effectively discharge their responsibilities relating to the inspection of sheep for export. However, it should be understood that animal husbandry is not readily suited to detailed legislation. The animal in its environment, particularly in a country the size of Australia, is subject to a vast range of positive and negative influences. This is why the training and experience of the stockman and animal scientist is so important in varying husbandry to meet changes in the environment which may be forecast or arise as crises. 10. Industry has undertaken to fully cooperate with initiatives aimed at improving sheep welfare, including revised standards for feedlots and the Shipboard Veterinary Clinical Service. The need for detailed legislation will depend significantly on the success of industry action and cooperation. 11. I understand the report has received general acceptance within the community and within the welfare organisations. In view of the interest in seeing that the recommendations of the report are brought quickly to fruition, I have arranged for my Department to have specific discussions with welfare organisations, industry and other relevant parties. 12. I am now in a position to provide the Government's response to each of the Senate Select Committee's recommendations made in the Report and, with the concurrence of the Senate, the recommendations and the Government's response are incorporated in Hansard. Recommendation 4.8 The Committee recommends that the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service ensure that research agreed to by the Australian Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee in February 1984, for which funding has been approved by Australian Meat Research Committee, on regional sources of sheep and subsequent adaptation to conditions on live sheep carriers, be commenced without delay. Government Response This research, which has been approved by the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation, already has been commenced. Recommendation 4.15 The Committee recommends that live sheep under two years of age not be exported until the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service has completed an investigation as to the mimimum age that should apply to export sheep. Government Response There is some veterinary opinion which supports the view that younger sheep may travel better. In order to determine whether sheep of this age travel satisfactorily several shipments will be monitored by the Shipboard Veterinary Clinical Service. Recommendation 5.14 The Committee recommends that details of sheep mortalities sustained during transportation from farm to feedlot be forwarded to the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service for collation and analysis. Government Response Agree. If necessary, the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service of the Department of Primary Industry will initiate further assessment by appropriate research organisations. Recommendation 6.12 The Committee recommends that the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service revise the standards to provide for a period of feedlotting of sheep of not less than seven days prior to export and that it be made clear that this period excludes the days of arrival and departure. Government Response Agree in principle. However conditions in feedlots may result in stress to sheep held for unnecessary periods and until further observation and research is carried out the period should not be less than five clear days with authority for the Chief Quarantine Officer (Animals) of the States to vary this. Recommendation 6.15 The Committee recommends that the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service issues instructions to quarantine veterinary officer to prevent sheep, which have not spent the specified time in a feedlot, from being loaded on to a sheep carrier. Government Response Agree. In addition, as covered in the response to Recommendation 6.12, the Chief Quarantine Officer (Animals) will have the authority to vary the time period. Recommendation 6.22 The Committee recommends that troughs in feedlots be raised to approximately the height of troughs on board carriers. Government Response Rejected at this stage. Evidence is not available to support this recommendation. Further observations and investigations will be carried out. Recommendation 6.29 The Committee recommends that feed troughs be covered in export feedlots at Portland and in other places where there are problems or potential problems with weather conditions affecting the adaptation of sheep to a pellet diet. Government Response Agree in principle with regional modification as necessary. Recommendation 6.34 The Committee recommends that the State Departments of Agriculture assess the capacity of each feedlot and ensure that the capacity is not exceeded at any time. Government Response Agree in principle with regional modification as necessary. Recommendation 6.44 The Committee recommends that adequate shelter be provided to sheep in the feedlots. Government Response Agree. Recommendation 6.51 The Committee recommends that details of sheep mortalities sustained during the period of feedlotting prior to export be forwarded to the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service for collation and analysis. Government Response Agree. If necessary, the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service will initiate further assessment by appropriate research organisations. Recommendation 6.56 The Committee recommends that the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, in consultation with the State Departments of Agriculture and the Australian Livestock Exporters Association, draw up national standards for export feedlots. Government Response Agree. Action has already commenced. Recommendation 6.57 The Committee further recommends that the State Governments license export feedlots based on the proposed national standards and, should a feedlot fail to observe these standards, the licence for that feedlot be revoked, suspended or not renewed, as appropriate. Government Response Agree in principle. This is a matter for further discussion with and consideration by States, especially on the most appropriate method of achieving. Recommendation 7.9 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Australian Livestock Exporters Association and Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, commission research into the use of binders and other methods to reduce the incidence of pellet crumbling and dusty feed in feedlots and aboard ships and to establish a minimum standard of pellet cohesion to be incorporated in the Marine Orders and Code of Practice. Government Response Agree. The Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service will implement this recommendation. Recommendation 7.24 The Committee recommends that Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service arrange for research to be done to draw up minimum standards for pellets to maintain body weight and to ensure the nutritional welfare of the sheep in the feedlot and aboard the carrier. Government Response Agree. Recommendation 7.25 The Committee also recommends that a uniform pellet testing procedure be carried out either by a government authority or an independent body for each shipment of sheep and that the results of these tests be forwarded to the feedmill, the shipper, the relevant State Department of Agriculture and the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service. Government Response Uniform testing procedures already being increasingly carried out. Action will be taken to expand this to cover a reasonable number of shipments in order to adequately monitor feed quality. Recommendation 8.13 The Committee recommends that the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service draw the attention of quarantine veterinary officers to the need to halt loading under unsuitable weather conditions. Government Response Agree. The decision to halt loading should be on the professional judgment of the government veterinary officer and in such cases loading-out should cease also at feedlots. Recommendation 8.21 The Committee recommends that the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, in consultation with State Departments of Agriculture, arrange training programs for waterside workers who load animals on to carriers. Government Response Agree. Recommendation 8.33 The Committee recommends that quarantine veterinary officers inspect carriers before departure to ensure that stocking densities are complied with. Government Response Agree. This function to be carried out in consultation with the Department of Transport. Recommendation 8.37 The Committee recommends that the Livestock Advisory Committee review stocking densities onboard live sheep carriers and, if necessary, the Department of Transport amend the Marine Orders, Part 43, accordingly. Government Response Agree. Recommendation 9.21 The Committee strongly supports the recent development of government veterinary officers travelling on about 20 per cent of voyages of live sheep carriers to the Middle East. The Committee recommends that the implementation of this scheme be given high priority by the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service. Government Response Agree. Recommendation 9.22 The Committee recommends that the Federal Government encourage live sheep export shipping companies to employ Australian stockmen on live sheep carriers. Government Response It is not considered necessary that stockmen be Australian but that they be experienced in the care and husbandry of sheep. Recommendation 9.34 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, investigate the problem of trough fouling aboard live sheep carriers and revise the Marine Orders accordingly. Government Response Agree. Recommendation 9.40 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, assess the welfare benefits of automatic feeding and watering equipment and, if necessary, amend the Marine Orders to require their installation in live sheep carriers. Government Response Agree. State Departments of Agriculture should also be involved and it may be necessary to involve the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. Recommendation 9.44 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Livestock Advisory Committee and the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, consider the question of optimum volume of reserve feed and water and, if necessary, revise the Marine Orders accordingly. Government Response Agree. State Departments of Agriculture should also be involved and it may be necessary to involve the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. Recommendation 9.47 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport assess the merits of different feed handling systems in their ability to reduce crumbling of the pellet. Government Response Agree. The Department of Primary Industry will, in consultation with State Departments of Agriculture, provide advice on this issue. Recommendation 9.48 The Committee further recommends that, on the basis of the Department of Transport assessment, satisfactory feed handling systems be required to be installed in all future carriers entering the trade, and that the Marine Orders Part 43 be revised accordingly. Government Response Agree Recommendation 9.66 The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service, undertake, as a matter of priority, an investigation of the effectiveness of ventilation standards required for sheep carriers, and revise Marine Orders Part 43 accordingly. Government Response Agree. This undertaking will be subject to availability of funds. Recommendation 9.77 The Committee recommends that all live sheep carriers be required to meet the revised standards recommended in this report or be withdrawn from the trade. Government Response Agree in principle. This recommendation will need to be discussed with shipowners regarding transitional arrangements for existing ships. Recommendation 16.33 The Committee recommends that federal legislation be enacted to give Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service responsibility for the health and welfare of sheep from arrival at an export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier. Under this legislation and where necessary in consultation with the industry, Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service be required to, apart from the continuation of its present functions: (i) receive, collate and analyse statistics and other information in relation to transport of sheep to the feedlot, sheep in the feedlot, transport of sheep to the carrier and transport of sheep to the Middle East; (ii) ensure the maintenance of proper standards of health and welfare of sheep, as set out in legislation, regulations or codes or practice, from arrival at an export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier; and (iii) to conduct research or arrange for research to be done into aspects of the live sheep export trade. Government Response The Department of Primary Industry has commenced a review to enable the Government to ensure that under the Export Control Act there is the necessary broad legislative base for officials to effectively discharge their responsibilities relating to the inspection of sheep for export. This will include the responsibilities of State and Australian Government officials and cover of sheep from arrival at the export feedlot to loading onboard a carrier. However, the Government recognises that animal husbandry is not readily subject to detailed legislation and would hope that detailed legislation does not become necessary. Industry has undertaken to fully cooperate with initiatives aimed at improving sheep welfare and much will depend on the success of that cooperation, including revised standards for feedlots and the Shipboard Veterinary Clinical Service. The Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service is already receiving, collating and analysing statistics and other information and, as indicated in the responses to other recommendations, will, where appropriate, initiate further research by relevant organisations such as the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. Conclusion 13. In summary, the Government has accepted the central thrust and main recommendations of this valuable Senate Select Committee report. The welfare of the sheep will be given the high priority it requires. By implementing the recommendations of this report as indicated, the Government is confident that this important export trade will be assisted to continue and improve. Senator GRIMES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE- DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY- NOVEMBER 1982 The following report outlines the response of Government to the specific recommendations as set out in the Senate Standing Committee's report on Development of the Australian Fishing Industry November 1982. The Committee identified ten major areas and developed recommendations within each of these areas. This report identifies each area together with recommendations and provides an outline of the Government response to each recommendation. 1. National Fisheries Policy 1 (a) The Minister for Primary Industry in consultation with the State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for fisheries matters and all sectors of the industry, develop and implement a national fisheries policy defining the objectives and strategy for the rational utilisation of Australia's fisheries resources and devise clear guidelines for the management and conservation of those resources. [paragraph 2.33] Response This recommendation has been implemented by the convening of the Australian Fisheries Conference in Canberra from 31 January to 2 February 1985. The Conference was attended by representatives of the catching, processing and marketing sectors of industry throughout Australia and by representatives of Commonwealth and State/Territory fisheries authorities. The Australian Fisheries Conference carried resolutions covering Commonwealth/industry consultations, fisheries management, fisheries research and development, domestic and foreign operations in the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) and fish marketing and handling. The resolutions cover the objectives and strategies for the rational utilisation of Australia's fisheries resources and guidelines for the management and conservation of those resources. The resolutions have been forwarded to State and Commonwealth Governments for consideration. The Conference supported arrangements which have been developed in recent years to involve industry more directly in decision making in the development of fisheries policies and in particular in decisions on management of fisheries. Industry representatives are included on management committees and task forces set up by the Australian Fisheries Council to advise Ministers on the management of major fisheries. As a result of the Conference a National Fishing Industry Committee has been established as the national organisation representing all sectors of the fishing industry. In addition the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia was established by the Minister for Primary Industry in September 1985 with the following terms of reference: To provide a forum for regular consultation on and consideration of national policies and issues affecting all sectors of the commercial fishing industry, including catching, processing and marketing. To exercise an overview and advisory role in regard to the operations of the Australian Fisheries Service. To review medium and long term industry conditions and prospects taking into account such matters as: Government policies and practices with respect to domestic and foreign fishing relationship with other industries international competitiveness investment policies and practices manpower policies and practices technology and technological change structural adjustment output, employment and productivity projections promotion of Australian industry standards sociological changes research and development To develop possible solutions to industry problems and action plans for industry and Government to implement and to monitor such plans. To advise the Minister for Primary Industry on appropriate options for broad national industry strategy. To advise the Minister on policies which would minimise barriers to realising the potential of the fishing industry. To investigate and report to the Minister on any other matters that might contribute to the revitalisation and growth of the fishing industry. To provide industry representation on national fishing industry bodies and on other groups of direct concern to the fishing industry including the Fishing Industry Research Committee and the AFZ Committee. To provide advice to the Minister on matters referred by him to the Council. To prepare an annual report. 1 (b) The Minister of Primary Industry direct his department to establish formal procedures for implementing the government's long-term policy objectives and priorities for the development of Australia's fisheries resources and the Australian fishing industry. [paragraph 2.45]. Response Procedures for the implementation of policy have been developed within the Australian Fisheries Service over recent years. The basic approach of this policy is to identify, in co-operation with the States, Northern Territory and industry, those fisheries which are in need of management. Where a need is perceived an industry/Government task force is established to identify the problem associated with the fishery, consider the need for management and advise Government on the appropriate management arrangements for the fishery. Following agreement from the Australian Fisheries Council (AFC) that management measures are necessary a management advisory committee is established to address the major problems identified. Advice from this committee is then used as the basis for management action. Most management advisory committees are supported by technical advisory committees. The AFC, its subsidiary bodies and the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia provide the mechanism for the development of the broader policies for the development of resources in the Australian Fishing Zone and general policies associated with the fishing industry. 2. Fisheries Management 2 (a) The Minister for Primary Industry, in developing the National Fisheries Policy and Guidelines for the management and conservation of fisheries resources, give particular attention to: (i) The immediate and long-term effects of various management measures on the biological and economic status of established fisheries; (ii) The effects of the implementation of management regimes in one fishery on the biological and economic stability of neighbouring fisheries and on other fisheries resources, and the need for a multi- species approach to management; and (iii) The development of new fisheries within the Australian fishing zone and the exploitation of less preferred species, particularly for import replacement purposes. [paragraph 3.48] Response The Fisheries Act 1952 (as amended) sets out (section 5B) the two major objectives for fisheries management. These are: (a) to ensure ``through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the Australian fishing zone are not endangered by over-exploitation; and (b) achieving the optimum utilisation of the living resources of the Australian fishing zone''. These two objectives provide the basic framework within which government has been able to develop both short and long term fishery management programs. In establishing the framework a mechanism was required which addressed the fundamental problem associated with the common property nature of the resource. The allocation of access rights to individuals is seen as providing such a mechanism. This approach was endorsed by the FAO World Conference in 1984 when addressing the question of fisheries management. The conference resolutions included the following: ``Where there is open access to the resources, there is little incentive for individual fishermen to conserve stocks. As stocks become fully utilised, competition amongst fishermen often leads to depletion of the resources, severe over-capitalisation and lower earnings for individual operators. To prevent such consequences, governments should seek to ensure that fishermen have clearly-defined fishing rights and that the allowable catches do not exceed the productivity of the resources''. Industry/Government management advisory committees have developed comprehensive objectives for individual fisheries, where management initiatives have been agreed upon. Technical advisory committees support these committees by monitoring and assessing biological information on the various fisheries. The management advisory committees are also monitoring the economics status of individual fisheries. Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Australian Fisheries Council (AFC) co-ordinates advice provided by the management advisory committees and evaluates the effects of management initiatives. At present fisheries which have management advisory committees operating include the southern bluefin tuna, the south eastern trawl, the northern prawn fishery, the east coast trawl fishery and the Torres Strait fisheries. Government/industry task forces are assessing the management requirements for the southern shark and Bass Strait scallop fisheries. Management requirements for other fisheries in Commonwealth waters are monitored by the AFC and its subsidiary bodies comprising representatives from Commonwealth and State/Territory fisheries authorities. The Government has decided to proceed with implementation of the fisheries aspects of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS). The management advisory committees will continue to develop arrangements for management of major national fisheries. Most local fisheries will be managed by the State/Territory Governments. In addressing the development of Australian fisheries resources, provision has been made under the Fisheries Act 1952 (as amended) to permit through a restricted licence, the exploration of species within the Australian Fishing Zone. More recently agreement has been reached to restrict the number of Commonwealth licences issued pending implementation of the OCS. Nevertheless Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments continue to encourage the development of new fisheries and exploratory licences will be issued as necessary. 2 (b) The Australian Fisheries Council make publicly available more comprehensive reports on its decisions and the rationale behind them, and inform industry promptly of management proposals recommended by the council, their objectives and their consequences for industry. [paragraph 3.51] Response Decisions of the Australian Fisheries Council are announced promptly and resolutions tabled in Parliament. Major reports on the management of fisheries have been made available to those who have been directly affected by the proposals. The significant reports which have been released to date include those on the southern bluefin tuna, south eastern trawl, east coast trawl, southern shark and southern scallop fisheries. Fisheries management plans are now developed in full consultation with industry and industry representatives are now included on management advisory committees and task forces covering Australia's major fisheries and summaries are published in the ``Australian Fisheries'' magazine. The pattern of consultation, investigation and reporting is expected to continue where problems are clearly identified. 2 (c) Where there are different and conflicting views between fisheries authorities about the management of fisheries and where a uniform policy would maximise the potential of the fishery, the Australian Fisheries Council seek the implementation of fisheries management policies which transcend State and Northern Territory interests. [paragraph 4.18] Response The development of the consultative process, already identified under section 1 (b), provides a mechanism which assists the Australian Fisheries Council (AFC) to resolve conflict and formulate policy which will maximise the benefit from the fisheries within the Australian zone. In all respects the AFC is actively seeking a balance of State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth views, interests and responsibilities. 3. National Statutory Fisheries Authority 3 (a) The Commonwealth Government introduce legislation providing for the establishment of a National Statutory Fisheries Authority which will provide a formal framework for co-operation between Government and industry in the formulation of fisheries policy and all aspects of fisheries management. 3 (b) The National Statutory Fisheries Authority's enabling Act make the following provisions concerning membership: (i) The Statutory Authority comprise no more than nine members including representatives of the catching and processing/marketing sectors of the industry, one representative of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry's Australian Fisheries Service, one representative with specialist qualifications, one consumer representative, and a Chairman appointed by the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry; (ii) A representative of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrials Research Organisation and/or a representative of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics be co-opted to assist the Authority in an advisory capacity if and when required; (iii) Both the domestic marketing sector and the export marketing sector be represented in the Authority's membership; (iv) Representatives of the private sector of the industry appointed to the Authority be required to declare their pecuniary interests in the industry; and (v) The National Fisheries Authority Act provide for the establishment of consultative groups representing producers and processors/marketers of various species of fish, crustaceans and molluscs and/or consultative groups. Representing particular fisheries or regional groups. [paragraph 5.43] 3 (c) The National Statutory Fisheries Authority be responsible for: (i) Advising the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry on all matters relating to the fishing industry and, in particular, on all aspects of fisheries management, the licensing of fishermen and processors, and matters pertaining to the exploration and development of the Australian Fishing Zone, including those functions now carried out by the Australian Fishing Zone Committee; (ii) Monitoring on a continuing basis the capacity of export standards to meet the changing needs of the fishing industry, examining the effect of export standards on the development of new resources within the Australian Fishing Zone, and advising the Minister on all matters relating to fish export standards and inspection procedures; (iii) Advising the Minister on the effect of fish imports on the domestic market; (iv) The promotion of fish and fish products for both the export and domestic markets and in particular, the encouragement of increased domestic seafood consumption and the support of new product development; (v) Advising the Fishing Industry Research Committee on biological, economic and technological matters requiring research effort, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on economic issues and policies requiring analysis; (vi) Advising industry on the availability of finance and/or administering aid schemes for the industry; (vii) The publication and dissemination of information to the industry; and (viii) Advising the Minister on other matters of relevance to the fishing industry including educational and training requirements, the need for navigational aids, improvements to port facilities, and surveillance and policing requirements. [paragraph 5.44] 3 (d) The Minister for Primary Industry seeks the views of all sectors of the fishing industry concerning any additional functions which the National Statutory Fisheries Authority should assume. [paragraph 5.44] 3 (e) The Minister for Primary Industry determine the most appropriate means of funding the Authority and the initial rate of levy on the industry, thereafter the amount of the levy to be determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the National Statutory Fisheries Authority. [paragraph 5.47] Response The Australian Fisheries Conference 1985 did not support establishment of a National Statutory Fisheries Authority and resolved that a National Fishing Industry Council be established (see reference Recommendation 1a). It was considered that this mechanism together with the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia, established to provide policy advice directly to the Minister, would more effectively and efficiently serve the interest of the Australian fishing industry than a statutory authority. National Export Inspection Service Significant progress has been made over the past 12 months in moving towards a single National Inspection Service. Achievement of the National Inspection Service is eliminating many of the problems inherent in a dual inspection system, including dual fees, duplication of inspection effort and lack of single national control over the meat production system. The Inspection Policy Council (IPC) was formed by the Minister for Primary Industry in November 1983 as a forum for all interests at the national level, including State governments, industry, unions, consumers and the Inspection Service. In an endeavour to specifically address the problems of the fishing industry IPC agreed on 5 May 1985 to the establishment of the Fish Inspection Technical Advisory Committee (FITAC). The objective of FITAC is to provide a continuing forum for discussion between the Department of Primary Industry and the fishing industry: On matters relating to the production, processing, packaging and transport of fish for export. On the interpretation and application of importing countries' requirements and requirements under the Fish Orders and Prescribed Goods (General) Orders. On the construction and equipping of establishments seeking export registration. On matters relating to certification and documentation for export fish. On labelling requirements for export fish. On manpower planning, industry relations and other administrative matters in relation to fish inspection. 4. Domestic Marketing and Promotion of Fish 4 (a) (i) the Minister for Primary Industry either direct the Bureau of Agricultural Economics or seek the assistance of another appropriate body to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a centralised fish marketing system and the appropriateness of including the marketing function within the responsibilities of the proposed National Statutory Fisheries Authority; and (ii) the organisation responsible for the examination of this matter issue a questionnaire to all persons engaged in the fishing industry to canvass industry opinion on the adequacy of present marketing arrangements and to seek industry's views on various marketing options including the establishment of a National Statutory Marketing Board. [paragraph 6.39] Response The marketing of Australian fish and fish products is characterised by a high level of involvement of private commercial interests and co-operatives, supplemented by some state government controls. The export trade is carried out basically by private traders. New South Wales is the only state where a centralised system of domestic marketing exists. Imported products are handled mainly through the private sector. Considerable doubt exists as to whether a centralised fish marketing system for Australia would be feasible or desirable given the current market arrangements. At the Australian Fisheries Conference (January/February 1985) industry expressed no desire for a centralised system of marketing although the conference did agree on the need to improve the quality and supply of the domestic product. 4 (b) Pending the establishment of the National Statutory Fisheries Authority, the Department of Primary Industry engage a firm of marketing consultants to assess the Fishing Industry's needs for the promotion of Australian Fish and Fish products, and to examine various means of conducting a National Campaign for the promotion and marketing of the industry's products. [paragraph 6.45] Response The Australian Fisheries Conference identified the need to improve the quality of seafood products at all levels, reduce consumer uncertainty and to eliminate anomalies that exist with present restrictions on marketing between states. It was agreed that promotional campaigns should be used to educate the consumer. While it was considered that the National Fishing Industry Council should encourage such promotion, the Australian Seafood Promotion Council, which was established in January 1985, would assist in such developments. Traditionally industry has the responsibility for seafood marketing and while encouraged by governments, the fundamental responsibility lies with the private sector. 4 (c) The Minister for Primary Industry seek the co-operation of the State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for Fisheries matters in the adoption of a system of common names for Australian fish sold on the domestic market and that the common name and, where applicable, also the local name be used at the point of retail. [paragraph 6.45] Response A book of Recommended Market Names for Fish has been developed in conjunction with industry, CSIRO and both State and Commonwealth Government bodies. This publication was released and widely distributed in September 1985. It will be revised on an annual basis. 5. Exports 5 (a) (i) A review of the Exports (Fish) Regulations be undertaken with the objective of amending standards to allow for the export of lower grades of selected species which are acceptable to certain overseas markets, in order to maximise Australian exploitation of new fisheries within the Australian fishing zone and encourage the development of export markets for less preferred species and new fish products; and (ii) The amended standards be no lower than those required for the Australian domestic market. [paragraph 7.25] 5 (b) (i) Mandatory labelling requirements for fish and fish products be simplified to include the details required by the buyer or, where this is not specified, be limited to details of the country of origin, product description giving the common name of the fish or fish product and the style of presentation, and the net mass/net contents; and (ii) The Department of Primary Industry ensure that the distinction between the mandatory requirements of the Exports (Fish) Regulations and non-mandatory recommendations is made known to all exporters and officers of the Export Inspection Service. [paragraph 7.34] Response Recent developments in the Export Inspection Service which operates on a user pays principle provides the basic framework within which the regulations relating to the export of products can be addressed (see reference Recommendation 3.9). The establishment of the Fishing Inspection Technical Advisory Committee in July 1985 provides a continuing forum to address issues relating to export regulations on fish and fish products. Regulations relating to the import of fish products are the responsibility of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. 6. Fisheries Research and Statistics 6 (a) The Fishing Industry Research Committee: (i) Establish national objectives, priorities and criteria for allocating funds for fisheries research activities within the Australian fishing zone; (ii) Accord priority to projects relating to the development of new fisheries in the Australian fishing zone and to proposals submitted by the private sector relating to exploratory and developmental fishing operations and new product development conducted either independently or in collaboration with government; (iii) Adopt appropriate procedures for assessing all proposals for research grants funding by the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account; (iv) Establish appropriate evaluation procedures for the financial supervision of funds disbursed by the committee and for the monitoring and evaluation of projects funded from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account; and (v) Monitor and report to the Minister for Primary Industry on the co-ordination of all fisheries research and advise him on the financing of research, initially to rationalise existing funding procedures and, in the longer term, to ensure funds are allocated for approved and relevant research work which will meet the needs of industry. [paragraph 8.53] Response (i) In September 1983 Standing Committee on Fisheries (SCF) endorsed the following priority areas for fisheries research: fisheries management, aquaculture, development, increased utilisation of resources, marketing of Australian fish, training and extension areas. As a national objective the Fishing Industry Research Committee (FIRC) is committed to the fundamental principles of optimum utilisation and sustainability of Australia's seafood resources. The Australian Fisheries Conference (January/February 1985) identified priority areas for funded by the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account (FIRTA) research consistent with those endorsed by SCF. An executive officer/technical advisor was appointed to FIRC in March 1983 to plan and review the program of scientific, economic and technical research funded by FIRTA. Since his appointment the number of new applications for FIRTA funds has increased from 90 (1982/83) to 115 (1985/86) while the value of approved projects has increased from $2 million to almost $5.5 million. (ii) FIRC concentrates on identifying high priority research projects for funding from the broad areas defined in (i) above. (iii) The FIRC procedures for assessing grant applications are aimed at achieving a balance of support projects across major research priority categories. The assessment procedures are subject to continuing review. (iv) The financial procedures relating to the administration of FIRTA grants are in accordance with the requirements of the Audit Act. The conditions of grants include the need for the grantee to submit progress reports and financial statements at specified times during the course of the project and a final report. Progress on projects is carefully monitored by the FIRC executive officer and officers of the Australian Fisheries Service. Continued funding is conditional upon satisfactory progress. (v) Under the terms of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 FIRC submits to the Minister an annual report of the operations of FIRTA. In addition, FIRC advises the Minister either directly, or indirectly through reports to Australian Fisheries Council on the issues raised in 6 (a) (v). 6 (b) The National Statutory Fisheries Authority be represented on the Fishing Industry Research Committee and the Authority allocate a proportion of funds received from levies to the Fishing Industry Research Committee to fund research projects. [paragraph 8.53] Response The membership of the Fishing Industry Research Committee and the funding of the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account is expected to be reviewed following the creation of the National Fishing Industry Council and the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia. 6 (c) The time limit for presenting to Parliament both the Fishing Industry Research Committee annual report and the annual report on the operations of the Fishing Industry Act 1956 be six months after the close of the financial year. [paragraph 8.22] Response Legislation introduced in 1983 requires that annual reports be submitted to the Minister within 6 months of the end of the financial year. 6 (d) The Treasurer, as the Minister responsible for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the Minister for Primary Industry: (i) Seek the co-operation of the State and Northern Territory fisheries authorities to develop a uniform system for the collection of national fisheries statistics; (ii) Offer to provide technical expertise and assistance to the State and Northern Territory governments for the review of existing data collection and recording procedures and, where required, the design and implementation of new systems that will meet State and Northern Territory statistical requirements as well as those of the Commonwealth; (iii) Ensure that national statistics based on data collected by State and Northern Territory fisheries authorities are consistent with statistical data collected by the Department of Primary Industry relating to the operations of foreign fishing vessels within the Australian fishing zone; and (iv) Seek the co-operation of the State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for fisheries matters in ascertaining the requirements of the private sector of the industry for statistical data which will assist it in evaluating its own operations, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. [paragraph 8.78] Response The Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory are co-operating closely on obtaining statistics necessary for fisheries management in a number of major fisheries such as the northern prawn fishery, the southern bluefin tuna fishery and the south eastern trawl fishery. The Australian Fisheries Service has strengthened its data processing capabilities with the acquisition of a new computer. Within this system the Australian Fisheries Service is developing an improved integrated data base which combines licensing, boat unit and quota register with logbook and marketing data for management purposes. Standing Committee on Fisheries agreed that the responsibility for collecting and processing catch statistics for State fisheries would be with State authorities. However, in the case of jointly managed fisheries responsibility is a matter for negotiation between authorities concerned. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is providing assistance to State Governments in establishing upgraded data collection and processing arrangements and has developed a uniform collection system. 6 (e) The Minister for Primary Industry seek the co-operation of State and Northern Territory Fisheries Authorities and Amateur Fishing Associations in instituting appropriate data collection procedures which will provide adequate information on recreational fishing activity in Australian waters and its effects on fisheries resources. [paragraph 3.14] Response The collection of recreational fishing statistics is basically the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth is involved in the collection of statistics associated with the Great Barrier Reef which have components of both an amateur and commercial nature. 7. Foreign Fishing 7 (a) The South Bluefin Tuna Task Force; (i) assess the effect on the Australian Fishing Industry of the continued operation of the Japanese Longline Fleet in the Australian Fishing Zone and the effect on both the industry and the Australian economy of the further restriction or exclusion of the Japanese Fleet from the Zone; (ii) prepare a long-term plan for foreign participation in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery; and (iii) assist in the development of an international regime for the management of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Resource. [paragraph 10.23] Response (i) The nature and extent of foreign access to the Australian Fishing Zone by Japanese longliners is reviewed each year prior to the renegotiation of each annual access agreement. During the course of these regular reviews the implications of any subsequent agreement for both the local fishing industry and the Australian economy is of prime concern. (ii) and (iii) In consultation with the industry and State Government representatives on the Southern Bluefin Tuna Management Advisory Committee officers from the Australian Fisheries Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs and tuna scientists from CSIRO have over the past three years been in regular contact with their counterparts from Japan and New Zealand in order to: achieve an international scientific concensus on the biological status of southern bluefin tuna stocks, and develop an effective international approach to the management of the global fishery. During the course of the 1985 Australia/ Japan bilateral access negotiations the Japanese industry indicated a willingness to introduce an overall catch quota for its southern bluefin tuna vessels for the 1985-86 season. This should provide a sound basis for further consultations between the three governments to establish long-term arrangements to ensure the stocks are protected from over-exploitation and the Australian, New Zealand and Japanese fisheries based on their harvest remain viable. 7 (b) The Minister for Primary Industry appoint a task force comprising representatives of Government, Industry and the CSIRO to: (i) investigate the effect of foreign fishing operations on the biological stability of fish stocks and marine ecosystems in north and north-west shelf waters and on the commercial potential of the fishery for future exploitation by Australian fishermen; (ii) report on the possibility of increasing Australian participation in north and north-west shelf fisheries- (a) by providing financial and other incentives to Australian fishermen undertaking developmental fishing in the region, and (b) by limiting foreign access to the fishery to joint venture operations whereby Australian equity in projects and the Australianisation of operations over a designated period are conditions of foreign participation in the zone; and (iii) prepare a long-term strategy for the future development and exploitation of north and north-west shelf fisheries by foreign and Australian fishing interests. [paragraph 10.23] Response (i) The Northern Fisheries Committee (NFC) has now established Technical Advisory sub-committees to report on pelagic, demersal and scampi resources in northern and north western waters. The sub-committees are required to report to NFC on any development that may affect the status of the stocks and the potential for future Australian participation. (ii) Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments have carried out developmental fishing operations in the region. The Commonwealth Government's policy continues to be to give preference to joint venture operations. Two joint venture operations have now been approved. It is an important element of the Government's fisheries development policy to favour exploitation by the Australian industry and to protect its short and long term welfare. This policy is implemented by: exclusion of foreigners from fisheries currently being exploited by Australians or likely to be so in the near future; the setting of conservative total available catches in fisheries where foreigners are operating; reduction in numbers, quotas and/or areas as industry's capacity to harvest increases; and imposition of conditions in joint ventures which will encourage Australian participation e.g. boat replacement programs requirements to purchase product from Australians. Consideration is now being given to the establishment of a management advisory committee with functions similar to the Northern Prawn Management Advisory Committee. 7 (c) (i) Foreign fishing interests seeking to undertake gillnetting projects in the Gulf of Carpentaria be granted access to the fishery only under joint venture arrangements which will maximise Australian participation in the development of pelagic resources in this area and promote the future development of an Australian-based export industry of suitable pelagic species; and (ii) Approval for joint Australian-Foreign Gillnet Operations in the Gulf of Carpentaria be granted subject to the conditions (a) that Australian participation and equity in the operations be increased progressively and foreign capital, vessels and crews phased out over a designated period, and (b) that the effects of exploiting the pelagic resources of the Gulf of Carpentaria be evaluated to ensure that the resources of the Northern Prawn Fishery, the east and north coast Mackeral Fisheries, and the Barramundi and Threadfin Fisheries are not endangered in the short or long term by the Gillnetting operations. [paragraph 10.35] 7 (d) (i) The foreign fishing vessel observer program be continued; and (ii) The Minister for Primary Industry evaluate, in consultation with the States, the Northern Territory and industry, the effectiveness of the Government's existing foreign fishing vessel observer program with particular reference to (a) the adequacy of catch information and data provided by foreign fishing vessels relating to the biological characteristics of species, (b) the most cost-effective means of recruiting, training and deploying observer personnel, (c) the desirability of including in future agreements with foreign countries or commercial interests a condition that suitable accommodation and observation facilities be provided for Australian observers on foreign fishing vessels operating in the Australian Fishing Zone, and (d) the need to increase the proportion of observers' time actually spent on board foreign fishing vessels. [paragraph 10.39] Response The Commonwealth is not prepared to grant access to foreign fishing interests under bilateral or joint venture arrangements to the Gulf of Carpentaria unless it can be demonstrated that real and positive benefits to industry will be obtained. In 1983, the Northern Fisheries Committee noting the industry opposition to entry by foreigners to the Gulf, resolved that consideration of every proposal should be deferred pending further experience with existing joint ventures and the outcome of the CSIRO research study of pelagic resources in the Gulf funded by the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account. The observer program will be continued. Ongoing reviews will occur with adjustments in the deployment of resources which will reflect changing operational circumstances. To assist in this process the Australian Fisheries Council agreed to a set of guidelines and objectives for determining patterns and priorities for use of observer resources and these procedures have been implemented. During negotiations with foreign countries or commercial interests, the Commonwealth has successfully required access for Australian observers to be aboard selected foreign vessels while they operate in the Australian Fishing Zone. There is provision within Australian fisheries laws to require access should the voluntary arrangements break down. 7 (e) When the Commonwealth Government enters into agreement granting foreign fishing vessels access to the Australian Fishing Zone, licences initially be granted for 12 months only but when conditions and terms for the renewal of agreements are being negotiated with the foreign government or fishing interest concerned, consideration be given to extending the period of tenure of licences providing the foreign interests or the foreign and Australian venture partners can demonstrate as firm commitment to long-term commercial development projects which will promote Australianisation of foreign fishing operations. [paragraph 10.47] Response It is the Government's policy to negotiate only 12 months tenure for bilateral agreements. Where joint ventures are involved a period of three years is negotiated with provision for exclusion for a further three years. 8. Financial Assistance 8 (a) (i) The benefits of structural adjustment be extended to the fishing industry; (ii) The Minister for Primary Industry seek the co-operation of the States and the Northern Territory in facilitating the implementation of a national adjustment scheme for the fishing industry; and (iii) The scheme make special provision for financing the modification of existing hulls or equipment where specific conditions apply, namely, where modification would reduce operating and energy costs and/or where such modification would assist the transfer of vessels into new or under-developed fisheries. [paragraph 9.47] Response (i) The question of adjustment assistance to the fishing industry was specifically addressed by the IAC in its report No. 328 of 29 July 1983 on the Harvesting and Processing of Fish, Crustacea and Molluscs. The Commission concluded that the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) or some similar permanent scheme should not be extended to the fishing industry but that adjustment assistance could be considered on a fishery by fishery basis. Aquaculture enables individual operators to establish a property right over a stock of fish and therefore is considered to be similar to agriculture. On this basis, State and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for the RAS agreed to include provisions for assistance to aquaculture under the RAS. Oyster growers will be the main beneficiaries of these arrangements. Adjustment assistance is considered to be an essential component of a new management plan for the northern prawn fishery declared management zone. The new plan commenced at the beginning of 1984. To improve economic returns in the fishery a significant reduction in fleet size is required. This is to be achieved through a voluntary adjustment scheme which will buy fishing ``rights'' from those wishing to leave the industry. The scheme is to be funded by an annual levy on those who remain in the fishery. The Commonwealth announced in the 1984 budget that it would guarantee initial borrowings of $5 million to commence this scheme. In June 1985 the Government announced that $9 million would be made available over three years to assist adjustment in northern prawn fisheries. In the first year (1985-86) $3 million will be made available to assist in funding the voluntary adjustment scheme for the northern prawn fishery declared management zone. The adjustment assistance needs of other fisheries will be considered as management plans come into operation. Any such schemes will be designed to address specific problems in each fishery. (ii) In line with the IAC recommendations the provision of a single adjustment assistance scheme for all fisheries is not considered appropriate. Financial assistance for boat modifications may be considered in specific fisheries if appropriate. 8 (b) The Department of Primary Industry compile a register of boat ownership giving recognition to legal and equitable interests in boat ownership and limited entry licences for mortgage guarantee purposes for fishermen seeking loans from banks and other financial institutions. [paragraph 9.35] Response The Fisheries Act 1952 (as amended in 1985) recognises ``fishing rights'' that extend beyond the life of a one year licence. It is not proposed, at this stage, to make provision for the formal registration of mortgages. The Department, where requested, will continue to note the interests of third parties in its files. The Department has a register of all Commonwealth licensed boats and has compiled a register of holders of catch quotas for the southern bluefin tuna fishery and a register of holders of boat units (i.e. units of fishing capacity) for the northern prawn fishery. It will also issue certificates to holders of units of fishing capacity. These may be acceptable as security by lenders. 8 (c) The proposed national statutory fisheries authority devise and implement a national development fisheries finance plan which provides incentives for the diversification of fishing effort and/or the development of new fisheries within the Australian fishing zone. Response See response to recommendation 1 (a). 8 (d) Where a commercial fisherman can demonstrate that the use of a vehicle is essential to his fishing operations, he be entitled to exemption from sales tax on a vehicle to be used in earning income and the relevant sales tax legislation be amended to provide for such exemption. [paragraph 9.15] Response The questions of tax exemptions for commercial fishermen have been referred to the Treasurer. 9. Fisheries Joint Authorities 9 (a) Definitive material concerning the role, structure, powers and functions of the fisheries joint authorities and any changes to existing administrative and consultative arrangements for the management of fisheries within the Australian fishing zone be made available to the private sector of the industry prior to the establishment of the authorities. [paragraph 4.26] Response The Government has agreed to proceed with the implementation of the fisheries element of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS). Commonwealth and State fisheries officials are in the process of discussing options for the management of fisheries under a single law and will discuss the proposals with industry representatives in each State and fishing industry organisations. In addition, articles will be published in ``Australian Fisheries'' magazine which is sent free to every Commonwealth licensed fishermen, setting out each stage in implementing OCS as it occurs. 9 (b) (i) The Fisheries Amendment Act 1980 be revised to require that the establishment of advisory committees by fisheries joint authorities be mandatory and that the appointment of industry representatives to the advisory committees also be mandatory; (ii) the advisory committees be structured on a species basis; (iii) wherever possible, the same industry representatives of the consultative groups representing producers and processors of various species of fish, crustaceans and molluscs appointed to advise the proposed national statutory fisheries authority be appointed to the joint authorities advisory committees; (iv) the specialist advisory committees be required to: (a) monitor and review the stability of the marine population of each species and its level or potential level of exploitation, and advise the relevant fisheries joint authority on requirements for appropriate management measures, and (b) advise the fisheries joint authorities not only on the level of exploitation of preferred species in established fisheries but also on the biological stability and commercial potential of less preferred species which are currently unexploited or minimally exploited by Australian fishermen; and (v) industry representatives appointed to joint authorities advisory committees be required to declare their pecuniary interests in the industry. [paragraph 5.52] Response The formation of the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia provides Government with a peak body for policy consultation between the government and industry. The Standing Committee on Fisheries (SCF) and the Australian Fisheries Council (AFC) are the two policy consultative committees between the Commonwealth and States and Northern Territory. Within the framework of SCF and AFC provision is made for special advisory groups to operate in species and population monitoring, management advice and advice on the commercial exploitation of stocks within the Australian Fishing Zone. It has already been noted that the AFC has established a number of management committees and task forces which advise on management of major fisheries and these bodies include industry representatives. It is envisaged that advisory bodies established by joint authorities would have similar representation. 10. Legislative and Administrative Arrangements 10 (a) The Minister for Primary Industry direct his department to accord priority to the revision, consolidation and replacement of the Fisheries Act 1952. [paragraph 2.28] Response It is intended to undertake a major review of Commonwealth fishery laws as resources within the Australian Fisheries Service become available. Recent amendments have been made to the Fisheries Act 1952 and have established provisions which allow for the granting of access rights which now form the basis for management of Australia's major fisheries. 10 (b) the current procedure for regulating fishing activity through the gazettal of notices be abandoned and the Fisheries Act 1952 be amended to provide for the introduction of management controls either by statutory regulation or ministerial orders which must be tabled in the Parliament and which are subject to public scrutiny and disallowance. [paragraph 2.23] Response The Fishing Legislation Amendment Act 1985 amends the Fisheries Act 1952 to authorise the making of management plans that are to be tabled in Parliament and to be subject to disallowance. The Fishing Legislation Amendment Act 1984 amends the Fisheries Act 1952 to require the tabling of fisheries notices in the Parliament. 10 (c) The development of a uniform national system of fisheries regulations be accorded priority by the Australian Fisheries Council. [paragraph 4.9] Response The Committee's recommendation will be conveyed to the Australian Fisheries Council. 10 (d) As a matter of priority, the Minister for Primary Industry: (i) review present licensing arrangements in all Australian fisheries and introduce a licensing system whereby a single licence, covering boat, master and an agreed number of crew members would be issued for a fishery falling within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth or a fisheries joint authority; and (ii) seek the co-operation and assistance of the State and Northern Territory fisheries authorities to introduce a uniform licensing system by similarly issuing a single licence for fisheries falling solely within their jurisdictions. [paragraph 5.35] Response The Fishing Legislation Amendment Act 1984 amended the Fisheries Act 1952 to remove the requirement that individual fishermen hold Commonwealth licences. A single licence covering a boat and its master would not be feasible because of the practice of employed master fishermen moving from one boat to another. The Committee's recommendation in sub-paragraph (ii) will be conveyed to the States and the Northern Territory. 10 (e) In appointing staff to the fisheries division, the Department of Primary Industry consider the possibilities of employing under contractual arrangements specialists who have qualifications and expertise directly relevant to the areas they are required to administer as well as introducing an interchange program for officers of the Commonwealth fisheries division and representatives of the private sector of the industry. [paragraph 3.53] Response The Department endeavours to recruit officers who have knowledge and experience related to the fishing industry. The experience required varies with the duties required for each position. The number of appropriately trained personnel is limited within Australia particularly in the administrative and policy development areas. An active exchange program has been established with other nations and with the Australian States and other organisations engaged in similar management initiatives. 10 (f) The Minister for Primary Industry: (i) appoint officers of the Department's fisheries division to all regional offices in the capital cities and in areas central to fishing operations; and (ii) establish additional fisheries units to strengthen the Commonwealth's presence in regional operations and allow it to monitor more effectively the implementation of fisheries policy and the operation of the industry. [paragraph 4.40] Response Most regional functions required by the Australian Fisheries Service are carried out by the States as agents for the Commonwealth. Most fisheries administration involves both State and Commonwealth responsibilities and extensive consultation is required. It is very doubtful that it would be cost effective for the Commonwealth to establish and duplicate State facilities in an endeavour to create a separate regionalised fisheries service. 10 (g) The Minister for Primary Industry seek the co-operation of the State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for fisheries to develop a program for the interchange of Commonwealth and State and Northern Territory fisheries officers. [paragraph 4.41] Response A number of exchanges with States and other organisations have been initiated. These have included exchanges with New South Wales Department of Agriculture and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority within Australia. A reciprocal twelve months exchange has occurred with United States National Marine Fisheries Service. Further exchanges are at present being investigated. 10 (h) The Minister for Primary Industry make provision for officers of the Fisheries Division of the Department to attend those courses offered by the Australian Maritime College which have been devised to cater for fisheries administrators. [paragraph 13.17] Response The Australian Fisheries Service has supported the courses at the Australian Maritime College through attendance of officers in both a lecturing and participatory role. Senator GRIMES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government giving consideration, in the context of its deliberations over oil pricing policy, to the possibility of deferring, reducing or cancelling the income tax cuts promised for September? If it is not, will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to introduce the tax cuts? Senator BUTTON —I reaffirm the Government's commitment to introduce the tax cuts. Of course, in the consideration of the oil price issue, the extent of the income tax cuts will have to be taken into account. Senator Chaney —Oh, well! Senator BUTTON —Nobody is kind enough to ask me a supplementary question so let me say again, in a way which is beyond misinterpretation: The Government is committed to the income tax reductions announced previously; they will go ahead. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister will be aware of recent Press reports from South Australia on the tragic outbreak in December of legionnaires disease in Adelaide's southern suburbs which resulted in two fatalities and a number of admissions to hospitals. What was the involvement of the air-conditioning plant at the Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, as an alleged source of the recent outbreak of legionnaires disease? Will the Minister assure Adelaide residents that all reasonable steps have been taken in conjunction with the South Australian health authorities to control the outbreak and to ensure that it never happens again? Senator GIETZELT —Certainly the Government and the Department of Veterans' Affairs share the concern of Senator Maguire about the outbreak of legionnaires disease in Adelaide. However, the information that I have been able to examine shows that the geographical distribution of the cases of legionnaires disease in South Australia is such that the Repatriation General Hospital at Daw Park could not be-I repeat could not be-the sole source of all detected cases of infection. It is true that the causative organism of legionnaires disease was found in water samples from the cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning system at Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital. However, this is not surprising as the organism is widely distributed in nature and is commonly found in air-conditioning installations. This certainly does not mean that the outbreak began as a direct result of aerosol dispersion from the hospital facilities. The Department of Housing and Construction has the responsibility for regular testing and preventative maintenance of all cooling towers in Department of Veterans' Affairs hospitals throughout Australia. These measures are carried out in accordance with the guidelines established by the National Health and Medical Research Council. All cooling towers at the Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, have been cleaned and disinfected since notification of the outbreak. Assurances have been given by the Department of Housing and Construction that there is no evidence of contamination at any cooling tower or other facility at Department of Veterans' Affairs establishments throughout Australia. However, sample testing and disinfection will continue in accordance with the guidelines from the National Health and Medical Research Council. I understand that the South Australian Health Commission is continuing investigations to identify possible sources of the disease. