Thursday, 10 April 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights because: This Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as:- The right to own your own home and other property and not to be deprived of it without just compensation. The right to insulate our children from radical forms of education and the right to choice of schools. The right to a referendum for constitutional amendments. The right to true freedom of speech. The Bill gives dangerous, unlimited powers to an unelected Human Rights Commission with no appeal, no legal representation and closed hearings. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote to reject the Bill, believing that such a Bill should only be determined by the people at a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the 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 every pray. by Senator Knowles (from 143 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 Childs (from eight citizens) and Cooney (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) the large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Senator Collard (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, humbly pray that the Parliament act to outlaw the practice of the large petrol companies also controlling petrol retail outlets in competition with independent petrol distributors and retailers who they supply, thus acting in a position of unfair competition, and leading to the large companies exerting inconscionable pressure on those independent distributors and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 70 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows (1) That the medical services rendered by Dr. B. R. Taylor to the undersigned and their families were reasonably medically necessary and charges of overservicing are unreasonable. (2) A doctor's and patient's judgment of need for service be beyond question. Your petitioners pray/ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should oppose charges brought against Dr. B. R. Taylor by the Minister for Health as services rendered were reasonably medically necessary. National issues in question such as the univeral coverage of Medicare to all Australian citizens when in need of any necessary medical service should be debated. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 102 citizens). Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —by leave-I present the following petitioning letter which is not in accordance with the Standing Orders from eight citizens of New South Wales requesting that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 be rejected. Dear Senator, We wish to express to you our alarm at the proposed Human Rights Bill, now before the Parliament. Rather than preserve the legal and human rights of Australians, now in operation, this Bill lays the way right open for tyranny and abuse of these rights. It is a Bill which has received no public debate, insufficient Parliamentary debate, and bears all the hallmarks of being hastily put together. The far reaching effects of this Bill could be devastating to the time-tested and highly-valued system of justice in this country. It is most worthy of note that the Bill is being received gladly by the leaders of totalitarian governments, but has been rejected by the democratic parliaments of Great Britain and United States of America. This nation should, in fact, MUST, also reject the Bill. We urgently request that you vote against this Bill, in its entirety, when it comes before the Senate. Petitioning letter received. Petitions received. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That there be laid on the Table the document and papers contained within the `Drug Offensive Information Kit'. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —In accordance with my notice of intention given on 9 April 1986, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name, for disallowance of the Artificial Conception Ordinance 1985. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) records its full support of the Queensland Ecumenical Council in condemning the National Party ``gerrymander'' which it regards as so destructive to Queensland that it has recorded its strong opposition in the following terms: ``Any government that feels it has a divine right to govern is doomed to fragmentation and failure and any government which believes it is the government people want should be prepared to test that belief, but such a test will be valid only if the votes of all electors are equal'', and (b) welcomes the Queensland Ecumenical Council's commitment to social justice by calling on the present minority Government to implement a fair and just voting system. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109a I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos. 1 and 2, standing in my name for 11 April 1986, for disallowance of amendment No. 46 of the Telecommunications (Staff) By-laws and the Navigation (Limitation of Shipowners' Liability) Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee was concerned that the amendment to the Telecom Australia by-laws may have exposed Telecom employees to the risk of arbitrary loss of certain leave entitlements and that the navigation regulations introduced a reversal of onus of proof into civil proceedings concerning shipping. Letters of explanation received from the Chairman of Telecom and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) have satisfied the Committee that the instruments in question do not infringe its principles. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard copies of the Committee's correspondence in these two matters. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 4 April 1986 Senator B. Cooney, Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances The Senate, Parliament of Australia Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator I refer to your letter of 18 February, 1986 concerning my Commission's amendment to Telecommunications (Staff) By-law 33. The Committee's concern regarding the nature of the amendment to the By-law is appreciated. I should however, at the outset, mention that Telecom always endeavours to exercise the powers of the Telecommunications Act with regard to government policies and practices, good business practice and in the proper interest of its employees. Telecom's actions are, as I am sure you are well aware, most visible and consequently subject to criticism and review by a wide range of formal and informal processes. Relevant to considerations of your Committee is the fact that Telecom has a highly Unionised (some 90%) workforce which is readily able to represent allegedly unfair management actions individually, through their representatives or through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (ACAC). (Decisions and Awards of the ACAC override any statutory or administrative prescription-Sub-Sec. 67 (2) Telecom Act). The particular amendment before the Committee in fact arose from the 20th meeting of the Telecom Consultative Council. Staff-side had raised concerns regarding the restrictive and complex wording of the By-law and requested that Telecom adopt more flexible arrangements which could take into account a wide range of circumstances that may arise. Rather than attempt to prescribe in detail every possible occurrence in the By-law the proposed amendment adopts the business like approach of providing a means whereby the delegate of the Commission (who is a senior executive of the Human Resources Department) is able quickly to determine in appropriate circumstances that credits should not lapse. Rather than resulting in the arbitrary loss of credits the amendment is directed towards preventing that loss. In my view this is a proper role for senior Telecom management to exercise in a responsible way having regard to its commercial environment. All determinations made by delegates are advised to the Telecom Commissioners. I trust the above information will be helpful in your Committee's further deliberations on this matter. Yours sincerely R. W. BRACK Chairman 20 February, 1986 Personal Assistant to Mr. R. W. Brack, A.O. Chairman, Australian Telecommunications Commission, 199 William Street, MELBOURNE VIC. 3000 Dear Sir/Madam, Recently your Chairman will have received a letter dated 18 February 1986 from Senator Cooney, Chairman of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee in connection with the Telecommunication (Staff) By-laws (Amendment) No. 46. While the Committee awaits a reply to that letter in due course, I would be grateful if you could inform your Chairman that Notice of Motion of Disallowance of the Orders was given in the Senate by Senator Cooney on 19 February 1986 for 12 sitting days after that date (i.e. 11 April 1986). For certain procedural reasons the Senator was unable to indicate in an accompanying statement that 19 February 1986 was the last day on which notice of motion could be given and that at this stage he was giving notice as a protective measure to protect the Committee's freedom of action pending receipt of explanations from the Corporation. Yours sincerely, PETER O'KEEFFE Secretary 18 February, 1986 R. W. Brack, A.O. Chairman, Australian Telecommunications Commission, 199 William Street, MELBOURNE VIC. 3000 Dear Mr. Brack, At its meeting on 13 February 1986, the Committee considered Telecommunications (Staff) By-laws Amendment No. 46 (tabled in the Senate on 26 November 1985). The by-law allows the Commission to determine administratively the terms and conditions upon which recreation leave credits of an officer shall lapse. The Committee notes that section 111(1)(g) of the Telecommunications Act 1975 provides that ``The Commission may make by-laws . . . with respect to . . . the terms and conditions of employment of officers and employees.'' It appears however, that the by-laws in question may have been designed to avoid any necessity to reduce into legislative form relevant terms and conditions on the lapsing of recreation leave credit. While the Explanatory Memorandum does set out the two criteria which the Commission will adopt in making decisions about leave credits there is of course nothing formal or binding about these criteria, leaving the Commission with a very wide and unstructured discretion in the matter of lapsing of credits. Since this matter concerns the possible arbitrary loss of accrued employee entitlements the Committee is concerned to ensure that no unfairness can occur, even inadvertently, in the administration of this matter. The point of principle that may arise as a result of this amendment is that Parliament may no longer scrutinise the detail of provisions which are relegated to the non-legislative status of the Memorandum. As you may know, it is the case that the Public Service Board for example, makes quite detailed formal determinations about analogous terms and conditions of employment and these are formally subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee acknowledges that by virtue of section 43 (1) of the Telecommunications Act 1975 ``officers and employees hold office on such respective terms and conditions as the Commission determines''. However, the Committee would be grateful for any comments or advice you might offer as to why it was decided to remove the provisions in toto from parliamentary scrutiny rather than for example, simply to re-enact them along the lines of the criteria stated in the Explantory Memorandum. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman Dear Senator Cooney, Thank you for your letter of 18 February 1986 conveying the concerns of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on the wording of new sub-regulation 3 (4) of Statutory Rules 1985 No. 317 which amend the Navigation (Limitation of Shipowners' Liability) Regulations. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims provides for an upper limit to be placed on the amount that may be awarded to plaintiffs for damages sustained as a result of an act by the ship of a defendant shipowner. That upper limit will depend on the tonnage of the ship, which in most cases is a matter of record and not in dispute. In some cases, however, a ship has not been previously measured for tonnage in the way called for by the Convention and for some reason cannot be measured by normal methods-it may have sunk, for instance. To help avoid long and costly wrangling between the parties on the limit of liability, the Navigation Act provides, in section 336, for the Minister to provide an estimate of the tonnage in such cases. Although provision is made for a court to accept the Minister's estimate, it is open to either plaintiff or defendant to challenge that estimate. Until the recent amendment, the challenger was required to ``prove the contrary'', an unreasonably difficult task given that no estimate could be proved correct by anyone. The opportunity was therefore taken in the recent amendments to lessen the onus on a challenger by requiring only that the Minister's estimate be proven incorrect. This could be achieved relatively easily by demonstrating that the Minister's estimate had wrongly taken into account, or failed to take into account, some attribute of the ship. I believe that the provisions as they currently stand represent a sensible solution to a practical problem and provide adequate scope for either party to the litigation to challenge the Minister's estimate. Yours Sincerely, PETER MORRIS 18 February, 1986 The Hon. Peter Morris, M.P. Minister for Transport, Parliament House, CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 13 February 1986 the Committee considered the Navigation (Limitation of Shipowners' Liability) Regulations (Amendment) (being Statutory Rules 1985 No. 317, tabled in the Senate on 29/11/85). The Committee seeks your advice in connection with a possible reversal of onus of proof. The regulations provide for the ascertainment of tonnage of ships for the purpose of determining liability in accordance with the Limitation Convention. New regulation 3 (3) provides that where the tonnage of a ship cannot be measured, the Minister shall estimate the dimensions of the ship and the tonnage of the ship that would have been ascertained if the ship had been a ship to which the Navigation (Tonnage Measurement) Regulations applied. New Regulation 3 (4) provides that- ``On the hearing of an application under sub-section 335 (1) of the Act, the Court shall accept an estimate made under sub-regulation (3) unless that estimate is proven to be incorrect.'' The Committee considers this to be a somewhat unusual formula which may have the effect of technically reversing the onus of proof in these proceedings. Since the proceedings referred to could be of some financial significance to an owner, the Committee would welcome your comments and advice on this aspect of the regulations. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman Senator PETER BAUME —I remind the Minister for Community Services of the statement by the President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Gerry Hand, that poverty and homelessness have continued to increase under the Labor Government. Will the Minister identify the specific areas and specific ways in which poverty and homelessness have increased during the last three years? Senator GRIMES —I saw a report which claimed that Mr Gerry Hand said that poverty and homelessness had increased under the Labor Government. It is not a statement with which I agree and nor, I note, did Mr Hand produce any evidence to back that statement. Certainly in recent times waiting lists for public housing have increased as they have inexorably for the last seven or eight years. I suggest that that is not due to any specific policies or actions of this Government. It is due to factors beyond the control of this Government, concerning housing finance and the general economic situation. We have taken actions to correct that. In the last three years the Government has targeted its social security policies and assistance to those obviously in most need. We have taken the biggest step that we could take to reduce the number of people in poverty by increasing the number of people in work and decreasing the number of unemployed. The biggest cause of increases in the number of people in poverty in the time of the previous Government was the extraordinarily rapid increase in unemployment, in particular, the increase of about 250,000 in the last year or so of the previous Liberal- National Party Government. One of the difficulties faced in this country and in other countries is the large number of women and children who have fallen into poverty. This Government has targeted its