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government passed on the full value of the drop in world oil prices, Australian motorists would benefit to the tune of about 7c a litre and receive a cut of about $3 a week in their weekly petrol bills? Does the Minister further agree that, if farmers received the full benefit of the drop in fuel prices, their costs would be reduced by more than $140m a year? In these circumstances will the Government now give an undertaking to pass on the full benefit of the oil price drop to motorists, farmers and industries and not replace it with an increase in excise duty on fuel? Senator GARETH EVANS —It would be quite premature for the Government to give any assurances at this stage either of the kind sought or of any other kind of this question, simply because the Government has not yet finalised its consideration of this matter. The fall in world oil prices which has occurred over the last four weeks has been very large, very sharp and significantly earlier than was anticipated by anyone. I can speak with some confidence about people's anticipations and expectations in this respect because I have just returned from three weeks discussing with governments, industry, banks and everyone else in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States this very phenomenon at the time it was occurring. The reality is that it has taken pretty well everyone by surprise, even though some substantial downward pressure on oil prices early this year was expected. Accordingly the problem confronting the Government because of the scope, magnitude and timing of this price drop is of a quite different order of magnitude from those problems which have arisen on any previous occasion of price adjustment during the currency of the import parity pricing system. We are aware that to follow the world price down in the way that has been suggested by Senator Durack would involve substantial savings to consumers. Whether they would be of quite the same order of magnitude as those he indicated in his question would depend on a whole series of assumptions about the level of the price fall, the prevailing exchange rate and the patterns of consumption of the consumers and farmers in question; so I do not seek to comment on his precise arithmetic in that respect. Certainly there would be substantial savings were the price to go all the way down. However, the other side of the coin is that the price going down in that way would involve very substantial reductions in Government excise revenue. We estimate they would be in the order of $550m for the remainder of this financial year and something like $1.4 billion for the next financial year. That is based on the assumption of an $18 United States oil price at a 70c exchange rate. Obviously those revenue figures would vary according to the assumptions we applied. It is simply not possible for any government of any colour to pull its outlays apart on the massive scale that the Opposition is demanding in the kind of question that Senator Durack is putting, and certainly it is not possible to pull the outlay side of any given Budget apart instantaneously. The weighting that will be given to these various factors-there are many factors on both sides of the equation to be considered-will be something for the Government to consider closely in the next few days, just as it has been closely considering this issue over the past few weeks. Beyond that I do not believe that it is possible to comment constructively. Senator DURACK —I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask the Minister: In view of the extraordinary answer that we have received, is the committee that the Government has set up considering replacing the loss of revenue with expenditure cuts? Senator GARETH EVANS —There was nothing extraordinary about the answer; the only thing that is extraordinary is that it is possible for a question of that kind to be asked with the breathless naivety that has been put into Question Time by Senator Durack today. The Opposition is well aware of the constraints and difficulties that any government would face-including it, were it ever to be returned to power-were it to confront a shift in the world market scene of the kind that we are presently experiencing. Very difficult policy dilemmas are involved here and those policy considerations are being carefully weighed by the Government. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Leader of the Government. Will the Minister outline the Government's commitment to Queensland natural disaster relief following Cyclone Winifred's devastation last week? What short term special assistance, outside national disaster relief arrangements, will be available for sugar and banana producers? How quickly can special employment-generating measures be introduced to deal with the very considerable impact of job loss in north Queensland? Furthermore, what regional economic strategy can be developed to ensure that an early initiative is taken to maximise recovery of this region? Senator BUTTON —The Government has expressed and acted on its concern in respect of the impact of Cyclone Winifred. I shall itemise some of the steps which have already been taken by the Commonwealth Government. We have already provided considerable Defence Force assistance. The social security system has acted quickly to ensure that it can handle claims for assistance. The Minister for Primary Industry has visited the disaster area on behalf of the Government. There has been a meeting of Commonwealth and State officials to discuss the arrangements that might be put in place. It has been agreed that further consultations will be held when more information comes to hand. It is agreed that funds will also be provided to various local councils through the Commonwealth employment program for a Cyclone Winifred special area rehabilitation project. Finally, steps have been taken to provide practical help, such as the arrangements being made for engineers from Darwin to help clean up and organise reconstruction work. Over and above that, the natural disaster assistance arrangements automatically apply. Outlays made by the Queensland Government above $10.48m will be shared by the Commonwealth on a matching basis and outlays over $18.34m on a three-to-one basis. There is a continuing review of the appropriate levels of assistance in respect of the cyclone. Senator Reynolds also asked me what regional economic policy can be put in place in order to alleviate the effects of the Cyclone. Of course, that is associated with other downturns in industries in the north of Queensland, such as the sugar industry. That is a matter I would not wish to answer by way of speculation at Question Time in the Senate. However, it is certainly a matter which I am prepared to have examined in conjunction with appropriate Ministers and provide a response to in due course. Senator CHIPP —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Australian Government believe that the French Government's granting of sanctuary to the sadistic former ruler of Haiti, Jean-Claude Duvalier, is an action appropriate to a civilised nation, given that Gabon, the Cameroons, Switzerland, Greece and Spain all refused this man entry to their countries on humanitarian grounds? Senator Missen —That is what we have come to expect from the French. Senator CHIPP —Yes, indeed. I thank Senator Missen for his interjection. Does the Australian Government believe that so-called friends such as France and the United States of America should assist such a person who has become one of the world's richest men in a nation where average annual income is $300 and where life expectancy is 45 years, a person who, together with his equally cruel and greedy father, was responsible for the torture and death of thousands of human beings? What other despicable acts do our so-called friends such as France have to do before Australia ceases its craven attitude towards them? I remind the Minister of France's continued testing in the Pacific, the act of war against New Zealand and its recently leaked original plan to blow up the Rainbow Warrior at sea. Will the Government at least register some form of disgust at the latest action of France in harbouring this person? Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me preface my answer by saying that I think it was Francis Bacon who said that perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing but love. I recommend that particular aphorism to Senator Chipp as part of his question-making style for the rest of this session. Senator Chipp —When I need advice from you in politics I'll ask for it. Senator GARETH EVANS —We are off to a good start for the new session, Mr President. Let me respond to the specific question. Senator Chipp —I want a serious answer, not this rubbish. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am getting there, although I do not think Senator Chipp will like the answer. That is why I am leading into it. I thought I would preface it a bit-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government was relieved that a quick and sensible solution to a situation involving a possible blood-bath was found in Haiti. We hope that the departure of Jean-Claude Duvalier, who fully justifies the descriptions that Senator Chipp offered of him, and that of his family will lead to the establishment of basic human rights and principles of democracy in that state. The Australian Government has a firm record on human rights and is a believer, as is well known, in democratic procedures. The situation in Haiti obviously was appalling but the arrangements that were made to remove the Duvalier family have reduced the risk of widespread turmoil and further losses of life and property. I can understand the strength of the views that have been expressed by Senator Chipp in relation to France's role in all this but, in the light of the specific considerations that I have mentioned, I suggest that it may not be appropriate to direct to France the full force of fury in this instance that was obviously appropriate, for example, in the context of the Rainbow Warrior affair. I think the circumstances of this case are such that they require a slightly more objective and less extravagant denunciation than we have just heard from Senator Chipp. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to reports in recent days of investments within Australia by members of the Marcos family and Administration. Can the Minister ensure that the Foreign Investment Review Board makes available details of applications for investment in Australia from Philippines citizens? If not, can the Minister make representations to the Board to ensure a change of policy in order that the Australian public can be made aware of the level of such investment in this country, as is the public of the United States of America made aware of the level of investment of the corrupt Marcos regime in the United States of America? Senator WALSH —In response to the earlier part of the question, in some cases the Treasurer does issue Press releases on particular FIRB proposals but it is not standard practice to do so. According to the note I have from the Treasurer, it is not regarded by him as being appropriate in every case that Press releases giving details of particular takeover bids should be issued. On the occasions when a Press release has come out, as a matter of historical fact none involving Philippines companies or, I presume, companies owned by Philippines interests has been released. According to FIRB data, Philippines companies and investors have been minor investors in Australia. During the six years to 1984-85 decisions were made on 15 investment proposals involving Philippines interests and 14 of those were approved. Total expenditure by Philippines interests was some $12.5m. In regard to the second part of the question-that is, if the information is not normally released, will it be released in this case-I think I can do no more than pass on that request to the Treasurer for his response. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to Senator Walsh in his capacity as Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer. Does he recall telling Senator Knowles in November that he expected the Government to consider the report of the Joint Economic Forecasting Group early in the new year and the review of the Budget to be completed this month? Has the review been completed? If so, has there been any revision of Budget forecasts given the fact that the Australian dollar remains at a level well below that predicted in the last Budget? Has the Minister decided whether he will make the result of the review public? If the review has not been completed, how much longer does he expect it to take? Senator WALSH —The JEFG review has been completed. A copy was received in my office-I am not sure exactly when but within the last few days-and I have had a quick look at it. In response to the part of the question as to whether I will make it public, I will make no commitment about that at this stage. Indeed, I could not make such a commitment because the Treasurer is actually involved in that more heavily than I am. However, it ought to be apparent even to members of the Opposition that of course there will be some major parameter changes because of changes that have taken place since the October-November JEFG review and because of a somewhat different exchange rate than was assumed in the Budget, although a couple of weeks ago the average United States dollar exchange rate was almost at the level forecast in the Budget and the trade weighted index was some two points below the Budget forecast level. One thing I can tell Senator Messner, of course, is that we certainly cannot afford the extravagant expenditure commitments to which his Leader has been committing the country. Fortuitously I have a list of them here. I will not read out the whole of the expenditure commitments to which his Leader has committed the Liberal Party, but I will go through a few of them and give a rough costing of them. Right at the top of that list we have the grossly irresponsible promise to fund the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. That costs $500m. We have the promise to repeal the wine tax. That is a revenue loss of $60m. We have a promise to repeal the tax on lump sum superannuation. By the time the next election comes up that will cost $200m. We have a promise to provide three days a week in tertiary institutions for all unemployed youth as a condition of drawing unemployment benefits. That will cost $500m. Those opposite promised to repeal the assets test. By the expiry of this Parliament that will cost a couple of hundred million dollars. They have promised not to levy any export inspection charges. That will cost another $50m. They have promised to repeal the cash bonus bidding for oil exploration territory. That cannot be costed at the moment but when the bids are received in a few weeks time we will know what that will cost. So the list goes on. In this by no means exhaustive list that I have already given of both tax expenditures and additional Budget outlays we have reached a figure of about $1 1/2 billion. That is the sort of spending to which the Leader of the Opposition has quite irresponsibly committed the coalition parties should they be in government. I can tell Senator Messner without a shadow of doubt that the country certainly cannot afford the irresponsible expenditure promises which his Leader has been making. We know, of course, how his Leader dealt with outlays and revenue problems. The way that his Leader dealt with outlays and revenue problems was to let the deficit blow out to infinity. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, I suggest to you, Mr President, that the Minister is debating the question now. He has moved from giving information to debating the question and I suggest that you should ask him to bring his answer to a close. The PRESIDENT —I have listened to Senator Walsh carefully. In my opinion his comments to date are within the framework of the question asked, and I therefore rule Senator Walsh in order. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. Relevant to this question and one or two previous questions that have been asked, this Government has to consider both income and outlays and the residual item in the deficit. It is a matter of record that the last item was not considered at all by the previous Treasurer. He let the deficit blow out to nearly $10 billion and, if he had his way and implemented the policies he is advocating now, it would blow out to about $14 billion. Senator TATE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: What means has the Government used to inform itself of the conduct of the presidential election campaign in the Philippines? Does its assessment of any reports received enable it to comment on the electoral process to this point? If those reports indicate electoral malpractice, will the Government at least suspend military aid until a president of the Philippines is installed by democratic vote of its people? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not yet possible to say on the basis of information available to us who has won the election in any sense. The quick counts conducted by the National Citizens Movement for a Free Election, or NAMFREL, and by the Commission on Elections, or COMELEC, were not completed before the National Assembly met to begin its count yesterday. The Australian Government has of course noted the discrepancy between the unofficial, quick count by NAMFREL and that conducted by COMELEC. According to Philippines law, however, the official result of the election will be determined by neither of those but by the national election count which may take place over a period of up to 15 days, unless there is justifiable cause for a further delay, including such matters as disputed returns. It would not be appropriate under the circumstances for the Australian Government to comment at this stage on possible results or anything that might flow in terms of our policy response to some particular result. However, perhaps it is possible to make a couple of quick points about some aspects of the election process as we have witnessed it over the last few days. The first point I make on behalf of the Government is that the widespread participation of Filipinos in polling in the presidential election, along with the work of the independent watchdog organisation NAMFREL and other volunteers in efforts towards getting a fair election result, reflects, in a very salutary way, the [..missing text..] observer teams which have been critical of the conduct of the election. Previously we expressed our hope that properly constituted Philippine authorities would ensure a fair election. That may or may not prove to have been the case. Obviously we regret the loss of life and violence which occurred during the campaign period and the election itself. As a government we have already made known our view that the calling of this early election would not, in itself, solve the problems facing the Philippines. Much will depend on the will and capability of whoever wins the election to carry out political and economic reforms which will allow the aspirations of the Philippines people to be met. We simply hope that the aspirations for change, which obviously exist within that country, can be achieved peacefully and constructively. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask the Minister for Community Services: Will the Government continue to provide funds for the volunteers in the attendant care pilot program after 28 February and at least until the Government has made a decision on the long term future of the program? Senator GRIMES —At the moment I am having discussions with the new Minister concerned in New South Wales, Mr Peter Anderson-the previous Minister having been replaced-as to the source of funding. The situation is-Senator Baume would know this-that a report of the review of the attendant care program will shortly be considered by the Government. I have said repeatedly and will continue to say that we intend to ensure that those people who have taken part in the pilot program will not be sent back to institutions, back to where they obviously do not want to return. No matter what we do about an attendant care scheme we will have to make arrangements in the long term to look after this group of people. I can understand the concerns of the people in the scheme but I can assure them that we will make suitable arrangements for them. We will obviously take some time to consider the report. I am sorry that it has been delayed. I hope that I will have finished my discussions with Mr Anderson, who has been the responsible Minister for only a day or so, about the roles of the relative government in arrangements in the interim, while we are waiting to decide what we will do about that report. Certainly I nor the Government will see these people just left in the lurch at the end of the program. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is now 11 February. The last payment will be made to these people three days from now. Their money runs out on 28 February. I ask: What will the Minister do to ensure the outcomes he has indicated? Has he told these people that they will be financially secure or do they face the prospect of giving up the jobs which they have as a result of having attendant care money? Do they face the prospect, in spite of the Minister's words, of going back into institutions because they can no longer afford to live independently? Senator GRIMES —No, they do not. The question in my mind and that of the Government is not whether we will look after these people and support them but how we go about that and where the money will come from. I am absolutely confident that the money is there. Senator Baume probably realises-I would like to tell him now-where the money is coming from but it is a matter of making arrangements with the New South Wales Government. Senator COLSTON —I refer to the latest Steel Industry Authority report. Does this report provide evidence for any improvement in the position of the Australian steel industry? Has the Government's steel plan had any effect on the industry in terms of promoting growth and improved performance? Senator BUTTON —As I have often noted, Senator Colston takes a lively interest in these important matters, and I am grateful for the question. The position of the steel industry in Australia as at the September quarter of last year, in respect of which the Steel Industry Authority report is available, indicates a number of very important things. There was the highest level of output in the three months to August 1985 since some time before the steel plan commenced. Domestic sales of steel were up by 18 per cent on the previous three months. Exports showed a 25 per cent average increase over the previous 17 months. Expenditure by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd under the steel plan totalled $98.7m for the three months to August 1985, which brings its total investment under the steel industry plan to in excess of $960m-well above the $800m proposed as the investment contribution by BHP to the steel plan. BHP's prices increased during the September quarter by 1.1 per cent, which was well below the quarterly consumer price index rise of 2.2 per cent and productivity levels in the steel industry have reached 300 tonnes of raw steel per employee for the first time for a number of years. Levels of industrial disputation remain low and well below the levels that occurred prior to 1983 and the election of the present Government. The industry's overall market share stood at 90.6 per cent in June 1985, slightly declining to 89.2 per cent in July. The figures, which are all, I think, satisfactory indicators of the revival of the steel industry's fortunes, are in some sense a great tribute to the co-operation between the Government, unions and the steel companies and a great tribute to the co-operation which has been achieved by the parties to the steel industry plan. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister agree with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that for the 1985-86 financial year average farm income on family farms will be $6,700, a marked drop from the $19,500 calculated for the 1984-85 financial year? Will the Minister accept that part of the plight of the rural sector is mainly due to his Government's imposts and policy decisions, as evidenced by interest rates, fuel costs, the removal of tax concessions on water conservation, et cetera? What immediate relief, if any, is the Government willing to offer to restore the viability of our rural sector? Senator WALSH —In regard to the BAE estimates, I certainly accept that the figures it has come up with for both the last farm year and the coming farm year are the best estimates with which the BAE can come up. But it ought also to be borne in mine that those estimates should not be compared with figures of average weekly earnings or personal income in general, because there are many items for which income ought to be imputed for the typical farm family but which the BAE does not impute. However, the point is taken that they have been reduced. As to the assertion in the second part of the question that this is caused by imposts imposed by this Government-fuel costs, interest rates and so on-that, of course, I do not accept. Senator Button —It is sheer rubbish, isn't it? Senator WALSH —It is sheer rubbish, but I wanted to be more polite. I note for the record that in the last two years during which the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer, excise on refined petroleum products paid by consumers generally was increased by 40 per cent. He presided over a 40 per cent increase in the excise paid on refined petroleum products for producers generally. He imposed for the first time ever an excise on diesel fuels used on farms and in some mines-that is, he imposed for the first time ever a net excise, an excise in excess of the rebate. That excise was abolished by the Labor Government in the 1985 Budget. As for interest rates, certainly interest rates are higher at the moment than the Government would like to see them or higher, in an ideal world, than anyone would like to see them. However, I remind the Opposition again that they are not ashigh as they were in May 1982 when the 90-day bank bill rate peaked at some 22 per cent. Senator Messner —They are the highest rates in real terms for 50 years. Senator WALSH —There was this important difference-that in 1982 people were borrowing money to stay alive. They were borrowing money to buy food and to pay rent because the economy was in the deepest recession it had known for 50 years. People are borrowing money now to invest. Senator Messner said something about real interest rates. Anybody, of course, can get the real interest rate down by pushing the rate of inflation up. That is precisely what Mr Howard, as Treasurer, did. He pushed inflation up to 11 1/2 per cent by the time he had finished with the job. It is very easy to get real interest rates down by pushing the inflation rate up. Senator Collard referred to tax concessions. I can tell Senator Collard that the previous existence of a variety of tax concessions and tax rorts is a major reason why many farmers are in financial trouble today. There is a chronic propensity to overinvest in plant and equipment. To the extent that tax concessions existed, the tax concessions encouraged that propensity and they helped to lead a number of farmers into the difficult financial situation they are now in, as did, incidentally, the extraordinarily high prices which were paid for land in the early 1980s, due in part to speculation in land because of the absence of any tax on capital gains or tax on real capital gains. In conclusion, I think I can do no better than to quote to Senator Collard on the origins of the farm crisis the comments made by a former Liberal Party member of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, Mr McNee, as reported in yesterday's West Australian newspaper. Referring to the National Party of Australia or whatever it calls itself these days-the Country Party, the National Party, the National Alliance; it changes its name; however, that is the group Mr McNee was talking about-he stated: If they had performed well over the 30 years they held the primary industry portfolio at the Federal and State levels, then the rural industry would never be the way they are now. That is what Mr McNee said and he is correct. Referring to the Country Party or the National Party, he continued: It wants to stop talking about tariffs and remember that John McEwen was the architect of the tariff system and that it was Doug Anthony who steered petrol-parity pricing through the Commonwealth Parliament. On the latter point, that was a windfall revenue gain for the Fraser Government which was of limited duration and which in the short term enabled the Fraser Government to ignore its responsibilities to restrain expenditure. It let expenditure rip ahead in some highly irresponsible ways. Then, of course, when the day of reckoning finally came and the recession was hitting the economy, in the final Budget of 1982 the then Treasurer absorbed all those problems by letting the deficit blow out. He presented this Government with a prospective deficit of nearly $10 billion which, as a proportion of gross domestic product, translated in today's terms, is a deficit of around $13 billion. We know, of course, that members of the Opposition, and to a substantial extent even when they were in government, promised tax cuts for everybody. They promised to hand out more money to everybody. They solved all their problems by letting the deficit blow out. This Government does not behave that way and it will not behave that way. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to Senator Grimes as Minister for Community Services. Has the Minister seen the letter in the Advertiser today from Mr Burrell of Belair objecting to claims attributed to the Minister regarding disputes about child care funding to child care centres in South Australia? Can the Minister comment on the letter and its claims? Further, can he say what is the state of play regarding funding for child care centres and, in particular, whether there are any losses of places in child care centres, whether there are any cuts in staff at child care centres, whether there has been any consultation with relevant unions and whether consultation will be provided in the future. Senator GRIMES —Yes, as Senator Crowley would expect, I saw the letter in the Advertiser newspaper today which said some unkind things about me. It struck me. It was very sad. The sorts of things that apparently upset Mr or Ms Burrell were that I wrongly associated the organisers of a demonstration, which was held while I was in Adelaide last week, with the Flinders University and that I should therefore apologise. The second point was that I cannot cope with alternative assessments of government policy and that the Government has retreated from its commitment to fund a substantial and effective children's services program. I am afraid that I cannot apologise to the writer of the letter. What happened, in fact, was that I had agreed to meet the members of a committee called the Children's Services Defence Campaign Committee last week in Adelaide. I had arranged to meet them at 4 o'clock on the afternoon of the day I was to be there. I had arranged to meet them some weeks before. In the full knowledge of that meeting and that I had offered to meet them, members of that Committee including, I gather, the author of the letter referred to by Senator Crowley, decided that that meeting was not enough and that they would go ahead with the demonstration against the Government and me while I opened a child care centre in Port Adelaide. When we wanted to find out about that demonstration we rang the number involved which was the number of the Flinders University Child Care Centre. If one talks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck I figure that one probably is a duck. If the thing was being run from the Flinders University Centre and if one talked to the demonstrators as I did and found that they got their information from the Flinders University Centre, then I am afraid I think that the demonstration probably arose from the centre. I cannot apologise on that score. The second point is that in the comments to which they apparently objected on the radio and television there, I pointed out that while I was in Adelaide I visited an Aboriginal child care centre and I opened a child care centre in Port Adelaide which was run by the Port Adelaide Central Mission Incorporated. Both those centres are for underprivileged children and those with considerable disadvantages. I commented that it seemed strange to me that the people organising the protest in Adelaide came from the University. I do not object to the money that they get-they get considerable funding from the Federal Government and the taxpayer by way of fees, capital grants and costs paid at that University-but they were saying that I should pour more money into their services and therefore not fund the full 20,000 child care places which we wish to fund, including places for poor people. The simple fact is that rather than have a cut in overall child care expenditure there has been an increase from $60m to $140m since we came to power. That sum will go up to over $250m in the next few years as we fund child care places as we promised. Also, we have introduced a new fee structure into child care centres which will, I am afraid, ensure that some people who are relatively well off will have to pay a little more. The vast majority will have to pay very little more and we will be able to create and build new centres in underprivileged areas. I have no objection to people protesting. In fact, if I were disadvantaged like the people protesting outside that child care centre, I would have protested too on the information given by the people from the Flinders University Child Care Centre. But the information distributed to those people was wrong. The people who gave it to them knew it was wrong. They knew that they were telling lies. Therefore, they were indulging in politics-again, I do not object-but if people indulge in politics and bark at me I sometimes bark back. That is what I did. I have no apologies to make. I am not concerned about what I did and said, nor will I be in the future. I urge the people of Adelaide to look at the changes we have made, at the equity which we have introduced into the system, and at the new places which we have funded and will fund in the future, and to realise that what we are creating and building is a fairer and more equitable children's services program. Senator CROWLEY —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister address the issues of whether there have been any cuts in staff or any loss of places, as claimed by some of these protesters? Senator GRIMES —One of the unfortunate pieces of misinformation that was given was that there had already been cuts in staff and increases in fees as a result of the Government's changes. As the Government's changes do not come in until 1 April, there has been no reason for such cuts or such increases. In the first year of the new funding arrangements there will be transitional arrangements to ensure that fees do not increase excessively and to enable us to consult with the various groups to ensure that there are no untoward effects. Finally, new funding has been arranged so that operators of child care centres will be able to operate quality child care centres. They will be able to employ, as they are already employing, qualified staff. We will not fund child care centres which do not provide qualified staff and proper staff-children ratios. We have no intention of doing that in the future any more than we have in the past. The misinformation put out by this organisation may satisfy its desires to have its place in the sun but the allegations happen to be untrue and will be demonstrated to be untrue by the parents in the future. Senator SANDERS —I have a non-hyperbolic, that is, linear question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Firstly, does the Government agree that the strategy of the United States of America, as recently revealed by Admiral James Watkins in proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, of destroying Soviet nuclear missile submarines at the outset of a conventional war makes the escalation of such a conflict to a nuclear war more likely? Secondly, does the Australian Government have any knowledge which would repudiate this being United States strategy? Thirdly, by relaying orders to United States hunter killer submarines to initiate first strike action against Soviet submarines, does the Government acknowledge that North West Cape would be fundamental to this strategy? Fourthly, in light of Mr Hayden's 1984 statement that North West Cape would be closed if it were shown to support first strike plans, will the Government establish a public inquiry into the base's functions with a view to terminating the lease forthwith? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the United States Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Watkins, published an article in January saying that, if a major conventional conflict broke out between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States Navy might seek to attack Soviet submarines that carry long range ballistic missiles. However, it appears that this is not a definite agreed policy but rather the canvassing of one among many possibilities open to the United States of America in the event of a conventional conflict with the USSR. Certainly, the Australian Government is well aware of these and other developments, actual and possible, in the United States strategic doctrine. To the extent that the proposal has been canvassed in the way that it has been by Admiral Watkins, it would be fair to say, from an Australian defence analysis point of view, that the wisdom of such a strategy appears to us to be questionable. To attack Soviet strategic nuclear submarines during a major conventional conflict would appear to increase further what would already be a high risk of escalation to nuclear war. This would run quite counter to President Reagan's repeated affirmations that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. As to the possible implications of this for the North West Cape, the Government does not acknowledge that the North West Cape would be fundamental to any use of the strategy canvassed by Admiral Watkins in his article. Were that strategy to be followed, the participation of North West Cape would depend entirely on where Soviet ballistic missile submarines were deployed. In view of what we know of Soviet submarine doctrine, such submarines would be unlikely to be in our region. As to the last part of Senator Sanders's question, I do not believe it really requires an answer because it is premised on the assumption that what is involved in the Watkins article is a nuclear first strike proposal. Clearly nothing of that kind is involved in what is being proposed. It would not seem appropriate, as Senator Sanders has suggested, to erect the whole edifice on which Senator Sanders bases his call for an inquiry into the possible role of the North West Cape in such a nuclear first strike. Senator SANDERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the Government still stand by Mr Hayden's 1984 statement that if North West Cape were to be used for first strike capability its operation would be terminated forthwith? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no resiling whatsoever from anything that Mr Hayden said in that 1984 statement. It still represents the most comprehensive and accurate account of our broad response. Might I say simply on the question of first strikes, since it has been raised again by Senator Sanders in his supplementary question, that acquiring a theoretical first strike capability would require a whole series of criteria to be satisfied which we simply do not believe can be or are likely to be satisfied by either super-power in the foreseeable future. I refer to the ability to attack simultaneously all targets, including hardened missile silos, with sufficient accuracy, survivability, penetrability and destructive power to provide nearly 100 per cent certainty that they would be destroyed; it would require confidence in achieving complete surprise; and it would require the ability to destroy the other side's means of retaliation including, in particular, the retaliation of bomber and more particularly in the present context submarine carried weapons and mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. When we add all that together we simply do not believe it is appropriate to contemplate even the realistic possibility of a first strike capability being put together by either of the super-powers in the near future. So to that extent arguments about the possible utilisation of any of these facilities for such a first strike capacity are highly artificial, highly abstract and highly remote. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation to the report in the Australian on Monday, 10 February entitled: `Nose weakness find may force grounding of 747s'. That article suggested that a large contingent of Boeing 747 aircraft, estimated at a quarter of those currently in service, may suffer from a weakness which could render the aircraft unsafe or not airworthy. Have all the 747s currently in service with Qantas Airways Ltd been checked for this possible problem? If not, will they be checked as urgently as possible? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of the recent reports of cracks having been found in overseas operated 747 aircraft. I can understand the world wide concern about air safety in respect of 747s. Following reports of the cracks in the frame of the forward passenger cabin in several aircraft the Boeing aircraft company in September 1985 recommended modifications of the aircraft. Further inspections and discoveries now indicate that those modifications were not sufficiently effective. On 1 February 1986, just a few days ago, the United States Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness directive which required operators to undertake urgent inspections of aircraft with high service times and to ground all aircraft in which cracks were found pending detailed inspection of the frames, and where necessary of course to make essential repairs. I am advised by our Department of Aviation that on 4 February it issued a similar airworthiness directive to all operators of Boeing 747s. Five Qantas aircraft have spent sufficient time in service to require inspection. Inspections are almost completed and no cracking has been found in any Australian aircraft. The last aircraft is being inspected today and I assume that the statement I have just made will apply to all of the five aircraft and that they will meet that airworthiness directive. The departmental engineers maintain contact with the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States and Boeing and Qantas on the problem and more extensive inspection procedures are being developed by the Boeing company. They will be introduced as appropriate to resolve the obvious problems that have existed in the past. The Australian administration is taking all necessary steps to see that we maintain the high level of air safety which is characteristic of Australian airlines. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to a Commonwealth employment program project to build a swimming pool in the suburb of Footscray in Mr Willis's electorate of Gellibrand in Victoria at an estimated cost of approximately $3.6m, of which the CEP grant was to be $2.8m, with the remaining $800,000 to come from the ratepayers of Footscray. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the project is massively behind schedule and has major cost overruns? I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that a private company, formerly called Elate, but now called the Footscray Swim Centre Pty Ltd, appears to control the project and the CEP funds, rather than the Footscray City Council, which is the legal and authorised sponsor. If so, was this arrangement contrived to avoid the Hawke and Cain Governments' directives in relation to the Builders Labourers Federation? I ask also whether the arrangement has made the swimming pool project and the Commonwealth liable for State payroll tax and higher workers compensation charges. Finally, I ask whether the Minister will undertake to have all the circumstances surrounding this CEP project, which is rapidly taking on all the appearances of a major scandal, made the subject of urgent investigation, including the background to its initial approval. Will the Minister give the Parliament an assurance that no further CEP funds will be allocated to the project in advance of such investigation? Senator WALSH —I have some information on this matter. I am advised that Commonwealth funds of $1.974m have been approved for this project and that the sponsor, the Footscray City Council, is to contribute some $850,000. That does not tally with the figures Senator Short has just given. I do not know whether there has been a cost overrun which accounts for the difference. The Footscray Swim Centre is not the precise name I have come across previously, but rather the Footscray swimming pool. I do not know whether that body has some association as a corporate identity or as a private or partnership trader with the project. My information, which is stated to be unconfirmed, is that the project consultants are a firm called Trojan, Owen and Associates, which is not the company to which Senator Short was referring. I do not know whether that firm has any association with the Footscray Swim Centre as a corporate identity. I understand that there is an unconfirmed report that one of these companies was associated with a bottom of the harbour operation a few years ago. If that is true, it may well be why Senator Short has one name and I have a different provisional name before me. However, at this stage I do not know. In regard to this matter and the other matters raised by Senator Short, I will contact Mr Willis and try to get Senator Short more definitive answers, including whether there is any association by any company, either in its present form or its previous form, with bottom of the harbour operations. Indeed, I am quite happy to make available to the Senate any information at all that I have about companies and individuals which have been involved in bottom of the harbour operations. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I ask Senator Walsh again for an assurance that all the circumstances surrounding this project will be the subject of urgent investigation. Senator WALSH —I cannot give that assurance because I am not the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, but I will seek such an assurance from Mr Willis. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment been drawn to a report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 3 February 1986 regarding a letter from Senator Collard, the Opposition's spokesman on the environment, received by Mr John Sinclair, project officer of the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation Ltd? Does this letter indicate that a future Liberal-National Party Federal government would abandon the use of environmental grounds as a basis for imposing export restrictions? In turn, does this virtually give the green light to the resumption of sand mining on Fraser Island? As there has been no official announcement to this effect from members of the Liberal or National parties, would it not be in the public's interest for the Opposition's intentions towards sand mining on Fraser Island to be made known as soon as possible to allow for full public debate? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to the report referred to in Senator Jones's question, which was a report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 3 February in which Mr John Sinclair quoted Senator Collard, the Opposition's environment spokesperson, as saying: We believe in the necessity to exercise Commonwealth export control powers only on the grounds of national security and where an industry as a whole seeks government assistance. I think all concerned Australians should be alarmed at the sentiments expressed by Senator Collard as they suggest that the Opposition's environment spokesman is signalling that, if elected to government, a Liberal-National Party government would abandon the use of export licences to control Australia's fragile environment. It is of particular concern when one considers that such a policy will allow for the destruction of the fragile and unique environment of Fraser Island. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, has clearly and emphatically stated this Government's policy that it will continue to prohibit the export of mineral sands from Fraser Island. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I take this opportunity, on behalf of Government senators and, I believe, non-Government senators, to welcome Senator Ruth Coleman back to the Senate after a considerable period of leave of absence on the grounds of sickness. I am sure that we all wish her well and a continued stay in the Senate in good health. I wish also to mention the resignation of Senator Peter Rae from the Senate, which was referred to earlier by you, Mr President. Senator Rae entered the Senate in 1967 and, in that sense, was a long term politician; he was here for a great number of years. Whatever differences we may have had in this place, I believe that he certainly made a very substantial contribution to a number of matters concerning the Senate as well as in the political arena. I refer particularly to his chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, for which I think he will remain very well known in the annals of this Parliament for a long period, and also his chairmanship of the committee on statutory authority financing. I think the work of that committee has changed some of the parameters of political debate on statutory authorities. I could not say on behalf of Government senators that we were pleased that Senator Rae was elected last Saturday with such a substantial vote but, having been elected as a result of the misjudgment of Tasmanian electors, we wish him well in his new job. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I join the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in welcoming back Senator Ruth Coleman. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish her continued good health for her work in this place and in her electorate. I also wish to pay tribute at this time to the contribution which was made by Senator Peter Rae to the Senate. Senator Peter Rae is a member of that not particularly large group of Australian politicians who have made a national reputation because of their parliamentary activities as against their activities in other aspects of government or opposition. I think that he will always be remembered in this place as a person who was totally committed to the use of the Senate to contribute to good government in Australia. He was totally committed to the institution of the Senate. He showed an enormous respect and affection for the Constitution in its present form and played a leading and often successful role in resisting what he saw as wrongful attempts to amend the Constitution. Indeed, it was a very complete contribution to this place. I think that Peter Rae is in fact a very great loss to the Senate, although he has moved off to another sphere of parliamentary activity in his home State of Tasmania. One aspect of the Senate which concerns me is that there tends to be a strong devotion to the powers and role of the Senate on the part of most members of parliament when it suits their political convenience. In Senator Peter Rae's case, he showed very consistent affection and concern for the development of the Senate and its committee system. He took part in that directly, and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the parliamentary record of Peter Rae as contained in the Parliamentary Handbook rather than go through it at length. He not only participated in the committees which are named in that handbook, but also contributed substantially to both formal and informal arrangements in this place among senators which were directed to maintaining and improving the Senate committee system. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the formal record of Senator Rae's participation in this place. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RAE, Peter Elliot Senator for Tasmania Liberal Party Parliamentary Service Elected to the Senate for Tasmania 1967 (term began 1.7.68), 1974, 1975, 1980 and 1983. Parliamentary Appointment Senate Representative on the Council of the Australian National University from 31.6.69 to 18.7.83. Parliamentary Representative, Steel Industry Advisory Council 1983. Committee Service Senate Standing: Disputed Returns and Qualifications from 21.8.68 to 11.4.74; Privileges from 21.9.68 to 26.2.73; Standing Orders from 18.8.71 to 26.2.73 and from 9.5.78; Regulations and Ordinances from 15.9.71 to 26.2.73; Appropriations and Staffing from 5.5.82 to 4.2.83. Senate Legislative and General Purpose: Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade from 16.9.70 to 19.8.71; Finance and Government Operations from 6.10.71 to 26.3.73 and from 24.3.77 (Chairman from 30.3.77) to 4.2.83; Constitutional and Legal Affairs from 30.3.76 to 24.3.77. Senate Select: Water Pollution 1968-70; Securities and Exchange from 9.4.70 (Chairman from 18.8.71) to 20.8.75; Shipping Services between King Island, Stanley and Melbourne from 3.5.73 to 7.6.73; Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders from 7.4.76 to 26.8.76; Passenger Fares and Services to Tasmania from 22.5.80 (Chairman from 23.5.80) to 18.8.81; Statutory Authority Financing from 22.4.83 (Chairman from 22.4.83). Senate Estimates: C from 16.9.70 to 28.9.71; B from 28.9.71 (Chairman from 7.10.71) to 14.9.72; G from 3.10.74 to 3.9.75; C again from 3.9.75 to 11.11.75; B again from 29.4.76 (Chairman from 18.5.76) to 26.8.76; F from 26.8.76 (Chairman from 9.9.76) to 20.9.78; E from 16.3.78 (Chairman from 6.4.78) to 20.9.78; B again from 20.9.78 (Chairman from 28.9.78) to 2.4.81; A from 2.4.81 (Chairman from 9.4.81 to 4.2.83). Joint: Parliamentary Committee System from 25.9.74 to 26.5.76. Joint Select: Parliamentary Privilege from 11.5.83. Conference and Delegations Member, Australian Parliamentary Missions to Hong Kong, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, June-July 1969; and to South-East Asia, June-July 1970. Member, 60th Conference IPU, Rome, September 1972, and 65th IPU Conference, Bonn, September 1978. Leader, Delegation to the Council of Europe, OECD debate, October 1978. Alternative Delegate with the Commonwealth Delegation to the Australian Constitutional Convention, Perth, July 1978. Leader, Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions, September-November 1982. Parliamentary Party Positions Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party Opposition Executive from 21.12.72 to 14.6.74. Spokesman on Social Development from 21.12.72 to 24.1.73; on Education and Science from 24.1.73 to 14.6.74. Member, Opposition Shadow Ministry from 14.6.74 to 11.11.75. Spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs from 14.6.74 to 26.3.75, on Community Development from 14.6.74 to 11.11.75, and on Tourism and with particular responsibility for Tasmania from 26.3.75 to 11.11.75. Member, Opposition Shadow Ministry from 16.3.83. Spokesman on Industry and Commerce. Member, Opposition Policy Review Committee from 1983. Party Positions Member, Liberal Party Joint Policy Committee 1973-77. Member, Liberal Party Tasmanian State Executive from 1969. Member, Liberal Party Federal Platform Review Committee 1974-75. Chairman, Liberal Party Tasmanian State Constitutional Review Committee from 1978. Chairman, Government Senators' Constitutional Review Committee 1977-79. National Spokesman for `No' Committee in 1977 Referendum Campaign. Parliamentary Member, Australian Travel and Tourist Industry Advisory Council 1980-83. Personal Born 24.9.32 at Launceston, Tasmania. Married. Qualifications and Occupation before entering Federal Parliament B.A., LL.B. (Hons) (Tas.). Legal Practitioner. Military Service Pilot Officer, Royal Australian Air Force Reserve since 1953. Senator CHANEY —I regard his departure as a loss because during last year he was very actively engaged with the current Chairman of Committees and with me in trying to devise ways to get greater Senate adherence to the view that we should refer more of our legislation to standing committees. It was his strongly held view that the Senate's legislative role could be enhanced in that way. As I mentioned earlier, enthusiasm for that tends to be rather modest among Ministers of the day and even government senators of the day and I regret that he will not be here with us to pursue that line over the coming years because I am sure that it is going to require years of application to bring about change. I know that a number of other Opposition senators wish to say something about Senator Rae. I would like to mention just a couple of other things which I think were reasonably notable features of a distinguished parliamentary career. In terms of his contribution to Liberal Party thinking, I have a particular affection and regard for the work he did in 1974-75 when he was our spokesman on Aboriginal affairs. During that time and during the time of the subsequent spokesman, Mr Bob Ellicott, we actually achieved a high degree of bipartisanship of policy in an area where I think bipartisanship of policy is particularly valuable. The lack of bipartisanship over the last eight or more years has I think been a significant problem in that area for both the previous Government and the present Government. Without wishing to canvass in any way the merits of those years, I simply pay tribute to the fact that Senator Rae contributed in a quite important way in 1974-75 both while he was spokesman and subsequently to achieving a position where there was for perhaps three or four years a high degree of unanimity and I think a good deal of progress in that quite difficult area. Another notable feature of Senator Rae's approach to matters in this chamber which I think will always be remembered was his obviously great affection for his home State. I do not think that anyone would deny that Senator Rae had a public reputation on two bases-one, that he was a senator and, secondly, that he was a Tasmanian. I was struck from my earliest time here by the depth of his affection for his home State and by his strong belief that it had a great future and that tourism would play a very important part in that future, and I think that things that have occurred over recent years in Tasmania bear out his faith and the views which he expressed so vigorously. Senator Peter Baume —And he is still alive and well. Senator CHANEY —My colleague has reminded me that he is still alive. If this is starting to sound like a condolence motion, I can only assure honourable senators opposite that the few remaining Labor members of the Parliament in Tasmania will, I am sure, be feeling the edge of his tongue very soon. They will be very certain that Senator Rae is alive and well. Certainly the Opposition Labor members of Parliament in Tasmania will dearly wish that Peter Rae was back with us in the Senate rather than giving them curry in Tasmania. On behalf of the Opposition I wish Peter Rae all the best for a new career in politics in his home State of Tasmania. Having just made the air trip to Canberra yet again I can only say that I envy him the fact that he will be operating close to his home. I am sure that he will bring the same vigour and enthusiasm to his work in Tasmania as he has brought to his work in this place. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I too pay tribute to the service that Peter Rae has given to his country over a number of years-in fact since 1967 when he was elected. He entered the Senate in 1968. I pay tribute on behalf of my Party-the Australian Democrats-but more particularly on my behalf because Peter Rae and I have been close friends. I use those words advisedly because it has been my observation, after having spent 25 years in politics, that notwithstanding the closeness that we find with one another very few real friendships are formed in politics, either among members of parties or across party lines. I do not know the reason for that. Of course we have close acquaintanceships and there are a great number of our colleagues on both sides of the chamber for whom we have affection. However, very few real friendships are formed. The test of a friendship is whether, when one gets out of this place, one would love to have a member or senator and his spouse to one's house for dinner. That is the sort of friendship I am talking about. Whether it is because of the competitiveness of politics, whether it is one of the few professions in which one can advance only at the expense of a mate, I do not know: But from my observation it is a fact of life. Peter Rae and I broke that rule. We have been close personal friends. I believe that we have had mutual admiration and respect for one another for more than 20 years. I admire his courage. He has had lots of kicks in the guts in his political career. He has taken them; he has copped them. However, what is even greater about the man is the fact that the loyalty he has shown to the people who have given him those kicks in the guts and the Party has been astonishing. I do not want to embarrass Peter but if anyone had an unanswerable reason to leave the Liberal Party of Australia and to say `You can go to hell; I have given you the best I have' it was him. But I have not heard him publicly or privately whinging or complaining about the deal he got. In fact after he got those shoddy deals he worked twice as hard for the Party which he saw gave him a position of eminence in the community. I have nothing but admiration for him and I wish him well. It is not the best kept secret in Canberra that he will be offered a senior post in another institution in this country. I compliment the Premier of Tasmania-that in itself is a rare event-for having the wisdom that I believe Mr Howard did not have in offering Mr Rae a job. Whatever he is offered-I hope it will be in the fields of endeavour in which he has distinguished himself in this place; in areas of industry and commerce-I know that he will acquit himself well and be a credit to his Party. I would like to put on the record something a little less personal about Peter Rae, but I think it ought to be said. He put more time and effort than anyone else into the development of the Senate committee system and the legislative review function of the Senate as an institution. I think if one joins together the names of Peter Rae and Lionel Murphy-we ought to do that quite often when we think of the tremendous status-- Senator Sir John Carrick —I am determined that you all should not. Senator CHIPP —I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. I think that, in their different ways, those two men lifted the Senate and the Senate committee system to a new level of public acceptability and public service. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, Senator Peter Rae was responsible for drawing public attention to the value of the committee system in the Senate. His work on the subject of statutory authorities revealed the extent to which statutory authorities were not accountable, and the nature of that. As a result of these revelations, the accountability of such bodies has been improved. When Peter Rae first sat on Estimates committees, they had to dig up every bit of information for themselves. Over a time he and others helped to persuade governments to issue explanatory memoranda in a standardised form, and these memoranda are of enormous assistance to all members of parliament and, in particular, to my Party, which has to scrutinise every clause of every piece of legislation. Those are just a few of the accomplishments of Senator Peter Rae. We will all miss him, not only for his service but also for the happy, good humoured approach he took to crises and to people, and we wish him well because he is a damned good bloke. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I would also like to join my colleagues, on behalf of the National Party of Australia, first of all in welcoming Senator Coleman back after her long illness. I have served both with Senator Coleman and under her chairmanship of Senate standing committees. One might say we are poles apart philosophically but, still, we have had a good rapport and a respect for each other's position. It is good to welcome her back after that long illness. Secondly, I join in the comments made about our former colleague, Senator Rae, who, I say at the outset, has gone on to what he would consider greener pastures. As has been indicated, the only time one gets to say anything really complimentary about one's colleagues, on either side of the chamber, is either when they leave this place or by way of eulogy. This is one of the more pleasant occasions, in that it is about a colleague leaving this place and going to a State parliament. The speakers before me have indicated Peter Rae's role in the committee system of this Senate and, indeed, it would be fair to say that Peter Rae's contribution enhanced that system. I suppose that the committee that made his name known to the Australian people was the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Quite significantly, as well as being Chairman of it whilst his Party was in power, he maintained that chairmanship when he went into opposition, such was his standing amongst his colleagues and amongst the community. Of course, anyone who follows the parliamentary system in Australia fully realises that the Senate committee system is held in high regard in this country. So, on behalf of the National Party, I say that we are pleased to have served with Peter Rae in this chamber, to have learnt from him, particularly in respect of the committee system and the Standing Orders of this chamber, and we wish him well even though we would not necessarily agree that he has gone to greener pastures. Undoubtedly, in his mind, he has. We wish him well and we hope that he thoroughly enjoys them and makes an equal contribution in his new role. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —by leave-I also welcome back my colleague Ruth Coleman. It is good to see her looking so fit. I would like to say a few words regarding ex-Senator Peter Rae, as I am also a senator from Launceston. The first thing I would like to say is that, coming up in the plane from Launceston on Sunday last, I also envied Peter Rae. I can understand what he is about-no longer having to travel around the way he has and we all have in the past, no longer having to wake up in motel rooms so often. I think that he will think it is more than just greener pastures, Senator Collard. As others have said, Peter Rae has a deep and abiding love for Tasmania. He will now be able to carry out his second love, or his third love after sailing, which is politics, and yet stay in the State and not have to travel around the way he has been. Being a senator from Launceston, I quickly became acquainted with Senator Peter Rae when I was elected to this place. We quickly came to an arrangement that on Tuesday mornings we would both get the same plane, so that if it was held up by fog, as it frequently was, we both would not need pairs; we just both were not here together. We had very considerable differences on politics; we had very considerable differences on the role of this place. But one could not but have respect for Peter Rae, first of all because of his courage. Not many of us will forget-he may wish that we would forget-that he was opposed to the construction of the dam in Tasmania. I will never forget those ads in the paper during the last Senate election campaign, when what I would call the troglodytes had in the paper ads saying `Vote Liberal' but conspicuously leaving Peter Rae off the top of the ticket. They opposed him vigorously but he stuck to his guns, to a view which he held on economic grounds and a view which I believe has been demonstrated to be perfectly accurate and true. The second thing I remember of Peter Rae is his and my bipartisan efforts to do something about Tasmanian air services and the Launceston Airport. Unfortunately, in this regard we failed because of opposition from other parliamentarians from both sides of politics who believed that the best thing for Launceston was to maintain the status quo and that the best thing for Tasmania was to maintain the status quo. It is with some regret, when I come back home after working a day in Sydney, that I find that I have to fly to Devonport rather than Launceston. When I see the lack of ambition and lack of courage of the Launceston business community in opposing local ownership of Launceston Airport, I regret that both Peter Rae and I did not succeed in that regard. There is one final thing I would like to say. Politicians from small cities, small towns and small States frequently have to put up more than others, perhaps, with the sort of scuttlebutt and scurrilous nonsense that goes around about politicians at various times. We have seen a bit of that on television this day. At one stage that was particularly intense in Launceston, where I come from, and both Senator Peter Rae and I copped a fair bit of it at various times. He had, as I think most of us but, unfortunately, not all of us have, an abhorrence for that sort of thing. I remember once when stories were being spread about me that he in fact defended me at a meeting of the Liberal Party and made it perfectly clear to people at that meeting that if anyone was going to participate in that he would publicly disown it. Strangely enough, it was not long after that that I had to do the same thing and could reciprocate for him. It is always difficult in these situations in which a former senator is now a member of the Government in Tasmania and in a party opposed to mine, but I remember with pleasure my time with him in this place. For all our differences, I-as I believe most people did-respected him. I could never understand why, from 1967 until 1983, he was not a Minister in a government in this place, but it is not for me to question what other governments do. I also remember the great fervour with which he defended his State. I remember the fervour with which he defended almost anything that happened in this place. That was something I could not understand, but I also respected the way he played the game. I think that is important, and I am sure he will do the same in the Parliament of Tasmania. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-Firstly, I welcome the return of Senator Ruth Coleman to the Senate and wish her good health in the continuance of her contributions, particularly towards the disabled. Secondly, I wish to support the salutatory comments of my colleagues towards former Senator Peter Rae. On Saturday Mr Rae convincingly topped the poll in the electorate of Bass in the Tasmanian State electorate. I think this reflects the very high esteem in which the people of Tasmania hold Peter Rae. Peter Rae was a dedicated worker in all phases of the life of our Senate. His contribution, particularly to the Senate committee system, has been a major factor in raising the public's perception in respect of the Senate and the work of the Senate. Former Senator Rae's other notable achievements include his leadership of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, particularly his work on quangos and raising the status of accountability and public reporting of statutory government organisations. His work on the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange received national recognition. He was a very strong fighter for State rights. He loved his State of Tasmania and defended it on all occasions. To his credit, he often took views or supported causes that at times isolated him from the mainstream of his Party and sometimes public opinion. I think this reflects the character of the man. I, therefore, wish to take this opportunity to thank him for his contribution in the Federal arena and wish him a successful career in the Tasmanian State Parliament. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-The problem with the leaders of the different parties speaking before me is that they steal all the thunder. There seems to me to be very little left to add to what has been said regarding Senator Rae's performance in this place. He was certainly a highly regarded senator for Tasmania. One did not have to ask from which State he came; everybody automatically knew he came from Tasmania. He certainly left his mark on this Senate, particularly in the area of the committee system. As you would be well aware, Mr President, all this has already been said. As Senator Watson said, he topped the poll in the Bass election and this is an indication of the regard in which he is held in his own area. All that remains to me is to wish him well in his new area of politics. I am quite sure that his wife Tessa will be delighted to have him home a lot more than she has been used to. I wish them both well. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I am slightly different from the rest of my colleagues in as much as I have an association with Peter Rae which goes back 40 years. In 1946, not quite in short pants but all but, I first made Peter's acquaintance. Over those 40 years I followed him, being a few years older, through his early career years. I worked with him on various occasions during his professional career. I think the Parliament is going to be worse off by the standing down of Peter Rae because he did have the interests of the Parliament as his primary objective. He certainly did a considerable amount to see that procedure, dedication to Parliament and knowledge of the Parliament and its systems achieved the top priority. I made a note and I see that I put down `midnight oil'. I am not referring to a music group of any sort but to Peter's working habits. I think that he burnt more midnight oil in this place than anybody else has in the last 20 years. Senator Peter Baume —I think his officers will have a few lessons coming up very soon. Senator ARCHER —I think that may well be. The Tasmanians are going to find that they will work to a different lifestyle from now on. As far as Tasmanians are concerned, there is no doubt that Peter's addition to what was, without him even, a very, very strong team did add to the overall success of his Party in the Tasmanian election on Saturday. I, too, congratulate him on topping the poll in Bass and doing it so well. I am pleased that he will be continuing to serve Tasmania. He can still make an enormous contribution because of the knowledge that he has gained of procedure, of the Parliament and of the ups and downs of the system. I certainly wish him well in the years to come. I would also like to welcome the return of Senator Coleman to the chamber. I have been working on a committee with Senator Coleman for 10 years. Sometimes she has been my boss and sometimes I have been her boss. It has been a very good relationship and I am very pleased to see her back and in the chamber. I hope that she is here for many more years. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-A lot has been said about Peter Rae. I was particularly interested in what Senator Chipp said about the establishment of friendships in this place. I think that Senator Chipp and Senator Grimes demonstrated that Peter Rae has been able to bridge the gulf between the various parties and has established those friendships in a very real sense. I think Peter Rae came into the Senate in 1968, two years after I went into the House of Representatives, and since that time we have been extremely close friends. I have shared accommodation with him for 12 or 14 years and during that time I have become very conscious of the work load that he has taken upon himself in the interests of the Liberal Party of Australia in the formulation of policies and also with respect to the work of the Senate. Senator Rae, as he was then, has become regarded by the staff and by all senators in all parties as a Senate man who has always defended the role of the Senate, both as a House of review and as a State's house. Senator Chipp suggested that Peter Rae received some setbacks during his career and it is quite true. He always accepted those setbacks loyally, with his chin out, and always went about his work with renewed vigor in order to promote the interests of the Liberal Party. I think that is an example which many of us in this Parliament could emulate. He attracted remarkable support in the recent State election-I believe something of the order of 22 per cent-second only to the Premier, Robin Gray. That is an indication of the personal following of Peter Rae and the respect with which he is held in Tasmania. Senator Chipp —Do you think he would make a good Premier? Senator JESSOP —I believe that whatever he embarks upon in his new career he will make an excellent job of it. He has always been a man of independent mind and perhaps that is one reason why he attracted such a tremendous vote in Tasmania. I have noted that Tasmanians happen to be fairly independently minded. They do pretty well at elections too. I think Senator Grimes referred to the different view Peter Rae took on the dams issue. That just demonstrates how on this side of the chamber one can responsibly and objectively take a different point of view when, in one's opinion, that view is in the best interests of the State represented. I believe that his interests in resource development, tourism development, economics, legal matters and the abundant knowledge that he takes from the Senate to Tasmania will be of tremendous benefit to that State. There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate's loss is Tasmania's gain. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would like to join briefly in welcoming our colleague Senator Coleman back to the Senate after her illness. I took the liberty of writing to her yesterday afternoon expressing a welcome to her on behalf of all honourable senators. I also endorse the remarks that have been made from all political quarters in the chamber concerning our erstwhile colleague Senator Peter Rae. As a result of a long association with me in this Parliament, not only as members of the Senate but also as members of a number of Senate committees, particularly the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee, and having had the pleasure of attending an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Bonn with him and his wife we became close personal friends. Not only has he served Tasmania well in this Parliament but he and his wife Tessa-I say this from my own knowledge-were great ambassadors abroad for Australia. I am sure that not only will he be sorely missed in this chamber but also he and his wife in their new role will continue to give great service to the people of Tasmania. The PRESIDENT —I have to inform the Senate that staff of the Parliamentary Catering Service met yesterday, 10 February 1986, at 3.00 p.m. to consider their position in relation to demands made by them on 30 October 1985 for a pay increase. The staff resolved to withdraw immediately their services until normal commencement time on the morning of Wednesday, 12 February 1986. The Australian Capital Territory organiser of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union has advised the Joint House Department that this strike will be followed by a series of lightning rolling stoppages in support of the members' claims for a new award which would include satisfactory pay rates and more appropriate conditions of service. The staff of the Parliamentary Catering Service and its union had previously notified the Joint House Department of concern with the classifications and conditions of service applicable under its award. Since October 1985 the union has sought to change the basis of classifications for the catering staff. Discussions have been held between the union and the Joint House Department but a proposal has not been able to be developed that comes within the national wage case guidelines. The Public Service Board has been informed of the current situation and its advice, and that of officers of the Presiding Officers' advisory group, has been sought in an endeavour to seek a solution. The Joint House Department has proposed discussions between itself, the staff of the Parliamentary Catering Service and the union on 12 February-tomorrow-to seek to achieve withdrawal of the threat of further disruption whilst discussions continue and a basis is developed for the ultimate resolution of the dispute. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I seek leave to ask a question of you, Mr President, in relation to the dispute. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —Is the requested pay increase within the terms of the accord? The PRESIDENT —I have just said that the application to date is outside the wage case guidelines. The negotiations are continuing. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(3.53) —I move: That the hours of meeting for the Senate this day be 2 p.m. till 7.30 p.m. Mr President, the reasons arise out of the statement that you have just made. I understand that all parties are agreeable. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.54) —It seems that the Senate has been left with no option but to follow this course, but on behalf of the Opposition I register my concern that the sittings of the national Parliament should be disrupted and rearranged because of industrial action. Mr President, on the basis of your statement the people involved in this dispute are no doubt given the biannual wage adjustments provided for under the accord. Supposedly we have an arrangement which will bring about industrial peace in this country and no doubt there is access to arbitral authorities on the basis of any anomalies that may exist. It is quite unsatisfactory that the proceedings of the national Parliament can be disrupted in this way. I note with particular concern the threat contained in the statement which you read out, Mr President. Of course, that is not a threat from you, but from the people involved that they will conduct a series of lightning stoppages. On behalf of the Opposition I protest in the strongest possible terms. I believe that it is an abuse of the position of the people working here. They should withdraw that threat. If the threat is not withdrawn and if we are subjected to more of this type of action, I believe that it is incumbent on you, Mr President, and the Speaker to make other arrangements to ensure that the Parliament is not disrupted in this way. I am sure that honourable senators and members would accept some external arrangements for food to be made available. Such an outside provision would be quite satisfactory. I am sure members would prefer that to the disruption of the parliamentary sittings. Mr President, I ask you to consider alternative arrangements if we are subjected to any further industrial disruption of this sort. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.55) —I commend the latter part of Senator Chaney's statement. It is intolerable that the meetings of the national Parliament should be dictated to or threatened by a trade union. Even on a matter of principle we ought to find such behaviour totally non-acceptable. Having said that, I do not want it to appear that I am agreeing with the first part of what Senator Chaney said, if he was being critical of the Government's adopting this course of action. I suspect that he was not being critical. Senator Chaney —I said we have to go along with it. Senator CHIPP —I understood that the Liberal Party had agreed to this arrangement when the strike action was known about. I commend Senator Grimes for his action because rather than kow-towing to the dictates of a trade union, his only concern was for members of parliament. It seemed to me to be eminently sensible to sit for another hour which means that we will only lose an hour or so of the day and we can finish our business. I commend Senator Grimes for his thoughtfulness to senators. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.57) —I am completely unaware of the justification or otherwise of the issue that is causing the dispute. Mr President, you have already said that it is outside the wage guidelines. I take it for granted that that is correct. The fact that the Government is prepared to close down the Parliament because the staff in the dining room decide to go on strike is, I believe, quite reprehensible. The Government really must treat the Parliament more seriously. If anything points to the Government's subservience to the trade unions, this certainly is such an action. Are we to rise every time there is a rolling strike next week? Surely government senators can survive for one night on sandwiches, or perhaps they could pop out for a quick counter meal. Do they really have to go to their usual haunts at the Lakeside, Nobbs or wherever to have their long dinners or lunches for which the Government has become so famous? Why can they not fit in with the normal hours? Why can we not rise at 6.30 p.m., go out and have a quick meal and be back at 8 p.m. to sit on? Why should the Parliament rise because some members of the dining room staff decide that they would like to go on strike? The whole matter is quite incredible. I am very opposed to what the Government has suggested. Senator Grimes —Speak to your leader. Senator WALTERS —Members on that side of the chamber might be thrown out if they oppose their leader. They should leave the free democracy that we have in this Parliament and country to this side. Those opposite should stick to their leader. They will be thrown out of their party if they do not. We all know that. Members on this side are not thrown out of the party or the Parliament if they disagree. Senator Chaney has already said that the Government has given him no choice but to agree. The Australian Democrats had already agreed; so what rights have we? We on this side can express our opinion. Senator Chipp —Why don't you tell the truth? Senator WALTERS —Senator Chipp should decide to come back after eight o'clock. It is ab- solutely reprehensible that the Government-- Senator Chipp —Why don't you move an amendment? Senator WALTERS —I would very much like to move an amendment. Will Senator Chipp support me if I do? He is being a bit smart. I believe that the Government should change its mind and that we should sit on for the normal sitting hours of the Parliament. If the Government would agree to that, I am sure the two leaders would. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.00) —in reply-Normally I would not exercise my right of reply but, quite frankly, as a result of the stupid contribution that we have just heard, I must. First of all, Senator Walters forgets that there are people in this place other than members of parliament. There are many people in this place other than members of parliament and their situation must also be considered. They also work consistent hours and also eat dinner. Let me tell Senator Walters what happened rather than have put in the Hansard what comes out of her fevered imagination. The arrangement to sit until 7.30 tonight was originally made in the House of Representatives by all parties there. That was where the first arrangement was made. We were originally thinking of extending the dinner break by half an hour to make it easier for people to go out to get meals but the other House decided to sit until 7.30 and we thought it fairly sensible to sit for the same hours on this side. I spoke to Senator Chaney before I spoke to Senator Chipp, so Senator Chipp had not agreed to this before Senator Chaney agreed to it. That suggestion came straight out of Senator Walters's well-known imagination. As with so many of the things she says, it was a lie. The simple fact is that there is a dispute. As to whether the dispute is outside of the provisions of the prices and incomes accord, as I am sure it is, this Government's record on union claims outside the accord need not be questioned by Senator Walters. We do not agree to claims outside of the accord and, as it happens, we do not agree with this claim. We decided that the sensible thing to do was to extend this sitting by an hour and for the House then to rise. This would mean that we would lose one and a half hours. That is the sensible way to cope with this situation and the Opposition side of the Parliament agreed with it. The simple fact is that it is a sensible solution, not only for members of parliament but also for everyone who works in this place. It is a pity that Senator Walters, in her insatiable desire to get headlines on puerile subjects, came in here and made the stupid remarks and attacks that she did. It is an example of how her brain works and of her lack of neurons. I urge honourable senators to support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Because of its length and very comprehensive nature, I have not had time to analyse in any proper detail the report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. However, it is interesting to note that it is delivered at a time when the nation is being beseiged by industrial action out in the work place in quest of so-called productivity claims over and above the provisions of the accord in such a way that superannuation is being sought for the work force generally. Whilst the Government has put down some guidelines on how superannuation might be managed when it is introduced, as now seems likely as a result of this industrial action and as a result of the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be made in respect of the productivity claim before it this week, the Government has not yet made clear how the proposed superannuation arrangements will fit the circumstances of public sector employees. Of course, that is of vast concern to public sector employees, as no doubt it is to their employers. This report is of some relevance in terms of the immediate situation and immediate industrial events in the community. I for one would like to hear in much more detail from the Government what it proposes in order to take account of the vast involvement of public sector employees in superannuation and how those employees will be advantaged or disadvantaged as a result of the introduction of the new superannuation arrangements. As we know, employees in the public sector will receive the 3 per cent benefit if indeed the Arbitration Commission makes such a decision, as is expected. Turning to the report, it is interesting to note that the Government is now spending a total of some $900m a year on pensions and lump sum benefits to former employees of the Commonwealth. That includes employees of such statutory authorities as the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission and other such bodies. I hasten to point out that that amount of some $900m does include refunds of individual employee contributions which total some $109m, or roughly one-ninth of the total payouts. Thus, the contributions made by employees appear to represent only one-ninth of the total benefit that the pensioners receive. Of course, this needs some qualification because it is interesting to note that, of the total expenditure of some $901m, roughly $535m comes by way of contribution from the various statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. I am not sure from the accounting in the report whether the employee component of contributions to the superannuation fund is nominated under that heading or in the earlier part of the report under employer components. Therefore, it is a little difficult to analyse. The point that is of some interest and significance is that the average pension payable in the last financial year was $10,452, which is one-half, or a little less, of average weekly earnings. That compares with the Department of Social Security age pension which represents a little under 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. Thus, there is indeed a very significant benefit in favour of public sector employees. The other point of significance is that statistics show that the annual pensioner liability at the end of June 1985 was $761.6m. I suppose that, if we take into account the average life expectancy of a retiree, that means that the total liability of the superannuation scheme could be about $12,000m. It is a significant liability to the Commonwealth and one that will demand some interest and certainly supervision by this Parliament as years go by. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The debates on education continue in this chamber and we debate the education reports as they come up. This report gives us a chance to look once again at the whole approach of the Australian Labor Party and the Labor Government to education, and to raise once again for the Australian public the way in which Labor seeks to downgrade choice, to limit access to higher education and to endanger excellence in education. This report quite properly identifies the Government's goals, and quite properly identifies departmental goals in line with the Government's goals, and quite properly identifies the Department of Education as an organ of government. I have no objection to that, and what I say contains no criticism of the Department of Education because it is there to put into effect what the government of the day seeks by way of policy. But the Department at page 1 of its report identifies its objectives. That exercise is of course one which I always applaud but it identifies as one of its objectives: To relate policies in Australian education to the Government's social, cultural, economic and foreign policies. In other words, as the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has said many times, if the Government has its way education in Australia will advance the Government's goals for various aspects of Australian life. The concern of the Opposition is that these goals are bad goals, that the Government has little feeling for the need for excellence in education. The Minister for Education has said that the search for excellence has, to use her words, `overtones of elitism'. We reject that. We believe that excellence in education in Australia, and the pursuit of excellence, is absolutely critical to the achievement of our national goals. We believe that the Government has got it wrong in seeking to downgrade excellence in any way. We are concerned about the Government's system of education, which ends up restricting access. We will turn away this year from higher education in New South Wales 30,000 potential students who seek to do nothing more than improve themselves; to add to the pool of skills available to Australia; who seek to improve their own life chances by increasing the number of options which they have available. They will be refused access because of the policies of the Government and the restricted number of places available. If the Department is required to pursue goals which have that kind of effect, they too are bad goals. The Government has other goals. We can go back to the Minister's speeches over the years. She is not so concerned, as we are, with equality of opportunity for Australians, but she is concerned to seek equality in the outcomes of education. Equality of outcomes almost inevitably means that she is rejecting the idea of equality of opportunity. We have diametrically opposed views. Her pursuit of equality of outcomes will be bad for Australian education. She wonders why parents continue in their droves to vote with their feet and take their children to schools where excellence is admired and sought, where choice is valued, where discipline is part of the offering, where a view of life which values achievement is offered and where equality of outcomes is seen as the empty and wanting goal that it really is. I find this report quite acceptable in terms of the record that it gives of what the Department of Education has done but in the sense that it is a testament to the Government's policies it continues to disappoint Australian parents and to disappoint Australian educational aspirations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.14) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The only comment I wish to make at this stage relates to the Industries Assistance Commission report on passenger concessions. It is interesting to see that this report, which has now been tabled, is dated 6 November 1985 and predates by some weeks the debate in the Senate on the Government's legislation on passenger concessions. Honourable senators will recall that the Opposition opposed the Government's inward duty free shopping proposals and did so on the basis of its concern at the possible reduction of barrier control, or the complication of barrier control which the introduction of inward duty free shopping would present. Under the Government's new arrangements there are to be shopping points between the point of exit from an aircraft and the Customs barrier. Whilst on the face of it that might seem a useful additional facility for incoming passengers it also presents an additional difficulty for those who are trying to control the flow of people and of possible illicit goods through the Customs barrier. It means that additional people will be introduced into the movement across the barrier. The report confirms that there is concern that the proposals would hinder Customs operations. It states: Indeed, the probability is that, in some airports, it would hinder Customs in processing passengers and achieving the other objectives of barrier control. The principal concern is that there should not be any further complication of the very real difficulties that Customs faces in controlling the flow of drugs into this country. I just wanted on this occasion to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the final report, like the interim report we had before us at the time we debated the legislation, brings out this same problem. It is a matter which is of continuing concern to the Opposition and a matter which we would want to follow up further in the light of experience following these changes. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.17) —I would like to make some remarks on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the biological control of echium species, including Paterson's curse or Salvation Jane. I am glad that the report has recommended the biological control of echium, and of course Salvation Jane or Paterson's curse is a part of that family. This weed has created great problems for rural communities in New South Wales and many other parts of Australia. After each of the droughts we have had in the past there has been an increase in Paterson's curse caused by the deterioration of improved pastures. Of course Paterson's curse, or Salvation Jane, has caused great problems as a result of the death of stock as a result of kidney failure, and of course anyone who runs a property does not like to see his stock dying in this way. This weed has the name of Salvation Jane because, eaten by stock in small proportions, it has had a lifesaving effect on stock in the far west of New South Wales. One of the reasons that the recommendations in the report were not introduced earlier is that apiarists would have some cause for complaint if Paterson's curse were eradicated because it plays quite a part in the production of honey. However, the report covers the worries of apiarists by saying that if biological control affects such groups it may be to an extent that it warrants adjustment assistance, although uncertainties still exist as to whether that would be effective. It is suggested that any assistance not be given until the effects of the biological control are fully investigated. This is something that members of the rural community will welcome as they are under threat at the moment from this centralised socialist Hawke Labor Government. They will welcome this report because it will help them to save some money. According to the report, something like $115m in current dollar terms will be saved over 15 years by the rural communities. The cost to the beekeeping industry will be some $8m in discounted terms over 15 years. I hope that this report will now mean the end of any opposition to the biological control of this weed because it has had a far reaching effect throughout rural communities for many years. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.21) —I want to address a few remarks to the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on passenger concessions. Legislation for inward duty free shopping was introduced into this place and forced through as a result of a shoddy little deal between the Government and the Australian Democrats, despite the fact that it was massively opposed by the Australian Customs Service, which not only has responsibility now for the monitoring of inward duty free shopping but also was alert to the security risks and other dangers which would be a consequence of the introduction of inward duty free shopping. The Government similarly refused to allow the Senate to have any form of inquiry into the problems for Customs at the barrier that would be associated with the introduction of inward duty free shopping. It is interesting to note that the Industries Assistance Commission has investigated this matter over a number of years. It has been the subject of considerable discussion by the Bureau of Transport Economics and by various interdepartmental committees, all of which, on the basis of their expert advice, have recommended against inward duty free shopping. If one looks at page 84 of the report one is drawn to the question of passenger and aircraft safety. It was argued as a great point by Senator Sanders that somehow inward duty free shopping would enhance passenger and flight safety. That is totally untrue. The IAC nails that assertion by saying: In its 1979 study, the Bureau of Transport Economics was sceptical of the safety claims made. It had not found any evidence of accidents having been exacerbated by duty free goods being carried on an aircraft . . . The fire risk from passengers' alcohol was considered to be no greater than that from the airlines' own stocks of liquor . . . Even if duty free goods, carried as cabin baggage, were a serious safety risk, inward duty free shopping would not solve the problem unless carriage of all duty free goods in the cabin of the aircraft were banned. The Government, of course, does not propose to do that. The report indicates the additional costs to the Customs Service of the introduction of inward duty free shopping. It draws attention to the fact that the Customs Service and the Department of Immigration have specifically disagreed with the claim that inward duty free shopping would facilitate passenger movement through the barrier and the Customs terminals. It draws attention to the difficulties that will be encountered with the necessity from time to time for the alteration of passenger Customs declarations. On page 87 the report goes on to indicate: There is also doubt whether inward duty free shopping could be restricted to airports. Undoubtedly, we will now see the expansion of this area and a consequent loss of revenue to the Government. The rationale for the export of goods through duty free shops is criticised by the report as a violation of the destination principle of indirect taxation. The concluding paragraph of this section of the report, paragraph 7.4.4, states: The reference requires the Commission to comment on the applicability of recommended concessions to goods purchased in Australia by arriving persons before they pass through the Customs barrier. The objectives of passenger concessions are passenger facilitation, immigration, and cost-effectiveness in Customs administration. The Commission does not believe that inward duty free shopping helps to achieve any of these objectives. Indeed, the probability is that, in some airports, it would hinder Customs in processing passengers and achieving the other objectives of barrier control. The Commission therefore considers that passenger import concessions should not apply to goods purchased in Australia by arriving persons before they pass through the Customs barrier. The Government has decided, for what I think are quite improper and shoddy reasons, to reject the recommendations of the IAC. I believe that the Government will wear the responsibility for the loss of revenue and increased difficulty for the airlines and the Customs Service. It will wear the responsibility for the additional opportunity which is provided for smuggling and the entry of narcotics into this country by the use of the inward duty free system, which I discussed at length last year in my speech on the Customs legislation which introduced it. I believe it will be found that the very shoddy and underhand deal which the Government entered into and which was promoted by certain sections of the Government to the detriment of revenue and the Customs Service will be a lasting blot on the Government's record in this area and is a clear indication of how little attention the Government is prepared to give to the expert and considered recommendations of the IAC in this matter. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.27) —I support the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in its report entitled `Biological Control of Echium Species'. The Industries Assistance Commission was commissioned to report on the biological effects of Paterson's curse being a target species under an Act recently passed by this Parliament. I support the recommendation that the species be a target species and should be managed by Government agencies supported by public funding. The Commission acknowledges that Paterson's curse can impinge on the natural environment through its presence in national parks and other conservation areas which are set aside in order to protect the native vegetation. I do not believe that point was adequately made in the debate on biological control. I commend the Commission for bringing the matter to our attention. The report also acknowledges that Paterson's curse impinges on soil erosion, with detrimental effects on both agricultural and public land. The native vegetation is also affected as a result of chemical spraying to control Paterson's curse. Biological control is a very effective and cheap means of controlling agricultural problems in Australia. The vast scale of our agriculture, the limited numbers of people and the high costs of cultivation and imported sprays mean that biological control is a very effective means of reducing farm costs, eliminating pests and improving pasture species and animal nutrition. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 6 December 1985, I lay on the table the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade which was presented to the President on 17 January 1986. In accordance with the terms of the resolution, the President has authorised the printing and circulation of the report. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President I present the publication `Business of the Senate and its Committees' for 1985. Ordered that the paper be printed. Assent to the following Bills reported: Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Sales Tax (No. 6) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 7) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 8) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (No. 9) Amendment Bill 1985 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1985 Repatriation Legislation Amendment (Extension of Operation) Bill 1985 Child Care Amendment Bill 1985 Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1985 Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985 Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 1985 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1985 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1985 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Customs Undertakings (Penalties) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 11) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 11a) 1985 Sales Tax Bill (No. 11b) 1985 Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Subsidy (Grain Harvesters and Equipment) Bill 1985 Home and Community Care Bill 1985 Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 Australian Trade Commission Bill 1985 Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill 1985 Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1985 Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1985 Census and Statistics Amendment Bill 1985 Foreign States Immunities Bill 1985 Stevedoring Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Evidence Amendment Bill 1985 Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Bill 1985 Public Lending Right Bill 1985 Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill 1985 Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Amendment Bill 1985 Debate resumed from 2 December 1985, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.31) —The Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 makes a number of very important changes to the Trade Practices Act. In the course of that it also adds considerably to the impact of that legislation and to the powers of the Minister who is administering that legislation from time to time. The Trade Practices Act was first passed by this Parliament basically in its present form in 1974, which is less than 12 years ago. Of course, that Act and the many subsequent amendments to it, together with the great volume of case law which has emerged in relation to it, are a very salutary example of the great regulation of conduct promoted by this Parliament on far too many occasions. The Opposition has supported the essential principle of the Trade Practices Act; that is, that, in essence, it is pro-competitive regulation. But, unfortunately, as soon as parliaments and governments become involved in legislation of this or any other kind which is adding to regulation, they build one block on another over a period of years and we end up with the state of affairs from which this nation is suffering at present due to the activities of parliament and governments over the last two decades or more in particular. Although, as I have said, in essence and in principle the Opposition supports pro-competitive regulation of the kind in the Trade Practices Act, it approaches legislation of this kind, amendments to it and extensions of it with a very critical eye. It is our view that this example of proposed legislation should be opposed because we do not see that the benefits that may flow from this Bill justify the increased burdens of regulation in one form or another which it will impose, particularly those very considerable extensions of ministerial power which are included in this legislation under the proposed product safety additions to the Trade Practices Act. There may be the odd benefit in this legislation, the odd clause which, if it were standing on its own, we would not be fazed about. But, on the whole, we see this piece of legislation as one which should not have been introduced into this Parliament in its present form. We certainly would want to amend it extensively but, in essence, we are opposed to it and will be voting against the second reading of it for those reasons. If the Bill is read a second time, contrary to our opinion, we propose to move that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs because it is a Bill which requires the close attention of the Parliament, particularly the Senate as the House of Review, before it becomes law. It requires much greater attention to detail than we would be able to give to it in the Committee of the Whole. We do not think that form of procedure is desirable. For one thing, a great many representations have been made by a large number of most important organisations in relation to this legislation. Their representations have been very detailed and very thoughtful and they deserve to be very closely examined and examined in a way that is not possible in the Committee of the Whole of this chamber. I will say more about that if we reach the stage where the Bill proceeds, which I think is likely from what I understand to be the views of the Australian Democrats, and I will not anticipate what Senator Haines will say when she follows me in this debate. I understand that the Bill will probably be passed by the Senate despite our opposition to it. I can develop that argument at a later stage. Finally, if that move fails and the legislation is examined, albeit in an unsatisfactory way, by this chamber in Committee, the Opposition will be moving a number of amendments to the legislation, the details of which unfortunately have not yet been printed, unless one of the Clerks at the table has them, but I hope that they will be circulated as soon as possible. I hope that other amendments will be circulated as soon as possible. The Government is now circulating amendments which it proposes to move. This is the Government's second bite at the cherry with this legislation, despite the fact that it brought this legislation down some 2 1/2 years after it was first elected with proposals to amend the Trade Practices Act. Having introduced this Bill in the House of Representatives, the Government added to it by bringing in some amendments on the very day it was being debated in the House of Representatives without any proper consideration being able to be given to those amendments, and they were passed in the House of Representatives. At the end of last week, on the eve of the debate here this week, the Government proposed further amendments, and I understand that there will be amendments from the Australian Democrats. That indicates the sort of problem that this Parliament, in particular the Senate, has in dealing with legislation of a very technical kind with the very detailed form of regulation which I have already complained about. We are proceeding in this way to add further to the burdens of regulation on the business community and no doubt on the community generally, but this legislation is of course aimed particularly at adding to the burdens of business. I would like to examine just what the Government's policies are in relation to this matter. I have already mentioned the very great increase that has occurred in the burden of regulation over the last two decades. My colleague Mr Spender referred in another place to some very alarming statistics, namely, that through the 1960s and the 1970s this Federal Parliament passed about 17,000 new Acts or amendments to other Acts and in that same period governments promoted 32,000 new or additional statutory rules. It is really a most incredible record that, in the space of 20 years, that sort of absolutely mindless parliamentary activity has added more and more to legislative burdens. That has been a role of this Parliament under successive governments, and the situation has now reached the stage where the community, the business community in particular, is simply groaning under that sort of burden. The Opposition, and indeed the Government, are giving consideration to this problem. The Government's rhetoric on this would seem to indicate that it takes the same attitude to this additional piece of legislation as the Opposition is taking. In November 1984, just before the 1984 election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that unnecessary institutional and legal impediments needed to be removed from this country's productive sources. In July last year the Government set up a body known as the review of business regulations. We had further noises from the Prime Minister last year about how he understood the complaints of the business world and how the Government was going to do something about it. Yet at the same time as this rhetoric is being pursued by the Government we have legislation of this kind which is going to add greatly to the burdens of regulations on this community. Of course, the Government's concern about regulation of the business community is not being extended to the power and influence that the union movement has and its effect on the business community. One of the centrepieces of the Government's policy, indeed one of the major features of the Green Paper that it issued a year or two ago on amendments to the Trade Practices Act, was a commitment to remove one of the few but most effective means of containing trade union power in this country, namely, section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. An indication of the Government's attitude in this matter, although the Government's proposals for amendments generally to the Trade Practices Act were deferred until now, is that the Government brought forward last year a Bill to remove section 45d which is one of the most effective tools with which business can cope with union power. Although in this legislation and in many other pieces of legislation the Government, despite its rhetoric, is proposing further regulations and regulatory burdens on the business community, on the commercial life of this country, it is not proposing any similar curbs on union power. In essence, a great deal of union power is directed towards reducing competition in the commercial world to protect the interests of union members. The Government wanted to remove one way of controlling that in the shape of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. We are confronted with enormous power exercised by a major union like the Builders Labourers Federation in relation to which the Government still has not really achieved any of its purposes, in that there are bans on people in the building industry who cannot get on with their business because of the exercise of union power of that kind. The Transport Workers Union is another good example. We have an example of the activities of that union today throughout Australia in its virtually bringing to a halt major airline services. I have also had my attention drawn to the fact that in the Australian Capital Territory in recent years there has been a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of people allowed by the Transport Workers Union to operate what are called agitator trucks or concrete mixers. The numbers of people able to engage in that business in this Territory, under our very eyes, have been reduced by half simply because of the bans by the BLF and the TWU on the entry of those who are allowed by the unions to engage in proper, commercial and competitive activity. What is the Government doing about all these things? It is doing absolutely nothing. This Government is interested only in adding to the burdens of business. It will do nothing to remove the burdens on competitive commercial activity in this country imposed by powerful trade unions, which are its friends and supporters, particularly I suppose its financial supporters. To come back to the Government's view on business regulations, I mentioned earlier that it set up a business regulation review unit. That provided a first report, called an information paper, in January, less than a month ago. This is a very interesting document because it provides the sort of information which the business community has been saying should be considered and understood and which members of the public, even members of parliament, have not understood. This review committee is doing a very good job. I hope that the Government is going to take notice of the committee which it has set up but, to judge from its past performance, I do not think there is much likelihood of that occurring. This committee has identified that 16,400 Commonwealth personnel are engaged in or supporting those engaged in business regulatory activities under one of many possible definitions. That is simply Commonwealth officialdom. It does not deal with all the enormous regulation by States or the large number of other types of staff engaged in Federal regulatory activities which do not come under the definition of `directly engaged'. The business regulation review unit lists them. The review unit makes another startling conclusion; that is, if one includes all the staff who are engaged-but not solely and directly engaged-in the regulation of business the figure of 16,400 would double. If we went 50-50 or something like that, at least 20,000 positions could be saved by a reduction in this regulatory burden. The cost of the 16,400 officers is in excess of $700m per annum. If one adds to that figure the cost of the other positions, one sees that well over $1 billion is paid by the Commonwealth Government alone for this regulatory burden. Today Senator Evans said: This Government cannot possible afford to give ordinary Australian people-motorists, farmers and everybody else-a reduction in the cost of petrol because the Government would lose something like $1 billion today. That is one way the Government could find major reductions in expenditure and give people what they are entitled to and what is due to them under the Government's policies which it has been running for three years. I implore the Government and the Senate to have regard to exactly where we are today in the regulation of business and the burden on business. The business regulation review unit gives only the costs and burdens of regulation on business, much less all the other regulations of other aspects of people's lives. This legislation is particularly offensive to us because of the extension of the Minister's role under the Trade Practices Commission in relation to product safety or the consumer affairs section-Part V of the Trade Practices Act. The real problem of this area is not only the ministerial power that it contains. If this legislation is passed we will propose amendments which will try to improve it. One of the really worrying things about this legislation is the duplication of Commonwealth and State regulation. We have this whole crushing burden of regulation which I have mentioned over the last two or three decades. That has been going on in State parliaments and State governments. Consumer protection has been a major feature of State parliaments and governments. I think Ministers responsible for consumer affairs all have consumer protection bodies of one sort or another. State governments are far better suited to administering this sort of government activity. However, if it were felt by the Australian nation that it wanted regulation at a Federal level-I would not like to see that-there is certainly some case for uniform legislation. The efforts that have been made over the years by State Ministers meeting with the Federal Minister from time to time have been directed at getting uniformity of legislation. That is a desirable course. What is thoroughly undesirable is the fact that one has the whole burden of State legislation and the whole burden of Federal legislation on top of it which deals with the same area. We have two bureaucracies. In every State around Australia we have probably eight or nine bureaucracies which have all been developed to deal with these matters. Thus the sort of burden which is finally identified by the report of the business regulation review unit which I have mentioned is now compounded over and over again by the duplication of government activities in Australia, federally and State-wide. I have said that the Opposition supports the principle of the Trade Practices Act but it has never supported the increasing role of the Commonwealth Government in the consumer protection area-which is referred to in Part V of the Trade Practices Act-because of the duplication of activity. This legislation is not only another example of duplication; it also duplicates an area where there has been a great deal of self- regulation by industry. The product safety and product recall schemes have been developed by industry as part of its self-regulation. We believe that that is the best way to go. Of course it is supplemented by ordinary common law rules and developments in common law. Another example in this legislation is the introduction of the right of remedy in the case of what are called unconscionable contracts. No doubt we will debate that in some detail later. However new forms of remedy-admittedly there is some precedent for it in some States-are being introduced at the Federal level in areas which are traditionally matters of common law or State law. I do not believe that we in the Federal Parliament should add to the development. Some remarkable developments occur in the common law system in relation to contract law. In recent years the High Court of Australia has been most innovative in this sphere and I have no doubt that in due course it will develop very satisfactory rules, far more satisfactory rules than we will develop by this approach of detailed legislation which is not understood and which has not even been properly debated in this Parliament. The House of Representatives did not have time to debate it. It was guillotined there. Fortunately the Senate has time to debate it but we also have countless other matters of concern to debate. It is not the sort of debate that we can usefully have in this Parliament. This is absolutely the wrong way of going about providing remedies which may be necessary-probably in most cases they are not necessary. As I said earlier, it is for those reasons that the Opposition will oppose this legislation at the second reading stage. We believe that the Government is going about this process in the wrong way. There are better ways of doing it. We are simply adding to the existing regulations. We can imagine how much litigation will arise for a start if we pass legislation providing new remedies for unconscionable contracts. Our efforts would simply stir up more activity. It would be an absolute bonanza for the legal profession. We have heard constant complaints, particularly from the Australian Democrats, about the legal profession, the inadequacies of people having rights, legal aid and all the rest of it. Yet here we are-presumably we have the support of the Democrats-adding greatly to the fortunes of the legal profession. I believe it is totally hypocritical to be complaining about lawyers, as I hear often in this chamber, when, at the same time, people in this chamber are constantly adding to the problems of ordinary people, particularly, in the case of this legislation, to the problems of businessmen, and they can cope with those problems only by seeking legal advice and taking legal action. Courts will be further and further clogged up. That is to say nothing of the fact that the taxpayer is groaning under the burden of more than $1 billion a year which was identified by the business regulation review unit of this Government only a few weeks ago. No doubt that is only the tip of the iceberg, because it does not cover what the States are doing; it does not cover the costs of all this regulation on business itself. For those reasons the Opposition will be opposing the second reading of this Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.00) —I start by saying that I have considerable doubts that this piece of legislation will cause a lawyer-led recovery of the sort that Senator Durack indicated it would, mainly through the section on unconscionable conduct. For what it is worth, I refer him to the United States uniform commercial code, which is similar in intention and does not seem to have caused that problem in any untoward manner over there. Certainly Senator Durack is right in his discussion of the scope of this legislation, but I would challenge his assertion that it is a bad piece of legislation because it is unnecessarily extending regulations. It certainly affects everything from mergers to mandatory recall, but it does so as a consequence of the fact that it has been about nine years since the Trade Practices Act was in any way significantly amended, and that was done as a result of the last major review, or at least the one prior to this Government's Green Paper, which was undertaken by the Swanson Committee in 1976 and produced amendments in 1977, nine years ago. Since then many things have happened. Apart from deficiencies revealed by the experience gained by the Trade Practices Commission and by judicial decisions, some of which are narrow in the extreme, major changes have taken place in Australian industry, and there is a greater trend towards increased concentration. For those people who are either not aware of this or do not feel particularly uneasy about it, I would direct them, for a start, to the behaviour of the Bell Group towards Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in recent weeks. As a consequence of these sorts of changes, as a consequence of the fact that it is some nine years since the Swanson Committee's recommendations were taken up, and, I might add, following considerable consultation with relevant business and consumer organisations, the Government's Green Paper on proposals for change was issued, almost exactly two years ago, and this, too, has been discussed at considerable length, to say nothing of depth, within the community. As a consequence, we have a piece of legislation before us in which there are significant amendments aimed at improving the effectiveness of restrictive trade practice provisions and extending the protection afforded to consumers by the Act. I would point out, too, that consumers are not necessarily just individual people. There is an increasing number of small business operations which would classify themselves as consumers and which have been increasingly concerned over recent years that they are not being sufficiently covered by the Act. The major proposals that this Bill approaches are those concerned with the misuse of market power, the unconscionable conduct about which Senator Durack was so anxious, product recall, and measures enabling the Trade Practices Commission to seek compensation for named defrauded persons. Generally speaking, and contrary to what Senator Durack has said in part in his speech, I suggest that the amendments represent a realistic and balanced approach to much needed reforms. That is not to say that the Bill has not been without its critics. Indeed, the Law Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Australian Council of Soft Drink Manufacturers, and the Senate's beloved Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills have all raised concerns about various clauses of the Bill. Consumer organisations have also put in their two cents worth. As I said a moment ago, the main contentious clauses, those which have been commented on by an assortment of organisations, including the Law Council of Australia and some of the organisations that represent big business as distinct from those organisations that represent small business, include the misuse of market power, the unconscionable conduct section, the mandatory product recall clauses, the section relating to mergers and other acquisitions, and the section relating to misleading statements. But there are other less contentious but no less important elements of this piece of legislation that deserve to be looked at. Those include the sections relating to section 4B, which, for example, acknowledge the fact that inflation has occurred over recent years and has eroded the monetary limit of $15,000 currently in section 4B, so that that, under the Bill, has been increased to $40,000. To the best of my knowledge no one is complaining about that fact and, indeed, small business organisations believe that it gives them even greater protection. In addition to that, a specific protection is provided for truck owner-operators following the recommendation in the national road freight industry inquiry. Whilst the Law Council of Australia, probably with some justification, questions the inclusion of one particular group in this piece of legislation, we believe that, under the conditions that I have mentioned-namely, that it follows the recommendation from the national road freight industry inquiry-it is justified. In addition, we have changes to section 58 relating to a corporation accepting payment without intending or being able to supply goods, and the amendments to sections 64 and 65 relating to fraudulent claims for unsolicited advertising or entries in a directory. Anyone who has read the complaints that have come, particularly from small business, in these areas, as expressed in newspapers in recent months, will realise that this problem seems to be a growing one. This Bill is an attempt, in part, to provide protection. Certainly the legislation is not perfect, but I would suggest that if we sat around in this place waiting for any government to produce a perfect piece of legislation we would be here until doomsday and even less would get done than normally gets done. The legislation has, however, been significantly improved by the Government already in its acceding to certain amendments suggested by the Law Council of Australia and in discussions over the last few months with the Australian Democrats as well. I believe that it can be further improved, particularly in relation to the protection that it gives to small business. We shall be picking up a number of amendments left over from the suggestions from the Law Council of Australia and the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. I cannot see that there is any real need to send this piece of legislation to a committee, for a number of reasons. First of all, I find it difficult to come up with any Senate standing committee that is, in fact, an appropriate body to which to send a piece of legislation such as this. As I said at the beginning, it covers everything from mergers to mandatory recall, and even the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs would take some time to come to terms with all of that. There certainly are not enough senators left in this place to form a select committee to which to send this legislation. Furthermore, apart from concerns expressed by big business, it is essentially a piece of good consumer legislation under which consumers, whether they are individuals or small businesses, will get more protection than they do currently. In broad terms, I suggest that the Bill does provide significant additional protection for individual consumers and small business. Given the rhetoric that we are accustomed to hearing from the Opposition parties about their concern for small business, I would have thought that one of their primary concerns would be that this Bill does in fact provide additional protection for what they seem to regard, if one listens to the rhetoric, as part of their natural constituency. I have already covered things like the section 4b amendment. The section 46 amendments strengthen the hand of the Trade Practices Commission is dealing with complaints by small businesses against powerful firms. That was certainly a concern that the small business people expressed to us. They have felt increasingly out in the cold when it has come to support from the Government under this legislation. The amendment to section 53 to prohibit misleading representations about the availability of spare parts or repair facilities will assist farmers, for example. Again, I would have thought that that was a concern that the Opposition shared with us. I have already mentioned concern about sections 65 and 64 when it comes to fraudulent claims for payment. The Bill, however, is not, as Senator Durack seemed to imply, anti-business in the sense that it imposes excessive regulations or requirements on big business. Part IV is aimed at freeing up markets and the amendments do not depart from that policy. The section 46 amendments will continue to protect businesses entering new markets or expanding existing markets from firms that abuse their market power. In short, the amended Trade Practices Act would prohibit unscrupulous conduct and encourage aggressive and fair but competitive conduct from reputable businesses. A letter that I have from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia has almost nothing but praise for the legislation. Where it differs with the Bill is a complaint that the recommendations for amendment to section 49 made in the Green Paper have not been picked up by the Government. I have no real idea why the Government has not except that it may be that it agrees with the Law Council of Australia in its suggestion that the amendments currently being made to section 46 offer small business the same sort of protection that groups like COSBOA feel would come from strengthening section 49. Notwithstanding that fact, however, we believe that it is appropriate to continue along the lines that the small business organisations would like to see and as a consequence we will be moving an amendment to section 49 along the lines of that suggested and recommended in the Green Paper. Senator Chipp —With Liberal support. Senator HAINES —Senator Chipp interjects that we would expect Liberal support. I certainly hope that we get it. I am not sure that I am going to hold my breath waiting, given the remarks that Senator Durack made earlier which seemed to indicate that the Liberals are yet again trading off the interests of small business for that of big business in this country. The amendment suggested in the Green Paper to section 49 would allow the average small business some change of taking action against those businesses which use unfair and commercially unjustifiable price discrimination to erode the small business share of the market. For example, larger discounts are given to a chain of grocers or a multi-branch business with large buying power than are given to small organisations. As I said, the Law Council believes that this sort of protection is adequately covered in the proposed amendments to section 46 but, certainly, beleaguered small business people, such as those represented by COSBOA, would feel more comfortable and secure with the extra protection afforded by this change to section 49, and we will be proceeding with that. The letter that I referred to a moment ago from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia was in fact addressed to Senator Chipp and it reads as follows: When you addressed us earlier this year you assured us that your Party was in favour of providing adequate protection for small business, from unfair competition, through amendment of the Trade Practices Act. As you know, the Government has proposed a range of amendments most of which we agree with, and we concede that the amendment of Section 46 may be of some assistance to small business in some special circumstances. However, the fundamental need for protection of small business is a strengthening of Section 49, Price Discrimination, as this is an area which on prima facie evidence is widely exploited by large interests to vary the market situation at the expense of small firms, which are in practice unable to make use of Section 49, despite its underlying intent. Senator Chipp —That is why the Liberal Party won't support us. Senator HAINES —The Liberal Party, I am sure, has, as indeed you did, Senator Chipp, assured people like COSBOA that it is interested in providing adequate protection for small business. We will see whether it intends to follow that statement with any sort of action. It is important to these people that they feel that they are covered, particularly since, as they point out in the letter, there has been only one successful case under section 49 in the history of the Act and that had some special features attaching to it. The fact that there have been no others indicates just how unusable the present legislation is, at least as far as COSBOA is concerned. We will be looking too at a number of issues that were raised by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in particular clause 20 relating to interpretation. This clause relates to a corporation making representations when it does not have reasonable grounds for doing so. It is the intention of this amendment to define representations as misleading if the grounds for making them were not reasonable. The Law Council of Australia and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee have both expressed concerns in this area. The particular concern raised here is about the reversal of the onus of proof in sub-clause (2). After raising the matter with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and receiving his response, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had this to say: The Committee thanks the Attorney-General for his response and in particular for the clear statement of Commonwealth policy on the reversal of the persuasive onus of proof. However, while the Committee is prepared to concede that in some instances the reversal of the persuasive onus of proof may be justified by the particular circumstances of the case- the Committee refers back to comments the Committee made in its sixteenth report- the Committee does not believe that this is such a case. In most criminal proceedings the prosecution is required to prove the state of mind of the accused and it is difficult to see why belief as to the correctness of promises or predictions should be in any different position. The Committee suggests that in this case a reasonable balance would be struck by placing on the defendant an evidential burden, since the basis upon which it makes its predictions is peculiarly within its knowledge, but then requiring the prosecution to rebut the evidence so advanced. Having said that, the Committee went on to say that it: . . . continues to draw the clause to the attention of the Senate under principle 1 (a) (i) in that by imposing the persuasive onus of proof on the defendant it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. We will be picking up that particular comment from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, echoed by the Law Council of Australia, and we will move an amendment in line with what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has suggested. There has been a suggestion that some of the narrower interpretations of some sections of the Trade Practices Act could be avoided if the Government were a little more consistent in its wording. Concerning clause 20 of the Bill, in sub-clause (3) the words `shall not be taken' should in fact read `shall be deemed not' and so on. Honourable senators who have a copy of the Bill will realise that this will change the words `shall not be taken to limit by implication the meaning of a reference in this Division' to `shall be deemed not to limit by implication'. As I started to say a moment ago, this may seem to be nitpicking, but one has only to look at some extraordinary narrow interpretations of sections of the Trade Practices Act in some courts to realise that judges sometimes need all the help they can get. This amendment will go some way to providing that help. The Democrats will move what is essentially a minor drafting amendment but which could pre-empt some of the more narrow interpretations that have arisen in the past. I turn now to the `unconscionable conduct' provision in clause 21. Groups such as the Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, the Small Business Association of Australia and others believe that it does not go far enough in the sense that protection under the clause does not cover them. They want it extended to cover all dealings. Our amendment will relate to sub-sections (5) and (6) so that they include consumers such as members of APADA in the scope of the legislation. We would also like to see the word `consumer', wherever it occurs in that clause, replaced with the word `person'. In addition, the insertion of the proposed new section 52 which deals with conflict of interest would require people having any beneficial interest in the commercial transaction involved to declare that interest. Again, that is of some interest to farmers, for example, who regularly sell through agents. Finally, I turn to clause 34 about which, again, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has expressed some concern at the lack of parliamentary scrutiny or review of sections 65C and 65F. On page 39 of its seventeenth report, the Committee states: Clause 35 inserts a new Division 1A in Part V of the Act dealing with product safety matters. It continues: Notices under sub-sections 65c (5) and (7) are not required to be tabled in Parliament and are not subject to disallowance. There is no effective form of review by an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal of the Minister's decisions to declare goods unsafe or to ban them. The only avenue of review afforded is that, under new section 65j, a draft of a notice under either sub-section must be prepared and suppliers of the goods in question invited by notice in the Gazette to request a conference with the Commission. The Government's own amendments do something to satisfy concerns expressed by, for example, the Law Council of Australia, in that they have extended the notification process to include contracting and writing as far as possible for supplies of the goods. This does not solve the problem expressed specifically of a non-reviewable decision by a Minister. It is suggested that there should be some reference to bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and they reiterate their concern about this matter with a similar concern expressed about clause 65f. Again, we will take that matter up in an amendment provided that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee at its meeting tomorrow morning at half past eight does not reconsider its concern in the light of any response from the Attorney-General. I repeat that as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned we believe that, with some additional amendments, the Bill before us will significantly improve the manner in which the Trade Practices Act protects consumers. I include in that term small businesses of the kind that form the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia and the Small Business Association. To that end, this is public spirited legislation which is pro-competition and is not anti-business, but operates in the interests of the business community and individual consumers across Australia. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.26) —It takes a lot of courage for Senator Haines or anyone else to say that the addition of another major burden on the business community is in its own interests. I commend her for her courage but certainly not for her foresight. As Senator Durack has already pointed out, a cost of something like $1 billion a year is already the burden of regulations on business. Cost must always be related to benefit. When one considers the benefits in this new set of amendments compared with their cost, not only the direct cost in terms of additional regulation of the business community and small business but also the cost in terms of damage in many instances to the competitive process, the reduction of prices and damage to the more effective operating of the market place by intervention, we recognise that the costs in this case appear to far outweigh the benefits. There is no doubt in my mind that while we have to recognise the need for protection of small businesses, as Senator Haines mentioned, from unfair competition we have to make certain that the measures taken to do so do not have other consequential effects which will be more damaging to individual freedoms, to small businesses and to the efficient operation of our society and our economy than would take place otherwise. It seems to me that this collection of amendments to the trade practices legislation which Senator Haines regards as a well-balanced approach to much needed reforms has already demonstrated that it is not anything like as good as it is cracked up to be. Already the Government has been obliged to make major changes. In fact, these changes took place after the Bill had been through the House of Representatives. It is simply another case of the Government endeavouring to get through legislation even though it is evidently and demonstrably inappropriate, certainly as far as those people most affected by it are concerned. The fact that it was pushed through the House of Representatives before further amendments were made by the Government-we received some on our desks about three minutes ago-indicates a lack of proper consultation, particularly when we recognise that the Government at one stage was seeking to ram it through this place in December. I am overjoyed that the Opposition was not prepared to be a party to that. Apart from adding to the enormous cost of regulation of business and therefore adding to the costs that all Australians have to share-the cost of governmental intervention-we have to recognise that the major people involved in this area in the private sector-the major professionals, the major experts-have continually and consistently pressed for further major changes in this legislation. Senator Durack referred to the Law Council of Australia. Senator Haines listed a whole host of people, including the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills of which Senator Cooney, who I see is in the chamber, is a member. We share a role in that committee. Senator Haines —A splendid committee made up of splendid people. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Haines quite properly says, it is a splendid committee which is alert to the adverse impact on individual rights and freedoms of some of the measures in this legislation. It is as a result of those concerns that that Committee has been involved in some correspondence with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and has in fact discussed at some length these major matters of principle. What concerns me perhaps even more than the deliberations of this outstanding Committee is the fact that the Law Council of Australia-hardly an incompetent body-has raised major matters of concern which have not been addressed by the Government. I understand that the Law Council intends to comment, perhaps today, on the legislation as it now stands, and presumably temporarily stands because it is certainly among the most fluid legislation I have seen. It seems to be continually corrected-I do not use the word amended-for error and for misjudgment. However, in my view there are many misjudgments remaining in this legislation. The business law section of the Law Council has already expressed itself very forcefully to the Government on repeated occasions. It has provided briefings to honourable senators and honourable members of the other place. I stress that these are matters that the Law Council of Australia still considers must be resolved and should be resolved before this legislation really could be described as worth the cost in any sort of cost-benefit analysis. For example, the Law Council points out that it considers as errors, firstly, the imposition of a statutory warranty that would require a doctor to warrant that a patient would be cured or a lawyer to warrant that a client would not be convicted. Of course, in this case, most lawyers would at some stage of their career be subject to the very hefty penalties that this legislation provides. The second error, according to the Law Council of Australia, relates to the reversal of the onus of proof in relation to representations made by a company and the consequences flowing from a representation deemed to be misleading. The third point that in the Law Council's view needs to be corrected is the new definition of what constitutes the use of monopoly power. The fourth point relates to the power of the Attorney-General to order the recall of a product without having to seek a court order. Later on I want to talk about administrative power and the extension of it beyond the bounds of rational and reasonable requirements of government. The last point that the Law Council makes is the extension of the definition of a market in the context of takeovers to include a Territory. Of course, that probably reduces ad absurdum the nonsense of what really is a market that is capable of being affected under trade practices law. For example, the thought that the Australian Capital Territory-or the Northern Territory or any area of small population-is somehow discrete from, different from or unrelated to, say, Queanbeyan, is one of the classic nonsenses of this kind of legislation. The Australian Capital Territory, in marketing terms, in terms of access to alternative suppliers, comes nowhere near being a discrete market. This is one of the classic nonsenses that we should not have to put up with. Whenever one gets bureaucrats interfering in the market-place, one gets nonsense. This is a classic example of that kind of nonsense. I will deal at some length with some of the points made by the Law Council of Australia because the reality is that the Government has rejected them. The people of Australia should be aware of the cogency, good sense and power of these arguments that the Government has decided to ignore. Of course, it may be that, in the last little document that was dumped on my desk a couple of minutes before I rose to speak, there are a couple of things that the Government is taking into account. If so, I certainly do not apologise. I simply ask that they be taken into account and it would have been nice to know that that was being done. Let us deal in some detail with the argument that the Law Council of Australia has been making. In the Trade Practices Amendment Bill the Government has elected to allow the Attorney-General, on the advice of his Department, to make orders for the recall of products. I agree with the Law Council of Australia that it should be necessary for an order of the Federal Court of Australia to be obtained before any recall is implemented. I detest the existence of this kind of administrative power in view of the close relationships that appear to be capable of being developed between members of some governments and significant people in some areas of the business community. I find it unsatisfactory that this kind of power should reside without the capacity of adequate supervision. I certainly reject the concept. I am not suggesting that it is simply the possibility of corruption that should discourage us from allowing this kind of administrative fiat. I am just saying that in these situations the proper thing must be seen to be done as well as being done. Quite frankly, a secret advice by a bureaucrat to a Minister is totally inadequate when the consequences could be major damage to someone who is in fact doing no more than endeavouring to compete effectively and properly in a market-place. As the Law Council says, it would be better to involve the impartiality of the court than to have over-regulation of the activities of corporations through bureaucratic processes. The Law Council points out that in urgent cases the court can and does grant orders within a few hours if necessary. The Law Council points out that, in the amendments proposed to section 46 dealing with monopolisation and section 84 dealing with the conduct of directors, servants or agents of corporations, the Government appears to be stifling entrepreneurial activity and limiting competitive behaviour. Section 46 is to be changed to prohibit corporations from engaging in competitive behaviour in a market where the corporation has a substantial degree of market power. Any amendment by the Government in this situation should clearly establish that the predatory purpose of a corporation cannot be inferred merely from the inevitable consequences of genuinely competitive conduct. That seems a rational, proper position and I support the Law Council in making it. For example, it says that profitable but low pricing by existing efficient manufacturers, which prevents less efficient competitors from entering the market-place, should not be interpreted as any abuse of market power and the Act should make it clear that predatory purpose can be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. This is a classic example where the attempt to cure the problem may end up making the condition excessively worse. The Law Council points out that under the existing law it is a breach of section 46 if a corporation, which is in a position to control or dominate a market, uses that power to affect a competitor. But under the proposed amendment the corporation, which has a substantial degree of market power and uses that power to affect a competitor, will be in breach. This seems to me to be a quite improper extention of the requirements. Depending on the market context, as the Law Council says, substantial power could in fact mean not a lot of power and corporations in that situation could be caught by section 46. So clearly, as the Law Council says, the thres- hold of competition, before active, energetic, competing corporations are affected, is clearly far too low in these governmental amendments. This problem, as the Law Council points out, is compounded by the proposed amendment to section 84 which would mean that if any servant or agent of a corporation behaved in a manner which could be regarded as being in breach of section 46 the corporation itself would be deemed to have engaged in that behaviour no matter how distant from the management the servant or agent is. That seems to me to be quite unreasonable and I agree with the Law Council that the reference to section 46 in section 84 is undesirable and that in fact the amendment to section 84 should not proceed at all. In the takeovers area the Law Council points out that an amendment is proposed to extend the definition of a market to include a market in a Territory. I have dealt with this aspect, although I should point out that the Law Council underlines that this means that consideration of all future takeovers in Australia will have to have regard to the effect in the Australian Capital Territory-a miniscule market- if takeovers which otherwise might have a substantial public and economic benefit to Australia may be retarded simply because the takeover will have an effect in the Capital Territory. It might not have any effect in Queanbeyan but it may have an effect in the Australian Capital Territory and therefore should not take place. As I said earlier, that is an absolute nonsense; a classic example of the consequences of bureaucratic intervention in market places. These actions, as have been pointed out many times in the past, have an equal and opposite reaction. The reaction to this kind of legislation is that it in fact causes a nonsensical situation to develop. Like the Law Council of Australia, I believe that section 51A which the Government proposes to add to the Act should be omitted but in view of time pressures I will not go on at length on this except to point out that where a company makes a representation relating to future matters without having reasonable grounds for making that representation, the representation under the new arrangements will be taken to be misleading and all civil and criminal consequences of its being misleading will follow. The Government proposes that the onus of establishing that the company had reasonable grounds for the representation rests with the company and not with the prosecution. I have a general view about the reverse onus of proof, which I believe is the proper view, and it rejects the proposition put up by the Government. This reversal of the onus of proof is clearly objectionable. The Law Council says: . . . because it reverses the onus of proof, it deems a representation misleading even if it ultimately is proved true. Of course it is unnecessary, as a series of legal cases makes clear. This is naturally a matter that concerns the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, and it has been the subject of some discussion. No doubt when the Committee's report is presented tomorrow-unfortunately tomorrow rather than today-these concerns will be adequately dealt with and we will have the opportunity of raising these important issues in the context of what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee does say. The Law Council of Australia sensibly believes that the proposed amendment to section 84 should be withdrawn insofar as it has undesirable consequences for the relationship between professional persons and their clients. The amendment would impose, for example, on engineers, accountants, architects, lawyers, doctors, dentists and many other professionals-I suppose we could say that many of them are in the small business sector-a statutory warranty that their services will achieve whatever result the client desires. This is tantamount to a warranty, as I said earlier, by a doctor that a patient will be cured or by an architect that an innovative design will work. Under this proposal, Mr Joern Utzon would have found himself in great difficulty when it was evident that within a few years his design of shells for the Sydney Opera House simply would not have worked, and the whole structure had to be redesigned on different engineering principles. The roof now looks nothing like the roof that Mr Utzon considered would stand up. He designed a roof with a six inch shell; instead of that it now has six feet thick beams. Once again this is a nonsense. Although the Act would not affect all professional services, the Law Council points out that, provided on a personal basis within a State, it would apply to incorporated professional practices in the States and to those and individual practices in the Territories. As the Law Council says, the common law requires that a professional use due care and skill, and if negligent a professional can be sued for damages. Why do we need this added bureaucratic burden? Senator Haines said that it is to protect small business. What absolute nonsense. The major objections to this legislation do not bear on these amendments to any great degree. Senator Haines —I did not refer to them in this regard, not on this matter. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I know the section; Senator Haines said that the amendments in general were great, and one of the reasons they were great was that small business needs protecting, and she asked what the Opposition would do about it. I am pointing out that many of the objections to these amendments do not bear on the protection of small business. In this case they are to the clear disadvantage of people who could well be described as running small businesses. The Law Council points out that the proposed change would impose substantial burdens on professionals the majority of whom, as the Council says, operate small businesses. The Law Council makes the interesting point that the amendments would also stifle innovation in medicine, architecture, engineering and other professions. The Law Council believes there is no need or demand for the proposed changes and they should not proceed. I would be interested to hear the Government's case for these amendments in the context of the protection already presented by the common law. In conclusion, I want to make a couple of points. Firstly, I believe that the Government owes it to the Senate and certainly to the people of Australia to explain why the objections by such a responsible, sensible and competent body as the Law Council of Australia and its Business Law Section have been rejected. The Government owes that explanation to us and I hope that the Senate will not be satisfied until it hears such an explanation. Clearly it would be nonsensical in this situation for the Senate to pass these amendments as they stand, and the suggestion of Senator Durack that they be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs would certainly give the Government an opportunity to explain in great detail-the detail that is required-why these objections and certainly the objections that I hope tomorrow will come from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, among many others, are to be ignored. Certainly that would also give us the opportunity to develop the points that Senator Haines quite rightly raised about the perception of small business that some elements of these amendments would be useful to small business. We have to see the extent to which this burden of benefit exists. It is worth referring to another publication of the Law Council of Australia which comments on the Green Paper. We all remember that, arising out of the Green Paper on trade practices, the Government rushed ahead with a set of amendments to remove sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. Honourable senators will remember that that did not proceed because the Senate did not pass the legislation. On that occasion-one of the few-the Australian Democrats saw the merit-- Senator Puplick —It was one of their sensible lapses. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As my friend Senator Puplick says, it was one of their sensible lapses from the norm where they supported the Opposition in preventing the removal of sections 45d and 45e of the trade Practices Act. I remind the Senate that had section 45d been removed, as the Government sought to do, the Mudginberri situation could never have been resolved to the benefit of the workers at Mudginberri, the owners of Mudginberri and the Australian people as a whole in terms of our export income. It is hypocrisy for members of the Government, particularly the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), to say that the Government had supported the maintenance of the law in this case. That law would not have existed if the Government had had its way. I conclude by referring to another document the Law Council provided which dealt with some elements of the case being made by some people in small business that these amendments are required to protect small business. The Law Council states: . . . the proper objective of Part IV of the Act is to foster an environment of competition for the health and vitality of the market place. That environment is one of continuous challenge where those less capable of competing not only may fail but should fail in the larger interests of the community. Their participation in the market should not be preserved artificially. We on this side of the House say amen to all that. If that is the goal, it is appropriate when examining section 49 of the Act to inquire why a succession of governments, which included us in the past, has given that section so high a profile in their small business policies. It may be asked, more particularly: How significant for small business is the problem of price discrimination by comparison with the plethora of other problems confronting small business, particularly the problems created by the present Government as a result of its extraordinary reliance on monetary policy-high interest rates-to regulate the economy rather than adopting the more sensible proposals we have been recommending. The Law Council questions whether either form of section 49 is framed in a way that will catch the conduct involved in the most commonly cited example of price discrimination antipathetical to small business, that is, the larger discount given to a grocery chain store or multi-branch enterprise with buying power. It is accepted that a consequence of the conduct may be a demonstrated consumer preference for the chain grocery stores over the corner shop and that the preference may be because of the better prices offered by the former. However, that consequence of lower prices to the consumer is one of the very objects of competition policy. Does it really matter how it came about? The Law Council argues that the consequence is one of competition-competition as to price between the various chains and as to price versus services and convenience between the chains and the corner shop. In other words, there are factors in competition other than price. Convenience and service at the corner shop are clear elements that are not considered when simply price factors are taken into account in this case. Page 10 of the Law Council document quite sensibly outlines the specific disadvantages that may well flow to small business as a result of this kind of legislation. I regret that time is running out and I do not have the opportunity to outline them in detail. Perhaps other speakers on our side of the Parliament will do so. I stress that the Law Council quite sensibly makes the point that the provisions are likely to have harmful consequences to some small businesses, most probably to those which are the more innovative and ambitious. Many of those consequences will flow from the search by businessmen and their lawyers for safe responses to the provisions. The safest course of all is to arrange affairs so that there is no price differential. I find it unfortunate that the Government has decided to reject the expert advice given to it across such a wide field of this community. I strongly support Senator Durack's recommendation that this matter should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I urge the Australian Democrats to take a broader approach than the one they are now taking and to recognise the merit of the Opposition's case and that of so many professional expert bodies which have objected strongly to this legislation and which have been totally ignored by the Government. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.57) —The Trade Practices Act and the intended amendments to it are aimed at the creation of a good climate of competition in trade and business and the protection of consumers of goods and services. They are the two central purposes of the legislation. Senator Michael Baume, in a stirring speech, criticised with great force particular sections of the Act. I am interested simply to go through some of those sections. It is a rather dry way of proceeding, but I am a little concerned. Senator Baume says that section 74, in effect, allows a client to demand of a professional whatever he wants and that, if the professional does not come up with that, there is all sorts of trouble for that professional or supplier of goods. The section, in fact, reads: In every contract for the supply by a corporation- Senator Baume pointed out that the section was confined to a corporation- in the course of a business of services to a consumer there is an implied warranty that the services will be rendered with due care and skill and that any materials supplied in connection with those services will be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are supplied. That states the common law position. Senator Baume frankly and candidly said that was so. So section 74 (1) is hardly a revolutionary piece of legislation. It simply sets out the common law position. Senator Michael Baume —Do we need legislation to do that? Senator COONEY —We need to because it is done in a context of what in effect is a code for conduct in this area. Indeed, a similar sort of thing has been done with State legislation such as the sale of goods Act in Victoria. The legislation is not unusual and takes the same approach in this respect as does legislation typified by the sale of goods Act. Section 74 (2) states: Where a corporation supplies services to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation any particular purpose for which the services are required or the result that he desires the services to achieve, there is an implied warranty that the services supplied under the contract for the supply of the services and any materials supplied in connection with those services will be reasonably fit for that purpose or are of such a nature and quality that they might reasonably be expected to achieve that result, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the corporation's skill or judgment. That is a paraphrasing of sections 17, 18, 19 and so on of the sale of goods Act in Victoria which, as I understand it, is a typical piece of legislation in the common law world. All it says is that, if a person makes his requirements known to another person and relies on that person's skill and judgment, it is only proper that the goods or services should be provided to the best of the skill and ability of the supplier. As I see it, it is not legislation which in any way imposes a heavier onus upon people. It is acceptable in the general understanding of this community, which understanding has a history in the common law and in other legislation like this. Section 74 really is not the draconian legislation that it might otherwise have been thought to be from the statements by Senator Michael Baume. Senator Michael Baume —Why should we have extended it? Senator COONEY —We have not in any horrific or draconian way. As I see it, it certainly does not give any basis for the fears expressed by the Law Council of Australia. I turn to proposed new section 46. Perhaps if one reads it loosely it will seem to be onerous, but if one reads it as, in my view, it is meant to be read it makes a lot of sense. Clause 16 of the Bill, which if passed will be section 46 of the Act, states: A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power for the purpose of- I emphasise very strongly the words `for the purpose of'- eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; It is said that this is not so much an attack on the lack of competition or, to put it in a positive way, that it does not seek to encourage competition so much as seek to attack a particular competitor within the field; but if one reads the proposed new section one sees that it must be interpreted so as to lend protection to other people who are legitimately in a field to stay in the market-place. It is a legitimate section aimed at one person, one body or one corporation using its power for the purpose-it has to be for this purpose-of crushing competition. Proposed new section 46 (1) (b) makes that clear. It states that a corporation must not use its substantial power to prevent the entry of a person into that or any other market. Again, that is a thing which fair-minded people in the community would say ought to happen. A person should not be prevented from entering into a field of competition simply because someone with a substantial degree of power takes action to prevent that person from going in. Senator Michael Baume —What if it is an unintended consequence? Senator COONEY —If somebody went ahead and expanded a business and took action for the purpose of providing the market-place with better goods and services and it was a legitimate action in the sense that it was being done simply to expand his, its or her position in that market-place, that would not be the purpose delineated in that section and that would be legitimate. That, of course, is a decision for a particular court to make. Certainly it is not a section that should be used simply to stop somebody with entrepreneurial and managerial skills from expanding his business by that very process. If one looks at sub-clause (7) of clause 16, which is the other sub-clause about which a great deal of concern has been expressed, one sees this: Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in sub-section (1) notwithstanding that the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. The thing to know about that is that it is not a peremptory clause. It simply enables a tribunal or a court to come to a conclusion as to whether or not a corporation had breached the provisions of proposes new section 46 (1) (a), to para- phrase it, by looking at the conduct of the corporation itself, and that is legitimate. It may well be said: `What conclusions can be drawn simply from the conduct of a corporation?' As I understand it, one of the objections is that, simply because there has been an expansion of a particular corporation in a field, the expansion is evidence and is subject to the provisions of this Act. That is not so. It simply means that if one looks at the conduct of a corporation and all that it has done, if one looks at the way in which it has gone about expanding its presence in the market-place and if one looks at the way in which it has used or misused other people in trying to get into the field, that can be evidence from which the court may draw an inference and then come to a conclusion that that corporation has breached proposed new section 46. In my view there is nothing evil or draconian about that. There has been an attack generally on regulations and the idea of regulating business. Indeed, this has been the subject of a lot of debate in this chamber. It has been pointed out that there should be less and less regulation. That having been said, much emphasis is given to section 45d of the Act as being a very salutary provision. We really cannot have it both ways. We cannot say: `It is proper to regulate some organisations in the community and it is not proper to regulate others'. The Mudginberri dispute and the impact of section 45d upon that situation has been mentioned in this Senate. Is it the intention of honourable senators opposite simply to abolish regulation not only against business but also against the unions, because that is the sort of thing that might well lead to a trade-off between those bodies. When we think of what that would lead to it is proper to say: `Of course the Parliament has to enter into that field and introduce proper regulation'. Indeed, as I understand it overall, even though people have said at times in the course of their speeches that we ought to get rid of regulations, what is really meant is that we ought to get rid of unnecessary regulations and that, of course, is a harder thing to debate than the general proposition that there ought to be an elimination of all regulations. If we look at the original Act of 1974 and the two things that are central to it, we see first of all that it deals with restrictive trade practices and, secondly, consumer protection. When we look at the sub-headings under Part IV dealing with restrictive trade practices, would anybody say that there should not be some sanctions on contracts, arrangements or understandings restricting dealings or affecting competition?. Would anybody deny that that is a proper consideration for this Parliament and a proper subject matter for this Act? Would anybody deny that arrangements that are reached to maintain prices should not be curtailed in some way? Would people say that covenants affecting competition should be allowed to flourish or covenants relating to prices should be allowed to operate? What do people say about boycotts? What do they say about the prohibition of contracts, arrangements or understandings affecting the supply or acquisition of goods or services? What do they say about monopolisation and so on? When we come to consumer protection, what do people say about misleading or deceptive conduct? Do we want to endorse that? Is it the intent of those who go in for deregulation to allow false representations, the offering of gifts and prizes, bait advertising and pyramid selling? When one looks at this, just what is objected to? It is all very well for the Law Council of Australia or any other body to say that this is the way in which we should interpret this section or that sub-section, but, with great respect to those bodies, that is a misreading of what the legislation is all about because it has to be looked at in terms of its overall thrust which is, first of all, to create a proper atmosphere of competition and, secondly, to give protection for consumers. Senator Haines said that she did not think anybody had objected to clause 5 (b) of the Bill which amends section 4B in the Act, but unfortunately there has been some objection from the Australian Council of Professions which, in writing to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said: At a meeting of representatives of various constituent bodies of the Council which took place today, proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act were discussed. I am writing to say that the Council supports the submissions made by the Law Council of Australia, by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and by the the Association of Consulting Engineers. . . . I refer in particular to clause 5 (b) and 38 of the Bill. The Council believes that the changes in the limiting amounts from $15,000 to $40,000 will have the effect of seriously increasing the onus placed upon many professionals in relation to the warranty implied in section 74 (2). The consequences may seriously prejudice the continued viability of many professional organisations. Why should a move from $15,000 to $40,000 have such a drastic effect when the consumer price index has moved up over the years since that provision was made? Why is an objection taken to that? Why do people accept $15,000, yet object to $40,000 in present terms? How does that bring the consequences they talk about? The simple explanation is that it indicates that the protections given to consumers affect other people and in certain circumstances perhaps effects them adversely, but surely the concept of consumer protection requires us as a Parliament at least to keep up with modern prices. The criticisms of this Bill have to be looked at in detail to see just how real are their effects upon the sorts of things we should be talking about. Senator Haines said that the legislation gives protection to small business, that it simply indicates her ability as a visionary to understand just exactly what it is all about, and that it is not an anti-business Bill but, to the contrary, allows small business entry into a field which may otherwise be dominated and overtaken by big business. Senator Durack spoke about the unconscionable contract. He said that that was a concept which would give the legal profession a bonanza and that it would be better to leave it to the High Court and the common law to determine these issues. It seems to me to be a contradiction in concepts to say, on the one hand, that we should not have legislation because it will lead to litigation and, on the other hand, to say that we need litigation to develop the law. We cannot have it both ways. He said that the High Court will develop proper rules and regulations in this area. Of course, that is a very piecemeal way of going about things. The High Court has to have the opportunity, first of all, to make the law. The cases on which it can exercise its judgment do not come before it with regularity or in a form which enables the laws to be made, and it is much neater or has much more force to leave the whole business to this Parliament. In fact that is what this Parliament has done over the years and what other parliaments have done over many years. Senator Durack attacked the increase in regulation, the crushing burden of regulation, and he and Senator Baume mentioned the fact the cost of this regulation is $1 billion. I ask those opposite just how that $1 billion is worked out, because in some of the articles in which these sorts of figures are cited the cost of tariff protection has been included in the cost of regulation. I would like that clarified by Senator Durack and Senator Baume when they speak in Committee, because if they include the cost of tariff protection in that $1 billion cost of regulation the effect of what they say is very much weakened. Those high figures having been cited, I think it proper that their break-up be put before the Senate. Again in Committee it would be interesting to hear whether Senator Durack says that there ought to be any regulation at all. At times he seemed to come close to saying that there ought to be complete self-regulation of industry. If somebody asked me whether it was best to have self-regulation, I would say that of course it is best to have self-regulation in every area if it will work, but those opposite should read the books of Dickens and the works of Henry Lawson pertaining to the situation in the nineteenth century when there was no regulation. I repeat: It is not a question of whether there ought to be regulation but of the sort of regulation. Senator Michael Baume —The threat of regulation is always more effective than the regulation itself. Senator COONEY —One of the great difficulties with this question of regulation or self-regulation is that the old adage that everybody is human is absolutely correct. When organisations and bodies are left to self-regulate they sometimes fail to come up with adequate protection. I think it was Senator Michael Baume or Senator Durack who said that safety ought to be left to the States. Leaving that aside, if there were no safety regulations there would be more horrific accidents than at present, there would be a higher compensation bill and there would be social suffering on a gigantic scale. The situation is that government has had to intervene in the work-place to give protection. If the worker in the work-place needs protection, does not the consumer in the market-place need protection? Are people going to act differently towards, say, workers in the work-place than towards the consumer in the market-place if there is no regulation? I think it was said on the other side that section 45d was effetive insofar as it applied to unions. My view is that that sort of thing ought to be put into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act because the sorts of things sought to be achieved by section 45d in relation to industrial relations could be better achieved in that context. Nevertheless, the point I want to make in this context is that everybody in the debate so far has agreed that there ought to be some regulation of some people in some circumstances, whether in the market place, in the industrial relations field or elsewhere. To sum up, this amendment continues the realisation of the concepts behind the Act and it very much deserves, as Senator Haines has so eloquently said, the support of the Senate. At the Committee stage of the debate I would like Senator Durack and Senator Baume to come up with a breakup of the figures of the cost of regulation because it seems that that is one of the crucial points of this debate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.21) —The Trade Practices Amendment Bill is a significant Bill in that it will bring about changes in a number of areas which are vital to the operation of the Australian business community. Unlike Senator Cooney, members of the Opposition believe that the thrust of this Bill is antithetical to the interests of Australian business and that it is an anti-business piece of legislation. As I have said, the amendment Bill is a significant piece of legislation. It represents the final culmination of the Government's response to the February 1984 Green Paper and in many respects it traces its antecedents back to the recommendations of the Trade Practices Consultative Committees-the Blunt Committee in May 1979 and in December 1979 which dealt respectively with questions in relation to primary production and small business and its relation to the Trade Practices Act. In some respects it stretches back to the arguments first developed in the report of the Swanson Committee, the Trade Practices Act Review Committee, in August 1976. Basically this legislation contains the following elements: It introduces a new Division 1A in Part V which deals with aspects of consumer protection. They have been covered by Senator Durack in his speech and I do not intend to dwell on any of those sections in my contribution to the debate. The legislation makes changes in the operation of section 46 which deals with the misuse of market power, changes in the operation of section 50, which deals with mergers and other acquisitions and it introduces two significant sections, section 50A, which relates to the operation and effect of acquisitions outside Australia in relation to the operations of trade practices legislation, and a new section 52A which deals with aspects of unconscionable conduct by corporations. Perhaps I should also mention that one very small clause-clause 5(a)-brings into the operation of the Act coverage of matters relating to commercial road vehicles which arises from the recommendations of the May inquiry and is one of the parts, as Senator Durack indicated earlier in his address, that taken in isolation we would have no objection to. I think it is interesting to go back and look briefly as the intended role of trade practices legislation in Australia. One has to go back to December 1962 to a statement which was made in the House of Representatives by the then Acting Attorney-General on behalf of the Attorney-General of the day, Sir Garfield Barwick. Sir Garfield said this: As the House is aware, I have been engaged for some time in considering the need for legislation to control monopoly and restrictive practices in the business community of Australia and in devising a scheme of legislation which would protect free enterprise against such of these practices as were harmful to it. He continued: . . . the Government desired to protect and strengthen free enterprise against tendencies to monopoly and restrictive practices in commerce and industry. Subsequently he stated: The primary prerequisite of such a scheme is machinery that can be effectively used to halt practices which deprive, or tend to deprive, the community of the benefits of free enterprise and the individual trader of business opportunities that ought fairly to be open to him. The whole thrust of what Sir Garfield Barwick was saying at that stage was that the old Restrictive Trade Practices Act was designed to increase the ability of the free enterprise system to operate against certain practices, in particular, practices of a restrictive and monopolistic nature, which were likely to have the effect of reducing the efficiency and capacity of Australian business to operate. Sir Garfield made much of the term `free enterprise' and assigned a central position in what he was saying to the role of the market in allocating resources. The Blunt Committee in its May 1979 report on the operations of the Trade Practices Act in Relation to Primary Production in Australia had this to say: The Trade Practices Act is an important instrument of economic policy, Part IV of which has the objective of prohibiting anti-competitive conduct which works against the efficient and economic allocation of resources in Australian markets. The general principle is that it is the market, rather than particular sectional interests, which should allocate resources. My friend and colleague Senator Michael Baume in his contribution to this debate drew attention to the consequences which flow from attempted intervention in the operations of the market which has been given the necessary minimum degree of protection against monopolistic and restrictive practices. First I turn to consider elements of clause 46 of the legislation which relate to the misuse of market power. Definitions have changed and been proposed for change in terms of the threshold at which this clause in its administrative provision should operate. The old Act provided, in its words, `that action should be taken where a company or a corporation was in a position substantially to control the operations within a market'. The Small Business and the Trade Practices Act report, the second of the Blunt Committee reports which deals with small businesses and which came down in December 1979, used the term `substantial degree of market power'. Paragraph 9.24 of the report stated: We think that if the words ``in a position substantially to control a market for goods or services'' were replaced by the words ``that has a substantial degree of market power'' the direction of the section's thrust would be clearer. That found its way into the general debate but by the time the Green Paper had been produced a change was again proposed and the term `substantial control' was introduced in the discussion by the Green Paper. The legislation before us goes back basically to the original Blunt Committee recommendation in using the terminology `substantial degree of power in a market'. Of course any definition in legislation is bound to be fraught with complexities. In the third edition of the `Guidebook to Australian Trade Practices Law' at paragraph 705 the following comment is offered: Before the provisions of sec. 46 will apply to a corporation, it must be ``in a position substantially to control'' a market for goods or services. This is a legal, not an economic concept; however in considering the position of the relevant corporation, one must look to economic concepts and consider the degree of market power which it possesses. The question of how much market power constitutes ``being in a position substantially to control'' a particular market is incapable of precise definition. What we have is a series of legal artifices being brought into the regulation of essentially an economic situation and they are singularly inappropriate in some of these definitional questions. I shall return to that matter on a number of occasions. The second element which arises within section 46 is the question of the word `Purpose'. There have been great problems in attempting to define, once again, how the issue should be handled of determining the purpose of a practice undertaken by a corporation. Paragraph 28 of the Green Paper states: There have been difficulties arising from the term ``purpose'' in existing section 46. It has introduced a highly subjective element into the operation of the provision. This difficulty is especially the case where it is necessary to prove the mental state of a corporation. Later on in this legislation we shall see that, instead of the Government taking the road of attempting to be more precise, attempting to eliminate some of the subjectivity to which the Green Paper itself drew attention, it has in fact, in proposed sub-section (7) of section 46, expanded this by introducing a new test based upon inferences to be drawn. The third area within the ambit of section 46 is, of course, the definition of the term `market'. This is a particularly vexed and complicated matter. The Swanson Committee, in its report of August 1976, made this comment: Market definition is always of considerable importance. If the market is too widely defined it may be that the requisite effect upon competition cannot ever be shown, to the detriment of those seeking relief from a restrictive agreement or practice. Alternatively, if the market is too narrowly defined it may result in hardship to and unnecessary limitations upon business actions, such as inhibitions on exploiting novelty. My colleague Senator Michael Baume has drawn attention to the fact that by including the reference to States and Territories in clause 17 (b) we in fact have drawn within this legislation a definition of `market' which is capable of being read as constituting for practical purposes the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory as a market and determining whether in fact practices should be allowed depending upon so narrow a test as far as that is concerned. I believe that, particularly in relation to the merger provisions, that definition is one which is beyond all commercial reality. It is perhaps also to be noted that in clause 15 of the legislation we find that the existing words `a market' in section 45c of the principal Act are to be removed and in their place the words substituted `any market'. When I say it is capable of a very narrow definition, it is not to be thought that this has not already occurred in some respects. If one looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of O'Brien Glass Industries Ltd v. Cool and Sons Pty Ltd, one finds that the Federal Court in this instance chose to define the city of Wagga and its environs as being for all intents and purposes a market. The court said in part in its report: A market is usefully viewed as a field of rivalry or close competition between firms. It went on: That both Bradley and O'Brien- the companies concerned in the case- operated throughout New South Wales (and beyond) does not imply that the State was the relevant market. Such a strict geographic definition ignores the view that the Wagga district was, in economic terms, a particular area of close competition between wholesalers. So we get reduced to the level that particular towns, particular districts, may, for the purposes of this legislation, be regarded as a market and that consequences are to be allowed to flow from making a definition based upon something as narrow as what happens to affect trade or competition within Wagga and its environs, and that is then extended to have an operation perhaps throughout the whole of the State of New South Wales or, indeed, the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia. One of the Government's responses and one of its additions to the legislation is the introduction of sub-section (7) of proposed section 46. That sub-section reads: Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in sub-section (1) notwithstanding that the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances. The Law Council of Australia, in its comments on the legislation, has said this: To the extent that a Court has always been entitled to infer purpose from conduct, 46 (7) only repeats the common law and is consequently unnecessary. I agree with that. It goes on to say: 46 (7) should make it clear that predatory purpose may be inferred only from conduct inconsistent with any reasonable alternative conclusion. I think that is a very telling point. The way in which proposed section 46 (7) is drawn is so wide that in fact it imposes upon the courts, upon the persons charged with the adjudication in this legislation, a responsibility to try to infer from what might be ordinary and legitimate commercial activity a purpose, depending on how the court or tribunal is minded to find at the time. The comments by the Law Council that in fact predatory purpose should be inferred only from conduct which is unusual conduct rather than ordinary operations of commercial reality is, I think, an extremely telling point. The Business Council of Australia, in a submission which it made to the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, on 15 November 1985, commented that the changes to section 46 are substantial and, in its present form, the new section can only add to the confusion as to what constitutes legitimate competitive behaviour by companies with a substantial degree of market power. There again, I am very much in agreement with those comments by the Business Council. There is a degree of confusion, an additional degree of unnecessary confusion, introduced as a result of this new piece of legislation. The question of certainty, particularly certainty within the field of commercial transactions, is a most important one. In the tenth annual report of the Trade Practices Commission, for 1983-84, there is a section written by the retiring Commissioner, Mr Bannerman. In his very useful paper, at page 200 of that report, he refers at some length to the need for certainty and the need for business to operate within a climate of certainty. I do not believe that this will be achieved by the amendments which the Government is putting to the Senate at the moment. I turn to section 50 of the previous legislation, which dealt with a situation in terms of mergers where, as a result of the acquisition, a corporation would be, or be likely to be, in a position to control or dominate a market for goods or services. The new section 50 provides that it is not so much `control or dominate' but simply to dominate a market for goods and services. It is quite clear that a variety of views has been expressed about the need to make further amendments to section 50. When Mr Bannerman retired as Chairman of the Commission, he made a number of comments about section 50. Basically, the thrust of those comments was that section 50 did not need any tinkering with, except in relation to matters arising from the creation of a joint venture, the so-called McComas amendment arising from the Bowral bricks case. Interestingly enough, Mr McComas, in an interview in his capacity as the new Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, as reported in the Australian Financial Review on 14 March 1985, also had some comments about section 50. He said: Having allowed for our present state of affairs, section 50 in substantially the form it is, is consistent with government wishes to see a more efficient industrial sector and is consistent with a universal wish that Australia should be more internationally competitive. The report goes on to say: He- that is, Mr McComas- said he might look towards a minor alteration of the present section such as just having a domination threshold instead of control or domination, but otherwise the section would work. As I have said, we have a domination rather than a control or domination situation, but I do not believe that the rest of the provisions of section 50 are in fact only the minor tinkering which ought to have been undertaken and which experts of the calibre of Mr Bannerman and Mr McComas were mentioning. Essentially, I believe that the operation of the new section 50 will be to inhibit those mergers which ought to be allowed to take place. It is, in fact, an anti-merger provision and I do not believe that that should be a major part of trade practices law in Australia. I believe that it is true that the achievement of monopoly or near monopoly power is not in itself anti-competitive, nor is it necessarily in all circumstances undesirable. I believe that the anti-merger thrust of the legislation may well inhibit the rationalisation of Australian commercial operations which is necessary if the restructuring of Australian industry is to take place and the objects of better international competition are to be met. I believe that the size and nature of Australian markets differs from other markets and the high concentration is in some respects a necessary part of Australian markets in order to provide effective competition with overseas companies. I believe that there is a consistent threat of substitution and or import competition as well as new Australian competitors which will act as a check to the excess of market power. I believe that the legislation as proposed is otherwise inconsistent with the objectives of other important areas of Government policy, as I have said, in terms of rationalisation and restructuring of industry, foreign investment, trade policy and company law. The other matter which arises in terms of section 50 is the introduction of an association relationship with the introduction of the words `or associated with' in sub-section (2). Again, the Law Council of Australia draws attention to what it believes to be the negative consequences of such an enactment. I quote from its submission: For example, if company A owns 15 per cent of the shares in company B and has one common director, it may be that A exercises an influence over B which is ``real and not merely nominal''. However, that influence may (and probably would) fall short of allowing A to make use of B's market power. Nevertheless, I go on to say that the term `or associated with' would allow the Commission and the courts to make inferences which simply do not stand the test of real commercial operations. The Law Council gives an example. It says: To take a current example it may well be the case that Mr Holmes a Court exercises a ``substantial influence'' over BHP. Certainly if he gets one director on the Board he is likely to. However, it would be unrealistic to assume that BHP's market power is his in toto. Why not pay regard to the actual kind and degree of influence he can actually exert. The whole business of `associated with' in terms of sub-section (2) of this section is fraught with difficulties and is quite unnecessary. In terms of what we are trying to achieve with reasonable trade practices legislation, I believe that all of it can be achieved without these types of amendments to the Act. The critical determinant is the degree to which the Trade Practices Commission is prepared to play an activist role. I am sorry that in some respects it has not pursued a more activist role in one or two areas. For instance, if one looks at the annual report of 1984-85, and in particular the lengthy discussion which starts on page 14 dealing with the Tradestock Pty Ltd case, there is a good ground for arguing that it is a pity that the decision made by His Honour Mr Justice Franki was not challenged and was not pursued more vigorously. At the same time the Trade Practices Commission has acted in certain areas with a commendable degree of vigour. I look, for instance, at the determination of October 1984 on the International Air Transport Association application for essentially a price fixing arrangement-I suppose one should say a fare fixing arrangement in this case-where, at page 93 of the report, the Commission said quite positively: The Commission is of the view that tariff compliance machinery agreed between airlines (be it directly sponsored by IATA or, like YIP- that is the yield improvement program- consistent with the IATA rules) does not provide public benefit. Within the existing framework of the Act there is plenty of scope for the Commission to pursue the sort of activist protection of consumer interests without the extensions which are, in fact, predicated in this legislation. I have no time to develop this point but I believe that new section 50a is a section which has the potential to inhibit Australian firms from pursuing an active role in acquiring assets, acquiring companies and acquiring a presence in overseas markets. It brings into the consideration of essentially domestic operations a series of tests related to acquisitions undertaken by Australian corporations outside the boundaries of Australia. I would hope that the Government would be seeking to actively encourage Australian investment overseas. By way of example, a company with which I am particularly familiar, Boral, has had an active program of acquisition of companies, in particular in the sunbelt part of the United States-states like Arizona, New Mexico and California. It has been very active in the acquisition of brick companies in places like Georgia. It has been active in the United Kingdom in the acquisition of concrete pipe operations. I think it has expanded in a most commendable sense in overseas markets. It has established an Australian presence, which has benefited itself of course, but the Australian industry has also benefited from the technology transfer which has gone with that. It has established a reputation for a continuing excellence in terms of its product. I think that there is a real danger that the operation of section 50A may inhibit rather than promote these overseas acquisitions which ought to be encouraged within Australia's commercial sector. The only comment I make about proposed division 1A of Part V in relation to consumer matters is to note that the Australian Council of Professions, which represents a number of professions in the medical, architectural, engineering, dental, veterinary, chemical, law, accountancy, chartered accountancy, surveying, pharmaceutical, actuarial and other professions, has indicated its very strong opposition to the change in clause 5 (b) and clause 38 of the Bill regarding the change from the liability of $15,000 to $40,000 to which Senator Cooney referred in the course of his address. Senator Cooney said that the increase was only in line with the consumer price index over that period of time. However, I believe that the Australian Council of Professions is right in drawing attention to the fact that it may, in its words, `seriously prejudice the continued viability of many professional organisations'. The last point I make, which is a point that Senator Durack spent time developing, relates to the general level of inconsistency. The Government is saying that it is seeking to reduce the regulation of Australian business. Only last month it brought down a report entitled Review of Business Regulations, Information Paper No. 1 from the Business Regulation Review Unit, in which it indicated that there were certain priority areas-foreign investment, mineral export controls, model food law and standards, customs administration, Commonwealth collection of business statistics, national chemical notification and assessment scheme, building regulations, controls on financial institutions, transport and aviation regulations, primary industry regulations and the location of child care centres-which were high in its priority for reducing regulation, for reducing the burden of government imposts arising from regulation. Yet, on the other hand, in terms of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, the Government, having tried to say to Australian businesses that it is actually interested in the deregulation of a great deal of their operations-whether it is in the financial sector or elsewhere-that it is anxious to review business regulations, to reduce the burden and the impost on Australian business, nevertheless comes along with a piece of legislation which in a number of very sensitive areas substantially adds to the burden of regulation and to the cost which will flow from that. That is not to say that there are not a number of areas in which close attention has to be paid to mergers and to the control of monopoly practices. One thinks of the recent mergers that have taken place, particularly within the retail food industry, as a possible example. Nevertheless, I believe, as the Opposition as a whole believes, that the thrust of this amendment Bill is decidedly anti-business, is decidedly antithetical to the interests of Australian business and is contrary to the desire of the Government, the Opposition and the whole business sector for greater rationalisation and greater efficiency in the business sector. It is for those reasons that the Opposition will oppose the Bill in toto although acknowledging that there are certain parts of it which are worthy of support. In particular we will be seeking the reference of this Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for a more thorough examination of the possible consequences of a number of these proposals in the current legislation in the hope that the Government might be persuaded to do something about them to ensure that the efficiency of Australian business is not further impaired. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.50) —The Trade Practices Amendment Bill, and the handling of it, provides a very good example of two things that responsible governments should not do. Firstly, they should not introduce legislation on which those in the community who will be most affected have had insufficient time for appropriate comment or input. Secondly, they should not rush legislation through the Parliament with no opportunity for reasoned or measured consideration. Yet the Government is guilty on both counts with this legislation when we consider its history through the House of Representatives last year. For example, concerning one of the important provisions of the Bill, the product recall provision, a white paper was put out by the Government-a discussion paper-on 21 June making various proposals about the proposed legislation and seeking reactions and submissions from business and other interested groups in the community by the end of August. That was a very admirable procedure but what happened? Five weeks later the Bill was in the House of Representatives. Particularly given the nature of the submissions received-some were very detailed and important-no one can tell me that it would simply not be possible for relevant government departments, let alone the political process of government itself, to give those submissions due consideration and to get them into the Parliament within five weeks. That task really boggles the imagination, if the Government were really serious about taking account of the views put to it. The Bill went before the House of Representatives on 9 October and subsequently in November it was steamrollered through the House along with the many other pieces of legislation that the Government pressurised through at the end of the last session. In fact, so eager was the Government to get that Bill through the House last year that it was circulating amendments to its own proposals on the very day that the Bill was debated and voted through the House. What a mockery that makes of the parliamentary processes. I put it to the Government as a general proposition that if we are to have responsible and serious government in this country there must be a much greater regard for the due processes of consideration of the important issues of the day that affect us as a community or important sections of the community. We do ourselves and the democratic process a disservice by treating important legislation in the way we so frequently do. It is a criticism that can be made certainly of this Hawke Government but previous governments have not been exempt from such criticism. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to say to governments of whatever political persuasion: `Let us have a proper look at what we are doing'. If we do not, we will get bad government, bad laws and we will rightly deserve the opprobrium of the community which, I believe, the parliamentary process has at the moment. This lack of appropriate consideration of the trade practices amendment legislation, which is a major legislative package, has merely reinforced the entrenched ideology of the Hawke Government by producing a Bill which is anti-business and, despite protestations to the contrary in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and in some of the contributions made in the Senate and the House, it is not only anti-business but also anti-consumer because of the cost implications. The cost of additional regulation has to be passed on. In the end it is the consumer who pays. We have an anti-business and anti-consumer piece of legislation because it is extremely costly. We do not have an exact costing of this legislation but it has been estimated that the direct cost to the business community will be of the order of $50m and could well be considerably higher. We have a repeat of the old Australian Labor Party socialist philosophy that industry and the community can be improved by more and more regulation and involvement by government in telling sections of the community what to do and what is in their best interests. This Bill flies in the face of what the Government professed to be its concern to reduce business regulation over the last couple of years. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his 1984 election policy speech, less than 18 months ago, said: Over the next term of Parliament we will remove legislation and regulation which is damaging to business and employment expansion and which is not justified as an efficient means of promoting economic and social objectives. That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister's election policy speech for 1984. In mid-1985 the Government, to its credit, set up a Business Regulation Review Unit to apply a cost benefit approach to new regulatory proposals and to seek out existing regulations which might be eliminated. Not one of those objectives leading to the establishment of the Business Regulation Review Unit appears to have been met in this regulatory passage before the Senate. As Senator Puplick mentioned, the first report of the Business Regulation Review Unit was released only a couple of weeks ago. Among other things the report said that the unit has found more than 30,000 Commonwealth public servants to be employed in administering business regulations at an annual cost to the taxpayer of $1,400m. That is an estimate for the Commonwealth Public Service alone. The Secretary of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Overland, is reported as saying that for every officer employed by the Commonwealth there is at least another employed in the private sector. That adds another $1,400m to the cost to the community. Mr Overland is also reported as saying that if we add State and local government regulations the cost can be quadrupled. On that basis, the total annual cost to the community of the regulation of business in Australia could well exceed $10,000m per year. Even if that is an over-estimate, a substantial discounting of that figure would still lead to the inevitable conclusion that the community faces an enormous cost through business regulation. It is an enormous drag on business activity. No wonder we are rapidly falling behind as a nation in terms of our international cost competitiveness. We need to get off the back of business, not to strangle it with an ever increasing burden of regulation. Obviously, that is not to say that no new regulations are ever necessary or desirable. Before we add to the already overwhelming mass of such regulation, we need to exercise the closest scrutiny, and that quite patently is not being done in this Bill. It is for that reason that the Opposition seeks to refer consideration of this Bill to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to enable some of its detailed provisions to be examined in a way that has not occurred to date. I cannot understand the reason for the Government, and presumably the Australian Democrats, not supporting this proposal. The Democrats say that they believe in looking at the efficiency of industry and in protecting business, be it large or small business, from the vagaries of ever bigger government. The only way one can do that is to satisfy oneself that any additional regulations that are being proposed have a sound basis for their imposition. We do not have that in this case at this stage. I will reserve detailed comments on the provisions of the Bill until the Committee stage but I foreshadow that there are certainly several issues that concern me very much and, as has been outlined by Senator Durack and others, that concern the Opposition very much. The proposed changes to section 46 are an obvious example of that. Senator Puplick in his comments quoted from the submission to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) from the Business Council of Australia of 15 November 1985. I support the Business Council's views on this and the comments made by Senator Puplick. Without taking a final judgment on section 46, I am concerned that organisations like the Business Council of Australia and the Law Council of Australia, which have considered these matters and provisions very carefully, have come to the conclusions that they have. I quote from the letter to the Attorney-General from the Business Council which states: The cumulative effect of the changes to Section 46, as they now stand, means that the primary thrust of the Act will be directed towards damage to individual competitors rather than damage to competition itself.It goes on to state: If we are to ensure the maintenance of a vigorous, efficient and internationally competitive Australian industry, we believe there is an urgent need for the Government to remove unnecessary uncertainties and confusion which currently exist in the proposed amendments to Section 46. If the business groups in this country are saying that type of thing, surely it is incumbent on the Government at least to give those claims the closest scrutiny and consideration. There is no evidence that the Government has done that. Section 46 is a matter of major concern and so are the mandatory product recall provisions in the legislation. Several well researched sub- missions have been made to the Government on the matter of recall procedures. Even though it is a reserve power that is being proposed, there are various matters for concern in that. For example, as I understand it, the reserve power does not contain a requirement that, before a mandatory control power is used, a product must first of all have been banned from sale. There is the issue that the mandatory reserve power to recall products is not, as I understand it, subject to independent administrative law review. In terms of the mandatory provisions, there is the whole question of the role of administrative decisions and administrative law vis-a-vis the common law processes of this nation. That is another area that certainly concerns me. Beyond those two and other specific provisions in the Bill, I believe that we need-I am not suggesting that it can be done in the context of this Bill-to look more closely at the whole philosophy behind the Trade Practices Act. Senator Puplick and others outlined the history of this Act in Australia. It goes back a long way. Consideration of it goes back to the days of the Menzies Government. We then had the impact on it of the Whitlam Government's ideology and policies. Then we went through the Fraser period and now we are in the Hawke Government period. I have very grave doubts as to whether any of us have looked sufficiently at the Trade Practices Act as it now stands to see whether it is an internally consistent document in terms of its philosophy and its spirit. I believe that we have not looked at it to that extent and indeed that it is not such a document at the moment. We also need to look at its relevance to the needs of Australia in the 1980s. We talk about the need for rationalisation. We talk about the need for restructuring. That is very desirable. But we have Acts of Parliament with provisions that are contrary to the encouragement of some of those processes and to the encouragement of greater competition and international competitiveness on which this nation will depend for the future living standards of all Australians. There are some very considerable issues at stake here. With respect to the Attorney-General, I happen to believe that the Trade Practices Act is in the wrong portfolio. It is essentially a business Act. Sure, it is a piece of law but in my view the Trade Practices Act should be within the portfolio of a Minister with specific economic and business responsibilities. I appreciate that is not a matter for debate here but it is a matter that I hope the Government will consider in due course. I will reserve further comments until the Committee stage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.07) —in reply-The Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 is the culmination of a very extensive review exercise which began publicly back in February 1984 with the issuing of a very comprehensive Green Paper. It was a very overdue review process, given that it is some eight years since the Act was last comprehensively reviewed. I believe that the process of the debate and consultation that has gone on since February 1984, although protracted over two years, has been a very worthwhile and constructive one. It is a matter of some pleasure to me that the Bill to emerge finally from this process, although it obviously has not won the unanimous endorsement of those opposite, is in its essentials very much the kind of collection of reforms that were in fact an integral part of the original Green Paper proposal. I am pleased to note that those reforms have stood up so well to the kind of scrutiny that they have received over the last two years. It has been very intense scrutiny. The main opposition being expressed to this amending Bill-this is a theme that has come through what Senator Durack, Senator Puplick and Senator Short among others have had to say-is the notion that somehow it is anti-business and an involvement in unnecessary intervention and regulation by government in the affairs of business and generally a product of this Labor Government's alleged obsession with interfering with the freedom of business choice at all available opportunities. I reject absolutely that kind of criticism. The best way to do that is not simply by swapping counter-rhetoric of my own of the kind we have heard but rather by mentioning quite specifically the main things that this Bill is about and why it is that that kind of description is wholly inappropriate. Part IV of the Act is directed at freeing up markets and making them more competitive. That is what that part of the Act and these amendments to that part of the Act are all about. Undesirable private regulation is reduced, leaving competition as the regulator. The amendments do not depart from that policy. In fact, many of them-for example, the streamlined authorisation procedures-decrease the administrative costs to which firms may be put. The amendments, specifically those to section 46 which perhaps in many ways is the centrepiece of this Bill, are aimed at reinforcing the protection afforded to innovative businesses wishing to enter new markets or to expand in existing markets by preventing large firms abusing their market power for the purpose of preventing that entry or expansion. In this sense businesses that compete aggressively but fairly can only benefit from the amendments to section 46. The amendments to section 50, concerning mergers, in no way change the existing policy underlying the merger provisions. They rather prevent proposed parties to mergers or acquisitions forming elaborate schemes to deliberately circumvent the Trade Practices Act. The amendments to streamline authorisation procedures will enable mergers which result in desirable industry rationalisation to proceed more quickly. I turn now to the consumer protection provisions in Division 1 of Part V. While these protect consumers from misleading or deceptive conduct they also protect reputable businesses by preventing unscrupulous traders using unfair tactics, such as making false representations, to gain an unfair advantage over their more ethical rivals. Evidence of this is the fact that most civil litigation under Division 1 involves one trader suing a rival trader for breaching the Act. Most of the amendments here involve tidying up loopholes. There are very few provisions imposing new obligations on business. Again I make the point that there is no cost involved to reputable businesses in observing the Act because the Act prohibits only those types of conduct on which unscrupulous traders rely to gain an advantage over their rivals. Reputable businesses do not engage in the types of conduct in the consumer protection provisions that are prohibited by the Act. The product recall provisions which have attracted a degree of specific attention from a number of people, most recently Senator Short, as was stressed in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and in the debate in the House of Representatives, provide reserve powers which can be exercised only where the relevant industry voluntary recall procedures are inadequate or do not exist. While a mandatory recall, like a voluntary one, obviously imposes costs on business, the public interest in removing dangerous and unsafe goods from circulation is paramount. We believe that this regulation is necessary to ensure public health and safety. There are adequate review procedures to safeguard the interests of suppliers here and I do not think there can be criticism on that ground. So generally we believe that what has been done here is quite defensible and the reference to it as involving some sort of overzealous regulatory assault is quite misconceived. Again it is unfortunate in this respect that so much attention was paid to the review of business regulations produced by the Business Regulation Review Unit in January this year because much of the flavour of that report has been substantially misconstrued, I think in some instances quite deliberately. Let me quote from page 5 of that report what is said about the regulatory activities engaged in by the Trade Practices Commission and other bodies of similar ilk. The relevant passage reads as follows: The functions of the officers classified as engaged in regulatory activities are, like those of regulation itself, diverse. As well as activities designed significantly to modify market outcomes they include activities which may be. . . described as pro-competitive as in the case of functions of the Trade Practices Commission. At the end of the list of points there is the following comment: In these as in other areas, the activities doubtlessly confer benefits, which in many, perhaps most cases will outweigh the costs. That is the flavour of this paper. It does recognise that there are many instances where the benefits of regulatory activity do in fact conspicuously outweigh the cost and it is the very strong view of the Government that this trade practices area we are debating today is one such area. Senator Durack made the point, as did Mr Spender in the other place, that extra burdens, as he describes it, have an effect on business but not on trade unions. I simply make the point that these references to trade unions, which Senator Baume is also keen to pursue, are quite misconceived in the context of this legislation. There simply has been no change in the relationship between unions and the trade practices machinery under the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. The situation is exactly the same as it was when the Act was last amended by the then Government at the insistence of the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. So any point that is made about the impact of this legislation on trade unions or the lesser impact of it as compared with the impact on business is I think again misconceived. A further category of criticism we have been listening to concerns the Government amendments brought forward and circulated in this chamber this afternoon. This is a rather churlish criticism because those amendments themselves reflect the Government's keen attention to consultative processes and its keen desire to accommodate as many criticisms as it is possibly sensible and rational to do. We had such a significant number of amendments because we have gone absolutely out of our way to accommodate representations by large organisations, particularly the Law Council of Australia on which Senator Durack has been hanging his hat. One is entitled to be a bit grumpy, on behalf of the Government, if one is damned when one does not have regard to representations one has received and then one is damned if one does have regard to them by nitpicking objections to the quantum- Senator Durack —You did not have regard to enough of them. That is the complaint. Senator GARETH EVANS —I got the impression that Senator Durack was resisting the sheer volume before him. Certainly that flavour came through in Senator Baume's rather familiar little excursion on this sort of subject, the suggestion being that we cannot make up our mind. We have had no difficulty in making up our mind. We have demonstrated, as always, flexibility, humanity, wisdom, common sense and charm in responding to the representations made to us. A number of specific points have been made by various people about particular provisions. Most of those can most sensibly be picked up in what obviously will be a fairly prolonged Committee debate, which, now, mercifully, will occur next week rather than this week. I make one point in response to Senator Puplick's excursion on the subject of section 50a, concerning off-shore mergers. His complaint was that that provision does not apply to Australian companies acquiring overseas businesses. The short point is that he is absolutely right. It was never intended to inhibit expansion overseas by Australian firms. The only concern addressed in this Bill-we believe the only concern that ought to be addressed in this sort of legislation-is off-shore mergers which do adversely affect the Australian market. I conclude by addressing just one more criticism, because it is very central to the attack made on the amendments as they affect Part V of the existing Act, put forward by Senator Durack. I refer to the comment about the consumer protection provisions in the legislation and the allegation that they duplicate legislation existing in most of the States, Queensland and Tasmania not having yet been impressed by the need for consumer protection legislation. Of course it is a concern and would be a concern if there were unnecessary duplication. That is the very kind of regulation that infuriates business most, and exactly the kind of regulation that all of us are keen to avoid. Let me make it absolutely clear that the consumer protection provisions of the Act in the form in which they now appear in this amending Bill are the basis of an agreement, between the Commonwealth and all the States, including Queensland, that these provisions, the language of these clauses, be uniformly enacted around the country. This agreement was made at ministerial council level. What we are talking about here is uniform legislation with the Commonwealth's legislation addressing corporations, because that is within the Commonwealth's constitutional power, and the States of course addressing particularly the application of these provisions to sole traders or firms which are outside the scope of the corporations power. In relation to product recall, it was the States that wanted the Commonwealth to introduce the measures and most of them have made it absolutely clear that they are happy to replicate the Commonwealth's measures. I am instructed on the question of bureaucratic overkill that when all the people in the country who will be dealing with product safety are added together we come up with the grand total of 19 bodies. That number of bodies is all that will exist for this purpose. So this spectre that has been created of a duplicated bureaucratic apparatus made worse by the Commonwealth obsession with further regulatory activity of the kind embodied in this Bill is simply misconceived and a very unfortunate mischaracterisation of what is a very constructive piece of legislation. I commend it to the Senate. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Tate, M. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Committee Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.25) —Pursuant to Standing Order 196a, I move: That the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. Normal procedures are that at this stage of the consideration of the Bill the Senate may refer it to a committee for further consideration in lieu of the ordinary Committee of the Whole proceedings. Ordinarily the Senate would now move into a Committee of the Whole. The view of the Opposition, which I indicated during the second reading debate, is that it would be more appropriate if this Bill were dealt with by a committee. Although we are not absolutely firm on the matter, it seems that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is an appropriate Committee to deal with it. One of the difficulties with this Bill is that it deals with fairly complex legal matters. Although it deals with business affairs, consumer interests and so on, nevertheless as a result of the operation of the Act for some 12 years many aspects of it have become very complex and technical legal matters. A number of the amendments which have been proposed to the Bill raise questions of a technical character which would prolong the consideration of the Committee of the Whole a great deal and which would be very much more suitable for consideration by a committee of senators than a Committee of the Whole. I imagine that a great majority of honourable senators will find that the time of the Senate will be taken up with lengthy and rather technical debates when the Senate would prefer to debate matters of a more political nature. It would be very time wasting for honourable senators, who would have to wait around while the Senate's time was taken up, hour after hour, with committee-type considerations, as I said, most of which would be of a very technical kind and not of a very political kind, although some of them may be. The other consideration is this-- Senator Gareth Evans —You are talking out time. Senator DURACK —I am certainly not talking out time. Why would I want to do that? I am trying to save time by proposing that this Bill be sent off to a committee. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution of the Senate passed this day, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and a Statement relating to an extension of a specified period of time for presentation of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority Annual Report 1984-85. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 329. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 330. Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 333. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1985- M25-Export of Chilled and/or Frozen Meat to the People's Republic of China. M26-Export of Air Freighted Bone-In Carcase Lamb to UAE. MS8-Contract requirements-Shipping of Meat to East Coast of North America and Gulf Ports, U.S.A. MS9-Contract requirements-Shipping of Meat to West Coast of North America. Australian Trade Commission-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 371. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos. 336, 337, 338, 376. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Release of Lists-Statement No. 1 of 1986-List of names and addresses of agricultural establishments for Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Christmas Island Act-Ordinances 1985- No. 11-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 12-Migratory Birds (Amendment). No. 13-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (Amendment). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinances 1985- No. 3-Civil Law (Amendment). No. 4-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 381. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1985 No. 4. Coral Sea Islands Act-Ordinance 1985-No. 2- Migratory Birds (Amendment). Criminology Research Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 347. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 369. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos. 377, 378. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1985 No. 8. Determinations- 1985- No. 73-Travelling Allowance and others. No. 74-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 75-Dwelling Purchase or Sale Expenses Allowance. No. 76-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 77-Special Action Forces Allowance and High Electricity Charges Allowance. No. 78-Temporary Rental Allowance and Temporary Accommodation Allowance. 1986- No. 1-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and others. No. 2-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. No. 3-Overseas Living Out Allowance and others. Notices (2) under sub-regulation 49 (1) of the Defence Force Regulations. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 331. Defence Force Discipline Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 332. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 325. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 357. Export Inspection Charges Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 363. Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 362. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 360. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 361. Export Market Development Grants Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 370. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos. 340, 349, 350, 351, 386. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 152-Prohibition relating to the taking of Southern Bluefin Tuna, dated 29 November 1985. No. 155-Equipment for taking prawns, dated 19 December 1985. No. 156-Prohibition on the taking of prawns off the east coast of Australia, dated 19 December 1985. No. 157-Prohibition relating to the taking of scallops in Bass Strait, dated 19 December 1985. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 358. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Declaration under sub-section 4 (4), dated 25 November 1985. Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 348. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 356. Honey Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 365. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 367, 368. Judiciary Act-High Court Rules-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 387. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (4) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Management and Investment Companies Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 384. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 366, 382. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 379. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 380. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 385. Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 346. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 352. Overseas Students Charge Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 353. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 323. Postal Services Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 322. Public Service Act- Determinations- 1985-Nos 93, 96, 97, 99, 100, 102. 1986-Nos 1, 2, 3, 4. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination 1985 No. 6. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 334, 383. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 345, 364. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1985- No. 20-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Managing Director, Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and others, dated 29 November 1985. No. 21-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Chairman, Australian Bicentennial Authority, dated 11 December 1985. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination made under the Motor Traffic Ordinance, dated 16 December 1985. Ordinances 1985- No. 64-Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) (Amendment). No. 65-Perpetuities and Accumulations. No. 66-Limitation. No. 67-Magistrates Court. No. 68-Insane Persons and Inebriates (Committal and Detention) (Amendment). No. 70-Sale of Motor Vehicles (Amendment). No. 71-Real Property (Amendment). No. 72-Air Pollution (Amendment). No. 73-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 8). No. 74-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 75-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 6). Regulations 1985 No. 27-(Air Pollution Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States and the Northern Territory, dated 23 January 1986. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 354, 372, 373. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 328, 343, 344, 355, 374, 375. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendments Nos 62 and 63. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 47. Torres Strait Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 359. Wheat Marketing Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 335. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Trade Commission Act 1985-sections 1, 2, 3 and 97-6 January 1986 (Gazette No. S 551, 20 December 1985) Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1985-1 January 1986 (Gazette No. S 560, 20 December 1985) Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984-Part III-1 January 1986 (Gazette No. S 551, 20 December 1985) Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984- Sub-divisions C, E and F of Division 2 of Part II-1 January 1986 (Gazette No. S 563, 20 December 1985) Sub-division D of Division 2 of Part II-1 February 1986 (Gazette No. S 28, 31 January 1986) National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985-20 December 1985 (Gazette No, S 551, 20 December 1985) Public Service Reform Act 1984- Sections 30, 61, 63 to 77 (inclusive), 79, 98 and 103, sub-section 109 (4), sections 145 to 148 (inclusive), sub-sections 151 (3), (4), (7) and (8) and 159 (2), (3), (4) and (6)-1 January 1986 (Gazette No. S 563, 20 December 1985) Sections 85 and 86, sub-section 87 (2), section 88, sub-sections 95 (1) and 126 (2), sections 129, 131 and 133 and sub-sections 137 (2) and 159 (5)-1 February 1986-(Gazette No. S 28, 31 January 1986) Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Act 1985-sub-section 45 (3) and sections 47 and 51-1 January 1986, sections 5 and 6-18 December 1985 (Gazette No. S 526, 13 December 1985) States Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985-9 December 1985 (Gazette No. S 521, 9 December 1985) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-Amendments of the Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968 made by the Act-1 February 1986 (Gazette No. S 27, 31 January 1986) Student Assistance Amendment Act 1985-sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16-1 January 1986 (Gazette No. S 526, 13 December 1985) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 23) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What was the: (a) formal designation; (b) date of launch; and (c) orbital parameter, of each United States military satellite supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tracking station at Carnarvon, Western Australia, between 1969 and the closure of the station. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: ORBITAL PARAMETERS Designation Date of launch Period Perigee Apogee Inclination Min Km Km 1968 81C (OV5-4) 26.9.1968 1,435.8 35,775 35,784 3.01* 1969 46A (OV5-5) 23.5.1969 3,120.3 17,070 111,651 33.03* 1969 46B (OV5-6) 23.5.1969 3,115.2 16,924 111,641 32.86* 1970 93A 6.5.1970 Geostationary 1971 39A 5.5.1971 Geostationary 1971 67A (OV1-20) 7.8.1971 106.16 133 1,957 92* 1971 67C (OAR 901-Cannon-ball 2) 7.8.1971 106.29 132 1,968 92* 1971 67D (OAR 907-Musket-ball) 7.8.1971 92.3 137 884 87.6* 1971 95A (DSCS 1) 3.11.1971 Geostationary 1971 95B (DSCS 2) 3.11.1971 Geostationary 1972 10A 1.3.1972 Geostationary 1973 40A 12.6.1973 Geostationary 1973 100A (DSCS 3) 13.12.1973 Geostationary 1973 100B (DSCS 4) 13.12.1973 Geostationary (Question No. 25) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How many antennae/radomes are: (a) operating; and (b) under construction, at (i) Pine Gap, and (ii) Nurrungar. (2) When were those currently in operation installed at each location. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) There are eight radomes at Pine Gap and two at Nurrungar. (b) No radomes are under construction at Pine Gap or Nurrungar. (2) The radomes at Pine Gap were installed in 1968 (2), 1969 (2), 1971, 1977, 1980 and 1985. The radomes at Nurrungar were installed in 1970 and 1972. (Question No. 103) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister aware of the entry, concerning the AN/MSC-46 DSCS terminal, in Jane's Military Communications 1979-80, p. 224, which states that the MSC-46 terminals are scheduled to remain operational only until 1985. (2) Have plans been prepared for the replacement of the AN/MSC-46 terminal at Nurrungar; if so, what is the scheduled date for the replacement of this terminal, and what is the formal designation of the terminal which is likely to be procured as the replacement. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of the entry in Jane's Military Communications 1979-80. Jane's is not of course a US Government publication. In any case I suggest that the honourable senator refers to the current edition of Jane's which amends the entry on MSC-46. (2) Yes. Current plans provide for the replacement of the terminal in 1987. The formal designation of the replacement terminal is GSC-52. (Question No. 108) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is the Barclays National Bank, which will soon be allowed to operate in Australia, a major source of foreign loans for South African state corporations. (2) Is Barclays National Bank particularly involved in financing the South African mining industry, which is well known for its exploitation of black workers. (3) Will Australia's policy toward apartheid in South Africa be compromised by permitting the operation of Barclays National in this country especially considering the sanctions which Australia has imposed against sporting bodies and officials. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Barclays National Bank Limited is a South African domiciled, subsidiary company of Barclays Bank PLC of the United Kingdom which owns just over 50 per cent of the shareholding in the South African company. It is the parent company, Barclays Bank PLC, which was invited to develop its proposal for the establishment of banking operations in Australia. The Australian entity, Barclays Bank Australia Limited, is a subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC. As a matter of interest the Barclays group has operated in Australia since 1970 in merchant banking and finance company activities. It has been announced recently that Barclays will be reducing its ownership of the South African subsidiary to 40 per cent and as a consequence its name will be changed. I am advised that Barclays National Bank Limited has participated in loans to the South African Electricity Supply Commission (ESCOM) for electricity generation projects; the SASOL oil-from-coal project; and a Government loan for black housing and education. (2) I have no specific details of lending by industry sector in South Africa by Barclays National Bank Limited; however, I understand that some loans have been made to the mining industry in that country. (3) Australia's policy towards apartheid in South Africa will not be compromised by the existing or prospective operations of Barclays in the Australian financial system. It should be mentioned in this general context that the Government decided in August 1985 that all Australian banks and other financial institutions be asked to suspend making new loans, either directly or indirectly, to borrowers in South Africa. The Reserve Bank has now informed all Australian banks and all corporations registered under the Financial Corporations Act of the request that they voluntarily implement this element of the Government's policy towards South Africa. (Question No. 154) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Are ``lender of last resort'' facilities in the United States limited to guarantees or deposits up to a maximum of $US100,000 any other support being at the discretion of the monetary authorities in the United States. (2) Does the Reserve Bank of Australia assume any ``lender of last resort'' responsibilities to supplement those in the United States, in the case of overseas operations of Australian banks; if so, what is the matter of those responsibilities. (3) Are Australian banks or the Reserve Bank of Australia required to warn Australian residents that any deposits they make with US branches and subsidiaries of Australian banks are subject to qualitatively different degrees of risk than similar deposits, made within Australia. (4) Are similar warnings required in other countries where ``lender of last resort'' facilities offer less security to depositors in those countries than to depositors in Australia. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Member banks of the US Federal Reserve System, and foreign banks in the United States which accept retail deposits, are required to have their deposits insured with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), up to US$100,000 for each account. FDIC insurance is voluntary for other banks, although most have elected to be insured. FDIC may also provide funds for the general support of a bank and may offer assurance to depositors beyond the amount of $100,000. As a separate matter, the Federal Reserve system may provide emergency credit, on terms and conditions at its discretion, to individual banks facing financial stringency. (2) The Reserve Bank has power, at its discretion, to lend to an Australian bank but the Reserve Bank does not assume any specific responsibility of this nature. (3) No. (4) Not to the knowledge of the Reserve Bank. (Question No. 155) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Is the Treasurer aware of press reports in the Australian of 14 June 1984 indicating the Reserve Bank of Australia has no objection to the proposed takeover of Grindlays subject to certain conditions being met. (2) What are the criteria used to assess the soundness of banks' overseas acquisitions and their implications for the Australian financial system. (3) Did the proposed acquisition of Grindlays meet these criteria. (4) What conditions are applied in respect to Australian banks' overseas acquisitions. (5) Will the proposed acquisition of Grindlays meet these conditions. (6) What specific conditions is the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and Esanda Ltd (ANZ) required to meet. (7) Do those conditions ensure that funds raised by the ANZ within Australia are not employed to finance the overseas operations of the ANZ to the detriment of Australian borrowers. (8) Do those conditions ensure that currency fluctuations or any other event related to the ANZ's foreign operations do not affect the ANZ's domestic operations, or its relations with its Australian customers. (9) What mechanisms are employed by the Reserve Bank of Australia to ensure that the Australian banking system is insulated from any possible disturbances from overseas. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. It should be noted that the conditions referred to in the Australian of 14 June 1984 were not imposed by the Australian authorities; they formed part of the agreement reached between Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) and Grindlays for the acquisition by ANZ of the whole of the issued share capital of Grindlays. (2) and (4) The criteria would be aimed principally at ensuring, as far as possible, the maintenance of a sound and safe banking system in Australia and the protection of Australian depositors. Attention would be given to such factors as capital and liquidity adequacy, structure of assets and liabilities, profit and loss experience, management systems of the proposed acquisition and possible implications for the combined venture. Any conditions which might be applied in respect of such acquisitions would be determined in this light. (3) and (5) The Reserve Bank was consulted by the ANZ about the proposed acquisition of Grindlays and consented to the proposal outlined in the ANZ's news release of 13 June 1984. (6) Certain undertakings were given by ANZ designed to satisfy tests referred to in the answer to parts (2) and (4) of this question. These undertakings impact on the private and commercial arrangements between ANZ and Grindlays and it would be inappropriate to elaborate on those arrangements there. No conditions were placed on Esanda Ltd, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ANZ. (7) and (8) ANZ has specifically undertaken to maintain its commitment to its banking operations in Australia. (9) The Reserve Bank monitors the overseas operations of Australian banks. The Bank seeks details of and monitors the standards which a bank itself applies to matters such as foreign currency exposures, country risk and maturity mismatching. The Reserve Bank seeks to ensure that these standards are appropriate to the circumstances of each bank; that the bank has suitable management control systems to ensure that those standards are observed; and that these are adaptable in the light of changing circumstances. (Question No. 169) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) How much private weekly income can (a) a single pensioner; (b) a married pensioner couple (per person); (c) a single unemployment benefit recipient; and (d) a married unemployment benefit recipient, earn before their total weekly income (pension or benefit plus private or earned income) is subject to income taxation. (2) If the respective amounts for (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) above differ, why is this the case. (3) If the amounts of private or earned income differ, does the Government plan to take appropriate measures to obtain some standardisation in the treatment of different categories of social welfare recipients. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following table shows the maximum level of private income which could have been derived in 1984-85 before being subject to income tax. Single Married $ p.w. $ p.w. Age pension... 14.80 30.00 (a) 34.90 (b) Unemployment benefit (no children)... 10.90 (c) 0.90 (d) (a) Per person; assumes spouse has no other income. (b) Per person; assumes spouse has equal amount of other income. (c) Over 18 years of age. (d) Person receiving unemployment benefits; assumes spouse has no other income. (2) The taxation arrangements are designed to ease the tax burden on people wholly or largely dependent on pensions or benefits and reflect differences in the levels of pension or benefit paid to different categories of person according to need. The amounts referred to in part (1) consequently differ among categories of recipients for a variety of reasons, including: (i) the rate of the pension or benefit (e.g. the rate of unemployment benefit for a single adult without dependants is lower than the rate of the single age pension); (ii) for married pensioner couples a separate statutory entitlement to pensions is available for each partner, with the result that the married rate of payment is split between the spouses; payments to beneficiary couples, however, are combined and made payable only to the person claiming benefit; (iii) whether they have children (e.g. an unemployed married couple with children could claim a maximum dependent spouse rebate of $1,030 while for those without children the maximum rebate is $830); and (iv) the level of special taxation rebates applying to pensioners and beneficiaries (e.g. in 1984-85 an age pensioner could claim a rebate of $250 which shaded out at 12.5 per cent; unemployment beneficiaries could claim a rebate of $50 for a single person and $75 for a married couple, also shaded out at 12.5 per cent). (3) The range of factors mentioned in (2) argues against complete standardisation of the amounts of private income different categories of pensioners and beneficiaries can receive before they become liable for tax. For taxpayers generally the tax thresholds for single and married taxpayers can differ and there is no reason why that should not also be so in the case of pensioners or beneficiaries. The Government is aware of the need to take into account the way the tax and social security systems interact in considering changes to either system. (Question No. 202) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Defence aware of Spacecom Regulations 23-31 issued by the Headquarters of the United States Air Force's Space Command on 15 April 1983 which states that the Commander of 5 Defense Space Communications Squadron at Woomera, South Australia, is responsible for the operation of `a precision measuring equipment laboratory (PMEL) in support of the squadron and tenant units'. (2) What is the general nature of the research undertaken in this laboratory. (3) Is the PMEL used to support US Navy activities in addition to those of the US Air Force; if so, what is the general nature of this support. (4) Was the PMEL at Nurrungar upgraded in 1983-84. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) & (3) Consistent with the Prime Minister's statement on 6 June 1984, I will not comment on technical functions or capabilities of the JDSCS or on speculation about those functions or capabilities. However, I can advise the honourable senator that the Precision Measuring Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) is used to service and calibrate electronic test equipment that is itself used in the maintenance of other equipment. Many establishments with large amounts of sophisticated technical equipment have such laboratories. (4) The only ``upgrading'' of the PMEL at Nurrungar in 1983-84 was the fitting of an airlock to the laboratory to ensure inner positive air pressure for dust prevention. (Question No. 203) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Has the IBM-75J computer system at Woomera Air Station recently been upgraded with the installation of the latest computer system modification; if so, what is the formal designation of this system modification and when was it installed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I assume that by `Woomera Air Station' the honourable senator is referring to the Joint Defence Space Communications Station (JDSCS) at Nurrungar. Consistent with the Prime Minister's statement of 6 June 1984 I will not comment on technical functions or capabilities of the JDSCS or on speculation as to those functions or capabilities. (Question No. 204) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Has the new Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) satellite antenna and associated ground terminal communications equipment recently been installed at Nurrungar; if so, what is the formal designation of this antenna system and when was it installed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 103. (Question No. 205) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) When did the United States officially designate its personnel at Nurrungar as 5 Defense Space Communications Squadron of Headquarters Space Command. (2) Was this unit previously designated Space and Missile Systems Organisation (SAMSO) Detachment 2, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC); if so, when was this designation applicable. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) US personnel serving at Nurrungar came under United States Air Force Space Command on 1 May 1983. Information on US Space Command is in Hansard (House of Representatives) 4 September 1984 page 562. (2) No. (Question No. 209) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Defence aware of United States Department of Defence Budget Justification Descriptive Summaries presented to Congress on the Defense Support Program (DSP) satellite system which states that an MSC-46 communications terminal was installed at the Overseas Ground Station (OGS) in 1972-73 to enable DSP data to be transmitted to the US via a Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) communications satellite. (2) Is the MSC-46 DSCS terminal at Nurrungar, South Australia, the only such terminal ever installed in Australia; if not, where have other MSC-46 terminals been installed in this country and when were they installed. (3) Is the MSC-46 terminal at Nurrungar the terminal described in the US Department of Defense's DSP Summary presented to Congress, referred to in (1) above. (4) Are commercial communications satellites (COMSATs or INTELSATS) controlled by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Stations at Carnarvon, Ceduna and/or Moree used for the communication of data from Nurrungar to the United States. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) Consistent with the Prime Minister's statement of 6 June 1984 I will not comment on the technical functions or capabilities of the JDSCS or on speculation about those functions or capabilities. (4) Communications between Nurrungar and the United States use a variety of alternative and parallel systems to ensure appropriate security for the type of communication. (Question No. 240) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 22 April 1985: For each 6-monthly period since January 1982: (a) how many officers of the Department of Territories, or its predecessors, have undertaken official visits to (i) Cocos Island, (ii) Norfolk Island, or (iii) Christmas Island, and what was the purpose of each such visit, which officers travelled and what was the expense borne by the Department; (b) how many trips to each of these islands were undertaken by the responsible Minister and, on each occasion, how many members of Ministerial staff also travelled, and what was the total cost to the Department of the stay on the island by all concerned; and (c) has any other person had fares, travel expenses or both paid by the Department of Territories, or its predecessors, in relation to any visit to any of the islands; if so, what was the cost of each visit, in what capacity did the person or persons travel and what was the purpose of the visit. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's questions: The Department of Territories has examined movement requisitions, reports by administrators, and files on ministerial visits to isolate the information which Senator Vigor seeks. The results of these examinations are attached. It should be noted that information prior to 11 March 1983, when responsibility for the Territories was transferred to the Department of Territories and Local Government, is not included. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment has advised it would have difficulty in providing such information. Finance directions do not require movement requisitions to be held for longer than two years. The Department does not maintain an analysis of travel by destinations. Preparation of the answer has involved time-consuming searching and cross-checking of information held in various areas of the Department. In terms of very scarce staff resources, it has cost some eight person-weeks or approximately $9,000-resources which now cannot be applied in other areas of need in the Department. INDEX INFORMATION RELATING TO PARTS(A) AND (C) OF SENATOR VIGOR'S QUESTION: Travel to Christmas Island-Page 1-5, Officers of the Department of Territories. Page 6-8, Other Persons Travelling. Travel to Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Page 9-12, Officers of Department of Territories. Page 13, Other Persons Travelling. Travel to both Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Page 14-15, Officers of Department of Territories. Page 15, Other Persons Travelling. Travel to Norfolk Island-Page 16-21, Officers of Department of Territories. Page 22, Other Persons Travelling. Notes on Table Page 23. Key for abbreviations Page 24. INFORMATION RELATING TO PART (B) OF SENATOR VIGOR'S QUESTIONS: Page 25-27, Table of Ministerial Visits to the External Territories TRAVEL TO CHRISTMAS ISLAND Name, Classification and Branch/Division From To Purpose of Visit Expenses Officers of Department of Territories For period January to June 1983 T. Breen CC9 1A... 1.5.83 11.5.83 Audit... . . C. J. Harper CC10 ESB... 20.5.83 21.5.83 Arbitration Hearings... Fares and TA J. Anderson CC9 ESB... 8.6.83 1.7.83 Organisation Review Administration... Fares and TA D. Kemp CC8 ESB... 8.6.83 1.7.83 Organisation Review Administration... Fares and TA For period July to December 1983 D. Worthy A/g CC8... 22.8.83 7.9.83 Arbitration proceedings... Fares and TA J. Wynants A/g C8 1A... 3.9.83 12.10.83 Audit... Fares and TA R. Hollier 1A... 3.9.83 12.10.83 Audit... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 1.10.83 5.10.83 Territory Day Celebration... Fares and TA R. Chalmers... 4.11.83 1.12.83 Machinery Inspection... Fares and TA J. Rankin A/g CC10 ESB... 28.11.83 15.12.83 Arbitration/Conferences... Fares and TA C. Harper A/g AS ESB... 28.11.83 15.12.83 Arbitration/Conferences... Fares and TA I. Coe L&LPB... 28.11.83 10.12.83 Legal Transfer CIPC to PMCI... Fares and TA For period January to June 1984 P. Molony CC10 IOTB... 7.3.84 10.3.84 Air charter and Marine Matters... Fares and TA L. Clayton C9 IOTB... 12.4.83 21.4.83 Consult with Council Administration... Fares and TA J. Enfield Secretary... 27.4.84 29.4.84 Minister... Incidentals only J. Flynn CC9 IOTB... 27.4.84 29.4.84 Minister... Incidentals only L. Webb A/g FAS Level 3 MSD... 27.4.84 29.4.84 Minister... Incidentals only F. Elliot FAS Level 3 LG... 27.4.84 29.4.84 Minister... Incidentals only C. J. Harper A/g AS ESB... 27.4.84 29.4.84 Minister... Incidentals only J. Enfield Secretary... 23.5.84 26.5.84 Minister... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 23.5.84 26.5.84 Minister... Fares and TA D. Dukes CC7 IOTB... 23.5.84 26.5.84 Minister... Fares and TA J. Anderson CC9 ESB... 23.5.84 26.5.84 Minister... Fares and TA J. Flynn CC9 IOTB... 23.5.84 26.5.84 Minister... Fares and TA I. Ruxton CC10 IOTB... 23.5.84 26.5.84 Minister... Fares and TA T. Breen CC10 1A... 30.4.84 23.5.84 Audit... Fares and TA J. Wynants CC9 1A... 30.4.84 23.5.84 Audit... Fares and TA C. Harper CC10 ESB... 2.5.84 19.5.84 Arbitration hearing... Fares and TA R. Boden (Science) 4 NBG... 23.5.84 30.5.84 Normalisation, Land use Survey (report)... Fares and TA For period July to December 1984 S. Anderson CC5 IOTB... 15.7.84 25.7.84 Annual Report... Fares and TA P. Hunt CC11 IOTB... 16.7.84 24.7.84 Transfer of functions from PMCI to Commonwealth... Fares and TA S. Darwin ARO IOTB... 24.7.84 8.8.84 Housing Inventory... Fares and TA V. Mawhinney CC11 IOTB... 2.8.84 11.8.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA K. Pearson FAS Level 6 SA... 2.8.84 17.8.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA P. Skinner CC10 IOTB... 3.8.84 2.9.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA J. Davies ARO IOTB... 3.8.84 14.8.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA R. B. Tarlinton CC8 ESB... 3.8.84 2.9.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA R. Meller CC8 ESB... 3.8.84 17.8.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA J. Flynn CC9 IOTB... 14.8.84 22.8.84 Normalisation... Fares and TA I. Ruxton CC10 IOTB... 28.8.84 5.9.84 Organisation of Housing Management-Special Task Force... Fares and TA S. Darwin ARO IOTB... 28.8.84 5.9.84 Normalisation, Housing... Fares and TA P. Hunt CC11 IOTB... 14.9.84 29.9.84 Consultations with PMCI... Fares and TA G. Snider AS IOTB... 14.9.84 29.9.84 Consultations with CISC... Fares and TA N. Isaacson CC6 IOTB... 14.9.84 18.9.84 Resettlement arrangements... Fares and TA P. Skinner CC10 IOTB... 21.9.84 3.10.84 Normalisation-Special Task Force... Fares and TA J. Rankin CC10 ESB... 26.9.84 2.10.84 New award negotiations... Fares and TA M. Brown BI TSB... 1.10.84 24.10.84 Annual Inspection Machinery and pressure vessels... Fares and TA I. Coe CC9 IOTB... 4.10.84 13.10.84 Normalisation legal aspects and assets transfer PMCI-CISC... Fares and TA J. Rankin CC10 ESB... 25.10.84 24.11.84 Negotiation of new awards... Fares and TA L. Webb A/g FAS MSD... 9.12.84 13.12.84 Industrial Relations Matters... Fares and TA For period January to June 1985 C. Coddington CC10 IOTB... 5.2.85 12.2.85 Political education program... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 19.3.85 24.3.85 Attend PMCI Board meeting... Incidentals only J. Enfield Secretary... 19.3.85 24.3.85 Attend PMCI Board meeting... Incidentals only Q. Naylor A/g CC9 ET&LD... 19.3.85 3.4.85 Attend PMCI Board meeting... Incidentals only J. Rankin CC10 ESB... 24.3.85 3.4.85 Industrial Relations/Arbitrator's visit... Fares and TA M. Dawkins CSO3 ISB... 15.4.85 24.4.85 Investigation of computer assistance requirements... Fares and TA A. Chrisp AS ISB... 15.4.85 24.4.85 Investigation of computer assistance requirements... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 15.4.85 2.5.85 Normalisation... Fares and TA Q. Naylor A/g CC9 ET&LD... 12.5.85 22.5.85 Attend ANPWS/PMCI meeting... Fares and TA J. Grenfell CC9 ESB... 13.5.85 29.5.85 Review-Teachers... Fares and TA A. Giusti A/g CC5 IOTB... 27.5.85 14.6.85 Preparation of Annual Report... Fares and TA For period July 1985 to December 1985 G. Beal ESB... 5.8.85 14.8.85 Recruitment matters... Fares and TA A. Martin ESB... 5.8.85 14.8.85 Recruitment matters... Fares and TA Q. L. Naylor A/g CC9 ET&LD... 8.8.85 17.8.85 Attend the PMCI 1985 Shipping Conference and Marketing... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 24.9.85 27.9.85 Member of the Working Party on future of Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island... Fares and TA I. Coe CC9 L&LPB... 7.10.85 16.10.85 Assisting the Working Party on future of Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island... Fares and TA J. Rankin A/g CC10 ESB... 14.10.85 28.10.85 Arbitration hearings... Fares and TA Q. Naylor A/g CC9 ET&LD... 8.10.85 11.10.85 Attend meetings of the Abbotts Booby Expert Panel Monitoring Study... Fares and TA For period July 1985 to December 1985 S. Darwin IOTB... 24.7.85 8.8.85 Housing... Fares and TA W. Harris A/g Secretary... 4.9.85 7.9.85 Minister... Fare one way and TA N. Quinn FAS ET&L... 23.9.85 27.9.85 Working party on future of Christmas Island... Fares and TA I. Coe L&LP... 8.10.85 28.10.85 As above... Fares and TA J. Rankin ESB... 14.10.85 28.10.85 Industrial relations matters... Fares and TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 5.11.85 8.11.85 Discussions on CI Assembly future of mining operation... Fares and TA J. Emerton CC10 IOTB... 5.11.85 8.11.85 Air Charter matters... Fares and TA M. Cornwell CC10 H of A... 5.11.85 12.11.85 CI Assembly... Fares and TA C. Chalmers to 2 TS... 12.11.85 3.12.85 Inspect pressure vessels... Fares and TA M. Cornwell CC10 H of A... 5.12.85 21.12.85 CI Assembly... Fares and TA Other Persons Travelling For period January to June 1983 J. E. Taylor Arbitrator-and Mrs Taylor... 18.5.83 21.5.83 Arbitration Hearings... Fares and TA For period July to December 1983 J. E. Taylor Arbitrator... 26.8.83 7.9.83 Arbitration Hearings... Fares and TA E. Calvert Curator of Deceased Estates... 9.8.83 24.8.83 Establish procedures for deceased estates... Fares and TA J. E. Taylor... 29.11.83 14.12.83 Arbitration/conferences... Fares and TA For period January to June 1984 J. E. Taylor Arbitrator and Mrs Taylor... 2.5.84 21.5.84 Arbitration Hearings... Fares and TA J. Gilchrist SP NCDC... 23.5.84 30.5.84 Normalisation, Land use survey... Fares and TA For period July to December 1984 R. Tarlington DEIR... 3.8.84 2.9.84 Redundancy and work contracts... Fares and TA C. Adamson Senior Architect DHC... 14.8.84 22.8.84 Housing, building and water review... Fares and TA J. Evans CC11 DHC... 14.8.84 22.8.84 Housing, building and water review... Fares and TA G. Smith to DHC... 14.8.84 22.8.84 Housing, building and water review... Fares and TA R. Tarlington DEIR... 25.9.84 5.10.84 Redundancy and work contracts... Fares and TA R. Sweeney Arbitrator... 8.10.84 14.10.84 Arbitration Matters... Fares and TA V. Eve Associate of Arbitrator... 8.10.84 14.10.84 Arbitration Matters... Fares and TA R. Gordon SAC ACTHA... 12.12.84 23.12.84 Review Hospital... Fares and TA For period January to June 1985 J. Websdane ST Telecom... 5.2.85 12.2.85 International Telephone System... Fares and TA R. Heggart ST Telecom... 5.2.85 12.2.85 International Telephone System... Fares and TA Mrs Enfield... 19.3.85 24.3.85 Accompanied Secretary at invitation of Chairman of Board of PMCI... Incidentals only Mrs Quinn... 19.3.85 24.3.85 Accompanied FAS ET and L... Incidentals only G. Brummell ACTSA... 12.5.85 26.5.85 Education, report on teacher/student ratios... Fares and TA For period July to December 1985 P. Cook Senator... 24.9.85 27.9.85 Working Party on Future of Phosphate Mining Company Christmas Island... Fares and TA J. Saunderson MP... 24.9.85 27.9.85 Working Party on Future of Phosphate Mining Company Christmas Island... Fares and TA S. D. Tan UCIW... 24.9.85 27.9.85 Working Party on Future of Phosphate Mining Company Christmas Island... Fares and TA R. Sweeney Arbitrator... 14.10.85 28.10.85 Arbitration Matters... Fares and TA G. Ferguson DEIR... 5.11.85 12.11.85 Assessment of skills and qualifications of potentially redundant workers... Fares and TA TRAVEL TO COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS Name, Classification and Branch/Division From To Purpose of Visit Expenses Officers of the Department of Territories For period January to June 1983 C. S. Hamilton CC10 IOTB... 23.6.83 1.7.83 Investigate improved accounting arrangements for Cocos Admin... Fares and TA For period July to December 1983 G. Castellari A/g CC7 IOTB... 21.8.83 8.9. 83 Discuss education requirements (in Perth and Cocos) of Cocos community... Fares and TA R. Hollier CC9 IA... 4.9,83 5.10.83 Audit Coverage... Fares and TA P. Dawes CC8 IOTB... 4.9.83 23.9.83 Repairs and Maintenance Inspection... Fares and TA G. T. Byrnes CC11 IOTB... 9.12.83 13.12.83 Minister... TA only R. G. Calvert AS IOTB... 9.12.83 13.12.83 Minister... TA only J. D. Enfield Secretary... 9.12.83 13.12.83 Minister... TA only L. Webb AS ESB... 9.12.83 13.12.83 Conditions of Service... Fares and TA R. Ryan ESB... 9.12.83 13.12.83 Conditions of Service... Fares and TA For period January to June 1984 P. Molony CC10 IOTB... 20.2.84 7.3.84 Housing Replacement Program (Home Island)... Fares and TA I. Ramsay L & LP... 22.2.84 7.3.84 To review Territory Ordinances... Fares and TA N. Isaacson... 6.3.84 26.3.84 Review of Philatelic Bureau policies and procedures... Fares and TA J. D. Enfield Secretary... 3.4.84 8.4.84 UN Mission & Minister... TA only A. G. Cashman A/g AS L&LPB... 3.4.84 8.4.84 UN Mission... TA only R. G. Calvert AS IOTB... 3.4.84 8.4.84 UN Mission... TA only G. T. Byrnes CC11 IOTB... 3.4.84 8.4.84 UN Mission... TA only F. E. Hogan A/g Steno Gr l IOTB 3.4.84 8.4.84 UN Mission... TA only R. Brent CC11 L&LPB... 3.4.84 8.4.84 UN Mission... Fares and TA D. Fitzgerald A/G CC6 IOTB... 17.6.84 29.6.84 To discuss new air charter arrangements... Fares and TA For period July to December 1984 A. Munns A/g CC7 IOTB... 16.7.84 25.7.84 Discussions on production of Annual Report 83/84... Fares and TA G. Beal A/g CC8 ESB... 13.8.84 23.8.84 Explain new conditions of service contracts. Resolve current contract problems... Fares and TA R. Hunt CC8 ESB... 13.8.84 23.8.84 Explain new conditions of service contracts. Resolve current contract problems... Fares and TA G. T. Byrnes CC11 IOTB... 10.9.84 19.9.84 11/14 Assist CGC 14/18 Assist towards Cocos land transactions... Fares and TA R. I. Brent CC11 L&LPB... 13.9.84 19.9.84 Legal Adviser-land transfer to Cocos Is Council... Fares and TA J. D. Enfield Secretary... 13.9.84 19.9.84 Official visit to Cocos prior to UN debate... Fares and TA P. H. Dawes CC8 IOTB... 1.10.84 10.10.84 Joint assets inspection repairs & maintenance 1985/86... Fares and TA N. Kastelic CC8 ESB... 19.11.84 28.11.84 Discussions with Admin and investigation of conditions of service problems... Fares and TA D. Kildare CC8 ESB... 30.11.84 13.12.84 Meetings & inspection of boatmaster position... Fares and TA M. G. Smith CC8 ESB... 1.12.84 12.12.84 Review of structure of office of Administrator... Fares and TA T. A. Walters CC5 IOTB... 10.12.84 18.12.84 To accompany OTC rep for communications discussions... Fares and TA For period January to June 1985 P. Dawes CC8 IOTB... 24.3.85 3.4.85 Discussions with Cocos Is Council re Home Island housing development... Fares and TA J. Hunt CC9 ESB... 15.4.85 24.4.85 Accompanying FAS & CGC... Fares and TA C. Howard TA Grade 1 NBG... 29.4.85 14.5.85 Field collection of flora... Fares and TA I. Telford TO (Science) NBG... 29.4.85 14.5.85 Field collection of flora... Fares and TA D. Worthy ESB... 21.5.85 28.5.85 Industrial Relations-Salary and conditions of service of Boatmaster... Fares and TA P. Fielding CC5 IOTB... 10.6.85 19.6.85 Preparation of Annual Report... Fares and TA I. Jeffrey ESB... 16.6.85 26.6.85 Personnel Administration... Fares and TA For period July to December 1985 D. Lawrance CC11 IOTB... 1.7.85 9.7.85 Accompanying Shadow Minister for Territories (Austin Lewis) Examination of current policy issues... Fares and TA P. H. Dawes CC8 IOTB... 23.9.85 9.10.85 1985/86 repairs and maintenance joint asset inspection... Fares and TA G. W. Dunbar A/g CC9 RM... 23.9.85 3.10.85 1985/86 repairs and maintenance and civil program... Fares and TA J. Hunt CC9 IOTB... 19.11.85 26.11.85 Accompanying officer from IEA to resolve entry and status problems and apprentice training... Fares and TA Other Persons Travelling For period January to June 1984 I. Prior Detective Sergeant Australian Federal Police... 26.6.84 11.7.84 To safety check firearms on Cocos... Fares and TA Mrs Enfield... 13.9.84 19.9.84 Accompanied Secretary... Fares and TA TRAVEL TO CHRISTMAS ISLAND AND COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS Name, Classification and Branch/Division From To Purpose of Visit (Accompanying) Expenses Officers of the Department of Territories For period January to June 1983 A. Blunn... 28.4.83 1.5.83 Minister... TA only J. Flynn... 28.4.83 1.5.83 Minister... TA only V. H. Mawhinney CC11 IOTB... 28.4.83 1.5.83 Minister... TA only T. F. Paterson FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 28.4.83 1.5.83 Minister... TA only R. G. Calvert AS IOTB... 28.4.83 1.5.83 Minister... TA only G. T. Byrnes CC11 IOTB... 28.4.83 1.5.83 Minister... TA only For period January to June 1984 V. H. Mawhinney CC11 IOTB... 25.6.83 29.6.84 Minister (Aviation)... TA only For period July to December 1984 J. G. Hunt A/g CC9 IOTB... 5.8.85 10.8.84 Governor-General... TA only C. Clark AS IOTB... 5.8.85 10.8.84 Governor-General... TA only D. R. Dukes CC7 IOTB... 5.8.85 10.8.84 Governor-General... TA only D. R. Dukes CC7 IOTB... 20.11.84 22.11.84 Minister... TA only J. D. Enfield Secretary... 20.11.84 22.11.84 Minister... TA only C. Clark AS IOTB... 20.11.84 22.11.84 Minister... TA only J. Flynn CC11 IOTB... 20.11.84 22.11.84 Minister... TA only G. T. Byrnes CC11 IOTB... 20.11.84 22.11.84 Minister... TA only For period January to June 1985 C. Clark AS IOTB... 28.4.85 2.5.85 Minister... TA only R. O'Connell FAS Level 3 MSD... 28.4.85 2.5.85 Minister... TA only J. D. Enfield Secretary... 28.4.85 2.5.85 Minister... TA only L. Reed Personal Assistant... 28.4.85 2.5.85 Minister... TA only J. Blackburn CC11 L&LPB... 28.4.85 2.5.85 Minister... TA only N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 16.4.85 2.5.85 Minister... TA only For period July to December 1985 C. Cole A/G CC11 L&LPB... 21.7.85 26.7.85 Governor-General... TA only for Perth/Canb. C. Clark AS IOTB... 21.7.85 25.7.85 Governor-General... TA only Other Persons Travelling For period July to December 1985 G. Easton AIS... 21.7.85 23.7.85 Governor-General... TA only J. Kucharski Freelance Photographer (employed by Dept)... 7.7.84 12.7.84 Take photographs... Fares & TA TRAVEL TO NORFOLK ISLAND Name, Classification and Branch/Division From To Purpose of Visit Expenses Officers of the Department of Territories For period January to June 1983 A. S. Blunn Secretary... 27.3.83 29.3.83 (1) Opening of new runway... TA only T. F. Paterson FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 27.3.83 29.3.83 (1) Opening of new runway... TA only N. Quinn FAS Level 3 MSD... 11.4.83 14.4.83 Examination of computer systems... Fares & TA W. Filsell A/g CC8 NT&NIB... 4.6.83 9.6.83 Secretary of IDC meeting on restoration of Historic Buildings... Fares & TA R. Bryson CC9 ASB... 4.6.83 7.6.83 Attended IDC meeting & discussions on financial arrangements... Fares & TA J. D. Enfield Secretary... 7.6.83 9.6.83 (1) Discussions with new assembly members... Fares & TA T. F. Paterson FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 4.6.83 9.6.83 (1) Discussions with new assembly members-arrived in advance of ministerial party for IDC meeting on restoration of Historic Buildings & to hold discussions with Administrator... Fares & TA W. Syrette CC11 NT&NIB... 4.6.83 9.6.83 (1) Discussions with new assembly members-arrived in advance of ministerial party for IDC meeting on restoration of Historic Buildings & to hold discussions with Administrator & Official Secretary... TA only For period July to December 1983 N. Quinn FAS Level 3 MSD... 3.7.83 7.7.83 To discuss staff training Fares & TA R. O'Connell AS ISB... 3.7.83 7.7.83 and computerisation of Fares & TA H. Bayes CC10 ESB... 3.7.83 7.7.83 accounting procedures W. Syrette CC11 NT&NIB... 23.7.83 2.8.83 Accompanies J. Ewens (consultant) for discussions on Immigration Bill 1980... Fares & TA M. Carlson CC8 NT&NIB... 23.7.83 28.7.83 Consultation on Immigration & land matters... Fares & TA V. Serrano A/g CC5 NT&NIB... 3.9.83 8.9.83 Land matters-obtained complete records of crown leases... Fares & TA P. Jeffery A/g CC7 NT&NIB... 3.9.83 8.9.83 ILO conventions (Discussions with NI Officials) land matters... Fares & TA W. Syrette CC11 NT&NIB... 24.10.83 6.11.83 Discussions on Water and Sewerage Scheme, EIS on jet services & Immigration Bill... Fares & TA F. Brice as NT&NIB... 25.10.83 30.10.83 Discussions on proposed Water & Sewerage Scheme with Government... Fares & TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 29.11.83 1.12.83 Computing & Bicentenary matters... Fares & TA K. Olds CSO 4 ISB... 29.11.83 6.12.83 Computer systems presentation evaluation for NI Administrator... Fares & TA For period January to June 1984 W. Syrette CC11 NT&NIB... 20.1.84 23.1.84 (1) Accompanied Minister for Home Affairs & Environment Discussion on review of powers, Environmental Impact Study on 737 jets, Water & Sewerage Scheme & bicentenary matters... TA only T. Waters CC9 NT&NIB... 20.1.84 23.1.84 (1) As above... TA only W. Filsell A/g CC8 NT&NIB... 20.1.84 23.1.84 (1) As above... TA only N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 7.3.84 11.3.84 Consultation with NI Govt.... Fares & TA T. Waters CC9 NT&NIB... 7.3.84 11.3.84 Consultation with NI Govt.... Fares & TA W. Filsell CC8 NT&NIB... 17.3.84 20.3.84 Meetings with ANPWS & Island Authorities on Mt Pitt Reserve... Fares & TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 26.4.84 29.4.84 Consultation with NI Govt.... Fares & TA W. Syrette CC11 NT&NIB... 26.4.84 29.4.84 Consultation with NI Govt.... Fares & TA S. White CC9 NT&NIB... 26.4.84 29.4.84 Consultation with NI Govt.... Fares & TA M. Carlson CC8 NT&NIB... 19.5.84 22.5.84 Attended meetings on development planning... Fares & TA S. Portway TB... 24.5.84 26.5.84 Discussions with NI Govt. Tourist Bureau... TA only J. Westwood CC6 TB... 24.5.84 27.5.84 Discussions with NI Govt. Tourist Bureau... TA only For period July to December 1984 J. Marges AS ISB... 1.9.84 9.9.84 Assisted with computer installation... Fares & TA K. Olds CSO 4 ISB... 1.9.84 14.9.84 Assisted with computer installation... Fares & TA W. Filsell CC8 NT&NIB... 13.10.84 17.10.84 Attended meetings on water & sewerage scheme & IDC on restoration of historic buildings... Fares & TA G. Barons A/g CC9 ASB... 13.10.84 19.10.84 Attended IDC, meetings on Water & Sewerage Scheme & discussions on finance matters... Fares & TA N. Quinn FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 13.10.84 17.10.84 Attended IDC & meetings on Water & Sewerage Scheme... Fares & TA J. Marges AS ISB... 21.10.84 23.10.84 Attended seminars & discussions in N.Z. & N.I.... Fares & TA R. O'Connell FAS MS... 21.10.84 23.10.84 Attended seminars & discussions in N.Z. & N.I.... Fares & TA A. Keedle CA3 TB... 24.11.84 26.11.84 To discuss with the Tourist Bureau regarding tourism... Incidentals only H. Streimann NBG... 1.12.84 11.12.84 Collection of plants for Herbarium... No cost to Dept. (funded by a grant from ANPWS) W. Syrette CC11 NT&NIB... 10.12.84 14.12.84 Discussions (Aviation & NI Govt.) on ownership of airport & Water Sewerage Scheme & land matters... Fares & TA O. Charteris CA6 TB... 24.12.84 26.12.84 Discussions with Tourist Bureau... Incidentals only For period January to June 1985 J. Marges, AS ISB... 29.1.85 3.2.85 Attended steering committee meetings, reviewed program of system (ADP) implementation... Fares and TA J. D. Enfield, Secretary... 12.2.85 15.2.85 (1) Accompanied Minister on his first official visit to Norfolk Island... Fares one way and TA N. Quinn, FAS Level 3 ET&LD... 12.2.85 15.2.85 (1) Attended meetings with Legislative Assembly and Administration... Fares one way and TA W. Syrette, CC11 NT&NIB... 12.2.85 15.2.85 (1) As above... Fares one way and TA R. Crooks, A/g CC4 ESB... 14.3.85 29.3.85 Presented WP Training Course... Fares only D. Dickson, AS TB... 10.4.85 12.4.85 Attended 1985 Aust. Standing Committee on Tourism meeting... Fares only W. Filsell, A/g CC9 NT&NIB... 24.4.85 4.6.85 Acting Official Secretary... Fares and TA For period January to June 1985 B. Pratt, AS P&C... 22.5.85 31.5.85 (1) Concom/AEC meeting... Fares and TA V. Martisius, AS T&TSD... 25.5.85 1.6.85 (1) Meeting of Australian Environment council and standing committee... Fares and TA N. Quinn, FAS ET&LD... 26.5.85 31.5.85 (1) Concom/AEC meeting... Fare one way and TA J. Blackburn, CC11 L&LPB... 26.5.85 31.5.85 (1) Concom/AEC meeting Discussion with Island Government officials... Fare one way and TA J. D. Enfield, Secretary... 27.5.85 31.5.85 (1) Australian environment council ministers conference... Fare one way and TA F. Brice, AS NT&NIB... 7.6.85 12.6.85 (2) Governor-General... Fare one way and TA For period July 1985 to December 1985 A. K. Munns, A/g CC8 NT&NIB... 19.8.85 23.8.85 Crown Land review-meeting with Administrator and NI Government... Fares and TA M. O'Brien, CC5 NT&NIB... 19.8.85 23.8.85 Crown Land review-meeting with Administrator and NI Government... Fares and TA B. Kearney, A/g CC11 IOTB... 29.8.85 2.9.85 Accompanying visiting Cocos Malay leaders to Norfolk Island... Fares and TA W. Syrette, A/g AS NT&NIB... 9.10.85 12.10.85 IDC on Norfolk historic buildings... Fares and TA W. Syrette, A/g AS NT&NIB... 7.12.85 13.12.85 As above... Fares and TA W. Filsell, CC8 NT&NIB... 9.12.85 12.12.85 As above... Fares and TA J. Wynants CC9 RMB... 9.12.85 12.12.85 As above... Fares and TA NORFOLK ISLAND Name, Classification and Branch/Division From To Purpose of visit Expense Other Persons Travelling For period January to June 1983 Mrs Enfield... 7.6.83 9.6.83 Accompanied Secretary... Fares and TA For period January to June 1984 R. G. Genge, Engineer G5 ACTEA... 4.2.84 10.2.84 Investigated electricity matters... Fares and TA K. Page, CC11 Treasury... 7.3.84 11.3.84 Consultation with Norfolk Island Government... Fares and TA For period July to December 1984 I, MacFarlane, Barrister... 16.10.84 18.10.84 Barrister for Commonwealth in Gadd Case (Supreme Court of Norfolk Island)... Fares and TA M. Cullen, Solicitor AGS... 16.10.84 19.10.84 Instructing solicitor, in Gadd Case (Supreme Court of Norfolk Island)... Fares and TA For Period July to December 1985 Not Bin Geba, Cocos Leader... 28.8.85 2.9.85 Inspect tourism & horticultural developments... Fares and TA Andrew Ong, Cocos Council Adviser... 28.8.85 2.9.85 Accompany Cocos Leader... Fares and TA P. Varman, Consultant Archaeologist... 9.12.85 12.12.85 Attend meeting of IDC on Norfolk historic buildings... Fares and TA Notes on table Information does not include officers travelling to or from the islands in question for the purposes of commencing or terminating employment. Average of Fares, Travel Allowance and Incidentals for the period since 1.5.82. Fares-Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands $760 per officer per trip (ex Perth). Norfolk Island, $480 per officer per trip (ex Sydney). Travel Allowance-$67 per person per day for officers at level 1 and above. $56 per person per day for officers below level 1. Incidentals-$10 per person per day. KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS ACTHA Australian Capital Territory Health Commission AEC Australian Environment Council A/g Acting ANPWS Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service ARO Assistant Research Officer AS Assistant Secretary ASB Accounting Services Branch BI Boiler Inspector CA Clerical Assistant CC Clerk Class CGC Commonwealth Grants Commission CONCOM Council of Nature Conservation Ministers CSO Computer Systems Officer ESB Employment Services Branch ET&LD External Territories & Legislation Division FAS First Assistant Secretary IA Internal Audit IDC Interdepartmental Committee IOTB Indian Ocean Territories Branch ISB Information Services Branch LG Local Government L&LPB Legislation and Legal Policy Branch MP Member of Parliament MSD Management Services Division NBG National Botanical Gardens NT&NIB Northern Territory and Norfolk Island Branch OTC Overseas Telecommunications Commission PC Parks and Conservation PS Public Service SA Special Advisor SAC Senior Assistant Commissioner SP Senior Planner ST Senior Technician TA Technical Assistant TB Tourism Branch TO Technical Officer TSB Technical Services Branch T&TSD Transport and Technical Services Division UCIW Union of Christmas Island Workers WP Word Processing TABLE OF MINISTERIAL VISITS TO THE EXTERNAL TERRITORIES, 1 JANUARY 1982 TO DATE Six Monthly Period Date of Visit; Minister Number of accompanying ministerial staff (i) Cocos (Keeling) Islands 1.1.82- 30.6.82 Nil Nil 1.7.82- 31.12.82 November 1982 Hon. D. T. McVeigh 1 1.1.83- 30.6.83 April 1983 Hon T. Uren 3 1.7.83- 31.12.83 December 1983 Hon. T. Uren 3 1.1.84- 30.6.84 Nil Nil 1.7.84- 31.12.84 November 1984 Hon. T. Uren 4 1.1.85- to date April 1985 Hon. G. G. D. Scholes 2 (ii) Christmas Island 1.1.82- 30.6.82 Nil Nil 1.7.82- 31.12.82 September 1982 Hon. D. T. McVeigh 2 1.1.83- 30.6.83 April 1983 Hon T. Uren 3 1.7.83- 31.12.83 Nil Nil 1.1.84- 30.6.84 (i) April 1984; (ii) May 1984 Hon. T. Uren (i) 2 (ii) 2 1.7.84- 31.12.84 November 1984 Hon. T. Uren 4 1.1.85- to date April 1985 Hon. G. G. D. Scholes 2 October 1985 Hon. G. G. D. Scholes 2 (iii) Norfolk Island 1.1.82- 30.6.82 May 1982 Hon. D. T. McVeigh 2 1.7.82- 31.12.82 September 1982 Hon. D. T. McVeigh 2 1.1.83- 30.6.83 (i) March 1983 (ii) June 1983 Hon. T. Uren (i) 1 (ii) 2 1.7.83- 31.12.83 Nil Nil 1.1.84- 30.6.84 January 1984 Hon. B. Cohen (Acting Minister) 2 1.7.84- 31.12.84 Nil Nil 1.1.85- to date (i) February 1985 (ii) May 1985 Hon. G. G. D. Scholes (i) 2 (ii) 2 (Question No. 292) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 May 1985: Given the large number of Japanese tourists now visiting Australia, will the Department of Aviation give consideration to erecting welcoming and directional signs in the Japanese language at major international airports. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department bases its policy for Australian airports on International Air Transport Association (IATA) recommendations which state that all airport signage should be in English. The IATA reference manual recommends that signs at international airports should be displayed in: the language of the country concerned the international aviation language-English additional languages only where justified by the volume of passengers. The primary purpose of an airport signage system is to move the travelling public through a terminal using a concise and comprehensible system of directional, information and regulatory messages. For this reason a standard sign system has been developed which is based on easily recognised symbols depicting the terminal functions and allowing instant recognition by all travellers. The Department feels that it has successfully adapted IATA's guidelines in all major Australian airports. Welcome signs in English are displayed at Commonwealth owned international terminal buildings with the exception of Hobart and Darwin. Signs are proposed for display in the extended Hobart International Terminal. It is proposed to include Welcome signs in any future works to be carried out in Darwin. (Question No. 309) Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of recent surveys which have highlighted the attitudes of young people, in particular, their negative attitudes on the Australian immigration program and the effects it has by reducing their employment opportunities. (2) Can the Minister indicate if any of the school educational materials developed by the Human Rights Commission have referred to or explained the facts of the issue referred to in (1) above; if not, would the Minister consider addressing the link between community relations and unemployment. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) I am advised that none of the current educational materials developed by the Human Rights Commission directly refers to or explains the issue of Australia's immigration program and its effect on employment opportunities for young people. However, the Commission's manual for teachers ``Teaching for Human Rights; activities for schools'' raises the issue of unemployment in a very open-ended way (p. 98) and any link to the immigration program could well be canvassed in discussions. The manual also has a section on Non-Discrimination-Racism under which attitudes to the effect of immigration on employment opportunities might readily become a subject for analysis. This is particularly so as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which the Human Rights Commission promotes, includes the right to work among aspects of Article 5. I understand that the teachers manual will be re-written shortly at which time more attention will be paid to immigration and employment and related attitudes. The Commission is also preparing an anti-racism handbook, designed for community relations work more generally, which will refer to the debate about immigration and unemployment, and highlight the need for better socio-economic and political explanations for what some Australians see as a link between the two. My Department conducts and is expanding a community awareness program which focuses on explaining the level and composition of migrant and refugee intakes and the social and economic implications of these intakes. One of the aims of the program is to foster among young people positive attitudes towards the multicultural nature of our society. Resource materials for schools are developed as a part of this program. The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, which is located in my portfolio, also plays an important role in developing community awareness of the diverse cultures in Australia and promoting tolerance, understanding and a society which is just and equitable. A recent initiative was the preparation, in conjunction with the Victorian Department of Education, of an educational display of materials to further awareness among primary and post-primary students of the different peoples who make up Australian society. The display has been exhibited throughout Victoria and plans are being made to take the project to other States in 1986. (Question No. 331) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 29 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Finance aware of the statement by Professor Hewson, Director of the Macquarie Bank, regarding alleged complacency in Government about the likely inflationary outlook. (2) Does the Minister agree with Professor Hewson's estimate that the inflation rate will rise to 8 per cent by the end of 1985. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (Question No. 415) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Will the Treasurer undertake that any attempt by the New South Wales Government to raise funds on the overseas loan markets for the building of either of the environmentally destructive proposed dams on the Colo River in the Wollemi Wilderness National Park will be resisted with the same vigor as the proposals by the Tasmanian Government for a dam on the Gordon River. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Treasurer has indicated that it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth to take action of the kind implicit in the question. Under the Financial Agreement, State Governments may borrow in their own right in only limited circumstances. However, provision is made in the Financial Agreement for the Commonwealth Government to borrow on behalf of State Governments and each year at Loan Council State Governments are allocated a borrowing program, which is financed from the Commonwealth Budget. State Governments are free to allocate the funds so provided in accordance with their own expenditure priorities. (Question No. 456) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: Are some rifle or gun clubs in Queensland experiencing problems because they do not have tenure of the rifle ranges which they wish to use; if so, what ranges and clubs are involved and what is the reason why the necessary land cannot be passed to these clubs and how soon is the matter likely to be resolved. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are rifle and gun clubs in Queensland which are interested in purchasing the rifle ranges they occupy to secure a more permanent tenure; at present the majority of clubs hold tenure under other arrangements e.g. by lease. In accordance with Government policy established in 1981, rifle clubs which occupy a rifle range surplus to Commonwealth requirements have a priority to purchase the range at market value before the normal order of precedence for disposal of Commonwealth land is set in train. The normal order is that surplus land is offered first to the former owner (if applicable) then to State and Local Governments. If State and Local Governments fail to identify a need the properties are offered for sale on the open market. Problems have arisen in disposing of some rifle ranges to interested clubs due to differing legal opinions as to the clubs' powers to acquire real property and other legal impediments. My Department in consultation with the Department of Defence and the Australian Government Solicitor is currently attempting to resolve these issues. Rifle ranges which are surplus to Commonwealth requirements in Queensland and the clubs which occupy them are shown below: Rifle Range Club Barcaldine... Barcaldine Rifle Association Pimpama... Gold Coast Clay Target Club and Smallbore Rifle Club Belmont... Queensland Rifle Association (as Property Controller) 28 Associates and Clubs Shoot on this property. Biggenden... Biggenden Rifle Club. Bundaberg... Bundaberg Rifle Club and Smallbore Rifle Club. Charters Towers... Charters Towers Rifle Club and Charters Towers Pistol Club. Charleville... Charleville Smallbore Rifle Club. Childers (Horton) Smallbore Rifle Club Gympie... Gympie Rifle Club, Pistol Club, Smallbore Rifle CLub and Gun Club. Halifax... Halifax Rifle Club Hughenden... Hughenden Rifle Club and Pistol Club. Roma... Roma Rifle Club and Pistol Club. Wullumbilla... Wullumbilla Rifle Range. Risdon... Warwick Rifle Club and Southern Downs Rifle Club. The clubs which have offered to purchase ranges at market value but have been prevented from doing so to date by legal difficulties are the Barcaldine Rifle Association, Gold Coast Clay Target Club and Gold Coast Smallbore Rifle Club. (Question No. 487) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) What quotas have applied since 1975 to the slaughter of kangaroos annually: (a) in each State; and (b) on a species by species basis. (2) How many kangaroos have been legally killed each year since 1975: (a) in each State; and (b) on a species by species basis. (3) How many kangaroos have been processed each year since 1975: (a) in each State; and (b) on a species by species basis. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Table 1 gives the kangaroo quotas for each species and each State since 1975. (2) and (3) Table 2 gives the information provided by State and Territory Wildlife Authorities on legal killing of kangaroos. Unless otherwise specified, the table is divided into separate categories which give available data on the commercial kill (animals processed) and the non-commercial kill. Addition of these two categories gives the total kill by species and State/Territory. Table 1 KANGAROO QUOTAS BY STATE AND SPECIES FOR THE PERIOD 1975-1985 ('000) State/Species 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (i) New South Wales Macropus rufus... 50 110 150 150 300 300 333 550 550 399 190 M. giganteus/M. fuliginosus... 150 190 210 210 340 340 356.5 288 288 100 110 M. robustus... 5 - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 Total... 205 300 365 365 645 645 694.5 843 843 500 301 (ii) Queensland M. rufus... 600 800 800 800 1500 450 450 450 450 250 250 M. giganteus/M. fuliginosus... 900 900 900 900 500 720 M. robustus... 75 75 100 100 60 70 M. parryi... 75 75 50 50 35 40 Total... 600 800 800 800 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 845 1,080 (iii) South Australia M. rufus... 64 64 56 55 78 148 197.5 328 239 115 117.4 M. fuliginosus... 12 12 12 24 25 50 44 64 58 22 9 M. robustus... 4 4 12 1 1 2 8.5 8 3 6 8.6 Total... 80 80 80 80 104 200 250 400 300 143 135 (iv) Western Australia M. rufus... 142.25 167.19 168 152 180 180 160 160 140 140 160 M. fuliginosus... - - - 30 50 88 70 50 50 50 M. robustus... - - - 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total... 142.25 167.19 168 152 220 240 258 240 200 200 220 (v) Tasmania M. rufogriseus... - 70 70 150 200 175 175 175 175 175 140 Thylogale billardierii... - 50 50 100 100 125 125 125 125 125 110 Total... - 120 120 250 300 300 300 300 300 300 250 (vi) Victoria* M. rufus... - 0.3 M. fuliginosus/M. giganteus... 30 31.5 M. rufogriseus... - 0.7 Wallabia bicolor... - 0.5 Total... 30 33 *Quota operated for years 1981 and 1982. Table 2 KANGAROOS KILLED BY STATE/TERRITORY AND SPECIES FOR THE PERIOD 1975-1985 (i) New South Wales (a) Commercial Kill Species Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufus... 399,108 264,863 157,629 M. giganteus/M. fuliginosus... 263,168 134,900 63,754 M. robustus... 2,066 714 632 Total... 123,000* 96,700* 167,200* 220,000* 520,000* 619,023* 488,647* 664,342 400,477 222,015 * No species details provided (b) No. Authorised to be killed on Section 121 permits in the non-commercial zone (Complete species details unavailable, statistics held from 1980) Kangaroos... 73,185 47,217 38,077 27,172 10,140 (ii) Victoria (a) Total Number Authorised to be Killed Species Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufus... 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 25 0 0 M. fuliginosus... 990 1,599 1,965 2,370 1,610 3,220 3,050 6,523 1,764 1,142 M. giganteus... 6,595 5,398 5,201 5,756 11,276 22,005 18,817 22,983 13,868 6,423 M. fuliginosus/M. giganteus... 1,050 1,460 1,365 1,550 1,140 635 1,480 1,379 547 275 M. rufogriseus... 150 160 90 175 280 265 395 473 105 20 M. rufus/M. fuliginosus... . . . . . . 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . Wallabia bicolor... 123 78 70 130 140 410 336 365 256 164 Total... 8,908 8,695 8,691 10,091 14,451 26,535 24,083 31,748 16,540 8,024 (b) Skins Sold/Processed/Carcasses Sold M. giganteus/M. fuliginosus... . . 8 33 M. giganteus... 96 142 220 M. fuliginosus... 67 . . 166 W. bicolor... . . . . 5 Total... (Incomplete) 150 424 218* 825* 399*... 1000** . . . . * No species details available. * Estimate only. (iii) Queensland (a) Commercial Harvest-Open Season Fauna Species Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufus... 95,225 106,971 110,254 152,455 342,622 237,282 220,216 352,117 268,904 226,212 M. giganteus/M. fuliginosus... 363,520 421,808 402,808 378,432 866,395 649,534 398,860 682,583 520,948 543,430 M. robustus... 6,026 31,949 27,201 23,372 34,054 22,005 27,937 67,191 66,149 77,595 M. parryi... 31,642 45,259 34,497 41,793 53,908 29,431 31,981 33,823 21,130 12,707 M. rufogriseus... . . . . . . 1,774 9,714 2,337 241 197 9 M. dorsalis... . . . . . . . . 262 253 . . 238 19 M. rufogriseus/M. dorsalis (combined)... 711 12,719 7,711 . . . . . . . . . . . . 726* M. agilis... . . 646 4,768 1,869 6,935 1,712 100 649 . . Wallabia bicolor... 14 1,203 1,165 687 370 545 49 . . 109 Total... 497,138 620,555 588,404 600,382 1,314,260 943,099 679,384 1,136,798 877,350 860,670 *Combined total (b) Non-Commercial estimate for 1984 only, 1380, no species details (iv) Western Australia (a) Commercial Species Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufus... 110,000 144,000 151,000 131 000 151,000 100,000 136,000 134,827 162,262 136,000 M. fuliginosus... 9,000 15,000 11,000 23,000 40,000 58,000 34,000 38,793 35,775 37,000 M. robustus... 3,000 3,000 4,000 3,500 4,500 4,930 5,000 3,916 4,365 5,500 Total... 122,000 162,000 166,000 157,500 195,500 162,930 175,000 177,536 202,402 178,500 (b) Non-commercial Data not available, non commercial culling regarded as minimal (v) South Australia (a) Commercial 1974- 1975 1975- 1976 July 1977- Dec 1978 1977- 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufus/M. robustus & M. fuliginosus 43,677 34,524 60,698 135,996 93,234 148,329 193,326 229,453 155,785 99,274* *Separate records for 1984: M. rufus 83,469; M. fuliginosus 9,898; M. robustus 5,907 (b) Non-commercial data available from 1980 M. rufus... . . . . . . 1,512 M. fuliginosus... 1,200 1,154 1,214 N/A 7,514 M. giganteus... . . . . . . 162 M. rufus/M. fuliginosus/ M. giganteus 10,000 13,949 32,802 N/A M. eugenii... 10,500 10,480 10,885 N/A 9,635 M. robustus... . . . . . . 332 Total... 21,700 25,583 44,901 N/A 19,155 (N/A = Not Available) (vi) Tasmania (a) Commercial Kill Species Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufogriseus... 77,000 49,000 64,000 71,000 Thylogale billardierii... 31,000 28,000 46,000 47,000 Total... 6,601* 21,426* 45,471* 100,803* 244,918* 220,226* 108,000 77,000 110,000 118,000 (*No species details held) Note: data for years 1975 to 1980 from royalties paid, 1981 to 1984 from licence returns (b) Non-commercial kill; available from 1979 M. rufogriseus... 389,000 353,000 271,000 407,000 369,000 426,000 T. billardierii... 304,000 246,000 263,000 254,000 411,000 380,000 Total... 693,000 599,000 534,000 661,000 780,000 806,000 (vii) Northern Territory There is no commercial killing of kangaroos in the Northern Territory. The Agile wallaby is unprotected over part of its range in the top end of the Northern Territory and no statistics are available on the take. (a) Non-commercial Kill (on permits) Species Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus rufus... . . 2,000 . . . . . . . . 5,726 18 . . . . (viii) Australian Capital Territory/Jervis Bay Territory No Commercial culling. Some kangaroos have been taken non-commercially for habitat management of Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve since 1980; details below. (a) Non-commercial Species Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Macropus giganteus... 782 144 180 286 426 (Question No. 515) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Aviation been drawn to a segment in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program, ``The Investigators'' in which it was reported on 4 September 1985 that three international airlines, British Airways, KLM and Thai International adopted a ``modification'' from the American Boeing Company for its 747 aircraft. (2) Did this so-called ``modification'' consist of reducing the emergency exit doors from 10 to 8 by eliminating the two doors over the wings on each side of the aircraft to accommodate 12 extra seats, thus making the aircraft ``more commercially viable''. (3) Has the Thai International company had second thoughts on this matter and remodified the ``modification'' to go back to the original design in the interests of aircraft and passenger safety. (4) Has any consideration been given by the Qantas company to adopt the obviously safety reducing ``modification'' to its 747 aircraft. (5) Will consideration be given to banning the modified planes in the interests of airline, airport, and passenger safety, particularly in view of the recent spate of international aircraft accidents, notably the one in August 1985 at Ringway, Manchester in which exit emergency doors were of vital importance in the saving of many lives and in view of the fact the KLM and British Airways constantly fly their 747 Boeing aircraft into and out of Australia. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My attention has been drawn to the segment in the ABC program ``The Investigators''. I understand that British Airways and Thai International are at least two airlines which have taken up the option for modifications to Boeing 747 aircraft. (2) The basic Boeing 747 aircraft is fitted with eleven emergency exits to cater for up to 550 passengers. However the US certification requirement for 747s configured for international use, carrying only 440 passengers, permits a minimum of nine emergency exits. Boeing has offered an interior configuration to airlines whereby two overwing exits are de-activated, and extra seats are placed next to these exits. (3) The Department of Aviation has no detailed knowledge of subsequent action which may have been taken by Thai International in regard to the modification. (4) I am advised that Qantas has considered the option but decided to retain the extra emergency exits. (5) The Department of Aviation accepts that those modified Boeing 747 aircraft operated into Australia by airlines of other Contracting States to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) meet the internationally accepted safety requirements. It would not be appropriate in these circumstances to refuse access to Australia by these aircraft. (Question No. 516) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) How many commercial Qantas flights from Australian airports were (a) delayed and (b) cancelled at the time of departure because of last minute maintenance checks that revealed faults during the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to this stage in 1985. (2) How many commercial Qantas flights from Australian airports have been forced to abort, and either return to their point of departure, or land at unscheduled airports because of unscheduled faults detected in flight by aircrew during the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984 and (c) to this stage in 1985. (3) What were the makes and models of the aircraft whose faults were detected prior to take off. (4) What were the makes and models of the aircraft whose faults were detected in-flight. (5) What were the ages of the individual aircraft involved. (6) What was the life expectancy of each individual aircraft involved at the time the faults were detected prior to take off or in the air. (7) What was the nature of the faults, and what potential dangers were posed to the travelling public in each instance. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In providing the answers to the separate parts of the question, the following explanation is given for the format that has been adopted. Qantas Airways Ltd provide each quarter to the Department of Aviation under the provisions of Air Navigation Order 100.8 a statistical summary of engineering related delays, defects and component reliability. These reports not only address aborts, delays and returns at Australian airports but those throughout the entire Qantas network. The delays are not shown on an individual basis but as an item against each aircraft ``system''. This statistical presentation, known as ATA100, was developed by the American Air Transport Association and is used by a great number of airlines throughout the world. The report does not show if a delay was due to a defect found as a result of maintenance checks or because of reports made by the crew from the last flight. Qantas averages in excess of 1,400 departures per month and total delays fluctuate between 40 and 80 per month giving a despatch reliability normally better than 95 per cent. This yields for the period requested about 900 delays. Any defect, meeting the criteria of a `Major Defence', is required to be reported to the Department in the manner specified in Air Navigation Order 100.8. In respect of Question 2, the Qantas report provides information on each of these occurrences. Such occurrences also require that an Incident Report be submitted to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation as specified in Air Navigation Regulation 274. If the occurrence was due to a mechanical problem, a ``Major Defect Report'' must also be submitted. Questions 1 and 2. Extracts from the Qantas reports for 1983, 1984 and 1st and 2nd quarters of 1985 are available if required. The extracts comprise 247 sheets of A4 size paper. The data for the 3rd quarter 1985 has not yet been reduced to report format. Questions 3, 4 and 5 During the period concerned Qantas operated various models of the Boeing B747. The operation of B767 aircraft commenced on 30 July 1985 and these have therefore not been included. B747 models operated are: (a) B747-238B powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7 series engines. (b) B747-238B `Combi' (part freighter) powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7 series engines. (c) B747-238B powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-524 series engines. (d) B747-238B `Combi' powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-524 series engines. (e) B747-SP38 powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-524 series engines. (f) B747-338B `Extended Upper Deck' powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-524 series engines. Listed below are the registrations of the Qantas B747 fleet over the years concerned. They are coded as shown above. Registration Letters Model Code Date Acquired EBA (d) 16.8.71 EBB (a) 29.8.71 EBC (a) 24.10.71 EBD (a) 12.12.71 EBE (a) 14.8.72 EBF (a) 3.8.73 EBG (a) 22.3.74 EBH (a) 29.5.74 EBI (a) 14.10.74 EBJ (a) 3.6.75 EBK (a) 10.11.75 EBL (a) 1.7.76 EBM (a) 18.8.77 EBN (a) 22.12.77 EBO (a) 20.9.78 EBP (c) 19.10.78 EBQ (c) 11.12.79 EBR (c) 2.10.80 EBS (c) 3.11.81 EBT (f) 16.11.84 EBU (f) 27.1.85 EBV (f) 17.4.85 EAA (e) 23.1.81 EAB (e) 31.8.81 ECA (b) 27.10.77 ECB (d) 14.11.79 ECC (d) 18.10.80 Question 6. The Boeing B747 aircraft has no finite life. There are some life limited components in the aircraft and engines. Such components are covered by a System of Maintenance approved by the Department. However, because of increased engineering costs as aircraft become older, there comes a time when an economic operating life is reached. This will vary greatly between countries and operators depending upon financial resources and the degree of Airworthiness Authority control. However, it is expected that many Boeing 747 aircraft will quite safely exceed 100,000 flying hours. Question 7. A statement on the nature of each fault is available as outlined in the general preamble above. It is impossible to assess the potential danger as this is a meaningless term in this context. Aircraft unserviceability states are not uncommon and procedures for both aircrew and maintenance engineers are explicitly detailed in operations and maintenance manuals. The potential for danger is therefore kept to a minimum statistical level consistent with other forms of transportation. (Question No. 524) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Does Qantas intend to follow the example of international competitors and block off two of the emergency exits on their Boeing 747 aircraft by adding 12 seats. (2) Has the Department of Aviation assured that those Boeing 747 modified in this way by Cathay Pacific and British Airways and which are flying into Australia maintain the same level of safety for their passengers as the unmodified aircraft. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am advised that Qantas had considered the option but decided to retain the extra emergency exits. (2) The Department of Aviation accepts that those modified Boeing 747 aircraft operated into Australia by airlines of other Contracting States to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) meet the internationally accepted safety requirements. Unmodified aircraft carrying the same number of passengers as the modified aircraft would have increased safety margins. (Question No. 545) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) How many accidents involving Commonwealth cars occurred during 1984-85. (2) How many drivers had more than one accident. (3) If any drivers had more than one accident, what were the dates of those accidents. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The table set out below answers the above question concerning accidents involving Commonwealth cars within the Special Minister of State's portfolio: Question Australian Federal Police Department of the Special Minister of State 1 282* ** 11 2 7 drivers 1 driver 3 (i) 8/8/84 and 29/9/84 (ii) 14/7/84 and 14/8/84 (iii) 26/2/84 and 31/3/85 (iv) 2/10/84 and 27/6/85 (v) 9/8/84 and 13/6/85 (vi) 22/2/85 and 21/6/85 (vii) 8/3/85 and 22/6/85 27/8/84 and 8/3/85 * It is to be noted that this figure refers to accidents throughout Australia and under the AFP's General Orders and Instructions officers must report all accidents to vehicles-including those where damage is of a very minor nature such as damage to paint work. ** Commonwealth vehicles leased to the AFP are primarily utilised for official police business including patrol, search and rescue and general police operations. (Question No. 546) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) To what extent are confidential records of Government Departments being destroyed by burial at public rubbish dumps. (2) Is it a breach of the Australian Archives Act for confidential records to be buried. (3) When will proper facilities be available in all Commonwealth Offices for the adequate destruction of confidential documents. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Commonwealth Departments are individually responsible for the disposal of their own confidential records. Confidential records of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment are destroyed by burning in accordance with departmental security instructions. (2) While Commonwealth records may be destroyed only if their destruction is authorised under section 24 of the Archives Act 1983, the Act does not specify the means by which records may or may not be destroyed, nor does it give the Australian Archives the authority to so specify. Under section 24 authorised destruction action must be either required by another law or approved by the Australian Archives. Provided the destruction of Commonwealth records has been so authorised agencies may destroy records without further reference to the Australian Archives. However, under existing disposal procedures agencies are required to provide to the Archives information on records destroyed and are requested to provide information on the methods used. In addition, in relation to classified records specifically, agencies are responsible for ensuring that destruction is carried out in accordance with departmental security instructions as required in the Protective Security Manual. The Manual defines ``destruction'' as meaning that the documents are so mutilated that it is impossible to ascertain their contents. That requirement may be met by various methods, the main ones being burning, pulping, pulverising and shredding. (3) The provision of facilities for the destruction of confidential documents does not fall within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. However, the Australian Archives does provide advice, when requested to do so, on the availability of destruction facilities (including its own facilities). (Question No. 566) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: 1. Have some $100m worth of orders for capital equipment been placed, during the last 10 months, with Australian consortiums to supply from overseas sources, equipment that is destined for the expanding area of technology `longwall' mining? 2. Is the manufacture of this equipment, which is basically steel fabrication coupled with electro-hydraulic control systems, well within Australia's industrial capacity, and is it an industry which is currently sadly underutilised? 3. Has the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce considered, or will he consider, some short-term assistance to Australia's struggling manufacturing industry by helping them to break into this lucrative segment of the mining industry? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1. I am in no position to say what orders have been placed overseas for longwall mining equipment, although industry sources estimate the figure at $40 million during 1985. 2. Australian industry has the capacity to manufacture certain components for longwall mining systems. Assembly of longwall mining equipment is also carried out in Australia using imported and locally produced components. However, it is understood that local manufacturers do not have the capacity to produce the coal cutting face of the system, known as the shearer, nor elements of the hydraulics and leg supports. I understand that the major factor inhibiting local manufacture of the complete longwall mining unit relates to the small size of the Australian market coupled with the substantial tooling up costs which would be necessary to undertake production of components now imported. In the long term however as the conversion to the longwall system of mining gathers pace in Australia there could be increased opportunities for Australian manufacturers. 3. Longwall mining systems were covered by the recent inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission into the heavy engineering industry. The Commission's report is now under consideration by the Government. (Question No. 576) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to (1) and (2) above. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) $18,000, (b) $9,850-Australian Trade Union training Authority, $4,000-National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. (2) (a) Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Finance Branch Instruction No. 28 of 21/1/83. (b) Department of Finance Circular 1981/6 and Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14 detail the instructions and limits relating to the use of the hospitality/entertainment account. (3) Finance Circular 1985/18 instructs Departments and Authorities to record and monitor entertainment expenses so that when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. This instruction has been promulgated throughout the Department. (Question No. 582) Senator Withers asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The following amounts have been allocated for hospitality/entertainment in 1985-86. (a) Department: $12,000. (b) Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC): $20,000. Most of this amount will be expended in the Commission's own staff canteen complex, in providing hospitality to visitors to the relatively remote Lucas Heights site. The Pipeline Authority (TPA): No amounts have been internally allocated for proposed expenditure on hospitality/entertainment. Expenditure is charged to miscellaneous expenses. Actual expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $1,500, and a similar amount is expected in 1985-86. Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority (SMHEA): The Authority does not include a line item in its budget covering hospitality/entertainment; rather a general provision is made to cover official visitors to the Scheme and also to cover visits by organisations such as the Snowy Mountains Council, Electricity Commissions, local Governments etc. The main expenditure in this category would be in the context of public relations associated with official visitors to the Scheme. Expenditure in the order of $20,000 is expected in 1985-86. Joint Coal Board: No part of the annual government appropriation to the Board is spent on hospitality/entertainment. It is estimated that approximately $25,000 will be spent in 1985-86 from other funds controlled by the Board. (2) Guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 were: (a) Department: Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2, and associated Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) AAEC: Although not bound by them, Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14 of the Finance Directions. TPA: Expenditure is subject to the approval of the Executive Member. SMHEA: Expenditure is subject to the approval of the Authority. JCB: Major expenditure is subject to the approval of the Board. Minor expenditure is subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Board. (3) On and from 20 September 1985 the Department and each Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility have been recording and monitoring hospitality/entertainment expenses. This will enable appropriate action to be taken when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled. Such action has been taken in the context of the provisions of Finance Circular 1985/18. (Question No. 585) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2 above. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1 (a) The Department has allocated an amount of $7,500 for hospitality/entertainment expenses in 1985/86. 1 (b) The portfolio incorporates two statutory authorities: (i) Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-the Corporation has allocated an amount of $20,500 for hospitality/entertainment expenses in 1985/86. (ii) Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-the corporation's operating budget for 1985/86 estimates expenditure on hospitality/entertainment as follows: Australia...$22,000 Overseas...$33,000 $55,000 2 (a) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 relating to the provision of official hospitality/entertainment are contained in Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. Any expenditure, in relation to the above Directions and Guidelines, on official hospitality/entertainment requires the prior approval of the Secretary. 2 (b) (i) Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-Individual items of expenditure at State Branches are authorised by State Managers or Assistant Managers and at Head Office by the Deputy Managing Director or Manager Head Office, within general expenditure delegations. (ii) Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-Under the terms of various instructions from the Corporation's Director, entertainment expenses may not be incurred without the approval of the Director himself. Guidelines indicate that entertainment is to be used only as an aid to SMEC's business development. (3) Department of Finance issued Circular No. 1985/18 on 20 September 1985 requesting Departments and Authorities to record and monitor all entertainment expenses incurred on and after 20 September 1985 so that when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. (Question No. 591) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2 above. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The allocations in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment for the department and organisations for which the Minister is responsible are: (a) the Department-$4,000 (b) the Australian Sports Commission-$8,500 (c) the Australian Institute of Sport-$38,000 (d) the Australian Tourist Commission-$56,328 (2) (a) The Department and the Australian Sports Commission operate hospitality/entertainment accounts in accordance with Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) Although the Australian Tourist Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport are not subject to the Finance Directions they follow the guidelines of those directions in relation to expenditure on hospitality. (3) All organisations and the department record all hospitality/entertainment expenses so that when the rules governing the liability for tax on non-fringe benefits are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. (Question No. 592) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to (1) and (2). Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) My Department has allocated in 1985-86 $16,000 for expenditure relating to Hospitality/Entertainment. This includes an amount of $6,000 for working lunches in relation to committee meetings. (b) The allocations for Hospitality/Entertainment in 1985-86 of the Statutory Authorities under the Minister's control are as follows: (i) Health Insurance Commission-$84,000 (in relation to its Medicare activities). (ii) ACT Health Authority-$3,000. (see footnote). (iii) The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories undertake a range of commercial activities including marketing and promotion of pharmaceutical products. Information concerning expenditure on marketing activity, which includes hospitality and entertainment, is commercially sensitive and would place the Commission in an unfair trading position, should it be compelled to provide information on its operations not required of its competitors. (2) (a) My Department follows the procedures for official Hospitality as set down in Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) (i) The Health Insurance Commission's policy on official Hospitality is as follows: The expenditure should generally relate to dealings with persons and organisations outside the Commission, with whom it has or expects to have substantial dealings, and should not, except in circumstances such as those following, be authorised when only Commission staff are involved. When a conference of State and Central Office staff is held, it may be appropriate to arrange one dinner or similar function depending on the frequency and nature of the meetings. Generally a restriction of once per year would apply where conferences are held at intervals throughout the year. When only Commission staff are involved, expenditure may be authorised as a means of thanking staff in special circumstances or on special occasions or on occasions when there are visiting officers. Subsidies for social club functions are subject to the specific approval of the General Manager and are charged to the Executive cost centre in Central Office. (ii) The ACT Health Authority follows the guidelines regarding Hospitality/Entertainment contained in the Authority's official Finance Manual which closely follows the Department of Finance Directions and Guidelines. (3) My Department and its Authorities are following the instructions outlined in Finance Circular 85/18 which state that when meeting accounts for entertainment expenses incurred on and from 20 September 1985, those expenses should be carefully recorded and monitored so that, when the rules governing the liability for the tax on non-cash fringe benefits are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to Revenue can occur. Note: From 12 December, 1985 the Minister for Territories assumed responsibility for the ACT Health Authority. (Question No. 587) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The sums allocated in 1985/86 for hospitality/entertainment are: (a) $8,000 the Department (b) (i) $1,500 Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications (ii) $500 Immigration Review Panel (iii) Nil National Population Council (iv) $2,000 Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (2) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account are as follows: (a) The Departmental guidelines for hospitality/entertainment expenditure are in accordance with Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2, and Finance Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) (i) (ii) and (iii) all adhere to same guidelines as the Department. i.e. Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2 and Finance Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (iv) The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Policies and Procedures Manual requires that hospitality/entertainment expenditure be only incurred or reimbursed in cases where that expenditure advances the operation, objects or functions of the Institute. (3) Following the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 the action undertaken by the Department and each and every Statutory Authority for which I have responsibility has been in accordance with Finance Circular 1985/18. Details of all hospitality/entertainment expenditure are held so that when rules governing the liability for tax are settled any necessary transfer of funds can occur. (Question No. 589) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality-entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) and the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL). I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission (ISC), an authority established by the Constitution. The information provided covers these bodies as well as the Department of Transport. Department of Transport (1) $6,000. (2) The guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure on hospitality-entertainment by the Department are those issued by the Department of Finance, contained in Finance Guidelines 13-1 to 13-14 and Finance Directions 13-1 and 13-2 of the Finance Manual. (3) Department of Finance has advised that hospitality guidelines will be reviewed and amended as necessary to accord with enactments in relation to the proposed tax. Expenditure since 19 September is being separately recorded to readily identify Department's tax liability in order that necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur when legislation is enacted. Australian National Railways Commission and Australian Shipping Commission (1) and (2) Both AN and ANL are required by legislation to operate as commercial undertakings. I am therefore not prepared to provide information which may prejudice their commercial operations. (3) As statutory business undertakings AN and ANL will be liable for hospitality-entertainment tax on the same basis as private commercial enterprises. AN and ANL consider that their existing procedures are adequate to enable them to conform to the new taxation provisions announced by the Treasurer but the procedures will be reviewed when relevant legislation is in place. Inter-State Commission (1) $1,000. (2) and (3) Same as for Department (see above). (Question No. 590) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality-entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The sum allocated in the current financial year for this expenditure by the Department of Aviation is $13,000. (b) In relation to Statutory Authorities the Independent Air Fares Committee allocated $1000. In respect of the Australian National Airlines Commission trading as TAA, details have not been provided since TAA considers the information to be commercially sensitive. (2) (a) The Department administers the allocation for hospitality-entertainment in accordance with Section 13 of the Finance Directions and the concomitant guidelines. (b) The Independent Air Fares Committee administers hospitality-entertainment in accordance with Section 13 of the Finance Directions in force as at 1 September 1985. (3) In respect of the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' the Department is in receipt of Finance Circular 1985-18 which advised that all employers including the Commonwealth shall pay tax on non-cash fringe benefits at the prevailing company tax rate-initially 46 per cent. The Department is awaiting further instruction from the Department of Finance in respect of the settlement of the rules governing the liability for such tax. (Question No. 599) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality-entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality-entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer ``Reform of the Australian Taxation System'' on 19 September 1985 what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The sum allocated in the 1985-86 financial year for hospitality-entertainment for the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is $13,200. (b) The Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation has allocated $12,000 for hospitality-entertainment in the 1985-86 financial year. (2) (a) The Department is subject to Finance Directions 13-1 and 13-2 and guidelines 13-1 to 13-14 in respect of expenditure from the hospitality-entertainment account. (b) The Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation is not subject to Finance Directions in respect of expenditure on hospitality-entertainment but has, however, established guidelines based on, and not dissimilar to, Finance Directions 13-1 and 13-2 and guidelines 13-1 to 13-14. (3) The Department is adhering to guidelines issued in Department of Finance Circular 1985-18 which requested departments and authorities to record and monitor entertainment expenses so that, when the rules governing the liability for the new tax provisions are settled, the necessary transfer of funds to revenue can occur. (Question No. 600) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) Which Ministers are allowed access to the quarterly figures compiled by the Joint Economic Forecasting Group (see answer to Question on Notice No. 263, Hansard, 17 September 1985, p. 632). (2) On what basis is such access allowed and to what extent. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Joint Economic Forecasting Group (JEFG) comprises officers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Department of Finance, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury and the Treasurer's Office. The reports of the JEFG are presented to the Ministers whose Departments are represented on the Group, namely the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance. Periodic assessments of economic developments, which draw on the JEFG reports, are circulated to Cabinet by the Treasurer. (Question No. 602) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: Will the National Identification System combat illegal immigration; if so: (a) how will this happen; (b) how many persons are expected to be deported and over what period; (c) what extra resources will be needed for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to achieve such results; and (d) what resources are currently utilised by the Department in pursuing illegal immigrants. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (a) When fully implemented and with employer co-operation, the National Identification System has the potential to serve as a major disincentive for foreign nationals to overstay, because as illegal immigrants will not be eligible to register and receive an Australia Card. My Department will make available to the Health Insurance Commission its list of suspected illegal immigrants to assist in ensuring that they are not issued with a card. (b) and (c) It is too early to predict what increase in deportations will result. It may well be that many of those illegally in Australia will choose to abide by their visa undertakings and depart of their own volition. (d) Australia-wide, 91 officers are directly involved in immigration enforcement activities. (Question No. 612) Senator Colston asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: Will measures be taken to ensure that future contracts contain a clause specifying that Government supplies are to be Australian made (see answer to Question on Notice No. 121, Hansard, 11 October 1985, p. 1107). Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has a policy of giving preference to Australian made goods and related services in Commonwealth purchasing. All contracts let by the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) contain a clause requiring tenders to state the Australian content of goods. As mentioned in the answer to Question No. 121, the pencils used on polling day for the 1984 Federal elections were only part of a large number of stationery items contained in Polling Booth Packs, the contract for which was let by AGPS to an Australian company. (Question No. 629) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) What was the change in total employment levels in South Australia between: (a) September 1979 and September 1982; and (b) September 1982 and September 1985. (2) What was the change in total unemployment levels in South Australia between: (a) September 1979 and September 1982; and (b) September 1982 and September 1985. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) There were 900 or 0.2% fewer persons employed in South Australia in September 1982 than in September 1979 (b) There were 25 800 or 4.7% more persons employed in South Australia in September 1985 than in September 1982 (2) (a) There were 5 900 or 12.8% more persons unemployed in South Australia in September 1982 than in September 1979 (b) There were 4 500 or 8.7% more persons unemployed in South Australia in September 1985 than in September 1982. (Question No. 631) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) What are the classes of duties performed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) What are the numbers of officers involved in each class of work for each of the last 3 years. (3) What is the total amount of overtime paid to AFP officers (or in 1985-86 budgeted) for each of the last 3 years. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Administrative re-organisations during the 3-year period in question has led to some functions being transferred into or out of the A.C.T. Region Command and this is reflected in the chart below. Duties*... 1983 1984 1985 * Administration ... 12 16 18 General Duties+... 429 279 267 Detectives... 77 90 83 Traffic (includes Rescue Unit)... 93 101 96 Diplomatic... 147 124 Water Police... 7 Special Intelligence... 6 5 Scientific... 14 Legal... 44 47 45 Support (Communications, Police & Citizens Youth Clubs)... 80 81 66 Command Co-ordination Branch (Inspectorate & Public Relations)... 20 * Includes police function for Jervis Bay. + 1983 figure of 429 for General Duties includes Diplomatic & Security. * The 1983 and 1984 staffing figures are the ceiling figures as at 30 June. The 1985 figures are the average staffing level approved for the A.C.T. Region for 1985-86. These figures will, at times, be reduced or exceeded to maintain that average level. (3) Financial year...Amount $ 1983-84...2,422,924.03 1984-85...2,452,211.81 1985-86...2,492,000.00 (Budgeted) (Question No. 636) Senator Parer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Has the Department of Housing and Construction under the Sub-Contractors Charges Act 1974-76 (Queensland), been ordered to pay compensation to Evans Deakin Industries, a major sub-contractor working on Brisbane Airport, after the liquidation of the contracting company, E. & J. M. Maltry Pty Ltd in 1984, which owed $1,651,359 to 285 sub-contractors and other unsecured contractors following a decision of the Queensland Supreme Court on 20 September 1985. (2) What are the reasons for the lack of co-operation between the Department and sub-contractors in the early stages which may have avoided the liquidation on Maltry. (3) What are the reasons for the Department's refusal, prior to liquidation, to discuss with Evans Deakin the matter of non-payment of progress claims. (4) Why did the Department terminate the contract with Maltry prior to a meeting arranged by the liquidator to consider a specific proposal for the continuation of the contract. (5) Does the Department intend paying the sub-contractors in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment. (6) If the Department intends appealing to the High Court, what are the reasons for doing so. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The Department co-operated to the extent practicable to avoid E. & J. M. Maltry Pty Ltd's liquidation but the major part of the company's reported debts do not relate to the Brisbane Airport or to other Commonwealth projects. For its part the Department made progress payments in accordance with the provisions of the contract and was prepared to make suitably secured advance payments for materials under a facility included in the contract. This facility was not taken up by the contractor. (3) Discussion of payment of progress claims with Evans Deakin Industries Limited was not refused. (6) The contract was cancelled on 27 July 1984 following advice from the Liquidator that E. and J. M. Maltry Pty Ltd (in liquidation) was unable to complete the work. (5) The Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland addressed the question of whether the Sub-Contractors Charges Act (Queensland) bound the Commonwealth. The Court found the Commonwealth would be bound following action against it to enforce a charge claimed under the Act. The extent, if any, of liability for payment to sub-contractors as a consequence of the Judgment is yet to be determined. (6) The High Court of Australia has granted the Commonwealth leave to appeal the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Leave to appeal was sought following consideration by the Solicitor-General of issues flowing from the Judgment. (Question No. 638) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: If the Tasmanian Government decides to award the Southern Forests concession to a company that intends to export woodchips from that concession, will such a development be preceded by a separate Commonwealth Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the Tasmanian woodchip EIS currently being considered by the Commonwealth; if so, will the EIS be compiled by a party other than the Tasmanian Forestry Commission or a woodchip company, given the problems that have been associated with the current EIS. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In my advice and recommendations of 28 October 1985 to the Minister for Primary Industry, following assessment of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) on Tasmanian woodchip exports beyond 1988, I made the following recommendations which are relevant to the honourable senator's question. ``It is recommended that the volume of exports approved be reviewed in the light of any major changes to the sustainable yield or circumstances envisaged in the EIS, and that the volumes be based on a comprehensive assessment of available wood sources and utilisation practices, with a view to ensuring that at all times the approved cut is consistent with the best available assessment of sustainable yield. It is recommended that, should there be any new proposal, arising out of the Tasmanian Government's pending decision on the utilisation of pulpwood from the Southern Forests, which would require a significant variation to these parameters in such a way as to increase the environmental impacts described in the EIS, a further formal examination of the environmental effects of the total proposal be required.'' Should the requirement for an EIS arise as a result of these recommendations, it would be prepared by the proponent of the proposed action as is provided for in the Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. (Question No. 640) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs been informed of the recent assassination of Mr Haruo Remeliik, the President of Palau, a tiny group of islands located approximately 2500 km north of Darwin, and under the trusteeship of the United States (US). (2) Is the Minister aware that: (a) the nation of Palau is the subject of enormous pressure from the US to allow the establishment there of US naval bases, which would be of great value to the US in its nuclear strategic program; (b) repeated plebiscites of the Palauan people have failed to ratify the ``compact of free association'' with the US which would allow the building of these bases; and (c) Mr Remeliik was steadfast in resisting pressures from the US. (3) Will the Minister advance the case with an independent body, such as the United Nations, for an independent inquiry into the assassination of Mr Remeliik in the light of all these matters. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. President Remeliik was killed on 30 June last year. Four persons charged with his murder were subsequently released and charges dropped ``with pre- judice'' (that is to say, the suspects could be recharged at any time). Three of the four suspects were recharged in December 1985. Mr Lazarus Salii, Palau's former Ambassador for Status Negotiations with the United States of America, has since been elected President of Palau. (2) (a) It is incorrect to say Palau is the subject of enormous pressure from the United States of America to allow the establishment there of United States naval bases. There are no United States defence facilities on Palau at present and, while under the terms of a proposed Compact the United States would have the right to utilise land there for defence purposes, there is no present intention by United States authorities to exercise that right. The United States does of course have strategic facilities on Guam and in the Mariana Islands. (2) (b) A Compact of Free Association, which was intended to govern relations between Palau and the United States for a period of fifty years, was signed in August 1982 and was approved by the people of Palau, in a United Nations-observed plebiscite, by vote of 62 percent in February 1983. Under the Compact the United States was to continue to be responsible for defence matters after Palau ceased to be a trust territory. An internal referendum was conducted in conjunction with the plebiscite. This was on a proposition aimed at reconciling provisions of the Compact relating to the United States defence responsibilities (which would require the possible transit of nuclear materials) with those in the Palau constitution proscribing the use, testing, storage or disposal of nuclear, chemical, gas or biological weapons. This proposition did not receive the 75 percent approval prescribed under the constitution. As a result that Compact was not completed. A revised Compact, with a similar provision about defence responsibilities but devoid of any specific reference to nuclear material, was signed in May 1984, and approved in September 1984 by 67 percent of Palau's voters. As this vote was below the mark of 75 percent required to make the Compact override the Constitution-should there ever be a conflict over their respective provisions-further negotiations are taking place between the principals. (2) (c) The terms of each of the Compacts of Free Association agreed to date were negotiated by the Government of President Remeliik. (3) No. The question of inquiries into the death of President Remeliik is solely a matter for the Palauan authorities. (Question No. 643) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations detail the number of Australian carpenters who are currently unemployed in light of the Government's decision to include carpenters on the 1985-86 Schedule of Occupational Shares for Skilled Migrants. (2) How many carpenters have left their trade due to limited employment opportunities. (3) Will skilled carpenter migrants be eligible immediately for unemployment benefits in the event that there are no employment opportunities for them in their trade. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Data are not available on the total number of Australian carpenters who are currently unemployed. Given the strong growth in building and construction activity over the past two years, however, the number is likely to be relatively small. At February 1985 the unemployment rate among persons qualified in any of the building trades was 5.6 percent compared with 9.3 percent of the labour force in total. The Government's decision to include carpenters on the 1985-86 Schedule of Occupational Shares for Skilled Migration was based on an anticipated shortfall in the domestic supply of qualified and experienced carpenters. This assessment took account of the continuing high level of building and construction activity, the low level of apprenticeship completions expected in 1986-87, and the historically high reliance on migration in this occupation. The intake of carpenters under Occupational Share System arrangements will be limited to 300 nationally in 1985-86, and eligibility will be confined to qualified carpenters with at least 3 years of post-trade work experience. (2) The number of carpenters who have left their trade recently due to limited employment opportunities is not known but is likely to be very low as occupational demand for this trade has been relatively strong. Amongst other indications, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations' Monthly Analysis of Newspaper Vacancies indicates that the level of advertised vacancies for carpenters over the 12 months ending October 1985 was more than 50% higher than for the 12 months ending October 1984. (3) A person accepted by the Government as a migrant, and thereby legally able to reside permanently in Australia, who is unemployed, is willing and able to undertake suitable work and is taking reasonable steps to obtain work is immediately qualified to claim unemployment benefit upon arrival in Australia. (Question No. 645) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Is the Government concerned at the mining activities at present being undertaken close to the maternity cave of the little bent wing bats, call ``Bat Cleft'', in view of the fact that the caves of Mt Etna are listed on the register of the National Estate. (2) Can action be taken, as the Government is a major user of marble, cement and cement products, to ensure that contracting companies' sources of supply of these materials are environmentally acceptable and that mining operations undertaken to extract such supplies do not detract from the heritage value of the site. (3) Will the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment also ensure that any parent company that accepts and uses cement products from a subsidiary company extracting such products from environmentally unacceptable sites is not given Commonwealth Government contracts. (4) Will the Government obtain the co-operation of the State Governments so that Commonwealth funds allocated for road and other products are not used to purchase cement products from any source not accepted environmentally. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware of the mining activities at Mt Etna and that the Mt Etna caves have been listed on the Register of the National Estate. Listing on the Register, however, has a direct protective role only in relation to action proposed by the Commonwealth which might adversely affect the National Estate. There are no legal constraints on owners of private property, or on State or local governments, caused by the entry of that property in the Register of the National Estate. The Australian Heritage Commission has no power to direct private owners or State or local governments with respect to their actions that might affect a place in the Register, nor does registration mean that the Commission may acquire property. The entry of a place in the Register does not have the effect of granting public access to it. The general purpose of the Register is to alert and educate all Australians to the existence of places of national estate significance and to provide an essential reference and a working tool for balancing conservation and development decisions. (2) Limestone mining at Mt Etna is for domestic production of cement and other lime products. There is no scope for the Commonwealth to apply the assessment procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act to the Mt Etna Operation. (3) and (4) The Government is not in a position to make judgements about the environmental acceptability of the Mt Etna mining operations. (Question No. 647) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 November 1985: (1) What were the costs involved with the Commonwealth Office Building situated at 8 Bridge Street, Murray Bridge, South Australia in relation to: (a) purchasing the site; (b) constructing the building and the date of completion; and (c) equipping the building for the 4 original tenants. (2) What is the reason for the recent major alterations undertaken to the building, and the: (a) cost of the work involved; (b) names of the successful tenderers; (c) cost involved in relocating the tenants; and (d) cost of re-equipping their respective offices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The purchase price of the site for the building was $175,000. (b) and (c) Construction was completed on the building on 24 May 1982. The original contract did not differentiate between the costs of constructing and fitting out the building for the original tenants. The total cost of both constructing and outfitting the building was however $520,230. (2) The major alterations recently undertaken to the building were in response to large scale growth of the Department of Social Security's functions and medium scale growth of the Commonwealth Employment Ser- vice's operations which necessitated the provision of additional office accommodation. (a) The total cost of the alteration work including re-carpeting was $147,361. (b) The successful tenderer for the alteration work was Cunic Neslo Partition Systems, and for the provision of carpets was Kimberly Carpet Specialists Pty Ltd. (c) Of the displaced tenants there was no cost involved in relocating Senator McLaren as he had retired and had no further accommodation requirement. The cost of relocating the other tenant-the Australian Electoral Commission-is $14,292.65 per annum rental for their new accommodation. (d) The cost of re-equipping the Australian Electoral Commission's new accommodation was $13,417. (Question No. 648) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: How much money has already been spent on publicity for the Australia Card and any system subsequently originating from this proposal. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Money spent on publicity by the Health Insurance Commission for the Australia Card to 31 October 1985 was $17,948, comprising production, printing and associated costs for Australia Card booklets distributed in July 1985 to Tax Summit participants, Members of Parliament and the national media. (Question No. 649) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Have the data for the 1985 national survey of Australian school children's diets been fully collected yet; if so, has the processing and analysis begun; if not, by when is the analysis likely to be completed. (2) Will the data be made available for analysis by groups or organisations other than the Department of Health. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The data collection for the 1985 National Dietary Survey of Australian school children has now been completed. Work has commenced on the coding of the dietary data, with further processing and analysis to follow. At present, it is anticipated the results will be available early in 1987. (2) It is proposed that the data will be available for further analysis by individuals or groups, outside the Department of Health. (Question No. 650) Senator Haines asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) When does the Minister for Health expect that the results of the 1983 national dietary survey of Australians aged 25-64 years will be announced and will the full survey results be made public. (2) What were the reasons for the delay in processing, analysing and publishing these results. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The results of the food consumption data from the 1983 National Dietary Survey of Australians are expected to be released in a Departmental report in March 1986. A report on the nutrient intakes should be published in July or August 1986. These reports will be publicly available and will provide as comprehensive a description of the type of foods eaten and the nutrients available as is practicable and scientifically valid. In addition, individual researchers may be given access to raw results after consideration of their research proposals. (2) The time-frame for processing, analysing and publishing these results has been determined by the resources available to undertake this work. In view of the limitation of these, and the very large amount of data to be handled, I consider the reporting of the survey results is being expedited as efficiently and quickly as possible. (Question No. 652) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) What concerts have been held in Llewellyn Hall at the Canberra School of Music in 1985 and what has been the attendance at each concert. (2) What concerts have been held in other venues within the School of Music in 1985 and what has been the attendance at each concert. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) A schedule of School of Music concerts for 1985 as at 11 November 1985 is attached. SCHOOL OF MUSIC CONCERTS-1985 Venue Date Event/Performers Attendance 1. Llewellyn Hall... 18.1 Summer School 350 19.1 Summer School 350 20.1 Summer School 350 21.1 Summer School 350 22.1 Summer School 350 23.1 Summer School and ABC Special 350 24.1 Summer School 350 25.1 Summer School 350 3,150 12.2 Recital by John Winther 350 14.2 Student Recital 25 26.2 Noel Paul Stookey 300 675 1.3 School of Nursing Graduation 450 2.3 Musica Viva Special 900 5.3 Melbourne Philharmonic 500 13.3 Musica Viva 1,442 18.3 CYO Songs We Used to Sing 900 19.3 Freedom From Hunger 400 20.3 Brass Ensemble 85 24.3 Farewell to Director 900 25.3 S.O.M. Graduation 100 27.3 A.B.C. 900 28.3 A.B.C. Schools (2) 2,000 30.3 Choral Society 950 31.3 Jazz Series 1 120 9,647 4.4 Student Recital 40 9.4 Graduation Recital 64 11.4 Trumpet Recital 50 13.4 Electronic Music Now 80 17.4 C.S.O. 1,200 18.4 C.S.O. 1,200 20.4 C.Y.O. Prima 85 500 23.4 Musica Viva 1,400 24.4 Student Concertos I 110 24.4 C.Y.O. Schools (2) 2,800 25.4 Ivan Rebroff 600 27.4 Woden Valley Youth Choir 1,100 29.4 Baroque Chamber Music 130 30.4 A.N.U. Conferring of Degrees 1,300 10,574 1.5 A.N.U. Conferring of Degrees 2,400 2.5 A.B.C. 900 6.5 Twentieth Century Series 100 12.5 Horizons 32 17.5 Musica Viva 1,442 18.5 Eisteddfod Grand Variety 800 20.5 A.B.C. 1,200 21.5 A.B.C 1,300 24.5 Jazz Series II 300 29.5 C.S.O. 1,250 30.5 C.S.O. 1,250 10,974 3.6 Graduation Recital 50 4.6 Graduation Recital 36 5.6 Graduation Recital 40 7.6 Russian Piano Music 250 12.6 Graduation Recital 29 12.6 Student Recital 25 13.6 Student Concertos II 90 15.6 Musica Viva 1,400 16.6 C.Y.O. Winter Concert 750 19.6 Handel Anthems and Concertos 900 20.6 Inti Illimani 450 21.6 Anthology of Australian Piano 20 22.6 J.M.O. and Rep (2 sessions) 650 23.6 C.Y.O. Farewell Concert 1,300 24.6 Michael Winslow (2 sessions) 2,884 8,874 2.7 Eugene Gleiman Choir 600 5.7 Big Band Sound Schools 1,350 5.7 Big Band Sound Concert 1,200 6.7 Big Band Sound Concert 1,250 11.7 A.B.C. 1,200 18.7 Musica Viva 1,442 20.7 Shell Aria Final 450 21.7 St John's Parish Concert 800 24.7 Graduation Recital 60 25.7 Jazz Series III 300 26.7 Graduation Recital 40 27.7 R.M.C. Army Review 700 29.7 Musica Viva Special 800 31.7 Graduation Recital 28 10,220 2/8 Sydney International Piano Competition Winner 600 3/8 Virtuoso Series VI 200 4/8 Basically Bach (3 sessions) 300 6/8 B Minor Mass 800 8/8 Musica Viva 1 000 9/8 C.Y.O., W.V.Y.C. & A.Y.S. 700 10/8 A.B.C. 600 11/8 Basically Bach (3 sessions) 330 14/8 Kiva 46 17/8 C.S.O. Fantasia 1 390 19/8 C.Y.O. Schools (2) 2 020 20/8 A.B.C. I Musici 1 200 21/8 A.B.C. Musici 800 24/8 Mozart by the Minute 350 25/8 Musica Viva Special 500 10 836 4/9 Musica Viva 1 400 6/9 A.N.U. Conferring of Degrees 890 8/9 Dame Kiri Te Kanawa 1 200 9/9 Australian Chamber Orchestra 750 16/9 Graduation Recital J. Pero 28 25/9 C.S.O. 1 350 26/9 C.S.O. 1 200 27/9 Musica Viva Special 450 28/9 Musica Viva 1 400 8 668 1/10 U.S.S.R. Friendship Society 350 2/10 Rick Wakeman 800 3/10 Brass Ensembles 125 5/10 C.Y.O. Bands 550 6/10 Australian Chamber Orchestra 1 200 10/10 A.B.C. 900 12/10 C.Y.O. Berlioz Requiem 900 15/10 Musica Viva Special 300 16/10 Jazz Series C.S.M. Bands 200 22/10 C.Y.O. Schools Concert 850 23/10 Roman Rudnytsky Piano Recital 28 24/10 Student Concertos IV 200 26/10 C.Y.O. Spring Prom Concert 1 100 29/10 Capella Corelli 130 30/10 Staff Recital VI 70 7 073 1/11 Musica Viva 1 200 6/11 C.S.O. 1 300 7/11 C.S.O. 1 400 9/11 Canberra Children's Choir 750 16/11 End of Year Concert 23/11 C.Y.O. In Concert 25/11 Examination Recitals (3) 26/11 Examination Recitals (4) 27/11 Examination Recitals (5) 28/11 Examination Recitals (4) 29/11 Examination Recitals (3) 30/11 Christmas Carol Presentation 1/12 Australian Chamber Orchestra 2/12 Examination Recitals (3) 3/12 Examination Recitals (5) 4/12 Examination Recital 4/12 Mexican Earthquake Fundraising 5/12 Examination Recitals (3) 5/12 Graduation Recital 9/12 RMC Presentation of Prizes 10/12 RMC Graduation Ceremony 14/12 Canberra Choral Society 2. Other School Venues (a) Recital Room... 11.2 Student Recital 25 15/2 Student Recital 25 18/2 Student Recital 35 18/2 Bosman South African Embassy 180 19/2 Student Recital 25 21/2 Student Recital 29 22/2 Lieder Society 80 399 4/3 Beethoven Sonatas 120 7/3 Status Recital 25 8/3 Virtuoso II 115 15/3 Lieder Society 80 23/3 Mittagong Trio-Brahms 85 425 1/4 Beethoven Sonatas 203 2/4 Status Recital 20 4/4 Student Recital 40 12/4 Lieder Recital Series III 89 19/4 Twentieth Century Series 20 22/4 Electronic Music 35 22/4 Electronic Music Students 35 28/4 Virtuoso Series IV 60 29/4 Beethoven Sonatas III 200 30/4 Student Recital 15 717 2/5 Student Lunch Hour 25 3/5 Nelson Cooke Cello Recital 50 4/5 Double Bass Concert 200 8/5 Harpsichord Series I 80 9/5 Guitar Recital 35 10/5 Lieder Society 40 15/5 String Trio Recital 110 26/5 Singers in Concert 35 27/5 Beethoven Sonatas IV 200 775 7/6 Mid-day Music 20 8/6 Arts Council 40 9/6 Guitar Series I Sydney Guitar Quartet 200 14/6 Mid-day Music 35 17/6 Beethoven Sonatas V 175 24/6 Beethoven Extra Sonatas 175 645 1/7 Virtuoso Series V 50 22/7 Beethoven Series 180 26/7 Lieder Society 80 28/7 Canberra String Trio 200 510 9/8 Student Lunch Hour 28 12/8 Twentieth Century Series V 60 16/8 Mid-day Music 35 19/8 Staff Recital I 100 22/8 Keyboard Students of Max Cooke 95 23/8 Lieder Society 75 26/8 Capella Corelli 100 493 6/9 Staff Recital II 70 13/9 Student Lunch Hour 18 13/9 Instrumental Series III 125 14/9 Guitar Recital 110 15/9 S.O.M. Lieder Opera 65 16/9 Handel's Birthday Concert 45 20/9 Staff Recital IV 45 22/9 Piano Recital-M. Legge-Wilkinson 50 29/9 Guitar Series 85 30/9 Student Final Concerto 120 733 4/10 Beethoven Series 120 11/10 Student Lunch Hour 28 14/10 Berg Series 60 15/10 Guitar & Voice Recital 32 18/10 Lieder Society 60 20/10 Beethoven Sonatas 240 21/10 Scarlatti's Birthday Concert 50 25/10 Twentieth Century Series 25 27/10 S.O.M. Lieder Opera 50 28/10 Virtuoso Series 60 30/10 Electronic Music Concert 15 740 1/11 Guitar & Cello Recital 40 2/11 Beethoven Trios & Violin Sonatas 97 3/11 Beethoven Trios & Violin Sonatas 110 4/11 Beethoven Sonatas 105 8/11 Student Lunch Hour 35 8/11 Lieder Society 30 10/11 Twentieth Century Series 60 11/11 Beethoven Sonatas 190 14/11 Chamber Music Concert 15/11 Student Lunch Hour 17/11 Guitar Series 23/11 S.S. Keyboard Recital 24/11 Abe in Assoc. with Polish Embassy 25/11 Examination Recitals (7) 26/11 Examination Recitals (4) 27/11 Examination Recitals (6) 28/11 Examination Recitals (7) 29/11 Examination Recitals (2) 2/12 Examination Recitals (5) 3/12 Examination Recitals (6) 4/12 Examination Recitals (7) 5/12 Examination Recitals (5) 7/12 Harpsichord & Violin Recital 10/12 Jazz Student Concert 13/12 Guitar Duo 15/12 Beethoven Sonatas (b) Lecture Theatres... 14/3 Lecture Series 40 15/3 Lecture Series 14 30/3 S.S. Piano Students 40 94 9/4 Lecture Series I 20 12/4 Lecture Series II 25 19/4 S.S. Flute & Clarinet 40 26/4 Paul Morton Students 33 118 3/5 S.S. Violin Concert 50 25/5 Electronic Music Concert 25 27/5 Cello Concert Nelson Cooke 25 31/5 Cello Concert 25 125 6/6 Guitar Concert 25 13/6 Guitar Concert 30 14/6 Violin & Piano Concert 40 15/6 Piano Concert 30 21/6 S.S. Piano 40 165 30/7 Lecture Series IV 60 31/7 Lecture Series V 30 90 2/8 Piano Students 35 7/8 Lecture Series 25 13/8 Lecture Series VII 20 80 14/9 Electronic Music Concert 15 27/9 S.S. Flute & Clarinet Concert 33 48 4/10 Double Bass Student Concert 55 18/10 Violin Recital 82 19/10 S.S. String Student Concert 82 219 1/11 Violin Recital 25 5/11 Student Cello Recital 65 7/11 Guitar Concert Practice 18 8/11 Brass Student Concert 37 13/11 S.S. Clarinet Concert 14/11 Guitar Concert Practice 23/11 E.S. Keyboard Recital 29/11 End of Year Flute Concert 30/11 S.S. Keyboard Student Concert 6/12 S.S. Keyboard Concert 13.12 Students of Wilfred Jones Outside Venues (a) University House... 19/3 Student Concerts 20 2/4 Music at Lunchtime 40 16/4 Student Concert 70 30/4 Music at Lunchtime 60 28/5 Music at Lunchtime 80 18/6 Music at Lunchtime 80 2/7 Japanese flautist 80 30/7 Music at Lunchtime 80 20/8 Music at Lunchtime 75 17/9 Music at Lunchtime 60 1/10 Music at Lunchtime 80 15/10 Music at Lunchtime 100 825 (b) Botanic Gardens... 11/3 Student Concert 250 250 (c) Petrie Plaza... 11/3 Daily Lunchtime Jazz Concert 300-500 14/3 Daily Lunchtime Jazz Concert 300-500 15/3 Daily Lunchtime Jazz Concert 300-500 900-1500 (b) St Johns Church Reid... 26/3 Student Concert 25 21/4 Bach Violin Series I 80 23/4 Lunchtime Concert 25 28/4 Bach Violin Series II 80 21/5 Lunchtime Concert 25 19/8 Special X 80 12/9 Harpsichord Series II 30 2/10 Bach Organ Series IV 65 410 (e) St Andrews Church Forest... 2/4 Instrumental Series II 120 4/4 Instrumental Series II 120 240 (f) Wesley Uniting Church... 21/4 Bach Organ Series I 120 22/4 Bach Organ Series II 50 170 (g) National Film & Sound Archives... 11/4 Mid-day Music 20 20 (h) National Library... 21/4 Australian Composers I 100 2/6 Australian Composers II 150 11/8 Australian Composers III 80 1/9 Australian Composers IV 100 430 (i) High Court... 26/5 Student Brass Ensemble 150 5/6 University of Adelaide Cello Ensemble 100 250 (j) School of Art... 25/9 Lunchtime Concert 10 23/10 Lunchtime Concert Jazz Ensemble 45 55 (k) Arts Council Gallery... 22/9 Lieder Recital 8 25 25 (Question No. 653) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Does the application to file petition for naturalisation from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service of the United States Department of Justice contain at page 2 under question 18 the following: ``During the period March 23 1933 to May 8 1945, did you serve in, or were you in any affiliated with, either directly or indirectly, any military unit, paramilitary unit, police unit, self defense unit, vigilante unit, citizen unit, unit of the Nazi Party or SS, government agency or office, extermination camp, concentration camp, prisoner of war camp, prison, labor camp, detention camp or transit camp, under the control of or affiliated with: (a) The Nazi Government of Germany (b) Any government in an area occupied by, allied with, or established with the assistance or co-operation of the Nazi Government of Germany.'' (2) Do applicants for Immigration to Australia or for Australian citizenship need to make a similar declaration; if not, will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs give consideration to including such a declaration in the form required to be filled in by applicants for migration to Australia or for Australian citizenship. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am informed that questions of this or a similar kind are asked of applicants for visa entry to the United States and for naturalisation in that country. (2) No. Applicants for migrant entry to Australia undergo selection processes which include a detailed interview and a character check. Applicants for Australian citizenship are not asked to make a declaration of this kind. In my view the existing procedures are adequate. (Question No. 620) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) Is research on the Railgun still being carried out at the Material Research Laboratories (MRL) Melbourne under a joint memorandum of understanding with the United States (US); if so: (a) is the continuation of the Railgun research at MRL presently under review; (b) will the research cease in 1987, when the current memorandum of understanding is up for renewal. (2) Has Australia agreed to carry out research in specific areas of Railgun technology as directed by the US. (3) Has the work at MRL on the Railgun included research into the following power sources: compact homopolar generators; homopolar generators; and pulsed power conditioning. (4) What information on Railgun research has come to Australia from the US, given the tightened security by the US on Defence Information exchanged to foreign governments. (5) Is the memorandum of understanding referred to in (1) (b), which covers the Railgun research, essentially a one way flow of information from Australia to the US. (6) How many scientists working on the Railgun at MRL have gone to the US. (7) Where are these scientists located to work on the Railgun. (8) What aspects of the research have the scientists worked on. (9) Has the Australian Railgun research at MRL contributed in any way to the space based Railguns currently being developed in the US for Ballistic Missile Defence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (a) Yes. (b) The research will have ceased by 1987. (2) No. The United States (US) does not direct the course of the research in Australia. (3) The work at MRL has included research on pulsed power conditioning. It has not included research on compact homopolar generators or homopolar generators. (4) Unclassified information on research into the physics and operating principles of electromagnetic guns and launchers and pulsed power conditioning. (5) No. (6) One scientist working on Railgun research at MRL resigned and took up permanent residence and employment in the US. (7) The scientist concerned was engaged by Westinghouse R and D Centre, Pittsburg. (8) At MRL the scientist took part in theoretical and experimental studies of the performance of small laboratory Railguns. (9) No MRL research has been specific to space-based Railguns; whether, and to what extent MRL research has contributed to US space related work could only be answered by the US. (Question No. 625) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) Is there widespread dissatisfaction in Queensland over the decision by Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio management to end the services of horse-racing commentator Mr Larry Pratt and to severely curtail horse racing coverage in Queensland. (2) Has the equivalent horse-racing program in Sydney remained untouched despite having a rating of 2.7 points compared to the Brisbane program's rating of 4.6 points in the latest survey. (3) Was the ABC's coverage of horse racing the only comprehensive service offered to Queensland radio listeners outside the metropolitan areas of Queensland. (4) Was Mr Pratt, apart from being responsible for all racing coverage, news and tips, on air between 12 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays covering general sporting news. (5) Have the ABC studios at Toowong had to mount and service an additional radio studio with an additional announcer and sporting assistant each Saturday and public holiday to cover the regional service since Mr Pratt's departure. (6) Why Was Mr Pratt's contract terminated and why has there been a significant downscaling of ABC racing coverage in Queensland. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC): (1) There has been no curtailment of the full racing service provided to the ABC's Queensland Regional Radio Stations. In the metropolitan area on 4QR Brisbane, direct calls of races have been replaced by a ``results'' service, while `Turf Talk' and general racing information are still provided. There has been some criticism of the cessation of Mr Larry Pratt's duties on radio, but he is still engaged in `The National' on ABC-TV on Friday and Saturday nights. (2) The decision to change the caller on the regional racing service in Queensland was based on economic considerations; a comparison of survey figures between Sydney and Brisbane is misleading, since the markets the stations serve are quite different. The components of the Saturday afternoon service include coverage of a variety of sports in addition to horse racing. (3) It is understood that commercial stations 4AR Roma, 4LG Longreach, 4SB Kingaroy, 4MB Maryborough, 4RO Rockhampton and 4HI Emerald relay Brisbane 4BC's racing service, but the ABC provides the only country service beyond these areas. (4) From 1 July 1985, Mr Pratt was required to do ``on air'' reports between 2 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays, but this regular pattern did not apply prior to this date. (5) Two services are provided through the studios at Toowong on Saturday afternoons, involving two rostered announcers, but not sporting assistants. No additional announcers are involved as two have been rostered in the past; but for current purposes the duties have been re-arranged to make more efficient use of the shifts. (6) The decision to terminate Mr Pratt's contract was based on economic considerations. There has not been a significant down scaling of ABC racing coverage in Queensland other than in the Brisbane metropolitan area. All regional transmitters continue to transmit a comprehensive service, while 4QR in Brisbane continues to provide a full racing results service. (Question No. 655) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 6 November 1985: (1) Is the Federal Government going to implement the recommendations of its Rainforest Working Group Report, and will finance be made available for the acquisition of the key endangered rainforest areas, as outlined in the Report. (2) When is the Government going to nominate the rainforests for World Heritage Listing as there are only 77 days left for World Heritage Listing this year. (3) Will the Government act as a matter of urgency to save the last virgin stands of rainforest. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Working Group on Rainforest Conservation recommended a comprehensive and flexible range of measures that the Government could take in conjunction with the States and the Northern Territory to promote rainforest conservation. Acquisition of key areas of privately owned rainforest and action to promote the preservation of key virgin rainforest form part of the recommended measures. The Government shortly will consider proposals for rainforest conservation, based on the Working Group Report and public comments on it. (2) The Government has already conveyed to UNESCO in Paris a nomination for World Heritage listing of the New South Wales rainforests. The Government has made it clear that the wet tropic rainforests of north-east Queensland will only be nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List with the agreement of the Queensland Government. The Government is of the view that a co-operative, not confrontationist, approach is the best way of conserving Australia's rainforest resources. The co-operation achieved with the Queensland Government in the preparation of the Working Group Report is an indication of the fruitfulness of that approach. (3) When the Government has considered what actions it will take to protect Australia's remaining rainforest the decision will be announced publicly. (Question No. 657) Senator Foreman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 6 November 1985: (1) What are the overall levels of motor vehicle imports into Australia in 1984-85 from: (a) Japan; (b) Western Europe; and (c) Scandinavia. (2) What percentage of total new car registrations do these represent over this period. (3) Do these figures represent an increase or decrease in percentage terms of total new motor vehicle registrations over those in 1983-84 and 1982-83. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The overall levels of imports of assembled new passenger motor cars into Australia in 1984-85 were: (a) from Japan 91,138; (b) from Western Europe 17,559; and (c) from Scandinavia 1,920. (2) and (3) Imports of assembled new passenger motor cars as a percentage of new motor vehicle registrations for 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were: (a) Japan 15.2 per cent, 14.3 per cent and 14.9 per cent; (b) Western Europe 1.8 per cent, 2.0 per cent and 2.9 per cent; (c) Scandinavia 0.2 per cent, 0.4 per cent and 0.3 per cent. (Question No. 662) Senator Foreman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What numbers of new motor vehicles were exported from Australia in the year 1984-85 and do these figures represent an increase or a decrease over those for 1983-84 and 1982-83. (2) What value of motor vehicle components were exported from Australia in 1984-85 and do these figures represent an increase or decrease over those for 1983-84 and 1982-83. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Exports of Australian produced assembled new motor vehicles in 1984-85 were 1,982 compared with 2,953 in 1983-84 and 2,713 in 1982-83. The 1984-85 figure was 32.9 per cent lower than 1983-84 and 26.9 per cent lower than 1982-83. Exports of unassembled motor vehicles are not recorded by number in official trade statistics. However, the value of exports of Australian produced assembled and unassembled new motor vehicles in 1984-85 was $133.2 million, compared with $131.8 million in 1983-84 and $102.1 million in 1982-83. The 1984-85 figure was 1.1 per cent higher than 1983-84 and 30.4 per cent higher than 1982-83. (2) The value of exports of Australian produced motor vehicle components (including chassis, bodies, batteries, engines, tyres etc.) in 1984-85 was $259.9 million, compared with $231.3 million in 1983-84 and $170.9 million in 1982-83. The 1984-85 figure was 12.4 per cent higher than 1983-84 and 52.1 per cent higher than 1982-83. (Question No. 667) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) What measures has the Australian Government, as it is responsible for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, taken to protect species such as Great Frigatebirds and Redfooted Boobies, which according to the report, published in the December 1984 edition of `Ibis', the journal of the British Ornithologists Union are being shot by bored local people with little else to do but indulge in this mindless slaughter. (2) What educational measures has the Australian Government undertaken to dissuade the local human populace to refrain from this form of indulgence which is posing a severe threat to the seabird population of the region. (3) Are any punitive measures in train to discourage the illegal slaughter. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Seabirds on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are not being shot by local people: all shotguns and rifles owned by Cocos Malays were recalled by the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council in January 1984 following a shooting accident. The guns have not been re-issued. Options for gun control currently under consideration would preclude their use for taking seabirds on North Keeling Island, their only breeding habitat. Adult male Cocos Malays generally take seabirds using a traditional chain flail technique. Measures taken to control the harvesting and maintain seabird population levels whilst fulfilling the Government's commitment to respect the culture and traditions of the Cocos Malays include: (a) seeking the commitment of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council that special arrangements will apply to North Keeling Island with the Council being given an opportunity to participate in the conservation and management of the Island. (b) sending an officer of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) to the Islands in April, July and October this year. The ANPWS officer held discussions with the Cocos Malay community on the need for restraint and proper controls when hunting seabirds. Current data on the breeding populations of the target species were obtained along with information on historical harvesting levels. Cocos leaders have requested the appointment of a Conservation Officer to help them properly manage the seabirds of North Keeling. (2) During visits to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by ANPWS officers in 1985, the following educational activities were undertaken: the Home Island community and the two schools were addressed on the problems associated with present harvesting and on the need for restraint; three meetings were held with Cocos leaders to discuss the matter; Cocos Malays were employed as field assistants for collection of seabird population and breeding success data; environmental literature relevant to seabird conservation was made available to the two Island schools. (3) Punitive measures are viewed as a last report and it is considered better to implement a program based on the development of environmental awareness in the Cocos community with a quota/permit system and continued monitoring of seabird populations and harvesting levels. (Question No. 668) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 November 1985: What steps can the Government take to upgrade security checks on Ansett and TAA passengers to bring them to the responsible level undertaken by Qantas as indicated in the answer to Question on Notice No. 512 (see Hansard, 5 November 1985, p. 1603), in view of the increasing community concern about the ever increasing level of hijacks and other dangers to passengers and the public at large. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Passenger security screening arrangements at Australian airports are under continuous review. The present airline security arrangements permit domestic airlines to undertake preboarding screening of passengers on an agreed percentage of randomly selected flights departing from designated airports. The arrangements allow for the screening of passengers on any domestic airline flight to which a threat could apply. The screening arrangements may be upgraded at short notice to cover 100 per cent of departing domestic airline flights should that be necessary. (Question No. 672) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 November 1985: (1) How is the disease Chlamydia Psittaci transmitted amongst koalas, and what is the incubation period of the disease. (2) What is the normal titre of Chlamydia Psittaci in a koala. (3) Is the exporting of koalas by the Australian Government exposing overseas zoo populations to a highly contagious and deadly disease. (4) Can the Minister explain why Japanese zoos are able to obtain koalas when Australian sanctuaries are not. (5) Will the Minister detail what funds the Government has allocated in the current financial year to koala research and habitat restoration. (6) Which koalas died recently in Japan, and will the Minister provide: (a) the veterinary reports made prior to despatch of the koalas to Japan; and (b) the autopsy reports. (7) Can the Minister provide a definition of ``captive populations'' of koalas. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The mode of transmission of the disease organism Chlamydia psittaci is not known. In koalas the organism has been linked to diseases of the respiratory, reproductive and urinary systems and to eye diseases. There is evidence that the disease may be transmitted venereally, congenitally and by insects or dust particles. The incubation period of the disease in koalas is not known. (2) In this context, a titre is a measurement of the concentration of antibodies in the blood. Antibodies are produced by the animal in response to an infection, including infection by Chlamydia psittaci. The antibody titre of an uninfected animal would be zero. Once infection starts, the antibody titre increases at varying rates, sometimes up to 2000:1. Once the infection has been overcome, antibody levels decrease and often a residual antibody titre remains for some years. This residual titre could range from 4:1 to 64:1. Thus the antibody titre of Chlamydia psittaci in a koala depends on whether or not the animal is infected and on the stage of infection. (3) Before any koala is considered for export, tests must be conducted to establish it is free from an infection of Chlamydia psittaci. It is important to note that the organism Chlamydia psittaci is not confined to koalas in Australia, but is found in a large number of different species of animals and in a number of other countries around the world. (4) The acquisition from Australia of koalas by Japanese and any other overseas zoos is governed by the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. This Act controls export of Australian native wildlife but does not regulate the acquisition of koalas by sanctuaries in Australia. Such activities are governed by the nature conservation laws of the States and Northern Territory. The honourable senator may wish to pursue his inquiries with the nature conservation authorities in the States and the Northern Territory. (5) The Koala Conservation Program launched by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in June this year, will address many of the deficiencies in our knowledge of koalas. American Express International has contributed $200,000 towards the program and the Government contribution includes the administrative costs, public awareness material and $20,000 for scientific research with a $10,000 forward commitment into 1986-87. (6) One female koala died at Tama Zoo, Tokyo, and one female koala died at Kagoshima Zoo, Nagoya, Japan. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (7) If the honourable senator is referring to the use of the words `in captivity' as stated in Condition 6 of the Conditions for the Export of Koalas, which was tabled in Parliament in September 1984, these words require that any koala proposed for export must have been bred in captivity or held in captivity for at least 12 months. (Question No. 675) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) Does the Centre for Policy Studies, a research organisation at Monash University, receive a research of excellence grant of $500,000, a year, and will this grant continue until 1987. (2) Was this grant approved by the Fraser Government in 1982 during which time Mr John Stone was a senior public servant with the Treasury. (3) Has the Treasury objected to the grant and the size of it at any time. (4) Is the Treasurer aware of Mr Stone's position of senior research fellow at the Centre of Policy Studies. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In 1985, the Centre for Policy Studies will receive a grant of $463,000 under the Commonwealth Program for Promotion of Excellence in Research administered by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The grant will be paid annually, and maintained in real terms, for the duration of the current triennium, which ends in 1987. (2) A grant to the Centre for Policy Studies was first approved in 1982 for the 1982-84 triennium following a report by the Commonwealth Research Centres of Excellence Committee, which was chaired by Mr S. B. Myer and reported to the then Government on 30 November 1981. Funding of the grant was approved for a further three years in 1984. (3) Advice from the Treasury to the Government on budgetary matters is confidential. (4) Yes. (Question No. 678) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Has Tasmanian Smelters Pty Ltd sought an export licence for the export of silicon. (2) Is Tasmanian Smelters Pty Ltd a joint venture of Messrs Pechiney (40%) and Pioneer Concrete (60%), both of whom have subsidiaries operating in South Africa. (3) Is Messrs Pechiney owned by the French Government. (4) Is it in accord with Government policy to grant export licences to companies or joint ventures which operate subsidiaries in South Africa. (5) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce satisfied with the environmental record of the multinational corporation Pechiney in its Australian operations in the light of public protest in Newcastle (NSW) where water catchment is threatened by toxic wastes, and Electrona (Tas.) where residential amenity is threatened by industrial intrusion. (6) Will the Minister be calling for an independent Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed silicon smelter at Electrona Tasmania. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) It is assumed that the question relates to the issuing of restricted goods permits under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. As silicon is not covered by those regulations the need to obtain permission does not arise. (2) Tasmanian Silicon Smelters Pty Ltd is a joint venture of Pechiney Australia Ltd, a subsidiary of Pechiney Asie Pacifique (40%) and Pioneer Concrete (60%). Pechiney advise that they have no subsidiary or activity whatsoever in South Africa. (3) Pechiney Asie Pacifique was nationalised by the French Government in 1981. (4) The Government has implemented certain economic and other measures in respect of South Africa and has introduced a code of conduct for Australian companies with commercial interests in that country. As mentioned in (1) above, silicon does not require an export permit but, in cases where such export permits are required, and the goods are not specifically affected by the measures introduced by the Government, normal procedures are followed and trade is permitted to continue whether or not the exporting company has direct commercial interests in South Africa. (5) With respect to Commonwealth Government environmental requirements I am advised that Pechiney (Australia) Limited has met its obligations. The two projects which are mentioned are both under active consideration by the respective State Governments environment authorities. In New South Wales, the Minister for Environment and Planning has asked his Department to work with Pechiney to find `a satisfactory alternative site in a less environmentally sensitive location for waste disposal'. The silicon smelter proposal in Tasmania is currently before the Tasmanian Environment Protection Appeal Board for examination of environmental control measures which will be mandatory. (6) No. (Question No. 687) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on Tuesday, 26 November 1985: What decision, if any, has been made on Recommendation 37 (e) of the Report of the Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories regarding an ASTEC-chaired inquiry into certain aspects of acoustic research in Australia, and if no decision has yet been made, when may one be expected. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has accepted a set of general recommendations which are in broad agreement with those contained in the Report of the Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories. Specific recommendations such as 37 (e) will generally be implemented when they are consistent with these, but provision has been made for Ministers responsible to indicate cases where further evaluation is necessary before a decision can be made. The position in regard to Recommendation 37 (e) will not be clear until Departmental responses have been received and evaluated. This is expected to occur in February 1986. (Question No. 688) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on Tuesday, 26 November 1985: What requests for assistance were received from the United States Government, when they were referred to the Australian Federal Police, and what responses were made to the United States Embassy and when (see answer to Question on Notice No. 306, Hansard, 5 November 1985, p. 1611). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Foreign Affairs contact with the United States Embassy related only to its inquiry as to the whereabouts of a Mr Kazys Simkus. The Embassy was asked to send other enquiries direct to the Australian Federal Police. In a letter of 25 July 1985 the Australian Federal Police informed the Department that Mr Simkus died in 1968. That information was sent to the Embassy by the Department in a letter dated 1 August 1985. (Question No. 690) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Are Mr Henderson of the CAI and Sir William Keys of the RSL both members of the 18 person National Consultative Committee of the International Year of Peace. (2) Have both these people recently lent support to the PADEX 1986 Defence Show by having their organisations publicly support such an exhibition. (3) Does support for such an exhibition in the International Year of Peace indicate a position diametrically opposed to the purposes of the celebrations. (4) Will the Government remove these 2 people from the Consultative Committee in view of this conflict of interest. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Sir William Keys lent support to PADEX '86 in his official capacity as National President of the RSL. I understand that the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) also supported the exhibition. (3) The membership of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament represents a broad range of community groups which have demonstrated a concern for peace and disarmament and which all have a contribution to make in raising community awareness of the IYP. It is to be expected that individual members of the Committee will have different points of view on the best means to achieve peace and disarmament and therefore also on such issues as the holding of the PADEX 1986 Defence Exhibition. The terms of reference for the Committee do not exclude its members holding such views. (4) In view of the answer to (3) above, the question of removing people from the Committee does not arise. (Question No. 693) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Who has been present at, or participated in each of the Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) meetings related to the Australia Card and at which meetings. (2) Who has participated in each of the National Identification Numbering System (NINS) technological working group meetings related to the planning of the Australia Card and at which meetings. (3) How many departments or agencies have made submissions to, or communicated attitudes to the IDC/NINS groups planning the Australia Card, and how many such submissions were presented by each organisation. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The following Departments/Authorities were represented on the Interdepartmental Committees and/or Working Parties which considered the Australia Card proposal: Department of Health, Health Insurance Commission, Australian Taxation Office, Department of Social Security, Department of Community Services, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of the Treasury, Department of Finance, Department of Special Minister of State, Attorney General's Department, Australian Federal Police, Australian Electoral Commission, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Education, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (3) While formal submissions were not sought from departments or agencies by the Interdepartmental Committee, the nature of the IDC process is such that all departments represented made a contribution to the work of the committee. (Question No. 694) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) How much of the VIP Fleet's time is used by the Governor-General, and others. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) For the period 1 November 1984 to 31 October 1985, the following figures indicate the usage of 34 Squadron and 33 Squadron aircraft hours for the Governor-General, Government VIP and Defence purposes. 34Sqn 33 Sqn per cent per cent Regal... 0.75 2.35 Governor General... 7.9 1.6 PM+C... 17.3 7.75 Ministers... 32.6 2.1 Opposition... 7.15 0.0 Defence... 34.3 86.2 (Question No. 701) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 November 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs provide information about the effect on Australia-Papua New Guinea relations following the change of government which took place on 21 November 1985. (2) What is the present level of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea. (3) How does the present level of aid compare to years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. (4) How will Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea be affected by the sudden demise of the Somare administration in political, financial and diplomatic terms. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The change of Government in Papua New Guinea on 21 November confirms the commitment of that country to democratic processes, a commitment I have applauded on numerous occasions. In sending messages of congratulations to Prime Minister Wingti, the Prime Minister and I looked forward to working with our Papua New Guinea counterparts to support the very close and co-operative relationship that exists between our two countries. The Prime Minister extended an invitation to Mr Wingti to visit Australia. (2) The estimated total of Australian aid to PNG in 1985-86 is $326,386,000. Of this $302,799,000 will be supplied as direct budget support. (3) The following table compares the current level of Australian aid to PNG with the level of aid supplied over the past three years. AUSTRALIAN AID TO PNG 1982-83 to 1985-86: CURRENT AND CONSTANT PRICES ($'000) Year Current Prices Budget support Total aid Constant 1979-80 Prices Budget support Total aid 1982-83... 262,772 274,947 195,224 204,270 1983-84... 288,110 302,280 198,971 208,757 1984-85... 299,007 320,199 194,793 208,599 1985-86 (budget estimate)... 302,799 326,386 183,961 198,290 (4) I have every reason to believe that there will be a substantial measure of continuity in policy in Papua New Guinea, including in matters which bear directly on that country's relations with Australia. In my address to the University of Papua New Guinea on 7 November I noted that Australia is part of Papua New Guinea's region and cannot escape relevance to it: our policies in a great number of ways impact on each other. I also expressed my understanding of Papua New Guinea's pursuit of self-reliance and of the fact that the PNG Government might wish to seek new directions offering better prospects of bringing benefit to its people. I met Mr Wingti in July and again in November. The Prime Minister met him in September. Mr Wingti has considerable Ministerial experience, including more than two years as Deputy Prime Minister, and we have had useful discussions with him on a range of issues. The Prime Minister and I have both sent messages of appreciation and admiration to Mr Somare for his historic role in his country's development, and for his contribution to good relations between Papua New Guinea and Australia. (Question No. 703) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) What are the latest comparisons between the States regarding current adult qualifications in the following categories- (a) higher degree, graduate diploma or bachelor degree. (b) diploma (c) higher than, or equivalent to, a trade or other certificate. (2) What are the State by State figures of people in the community with qualifications in the total areas described above and what is the Australian average. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The most recent information available is derived from the 1981 Population Census conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; these figures are set out in the attached table. Persons 15 Years of Age and Over: Age by Qualification (Highest Level Obtained) 1981 Higher Degree/ Graduate Dip/ Bachelor Degree Diploma Trade/Other Certificate Other* Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % N.S.W.... 160,586 4.1 130,993 3.4 683,235 17.7 2,896,683 74.8 3,871,497 100 VIC.... 120,629 4.2 115,149 4.0 420,455 14.7 2,214,229 77.1 2,870,462 100 QLD.... 53,339 3.1 55,178 3.2 263,695 15.5 1,335,554 78.2 1,707,766 100 S.A.... 36,083 3.7 35,437 3.6 151,444 15.5 755.490 77.2 978,454 100 W.A.... 36,741 3.9 38,252 4.1 161,613 17.2 703,962 74.8 940,568 100 TAS.... 11,707 3.8 9,887 3.2 44,982 14.5 242,777 78.5 309,353 100 N.T.... 3,872 4.6 3,312 3.9 13,845 16.3 63.859 75.2 84,888 100 A.C.T.... 22,124 14.1 8,220 5.3 26,458 16.9 99,635 63.7 156,437 100 Aust.... 445,084 4.1 396,426 3.6 1,765,726 16.2 8,312,188 76.1 10,919,425 100 * Includes the following categories: Qualifications not classifiable. No Qualifications. Qualifications not stated. Still at School. Note: State figures may not sum to the Australian total due to small adjustments applied to the data to maintain confidentiality. (Question No. 707) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: Will the Minister for Communications indicate in what circumstances and in what form Telecom issues a written apology to subscribers who have been overcharged for their telephone service (see answer to Question on Notice No. 265, Hansard, 5 November 1985, p. 1598). Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: It is Telecom's practice where an error occurs to apologise for any inconvenience which may have been caused and in appropriate cases to endeavour to rectify the situation. If a written apology is specifically requested, this will normally be provided in the form of an individual letter. (Question No. 709) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) By what authority are appointments to the Arts Development Board made. (2) What number of people may be appointed to the Arts Development Board. (3) What particular expertise is required in an appointee to the Arts Development Board. (4) How many people comprise the current board. (5) What new appointments have been made since 31 July 1985. (6) What new appointments are to be made before 30 June 1986. (7) What is the term of these appointments. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) Appointments are made by the Minister for Territories under his executive authority. (2) The Board's charter provides for a maximum of nine members, including a representative of the Department of Territories. (3) The Board's charter requires membership to include four persons who practise or have practised in the Arts, and each of the theatre, music, visual, and community arts to be represented. In considering appointments to the Board, the Minister for Territories takes into account the nominees' personal interests, qualities, and attributes for the work of the Board, and also the particular needs of the Board at the time; for example, maintaining a reasonable balance of art-form representation. (4) Seven (as at 13 January 1986). (5) None (as at 13 January 1986). (6) Two new appointments are under consideration (as at 13 January 1986). The terms of four members will expire in April 1986. Consideration has not yet been given to the filling of the ensuing vacancies. (7) Two years, although members may be re- appointed for a further term of two years at the Minister's discretion. (Question No. 713) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: Will an ID card prevent the development of new evasion industries such as moving funds off-shore to avoid the effects of the ID system, or strengthen an underground employment market for illegal immigrants. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: This question addresses an issue on which work is currently being undertaken in preparation of the Government's submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card. I believe that it would be unreasonable to divert resources from the preparation of the submission to attempt to provide the substantial amount of information sought in the question. The Government's submission will be made available to members and senators. (Question No. 719) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate whether Australia has made any representations to Britain requesting a reconsideration of its decision to withdraw from UNESCO which is due to be reviewed this November. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On several occasions in recent weeks the Australian Government urged the United Kingdom Government to reconsider its decision to withdraw from UNESCO. During November, representations were made on a bilateral basis and Mr Parsons, our High Commissioner in London, took part with other Commonwealth High Commissioners in joint representations to the British Government. Despite these efforts, on 5 December the United Kingdom confirmed its intention to withdraw from UNESCO. This decision took effect on 31 December 1985. (Question No. 741) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 December 1985: (1) Will the growth in establishment of digital radio concentrator systems over the next few years in Western Queensland be negated by failure to establish adequate repair and service facilities. (2) Can the Minister investigate the feasibility of establishing a repair service for digital radio concentrator systems in appropriate ``central'' locations, e.g. Roma, Longreach, Mount Isa. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) An adequate maintenance organisation is being established to service the Digital Radio Concentrator Systems (D.R.C.S.). (2) There will be three levels of maintenance established. First level maintenance will be provided by the network of country technician stations existing now. The work will be mainly confined to identification and replacement of the faulty/suspect unit using aids such as the supervisory system and specially designed test equipment. Second level maintenance will be provided by trained radio staff at the established Radio Centres. Generally this work will involve more complex faults on repeaters and exchange units. Radio Centres which will have D.R.C.S. responsibilities exist at Townsville, Rockhampton, Mount Isa, Mackay, Emerald and Roma. Third level maintenance concerns the repair of faulty modules. This is a specialist task requiring not only highly specialised equipment but also controlled environmental conditions in which to work. Initially this work (termed panel repair) will be carried out by the manufacturer NEC. Telecom will establish a national Panel Repair Centre in Brisbane at a subsequent time thus allowing for an orderly build up of the required skills and facilities. (Question No. 743) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 3 December 1985: (1) Will the Department of Resources and Energy liaise with the Queensland Government in investigating the security of the Ben Lomond stockpile, which has been abandoned by total mining with only a temporary cover and occasional security checks. (2) Can both Federal and State Governments ensure that total mining appropriately secure this stockpile in accordance with Federal Government requirements, as this stockpile is in a remote area. (3) Can the Minister for Resources and Energy advise about the future of the Ben Lomond site in regard to completely cleaning up this area, in view of reported environmental deficiencies identified in total minings proposal of November, 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (3) I refer the honourable senator to my answer to her question without notice about Ben Lomond on 2 December 1985. I must emphasise that Total Mining Australia holds two valid mining leases over the deposit from the Queensland Government. While Total Mining Australia ceased to work at the site some years ago the site has not been abandoned as is suggested in the honourable senator's question. As the ore at the site has not been concentrated or processed in any way no safeguards apply and the Commonwealth has no responsibility for the leases issued by the Queensland authorities over the area, or anything on them. As I advised in my reply of 2 December 1985, Total Mining is required to comply with the codes of practice relating to radiation protection and radioactive waste management as developed under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act. Officers of my Department have consulted with the Queensland authorities on this matter and their advice is that: Total Mining's activities at Ben Lomond are monitored on a continuing basis to ensure that the conditions required by the codes are complied with. The question of ultimate rehabilitation of the area on the expiry or relinquishment of Total Mining Australia's leases is a matter for the Queensland Government through the conditions imposed in the mining leases. It would appear that this question is unlikely to become topical for some years as both leases have some considerable period to run, and Total Mining Australia has given no sign of any intention of surrendering them. (Question No. 748) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 3 December 1985: (1) In what circumstances are applicants for a grant under the First Home Owners Scheme required to supply bank books and other documents which detail savings over the past 12 months, and to provide an explanation for ``major'' deposits. (2) Have these circumstances been altered since the inception of the Scheme; if so, what changes in assessment rules requiring this follow-up have been made, and when. (3) What is the estimated proportion of cases in which these extra details have been sought in each State and Territory in each of the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 to date. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no requirement for applicants to have held qualifying savings under the First Home Owners Scheme. However, in order to satisfy the requirements of the First Home Owners Act, applicants may be asked to provide evidence that they have, or will have, adequate financial resources to complete the purchase or construction of their first home. In some other cases, details of the financial resources of an applicant including savings records, are required to satisfy the Assessment Officer that all parties to the home acquisition have joined in the FHOS application, or confirm other information which could be linked with the income test or previous home ownership. (2) No. (3) A significant proportion of applications result in requests to the applicant for additional information on some aspect of the application. However no detailed statistics covering the nature or number of such requests are maintained by the Department. (Question No. 749) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 December 1985: (1) How many officers of the Australian Federal Police have been detailed to investigate matters related to the presence of the yacht Ouvea: (a) on Norfolk Island; and (b) elsewhere. (2) Are any of these enquiries continuing; if so, how many people are still investigating such matters; if not, how many staff hours were devoted to these matters, when was the investigation completed and upon whose instructions, and what written reports were furnished to the Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: It should be stressed that the investigation into the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is one begun in New Zealand (NZ) and which was and remained the responsibility of NZ authorities to investigate. The investigation was never within the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) area of responsibility. The honourable Senator would appreciate that the AFP has no basis for making inquiries in Australia except in relation to breaches of Commonwealth law or in response to requests for assistance from overseas agencies. The AFP has extended every co-operation to the NZ authorities in their investigation and it has complied with all requests for assistance. (1) (a) All three members of the AFP who serve as sworn members of the Norfolk Island Police under the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the Island assisted NZ Police in investigations on the Island during the Ouvea's presence there. (1) (b) A number of AFP members on duty at the time at Sydney Airport and the AFP's Regional Headquarters in Redfern assisted NZ Police in their investigations in Australia. (2) AFP ceased any active involvement in this investigation on 17 July 1985. However, there are some AFP enquiries being conducted on behalf of the NZ Police through Interpol. During the time AFP assisted NZ Police in their investigations, approximately 375 man hours were devoted to those duties. Briefs were provided on a number of occasions by the AFP on the nature and extent of their involvement in the investigations. (Question No. 753) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 December 1985: Have the cassettes of `God Save The Queen/Advance Australia Fair' (National Anthem/National Song-joint cassette) been destroyed; if so, (a) why were they destroyed, and (b) what was the cost involved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. (a) The proclamation by the Governor-General on 19 April 1984 of `Advance Australia Fair' as the National Anthem and `God Save The Queen' as the Royal Anthem meant that the cassettes issued under the Government's national symbols free-issue program to eligible organisations were incorrectly labelled. (b) About 4,000 cassettes worth about $3,100 were destroyed in accordance with audit requirements. A cassette with a label identifying `Advance Australia Fair' as the National Anthem was substituted. (Question No. 755) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) On the basis of what information were searches carried out on the yacht Ouvea while it was on Norfolk Island. (2) How much time was spent searching the yacht Ouvea for traces of explosives while it was on Norfolk Island. (3) Was an inventory taken of the contents of the yacht Ouvea while it was being searched; if so, what items were recorded, and to whom was the resulting report forwarded. (4) Were any traces of explosives discovered on the yacht Ouvea while it was on Norfolk Island, and was anything else found of which an onlooker might have said, It staggered me that they let them go, of the crew of the Ouvea. (5) What scientific tests or analyses were carried out as a result of the examination of the yacht Ouvea on its return to Norfolk Island. (6) Were any samples sent away from Norfolk Island for analysis; if so, under what arrangements, especially in relation to obtaining accurate results quickly, was this done; if not, what facilities on Norfolk Island were used to carry out testing. (7) To whom was a summary of the findings of scientific analysis presented, and what were the major findings emphasised in such a report or reports. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) Information received from the New Zealand (NZ) Police. (2) The search for explosives was undertaken as part of the search of the yacht-which took several hours. (3) to (7) I refer the honourable senator to the answer given to Question No. 749. The AFP is not aware of specific action taken on differing aspects of the investigation by NZ authorities. (Question No. 756) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 December 1985; (1) When did the crew of the yacht Ouvea first demand that they either be charged or released and allowed to leave Norfolk Island if they so desired, and had their identification papers been subjected to exhaustive checking at that stage; if so, were the results of that checking available then. (2) Had material for samples from the yacht been sent for thorough scientific analysis at that stage; if so, were those results already available, or was there a definite time by which they were expected. (3) Who determined that there wasn't enough evidence to keep the crew of the Ouvea in custody. (4) When did this occur. (5) What legal or other advice was sought on this matter and from what quarter was it sought, if that did occur. (6) What was the nature of any advice received, either before or after the release of the crew of the Ouvea. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) At the completion of interviews, the crew of the Ouvea sought their release. The Police on Norfolk Island had no power to detain the crew while checks on the veracity of documents were made. Such enquiries normally take a considerable time. (2) I refer the honourable senator to the answer given to Question No. 749. The AFP is not aware of specific action taken on differing aspects of the investigation by New Zealand (NZ) authorities. (3) The NZ Police. (4) AT 1.15 p.m. on 16 July 1985. (5) NZ Police on Norfolk Island consulted with NZ Police Headquarters and the Administrator of the Island. (6) The advice was that there was insufficient evidence to justify continued detention of the crew. (Question No. 757) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 December 1985; (1) When were identification papers in the possession of the crew first called for, after the return of the yacht Ouvea to Norfolk Island from New Zealand. (2) Had these identification papers been examined when the Ouvea passed through Norfolk Island en route to New Zealand. (3) Were the identification papers of the crew of the Ouvea referred beyond Norfolk Island for verification; if so, when was this done and at whose instigation. (4) What time delay was expected in obtaining the result. (5) When did it become clear that the crew were travelling on false documents. (6) Where were the crew of the Ouvea when this information first came to light. (7) What steps, if any, were taken to apprehend the crew if they were not in custody, or to assist the competent authorities in that regard if they were no longer within the jurisdiction of the Norfolk Island authorities. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) Upon their arrival, the crew of the Ouvea presented their papers to Norfolk Island Customs. (2) Yes. They had been examined by Norfolk Island Customs. (3) I refer the honourable senator to the answer given to Question No. 749. The AFP is aware that checks were instigated by New Zealand Police through Interpol. (4) Any International enquiries invariably take a considerable time. (5) On 26 July 1985, following enquiries through Interpol. (6) The Australian Federal Police are not aware of the whereabouts of the crew at that time. (7) On advice from New Zealand Police alerts were issued at Australian airports. (Question No. 758) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Have the Australian Federal Police established what happened to the yacht Ouvea after it left Norfolk Island on its return from New Zealand, if so, when did the yacht's crew disembark and under what circumstances did this occur; if not, was this matter investigated. (2) Did the officers concerned succeed in tracing the yacht's whereabouts for any length of time, and when could the trail no longer be followed with certainty. (3) Have the Australian Federal Police investigated the disappearance of 2 boats from Sydney marinas in the period just prior to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, if so, have any links between these events and the bombing operation in New Zealand been established, and what are those links. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Australian Federal Police have not established what happened to the Ouvea after it left Norfolk Island. They have not investigated this matter. (3) No. (Question No. 759) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) When was Dr Xavier Maniguet notified that the Australian Federal Police wished to interview him in Sydney, and how much notice was he given of the time of interview or of the matters of interest to the Australian Federal Police. (2) Which people other than members of the Australian Federal Police were present during the questioning in Sydney of Dr Xavier Maniguet, and for what periods of time. (3) If people other than French consular officials were present, in what capacity were they acting, and have steps been taken to ascertain whether such people are employees of the French defence services, or otherwise closely connected with those services; if so what facts have emerged in that regard. (4) For what period of time was Dr Xavier Maniguet questioned, and over what matters did the questioning range. (5) Did Dr Maniguet at any point demand either to be charged or to be released. (6) Who made the decision that Dr Maniguet be allowed to leave. (7) Was any advice sought beyond the Australian Federal Police in relation to the question of detention or release, if so, from whom was that advice sought, and when. (8) When was the reply received and what did it say. (9) Did Dr Maniguet subsequently seek to contact French authorities overseas before departure from Australia, and was he accompanied to the airport by any people when he was leaving. (10) When did Dr Maniguet depart. (11) Was further information about his role in the Rainbow Warrior bombing ascertained after his departure from Australia, and has any of this been forwarded to Interpol or other overseas bodies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (1) Dr Maniguet was notified by a New Zealand (NZ) Police Officer on the evening of 16 July 1985, that New Zealand Police wished to interview him. This was the first contact between police and Maniguet in relation to New Zealand enquiries. (2) A New Zealand Police Officer conducted the interview of Maniguet at Australian Federal Police (AFP) Regional Headquarters in Sydney. The interview lasted about seven hours. (3) Apart from Dr Maniguet and police officers no one else was present during the interview. (4) See (2) above. The questions ranged over the sinking of the Ranbow Warrior, the passage of the Ouvea and other matters related to the New Zealand Police investigation. (5) No. Dr Maniguet accompanied police voluntarily and gave a written statement. (6) New Zealand Police. (7) and (8) No. (9) The AFP are not aware of any overseas contacts made by Dr Maniguet prior to his departure. After Dr Maniguet left AFP Regional Headquarters his activities were not monitored, save to confirm his departure from Australia. (10) 3.00 pm on 17 July 1985. (11) The AFP is unaware of any involvement. (Question No. 760) Senator Chipp asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Will the ban by the Indian Government on the export of human bones seriously affect the teaching of anatomy to Australian medical students as claimed by Mr Ivan Meissner, University of New South Wales. (2) Has the Government investigated the somewhat bizarre reports that human skeletons imported into Australia are frequently the result of the murder of children in India, and that up to 1,500 children a month are murdered for their skeletons. (3) Will the Government give a categoric undertaking that if there is any truth in these reports at all, the Government will no longer import any human skeletons from any country where these heinous practices occur. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has advised the ban on the export of human skeletons imposed by the Indian Government is unlikely to have any effect on the teaching of anatomy in Australia. It is understood that in practice, most institutions do not import human skeletons at present but, instead, use models constructed largely from plastic for their undergraduate teaching. The Commission advised that institutions regard these as acceptable alternatives to human skeletons for teaching purposes. (2) The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised that the Indian Minister for Home Affairs said on 18 December that according to information received from the Government of Bihar no instances of clandestine trade of human skulls has come to that Government's notice and consequently there was no question of conducting an inquiry into allegations about the export of children's skulls. In view of this information and of the ban imposed by the Indian Government of the export of human skeletons and parts thereof, the Australian Government does not propose to initiate further inquiries into the reports referred to by the honourable senator. (3) Initial indications are that the Indian export prohibition has been effective. If evidence is presented which establishes that any country is prepared to trade in human remains obtained by such inhuman practices, the Australian Government will take steps to prohibit such imports into Australia. (Question No. 762) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 December 1985: (1) Has the Office of National Assessments, either on its own initiative or under Ministerial directive, analysed the events surrounding the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior with a view to identifying steps that can be taken to minimise the risks of similar outrages occurring in Australian waters? (2) Has the Office been able to benefit from information collected initially by friendly foreign intelligence organisations, if it has pursued work of this kind? Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Government normally declines to comment on confidential intelligence matters, including the work programs of agencies. In this case, because the Office of National Assessments does not have a protective security function, I am prepared to say that it has not undertaken any analysis of the findings surrounding the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior with a view to identifying steps that could be taken to minimise the risk of similar occurrences in Australia's waters. (Question No. 764) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 5 December 1985: (1) When, and in what circumstances, did the Department of Territories first learn that the yacht Ouvea called in at Norfolk Island after leaving New Zealand. (2) Were any officers of the Department of Territories present when official searches were undertaken on the yacht Ouvea; if so, was a written report subsequently tendered to the Minister or to senior officers of the Department. (3) When was the report completed, and what recommendations, if any, did it contain. (4) Was the Department of Territories called upon to give any advice in relation to the detention of the crew of the yacht Ouvea on Norfolk Island; if so, when was the information or advice sought, and by whom. (5) What was the subject matter of any such inquiry, and what advice was tendered or information furnished in response, and what was the source or factual material adduced in support of any such answer. (6) How long did it take to prepare the reply and when was it despatched to the relevant person or body. Senator Gietzelt —The following response has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Administrator of Norfolk Island advised the Department of the visit of the Ouvea to the Island on 15 July 1985. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) and (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 770) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Is it true that from the Statistics produced for 1984-85 on the Compensation claims paid to public employees, one in three personnel in the Department of Defence Support had a successful compensation claim compared with 5.7 per cent of employees in the Department of Defence. (2) Does this indicate that it was 8 times more dangerous to work in a government factory or ship yard than serve in the armed forces. (3) What percentage of the Defence Department figures in terms of number of claims, and the payments involved were due to- (1) members of the RAN; (2) members of the Regular Army; (3) members of the RAAF; (4) members of the Reserve Forces; and (5) civilian employees of the 3 Services and the central Department. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Annual Report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for 1984-85 has not yet been tabled, therefore, I am unable to provide the information requested. However, certain statistics are available for 1983-84 and these are provided in respect of that financial year. (1) 1 in 4.68 (21.38%) personnel in Department of Defence Support had claims accepted where an initial compensation payment was effected during that year compared to 1 in 53.51 (1.87%) in respect of service and civilian personnel of Department of Defence. (2) Whilst the figures may indicate that it is 11.43 times more dangerous to work in the Department of Defence Support than in the Department of Defence, this in fact is not the position. In this respect it is important to note that serving members of the armed forces very rarely lodge a claim for compensation unless there is an immediate monetary gain. As these personnel receive full pay and allowances plus medical treatment as a condition of service, irrespective as to the cause of their injury or disease, they are not inclined to lodge a claim. This has the effect that virtually most injuries sustained by members under compensable circumstances do not result in claims unless a permanent disability exists. It will be seen therefore, that the above figures do not reflect the true situation when comparing civilian versus armed forces employment for compensation statistical purposes. (3) The number of claims submitted within each of the categories can only be established by manually searching in excess of 100,000 individual records and it is not proposed to direct the substantial manpower resources needed for this task. Information in respect of the remaining portion of the question is available, other than that for members of the Reserve Forces whose payments are included with their respective Regular Force. Details are as follows: Payments Percentage of total payments $ RAN... 1,768,935 9.68 Army... 6,225,249 34.07 RAAF... 2,096,085 11.48 Civilians... 8,177,514 44.77 Total... 18,267,783 Broadly, the above payments in respect of the regular armed forces can be categorised as follows: (a) Serving Members. Payments being restricted to lump sums for permanent disabilities and to their dependants in respect of death of a member. (b) Ex-Serving Members. Payments as for serving members plus weekly incapacity payments, medical and funeral expenses. Senator Walsh —On 10 September 1985 (Hansard, page 327), Senator Puplick asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question without notice: Has the Minister seen a Press Release issued by the Minister for Communications dated 28 August announcing that a new study is to be undertaken into television station ownership rules? Is it a fact that the terms of reference of the study direct it to have regard to `the Government's stated policy objectives?' Does the release go on in a footnote to record that these policy objectives are to be found in two Ministerial Press Releases and a speech to the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations? Why is it that the Government's stated policy objectives have not been outlined in a statement made to the Parliament but rather in media releases or speeches made outside Parliament? Will the Minister now ask his colleague to do this Parliament the courtesy of making such vital and significant policy statements to the Parliament itself where they can be debated in full? Is it not a fact that the reason Parliament has not been favoured with a statement by Mr Duffy is that, if there is any severe embarrassment, it would be occasioned by the Minister trying to make a settlement about all the contradictory policies which so far he has only managed to dribble out in Press releases? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government's policy objectives for broadcasting have been raised in the Parliament. There have been two major Statements regarding the development of broadcasting in Australia, particularly as it relates to the satellite. In the first of these Statements on 15 November 1983, I said that the central principles of our broadcasting policy are to maximise diversity of choice in radio and television services and to discourage concentration of ownership and control of stations, while maintaining the viability of the broadcasting system. In its 1984 Satellite Program Services Report, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) identified five major policy concerns of successive governments: (a) To maximise diversity of choice in radio and television services; (b) To maintain the viability of the broadcasting system; (c) to encourage an Australian look for television and radio by maintenance of an appropriate Australian content level and the fostering of an Australian production industry; (d) To provide broadcasting services relevant and responsive to local needs; and (e) To discourage concentration of media ownership and control of stations. In a second Statement to the Parliament on 10 October 1984 I made explicit reference to this. I also pointed out that in this stage of development, the Government placed primary emphasis upon the need to extend services and to maximise diversity of choice for all Australians. These issues were also dealt with in a report by the Forward Development Unit of my Department on Future Directions for Commercial Television. This report, which was publicly released on 9 July 1985, was distributed to all members of Parliament and was tabled in each House of Parliament on 21 August 1985. The Press Release of 28 August 1985 was made in the context of these two previous Statements to Parliament and the FDU Report. The Government is currently considering a package of measures for the equalisation of commercial television services in regional areas and an announcement will be made in due course. Senator Walsh —On 12 September 1985 (Hansard, page 501), Senator Harradine asked Senator Button, representing me as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, a question without notice concerning youth employed in the Australian Public Service. Senator Button undertook to provide additional factual information on the question. I can now provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In his answer of 12 September Senator Button advanced various reasons, including changes to the Public Service Act, for the decline since the mid-1960s in the proportion of permanent officers of the Australian Public Service aged under 21 years. Details regarding youth employment in the Australian Public Service are provided in an extensive statistical profile (covering the period 1951 to 1984) which was published in the Public Service Board's 1984-85 Annual Report. Analysis included in the profile indicates that the factors listed below have had a significant influence on the employment of youth as permanent officers in the Australian Public Service. An increase in the proportion of youth completing final year high school has resulted in an increase in the average age of young people applying for and gaining appointment. This had led to a substantial decrease in the length of time youth appointees remain in the under 21 age group. The proportion of young people electing to complete tertiary education before entering the workforce has increased, and more adults have been competing for base grade positions as competition for positions generally has intensified as a result of changes in the labour market and high rates of unemployment. These developments have affected the balance of youth and adult appointments. Changes in Public Service Act provisions for permanent appointment have substantially increased the opportunities for adults, including women, to compete with young people for appointment to the Service. The most notable of these changes have been the abolition of discriminatory practices such as the `marriage bar' in 1966 and of age limits on appointments to Clerical/Administrative, Clerical Assistant and Typist vacancies. There have been reductions in overall appointment rates in the Australian Public Service, due largely to constraints on the size of the Service and a decline in separation rates over recent years. The effects of these developments have been countered in part by a decline in youth separation rates to almost the same level as overall separation rates. In 1966 they were much higher. If present growth and application rates continue the Public Service Board expects that the proportion of youth at the end of this year will be slightly lower than in 1984. Reference was made in the previous answer to the Government's decision to introduce youth traineeships in Commonwealth employment. We propose that the Commonwealth sector will take on 2,000 youth trainees, of whom 800 will be employed in the Australian Public Service. Youth traineeships will be based on temporary rather than permanent employment and the initial intake, while increasing the numbers of youth in Commonwealth employment, particularly 16 and 17 year olds, will not immediately affect permanent staff numbers. However, it is estimated that if, as expected, a high proportion of these trainees go on to permanent appointment (and if there is no change in Public Service growth rates) the proportion of youth in the Public Service will not diminish. We anticipate an increase in the following year when we expect to establish an increased number of traineeships. Senator Walsh —On 19 September 1985 (Hansard, page 750), Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question without notice: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that in the United States of America there are now public telephones with which a long distance call can be made, the cost of that call can be charged to a credit card and the account of that credit card shows the cost of the call, the date and the phone number called? Has Telecom Australia any plans to introduce such telephones in Australia in the near future? If such details can so easily be shown on, say, a Visa account, how is it that Telecom intends to charge its customers for such a service. The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: Yes. Telecom has been closely monitoring overseas developments of Card Phone systems. In August 1985 it invited design concept submissions from interested companies and is now examining the technical and commercial feasibility of introducing a Card Phone system in Australia on a trial basis in late 1986. No decision has been made at this stage on the charges to be applied. Senator Walsh —On 11 October 1985 (Hansard, page 1094), Senator Sheil asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning: (1) The contribution of public service employment, employment creation and wage subsidy schemes, and increased education enrolments to the reduction in unemployment; and (2) The likely contribution of these factors to the projected reduction in unemployment for the coming year. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The contribution of public service employment, employment creation and wage subsidy schemes, and increased education enrolments can be gauged from the following tables: Table 1 EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR, LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT (Not seasonally adjusted) June 1983 ('000) June 1984 ('000) (% Change) (84 on 83) June 1985 ('000) (% Change) (85 on 84) Government employeesa... 1629.1 1678.9 (3.1) 1708.1 (1.7) Private employedc... 4637.4 4819.8 (3.9) 4923.8 (2.2) Total employedb... 6266.5 6498.7 (3.7) 6631.9 (2.0) Government employment as proportion of total employment... 26.0% 25.8% 25.8% Unemployed: ('000)... 693.2 634.1 606.7 Unemployed: (%)... 10.0% 8.9% 8.4% Participation rate: (aged 15 and over)... 60.1% 60.6% 60.6% (a) ABS, Cat. No. 6248, `Wage and Salary Earners Australia' Comprises employees of Commonwealth, State and local government and semi-government authorities. (b) ABS, Cat. No. 6203, `The Labour Force-Australia' (c) = (b) - (a) Table 2 NUMBERS IN TRAINING OR EMPLOYMENT UNDER MAIN EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE SUBSIDY SCHEMES 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP) and Adult WAge Subsidy Scheme (AWSS) averagea... 15,236 30,173 25,632 Wage Pause Program (WPP) averagea... 667 8,866 489 Community Employment Program (CEP) average... . . 7,487 21,477 Total... 15,903 46,526 47,598 Source: Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. (a) Number of persons on the respective programs at the end of each month averaged over the whole year. Table 3 FULL TIME STUDENTS AGED 15 YEARS AND OVER 1982 1983 1984 Universities(a)... 100,001 102,801 106,019 Advanced Education(a)... 81,125 86,325 90,852 Technical and Further Education(b)... 61,161 72,819 78,699 Schools... 459,242(c) 491,040(c) 528,946(d) Total... 701,529 752,985 804,516 (a) ABS, Cat. No. 4222 (b) CTEC, `Selected TAFE Statistics' (c) ABS, Cat. Nos 4215 and 4261 (d) Preliminary. ABS, Cat. No. 4220 and preliminary estimates for non-government schools provided by the Department of Education Table 1 shows that the rate of private sector employment growth was significantly greater than the rate of public sector employment growth in 1983-84 and 1984-85. Additional public sector employment accounted for about 22 per cent of the increases in employment that occurred in both 1983-84 and 1984-85. In total, some 79,000 additional public sector jobs were generated over the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1985 while employment increased by 286,000 in the private sector. Since June 1985 the labour force surveys indicate that the growth rate of private sector employment has increased while public sector employment growth has eased. Table 2 shows that the number of employment and wage subsidy schemes increased by around 30,600 between 1982-83 and 1983-84 but the total contribution of these schemes to employment stabilised in 1984-85. Since much of the additional employment created through these schemes was concentrated in employment programs in the public sector, a large part of the additional employment is reflected in the public sector's contribution to employment growth and unemployment reduction indicated in Table 1. Table 3 indicates strong growth in full-time enrolments at schools and tertiary institutions. This reflects the Government's efforts to increase the access of Australian young people to education at these levels. The Government's objectives here are to raise the general level of occupational skills and educational attainment of those entering the labour market, and to provide more young people with a sound basis on which to develop a career. The increase in education participation will yield economic and other benefits both to the community and the young people concerned. In summary, although the growth of public sector employment played an important part in the initial recovery of employment growth, the combined effect of public sector employment growth, wage subsidy and employment schemes, and increased education enrolments has been relatively small when compared with the total growth in employment over the past year. (2) The relative contribution of public sector employment growth, employment and wage subsidy schemes, and increased education enrolments is likely to continue to decline over 1985-86. While total employment is projected to grow at about the same rate as last year (2 3/4 per cent): public sector employment growth is likely to be lower (given that public expenditure is projected to grow at a lower rate-Commonwealth outlays, for example, are projected to increase by 1-3 per cent in real terms in 1985-86, compared with 6.1 per cent in 1984-85); actual numbers in training or CEP employment are difficult to forecast, but approvals and placements under these schemes are planned to decline in 1985-86 (see Table 4 below); and growth of tertiary education enrolments is expected to be maintained at around the current rate. Table 4 APPROVALS AND PLACEMENTS UNDER MAIN EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE SUBSIDY SCHEMES(a) 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 SYETP... 66,266 87,582 68,874 AWSS... 1,642 15,353 14,338 Sub Total... 67,908 102,935 83,212 78,000(b) WPP(c)... 3,532 17,129 - CEP(c)... - 29,393 45,600 45,000 Total... 71,440 149,457 128,812 123,000 Source: Department of Employment and Industrial Relations ``Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Programs 1985-86''. (a) Due to lags between approvals and subsequent commencement, there can be major differences in data relating to approvals, placements and ``numbers in training'' for the same program. The latter figure is more relevant to aggregate employment. Table 4 has been included to indicate likely trends in 1985-86. (b) Estimate. From 1 January 1986, an Integrated Wage Subsidy Program with a standard subsidy period of 6 months will replace SYETP and AWSS. Net of disabled and special needs job seekers. (c) Total placements. Senator Walsh —On 17 October 1985 (Hansard, pages 1400-1), Senator Richardson asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned agribusiness corporations and their effects on farmers. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The Minister considers that, notwithstanding the claims made in the article on agribusiness which appeared in the Financial Review on 26 August 1985, there are presently no grounds to warrant specific research into either agribusiness or the Namoi Co-operative. The suggestion that agribusiness is in some way exploiting both producers and consumers implies that those involved are able to indulge in restrictive trade practices and therefore to extract excessive margins from both suppliers and consumers. While it is true that the size and degree of diversification of agribusiness firms has increased markedly in recent years, there is, to the minister's knowledge, no clear evidence of agribusiness companies having such power. The recent establishment of several new wool broking firms suggests, for instance, there there are no barriers to entry. Nevertheless, the Minister is concerned that agribusiness should be conducted within a competitive environment and is therefore keeping a general oversight on developments. In a broader context, the activities of agribusiness firms come under general review in the context of studies undertaken by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics concerning the efficiency of marketing operations in relation to particular products. Specific examples include studies on the marketing of dairy products and wool. The Minister also points out that, should they consider it desirable, primary producers through co-operative and through statutory marketing authorities are able to work together to ensure that their particular interests are protected. As a case in point, the Namoi Cotton Co-operative is a very good example of the benefits which can be derived from producers operating co-operatively in the production and marketing of their products. In the case of the Namoi Cotton Co-operative, as is the general practice for co-operatives, surplus income is returned to members in the form of rebates. Retained earnings are directed into expansion of cotton processing facilities and into maintenance and improvement of existing facilities to the benefit of grower members and others using the Co-operatives' facilities. Legislative responsibility for the establishment, control and supervision of co-operatives lies within the jurisdiction of State Governments. The Commonwealth therefore has no Constitutional authority to promote co-operatives. Nonetheless the Government is supportive of them. The Minister has indicated, for instance, that the Standing Committee of the Australian Agricultural Council, of which the Commonwealth is a member, has established a Working Party to undertake a study of co-operatives. The Working Party has wide terms of reference and is directed toward an assessment of the significance of co-operatives in Australian agriculture; a review of their legislative, financial and management structure; identifying any impediments to their successful operation; and making recommendations on any changes needed. The Namoi Cotton Co-operative will no doubt be taken in account in the Working Party's deliberations. Senator Walsh —On 6 November 1985 (Hansard, page 1656), Senator Cook asked me a question without notice concerning the availability of any projections of wage increases which would have applied had the centralised wage fixing system been abandoned. I responded that as far as I knew the Government did not have a projection but undertook to seek any further response from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government has no formal projections of what wages growth would be in the event that the centralised wage fixing system was abandoned by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. However, there is no doubt that, in the context of the strong economic and employment growth that has been achieved under the Government's policies, a decentralised wage system would produce another wage explosion. Indeed, it was in recognition of the disastrous experience with more decentralised wage fixation arrangements in 1974 and 1981-82 that the Government developed the Prices and Incomes Accord with the ACTU, based on the return to a viable centralised wage system. Support for such a system is broad-based, having been endorsed at the National Economic Summit in April 1983 and supported since that time by both union and employer organisations. The centralised wage system has ensured that economic recovery, with profitability restored and strong employment expansion, has not given rise to a resurgence of inflationary pressures which would undermine those gains. Instead, wage restraint has been achieved, as evidenced by the very low growth in earnings, of 4.0 per cent over the year to September 1985, the lowest increase since the mid-1960s. This contrasts dramatically with the experience during 1981-82 under the case-by-case approach to wage fixing when earnings growth peaked at 17 per cent per annum. A shift to a decentralised wage fixation system would see a resumption of conflict over sectional income claims, a resurgence of wage and price inflation and ultimately economic recovery would be aborted. For these reasons the Government opposes such a policy. Senator Walsh —On 13 November 1985 (Hansard page 2066-2067), Senator Reid asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning what she sees as an anomaly in the negative gearing and depreciation measures for rental properties announced by the Treasurer on 17 July 1985. Senator Reid referred to the situation where a taxpayer may be subject to quarantining but not attract depreciation. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The terms of my announcement of 17 July 1985 are that residential income-producing buildings on which construction commenced on or before 17 July 1985 but which are sold after that date could, depending on the financing arrangements of the purchaser, be subject to the quarantining measure applicable to negative gearing but would not attract the new 4 per cent depreciation allowance. Each new taxation measure brought forward by the Government must have a firm start-up date. The date of announcement, linked to the commencement date of construction of residential income producing buildings, was and remains the logical start-up date of the depreciation measure. That was the approach taken when depreciation allowances were announced on 21 August 1979 for short-term traveller accommodation and on 19 July 1982 for non-residential income-producing buildings. While the availability of depreciation allowances will be of benefit to taxpayers who are in a negative gearing situation with their post-17 July 1985 residential income producing properties, the quarantining and depreciation measures should not be regarded as being completely intermeshed. During the transitional stage, there will be a number of possible outcomes for different taxpayers. For instance, property owners who are not negatively geared but the construction of whose rental property commenced after 17 July 1985 will not be affected by the quarantining measure but will still attract the depreciation allowance. As with many taxation measures, it is inevitable that some taxpayers will gain no advantage from the depreciation allowances because they acted, in some cases, only days before the commencement date. Were the measure to be made retrospective or were new rules to be introduced regarding the stage of construction required for depreciation, there would always be particular taxpayers who only just failed to meet the eligibility requirements. Senator Button —On 26 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2231), Senator Archer asked me the following question without notice: What inquiries have been instituted by either the Leader of the Government or the Special Minister of State concerning what was reported as a $50m drug haul bungle on the Sydney docks last week? Is there any allegation of either someone on authority deliberately causing the job to fail or conflict between Australian Federal Police Officers and Customs officers as to the administration of the duties concerned? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I have received a report on the matters raised by the Honourable Senator and while it would not be appropriate for me to comment on operational matters, I can say that both myself and the Special Minister of State have been informed that the container in which the drugs were secreted was properly handled by Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Customs officers in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act. We have further been advised that the retail value of the drugs in question was estimated at $16 million rather than the $50 million reported and we both confirm that there is no conflict between AFP and Customs officers in the administration of their duties relating to drug importations. Senator Walsh —On 27 November (Hansard, 2352 and 2353), Senator Parer and Senator Peter Rae asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, questions without notice on superannuation concerning firstly, the Transport Workers Union of Australia superannuation campaign and secondly any improvements to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme which might derive from the September Government/Australian Council of Trade Unions agreement. On 28 November Hansard, pages 2466 and 2467, Senator Crichton-Browne also raised the TWU superannuation campaign and Senator Chaney asked Senator Button, as the Leader of the Government, a question without notice concerning an agreement on superannuation in the paint industry. To enable these questions on superannuation to be dealt with as a totality I have sought further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: In respect of superannuation for the Transport Industry, I convened a meeting on 15 November with representatives of the ACTU, TWU and road transport employers. Agreement was reached at that meeting that the parties would negotiate an appropriate superannuation scheme for the industry, consistent with the Government/ACTU agreement to apply from July 1986, and reflecting the outcome of the National Productivity case. The ACTU/Government agreement which renegotiated the Accord provides for the introduction of superannuation in special and isolated circumstances prior to July 1986. I have advised the parties in the transport industry that early implementation should only occur on a negligible cost basis consistent with the wage fixing guidelines and that there should be no industrial action. Discussions between the parties in the industry are continuing consistent with the outcome of the 15 November meeting. The other questions also concern the application of the Government/ACTU agreement in connection with superannuation. The September agreement provides for the outcome of the Productivity Case to be applied to public sector employees, as well as to the rest of the workforce. This could occur in a number of ways. Improved vesting, for example, would not increase the maximum retirement benefits available from the scheme. As from 1 July 1986, superannuation arrangements for employees in the paint industry will provide for an industry superannuation scheme based on the outcome of the national productivity case. Members of the Federated Storemen and Packers' Union will be able to have the national productivity case outcome paid into the union's own superannuation scheme (Labour Unions Co-operative Retirement Fund), as an alternative to joining the industry scheme. The existing company superannuation schemes and the level of employer and employee contributions to those are to remain untouched. Senator Button —On 27 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2356) Senator Walters asked me, without notice, whether the Government would give a similar grant of $3000 to the Australian Flag Association to that given through the Office of Youth Affairs to enable young Australians to participate in the Ausflag '88 competition for a new national flag. I indicated that I suspected the answer was no, but that I would discuss it with the Prime Minister and then give Senator Walters a conclusive answer. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Minister Assisting me for Youth Affairs, the Honourable John Dawkins, wrote to the President of Australian National Flag Association, Sir Colin Hines, on 25 November 1985 replying in the following terms to a request for a similar grant to that given by the Office of Youth Affairs to Ausflag '88 to present the Australian National Flag Association's case for the retention of the present national flag. ``By way of background, you should know that the successful application by Ausflag 88 for a small grant from the International Youth Year (IYY) Secretariat, which is part of the Office of Youth Affairs, was determined on the basis that such support would enable young Australians to participate in a National Flag competition if they choose to do so. IYY funds have supported many other non-profit organisations and groups to stage conferences, seminars, festivals and other activities which have involved issues of public concern and interest, and which were judged to contribute to broadening public debate. The Commonwealth Government's aim in International Youth Year has been to encourage greater involvement of young people in such issues of the day through processes which stimulate thought, creativity and activity. The decision to approve the grant to Ausflag '88 under these guidelines in no way reflects or indicates the Government's policy on the National Flag. As the Prime Minister stated in the House on 22 April 1985, the Government has no proposal before it to change the design of the National Flag. Any request for a grant, therefore, from your Association would need to provide details of youth participation in the presentation of your case. Should your Association wish to pursue its request for a grant, you should make a detailed submission to the Office of Youth Affairs, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Edmund Barton Building, Barton, A.C.T. 2600 for consideration.'' I also answered a question in the House on 26 November where I stated that this Government has no intention of changing the existing Australian flag. (See House of Representatives Hansard, Page 3662, 26 November, 1985). Senator Walsh —On 29 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2609), Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware that there is one roneoed copy of the report [on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, 1984-1985] in the Senate Records Office which honourable senators can look at but cannot take away and that, despite the fact that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs now has a reference to deal with this matter, neither members of that Committee nor the public can obtain copies of the report apparently until after Christmas. The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Sub-section 93 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 requires the Attorney-General to prepare by 31 October 1985, a report on the operation of the Act for the year ending 30 June 1985, and to table that report within 15 sitting days of each House. The annual report for 1984-1985 is a substantial document of 481 pages which was prepared and tabled in accordance with sub-section 93 (1) of the Act. As printed copies were not available, copies of the report as tabled were made available in the Senate Records Office, the Bills and Papers Office, and the Parliamentary Library, in accordance with the usual practice. Printed copies of the report were sent to honourable senators on 17 December 1985. Senator Walsh —On 3 December 1985 (Hansard, page 2777), Senator Sheil asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question with out notice concerning bans imposed on Mayne Nickless subsidiaries at Tullamarine which the company alleged were in connection with the Transport Workers Union superannuation campaign. I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: I was aware of the dispute which affected Mayne Nickless operations at Tullamarine and other airports. The dispute related to industrial difficulties at a Mayne Nickless subsidiary in Canada. It appears that speculation that the industrial action related to superannuation was unfounded. All bans were lifted on 4 December as a result of progress in resolving the difficulties at the Loomis armoured car company in Vancouver which the Transport Workers Union stated its actions were directed towards. Senator Button —On 4 December 1985 (Hansard, page 2906), Senator Brownhill asked me the following question without notice: Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware that farmers applying for diesel rebates have been told that their claims will not be processed until `procedural adjustments' have been made within the Australian Customs Service? Considering that this initiative was first determined prior to August and announced in the Budget on 20 August-some 3 1/2 months ago-does this not indicate at best inefficiency of a government department and at worst an attempt by government to avoid paying its bills at the expense of the Australian farmer and fisherman? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government's decision to rebate the full excise duty on diesel fuel used in eligible primary production from 1 November 1985 required certain legislative amendments. The necessary amendments were contained in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1985. Processing of claims for primary producers at the full rebate rate retrospective to 1 November 1985 was then immediately commenced by the Australian Customs Service. Senator Grimes —On 5 December 1985 (Hansard, page 3024), Senator Haines asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning vitamin B6. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: There has been long-standing concern by health authorities over the growing trend of healthy people taking unnecessary dietary vitamin supplements. This practice is being promoted by some sections of industry in parallel with unfounded allegations about nutritional deficiencies in the Australian food supply. My Department has been active in attempting to counter this trend through its many publications and magazine and journal articles on nutrition, and the Better Health Commission has identified nutrition as one of its major target areas. The evidence now emerging of people taking megadoses of vitamins and developing illnesses which, in some cases are permanent and untreatable, is of considerable concern. Evidence on vitamin B6 such as that provided by Professor Truswell has been considered by the Poisons Schedule Committee (PSC) of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Following its last meeting in late November 1985, the PSC is developing a recommendation for NHMRC endorsement. However, it has been hampered in its deliberations by the relative lack of objective scientific data on the safe daily intake of this vitamin. It is known that the normal dietary requirement for good health in adults is 2-3 milligrams per day and that doses of 2000-3000 milligrams per day can lead to peripheral nerve disease. Because of the lack of data in the scientific literature on dose regimes between these extremes, industry has been asked by the PSC to provide evidence relating to safe dose levels. The current situation is that there is no restriction on the sale of vitamin B6 and it is not listed in the NHMRC Uniform Poisons Schedule. The proposal which is being considered is as follows: Where the recommended daily intake on the label is 50 milligrams or below, no restrictions need apply. Where the recommended daily intake on the label is over 50 milligrams, then the preparation should either: be placed in Schedule 4 of the Poisons Schedule and thus be available on a doctor's prescription only; or carry a mandatory warning statement on the label as follows: WARNING-THIS MEDICATION MAY BE BE DANGEROUS WHEN USED IN LARGE AMOUNTS OR FOR A LONG PERIOD It is hoped to have a firm recommendation ready by the end of March 1986. This will then be passed to the State and Territory health authorities for them to amend their poisons regulations. (Question No. 302) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: How many contracts awarded specifically under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act have been renegotiated after their original awarding (see answer to Question No. 12, Hansard, 13 May 1985, p. 1866 and specifically to part (3) thereof). Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Contracting parties commonly alter the basis of their relationship if agreement can be reached. From time to time my Department has re-negotiated provisions of contracts awarded under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. Variations are only agreed to by the Department of Aviation where they are deemed to be in the best interests of the Commonwealth. Some of the areas in which variations to contracts have been made include the financial consideration payable, extent of goods and services offered, hours of operation, extent of leasehold improvements to be effected, pricing of goods and services and extension to the duration of contract itself. There is no record kept of the number of contracts re-negotiated. (Question No. 496) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Communications aware of responses to an advertisement placed in the Brisbane metropolitan press by a Brisbane man, Mr Paul Wells, in relation to the declining standards of Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news and program presentations; if so, is the Minister prepared to refer the responses to a totally independent source for assessment, as a basis for reconsidering Board and senior management decisions on the so-called `new direction' of the ABC. (2) Will the Minister review the structure, personnel and decision making processes of the current ABC Board, in view of the ABC's loss of audience support over recent program and format changes and the departure from the ABC of some of its key presenters and staff. (3) Will general radio and television services to country areas be made more relevant to the particular needs and wishes of non-metropolitan viewers and listeners. (4) Can the Minister assure ABC staff that further changes to ABC program style and format will not be undertaken without full consultation with senior production staff and that justification of such changes will be made, both publicly and internally. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC): (1) The advertisement placed by Mr Paul Wells was a private advertisement and no information on the outcome of the advertisement has been made available to the Minister. Similarly the ABC has received no information about the outcome of it. (2) The Government established the new Corporation and appointed a new Board of Directors in the expectation that the ABC would be reformed and it is now midway through its most profound changes in fifty years. The Government supports the implementation of policies and strategies which are intended to lead to the development and improvement of the national broadcasting service. There is no intention to review the matters suggested by the honourable senator given the continuing steps for reform within the ABC. (3) The ABC Board and Management are endeav- ouring to provide improved radio and television services which are both identifiably Australian and identifiably different from the programs offered by the commercial stations. The Board has decided that in television the ABC should primarily be a national and state-based provider of programs, while in radio the introduction of the Second Regional Radio Network allows the ABC to extend its regional services as well as providing national and state radio services. The Board of Directors came to the conclusion that with the introduction of the domestic satellite many more services are likely to be available to regional areas through commercial television and this needed to be taken into account when planning the ABC's future directions as the national broadcasting service. However, following the decision to phase out local regional television from Rockhampton and Townsville, the Corporation received a number of complaints from viewers living in affected areas. After a meeting in Townsville in early 1985 between ABC executives, Queensland politicians and representatives of civic and rural industry groups, an ABC committee of review was formed to see how the Corporation, given its current funding constraints, might best serve the people in North Queensland. On 26 November 1985, the Committee presented to North Queensland Federal Parliamentarians a final draft version of its report on this matter and discussed at length the report's contents. The report will also be made available to the Queensland ABC Advisory Council. Comments and responses received from these groups will be considered before the ABC takes further action to finalise the report. (4) These are not matters for the Minister but fall entirely within the province of the ABC especially in respect of programming style and format. (Question No. 562) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has the decision to base all of the 200 staff members allocated for the establishment of the Department of Community Services in Queensland in the Brisbane metropolitan area only been reviewed in view of the Government's policy of decentralisation. (2) Is there now any possibility that some of these staff members will be allocated to serve in regional areas. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Department of Community Services has 378 staff in Queensland. Of these, 95 are located outside the Brisbane Metropolitan area. 87 of these non-metropolitan staff are located in north Queensland, mainly in Townsville. There are also Regional Rehabilitation Units at Maroochydore and Toowoomba. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) regional presence is to be extended in Queensland with the planned opening of a unit at the Gold Coast in the first half of 1986. Additional non-metropolitan CRS units in Queensland are under consideration. The Department is examining the desirability and feasibility of establishing a broader regional capacity with a view to greater community involvement in the planning and delivery of child care, residential and community care programs. In developing this strategy, I am aware of the need to give access to the department and its programs to all community groups, including those in non-metropolitan areas. I am also aware of the importance of improved co-ordination and consultative arrangements with State and local governments in the identification of needs within the community and the development of proposals to meet those needs. Consideration of any proposals in this area will be addressed initially in the context of the 1986-87 Budget deliberations. I should also mention that the Department will shortly be calling for applications from external research bodies to undertake a study of the access to and delivery of community services in remote communities. This project will be funded under the new Community Services Research and Development Fund for which funds were provided in the 1985-86 Budget. The project will provide valuable input to the development of policies affecting remote and isolated communities. (Question No. 572) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) What sum is allocated in the current financial year for hospitality/entertainment which may be expended: (a) by the Department; and (b) by each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (2) What were the guidelines in force as at 1 September 1985 for expenditure from the hospitality/entertainment account of: (a) the Department; and (b) each and every Statutory Authority for which the Minister has responsibility. (3) Following upon the Statement by the Treasurer `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' on 19 September 1985, what action is proposed in relation to questions 1 and 2. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) $12,000. (b) Australian Audit Office-$6,000; Australian Bicentennial Authority, State and Northern Territory Offices, Commonwealth provision-$25,000; Allocation for ACT and Island Territory Office-$2,000; Allocation for National Office-$29,000; Australian Science and Technology Council-$2,000; Commonwealth Ombudsman-$1,200; Economic Planning Advisory Council-$5,000; Merit Protection and Review Agency-$2,400; Office of National Assessments-$9,500; Public Service Board-$10,000. (2) (a) Finance Directions 13/1, 13/2 and Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14. (b) Australian Bicentennial Authority-Hospitality and entertainment expenditures are oversighted by Executive Directors at State level and by General Managers at the National Office. Official entertainment is undertaken on a limited and necessary basis only. All other agencies-as for (2) (a) above. (3) Entertainment expenditure is being recorded in accordance with Finance Circular 1985/18. The Australian Bicentennial Authority also is complying with the Statement by the Treasurer. (Question No. 727) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Will the distribution of the collections amongst the States from the operation of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 take into account the following- (a) the existing states of the roads; (b) the climate of the area; (c) special weather conditions; and (d) other factors. (2) Has there been any work as yet on a distribution formula. (3) Will Federal registration fees be payable by all Government Trading Authorities, State and Federal. (4) Is there provision for anything less than full recovery; if so, where is this provision in the Act. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Section 23 (3) of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 specifies that the distribution of payments from the Trust Fund to the States should reflect the damage done to each State's roads by registered motor vehicles and trailers operating under the Act. Accordingly, to the extent that they impact on road damage, such factors as those referred to in the question will be taken into account. (2) Yes. Preliminary work has been commenced by the Federal Department of Transport but a formula has not yet been determined. (3) All non-exempt Government Trading Authorities will be subject to the provisions of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. (4) Section 5 (3) of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 provides that registration charges may recover no more than the road maintenance and upkeep costs resulting from damage done by registered motor vehicles or trailers. Subject to that constraint there is no legislative requirement which determines the rate of cost recovery that will be achieved. (Question No. 728) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: What degree of approval by the States, under the provisions of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 will be necessary before the Minister for Transport would pronounce `substantial agreement' and have the legislation proclaimed. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As I have indicated on a number of occasions, a decision that the States and Territories have made substantial progress in implementing their parts of the fast-track package of reforms for the road transport industry will not be taken until I have fully consulted with industry and my Ministerial colleagues on the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC). This decision will be taken in the context of the unanimous agreement of all Federal, State and Territory Governments at ATAC in December 1985 to aim for a target implementation date for the fast-track package of 1 July 1986. (Question No. 729) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has the Australian National Railways actually reduced freight rates by 20 per cent between Adelaide and Alice Springs; if so, is any action proposed to restore the previous levels. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has advised that freight rates between Adelaide and Alice Springs have been reduced by 20 per cent on piggyback units with a gross weight of 32 tonnes. This represents about one per cent of AN's piggyback traffic on this route. Rate reductions for the remaining piggyback traffic and container traffic on this route have been around 9 per cent. The rate reductions are part of AN's commercial strategy and are made possible as a result of increased efficiency achieved from AN's new intermodal wagons and loading facilities. As with all other commercial decisions, AN rates are continuously monitored and adjusted twice yearly in the light of prevailing market conditions. (Question No. 730) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Have the levels of State Railway Charges as yet been given broad and general discussions by State and Federal Authorities. (2) What discussion and participation will the Tasmanian Government have under the provisions of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985, as to the fixing of the Tasmanian Rail Freight and what guarantees will be given to Tasmania on the future of the Rail service if the actions of the Government as to freight levels prejudice its economic viability. (3) Will States which have special major contracts such as coal, iron ore, timber and wheat be compelled to raise those rates to meet the requirements the Minister for Transport referred to in his speeches but which are not covered by the legislation. (4) What action does the Minister have at his disposal to obtain agreement and does the implementation of this whole legislation depend on gaining increases in rail freight rates. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) All parts of the fast-track package, including the need to improve interstate rail cost recovery have been discussed by State and Federal authorities. (2) The arrangements with respect to the Tasmanian rail system are governed by the provisions of the Tasmanian rail transfer agreement. The Government has recently completed a three year agreement with the Australian National Railways Commission on the operation of Tasrail and the performance of Tasrail will be reviewed towards the end of that period. (3) Most contracts relating to the carriage of major commodities such as coal, iron ore, timber and wheat relate to intrastate operations and therefore are not directly affected by the rail costs recovery objective identified as part of the fast-track package. (4) Improvement in interstate rail cost recovery can be achieved by either increasing revenue, reducing costs or some combination of both. All State Ministers with responsibility for railways have agreed that the cost recovery of interstate railway operations should be improved. (Question No. 731) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Has there been a Departmental or Australian Transport Advisory Council Impact Study done of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985. (2) What projections does the Minister for Transport have as to- (a) the projected increases to Road Freight rates (per tonne/km) and/or percentage; (b) the projected percentage increase in rail freights; (c) the effects on large, medium and small operators, respectively; (d) the effects this would have on business failure in each group; (e) the effects on the subcontractors; and (f) the cost of implementation of the requirement on a per truck/ per operator basis. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Federal Government in drawing up the fast-track package of reforms for the road transport industry took into consideration the impact the package would have on the industry as well as the economy as a whole. Around one dollar in seven, or approximately $25 billion each year, is spent on transport in Australia. In these terms the additional $14m each year to be raised by the interstate road transport legislation is miniscule. In most long distance work in Australia the market price for transport is determined by vehicles on full State registration so the impact of the interstate vehicle charge on freight rates would be negligible. However, at the very most, where some goods are mainly carried by interstate vehicles, any increase on the price of transporting these goods is estimated not to exceed half a per cent. Against these cost factors there will be offsetting savings as a result of the other elements of the fast-track package, eg. reduced road accident costs resulting from the introduction of graduated driver licensing and the removal of the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas lower financing costs as the finance industry perceives the improvements in the professionalism and viability of the road transport industry improved consumer protection for owner-drivers and operator licensing will lead to better informed entrants to the industry therefore reducing the risks of early financial failure for which the community pays one way or another improved productivity resulting from more efficient operating conditions. (2) (a) See (1) above. (b) Matching improvements in interstate railway cost recovery is an integral part of the fast track package. The measures to be adopted in improving the financial performance of each rail system including the question of increased rail freight rates is a matter for individual Governments and rail systems to determine and is subject to examination by the Inter-State Commission which is due to report by 30 April 1986. (c) See (1) above. (d) A worthwhile reduction in business failure is expected as the interstate road transport legislation is implemented as part of the fast-track package of reforms for the road freight industry. (e) See (1) above. (f) There has been a net increase of one senior executive in the average operative staffing level of the Federal Department of Transport associated with the implementation of the Federal interstate registration scheme. Other minor administrative costs incurred by the Federal Department of Transport have been met within existing allocations. On a per truck/per operator basis these costs are negligible. Ongoing costs for the Federal interstate vehicle registration scheme will be minimised by utilising existing State agencies which already register interstate vehicles. The States and Territories will continue to impose prescribed fees to a maximum of $100 to recover the marginal administrative costs of operating the scheme. Similarly the operator licensing scheme is to be administered by State and Territory Governments with provision for appropriate fees to be collected to cover marginal expenses. (Question No. 732) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: What steps have been taken, or are proposed, to cover the objections in regard to the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Minister for Transport wrote to the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on 18 October 1985 outlining the Government's position in relation to matters the Committee raised concerning the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. Subsequently the Government agreed to an amendment moved by the Australian Democrats which covered the Committee's concerns regarding the need for a legislative ceiling to be placed on interstate vehicle registration charges. (Question No. 735) Senator Knowles asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Is the Fremantle Port area between latitude 31.46S-32.04S and longitude 115.34E-115.44E, within the limits of the Australian Territorial Sea; if not, how is this area designated. (2) Is Australia a signatory to the: (a) International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea (1974); (b) United Nations Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone; and (c) International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). (3) Are the following sentences contained in the documents listed in Question 2 and/or the Acts covering these conventions: (a) Safety of Life at Sea 1974: (i) each contracting Government will take all steps necessary to ensure that when intelligence of any of the dangers specified in paragraph (a) of this regulation is received, it will be promptly brought to the knowledge of those concerned; (b) Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (UN Convention of Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone: (ii) the Coastal State is required to give appropriate publicity to any dangers to navigation of which it has knowledge within its territorial sea; and (c) IALA: (iii) confirmation that the buoyage changes in specific areas have been carried out will normally be announced in radio navigational warnings and in notice to mariners. (4) Is it the responsibility of the Minister for Transport through his Departmental Federal Sea Surveillance and Safety Centre to authorise such warnings to all concerned; if not, why not. (5) Does the Minister through his Department believe that due to a letter from Prime Minister, Mr J. A. Lyons to the States dated 3 July, 1934, coded AK 3/10/2, which makes no mention of radio warnings or the responsibility of warning all concerned of dangers, etc., as do the Acts and Conventions mentioned in Questions 2 and 3 that the Department of Transport is relieved from sending out warnings to all those concerned. (6) Does the Minister deny his responsibility under the following Acts: Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 and Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 which clearly state that all responsibility for international agreements are retained by the Commonwealth. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The Department of Marine and Harbours, Western Australia, advises that the Port of Fremantle includes inner and outer harbours and the respective water area. The inner harbour is all that situated within the mouth of the Swan River extending from a line at the western extremity of the north and south moles to the western alignment of the Fremantle traffic bridge. The outer harbour is bounded by a line starting at a point on the sea coast of the mainland in latitude 31*56'22''S thence extending northwesterly on a true bearing of 341 degrees to the intersection of latitude 31*46'S thence due west to intersect the meridian of longitude 115*30'E thence due south to intersect latitude 31*57'S thence due east to intersect the meridian of longitude 115*34'E thence southerly to latitude 32*04'S thence south easterly to Entrance Point, Garden Island, thence along the high water mark of the northern, eastern and southern shores of that island to South West Point. Thence southerly to John Point on the mainland. Thence easterly and northerly along the high water mark to the eastern extremity of the South Mole (excluding the Fremantle Fishing Boat harbour), thence along the southern side of the South Mole to the latter's western extremity, then west north westerly to the western extremity of the mole, thence along the northern side of the north mole to the latter's eastern extremity at the high water mark of such ocean and then northerly along that mark to the starting point. A small segment of the south westerly waters of the outer harbour lie within the Australian territorial sea. Of the waters north of latitude 31*56'22''S some are within the territorial sea and others in areas of high seas. (2) (a) Yes. Australia acceded to the International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea on 17 August 1983. (b) Yes. Australia acceded to the International Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone on 14 May 1963. (c) No. Australia, through the Federal Department of Transport, is a member of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities which is a non-Government consultative body. Australia is a member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) having acceded to the Convention of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (as it was then known) on 13 February 1952. (3) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. However this does not prevent co-operative arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth concerning the implementation of this provision. (c) No document containing the sentence quoted has been identified by the Department of Transport. (4) The Minister for Transport through his Departmental Federal Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre authorises warnings of dangers to navigation which relate to those areas for which the Federal Government accepts responsibility as part of a shared responsibility with the States and Territories for the provision of marine navigational aids. (5) Yes. The Department of Transport is only required to send out warnings of dangers to navigation in relation to those parts of the shared responsibility for which the Commonwealth is responsible. (6) The Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 and the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 assign no specific ministerial responsibility. Section 6 of both Acts states, Nothing in this Act affects the status of the territorial sea of Australia under international law or the rights and duties of the Commonwealth in relation to ensuring the observance, in relation to that sea or any other waters, of international law, including the provisions of international agreements binding on the Commonwealth and, in particular the provisions of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone relating to the right of innocent passage of ships. This provision does not prevent co-operative arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth concerning implementation of international maritime agreements. (Question No. 742) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 2 December 1985: (1) Can the Minister for Aviation advise why there has been a cut-back in funds for locally owned airport maintenance. (2) What impact will this decision have on air safety, particularly in isolated areas where small local authorities have limited funds to allocate to airport maintenance. (3) What standards are set by the Department of Aviation to ensure that local airports meet required safety levels. (4) How can these safety levels be guaranteed if local authorities cannot meet additional costs associated with airport maintenance. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No actual reduction for routine maintenance has occurred. However, in October last year, aerodrome owners were advised that the level of funding for this financial year was to be reduced. Since then, the Minister for Aviation has directed his Department to make additional funds available to enable all properly substantiated claims for routine aerodrome maintenance to be met. Urgent specific maintenance projects will also be funded. (2) The level of funds has been restored and there will be no impact on air safety. Even if it had been necessary to restrict maintenance grants, safety would not have been compromised although a reduction in air services may have been necessary. (3) The Department of Aviation adopts airport standards generally in accordance with recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. All licensed aerodromes are subject to regular inspection by Department of Aviation officers who ensure that these physical standards continue to be met. (4) Local authorities will now receive sufficient maintenance subsidies in this financial year to keep their aerodromes at the required standard. Safety levels at licensed Australian aerodromes are always closely monitored. If a local authority were unable to generate sufficient finance to maintain an aerodrome at a specific standard, then action may be necessary to de-license it or to maintain it at a standard only suitable for smaller aircraft by such measures as reduction in runway strip dimensions.