social security assistance, even in difficult economic times, towards those groups. For instance, we have increased the real value of the additional pension and benefit for children and the mothers/guardians allowance. We have increased it in real terms by 60 per cent and in May this year the mothers/guardians allowance will increase to $12 a week. During the whole period of the Fraser Government that benefit decreased in real terms. We have targeted most of the increases in the income support area towards children and, therefore, towards the parents looking after those children in poverty. We have also announced measures to ease poverty traps which perpetuate the disadvantages of low income families under the taxation changes. We have under way a review of the whole social security system to improve the income maintenance system to avoid these poverty traps. The needs of families with children will be a high priority in the social security review which Mr Howe has announced. We have taken, and will continue to take measures in the social security system to ensure that the benefits provided by that system go to those in need. When people make statements such as `the number of people in poverty has increased in the last three years' they should produce evidence to back them and not make wild statements. We are not denying that too many people in this country are in poverty. Of course there are many more people in poverty than there should be. Senator Chaney —How many? Senator GRIMES —I will come to that. However, all of our actions will be aimed at reducing the number. Senator Chaney quite reasonably asks, in view of the fact that when he was Minister for Social Security he had to put up with this sort of statement, `how many?'. As I said when in opposition, I do not know how many at all. People who say there are two million or 2 1/2 million people in poverty in this country are making a guess. People who say: `There are one million people in poverty' are making a guess. All I say is that if there are 20,200,000 or one million there are too many. What we have to do is get a rational system which aims our assistance at those who are in poverty but which desirably, of course, gets us to a situation where people are prevented from falling into poverty rather than just being picked up when they do. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation aware of any plans to build a cold storage facility at Adelaide Airport? If so, how long will it be before the project is completed? Given the rapidly increasing demand from overseas markets for fresh produce, is the Minister confident that a facility would be planned to cope with future demand? I point out to the Minister that since Adelaide Airport became an international airport we expect $10m of fresh fruit and vegetables to be exported this year from Adelaide. Senator GIETZELT —The Government is aware that, as a result of rapid growth in international freight traffic at Adelaide, a demand has been created for cold storage facilities at Adelaide Airport. No doubt this is influenced by the introduction of direct international flights which have increased 30 per cent over the last year. However, having noted the demand for cold storage facilities, I am advised that the policy of the Department of Aviation is not necessarily to be put in a position in which it is obligated, or required, to provide the cold storage facilities. It has never been the policy of the Department to provide or construct such facilities. There is, as Senator Elstob has suggested, an expanding overseas market for fresh produce and, as a consequence of that growth, the establishment of some cold storage facilities will be required. To that extent the Government is prepared, in co-operation with the Department of Aviation, to call tenders in the latter part of 1986 for the development and management of appropriate facilities which are essential at Adelaide Airport. One would imagine that the private sector will recognise the need to take some initiatives in this matter. It will profit from the provision of such facilities. Therefore, the Government is prepared to co-operate with and will, having identified the nature of the problem as outlined by Senator Elstob, play its part in providing a site at Adelaide Airport. The Government expects that the private sector will take the initiative in seeking to respond to the tenders. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and has an overlapping interest for the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and Minister representing the Minister for Science. What is the Government's response to recent renewed calls for extending an applied research grants scheme to foster technology developments in Australia? This could supplement the Australian research grants scheme and industry research and development incentives but may involve both business and Government contributions to an applied research fund perhaps on a dollar for dollar basis. In particular, I urge the Government-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator TEAGUE —I ask the Government: Is it considering removing out of date and artificial barriers to participation in such research activities on the part of departments of excellence in our colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology? Senator RYAN —Our Government has been very supportive and very positive about any proposals which could bring industry and our research institutions, particularly in the higher education sector, into a closer and more fruitful relationship. A number of steps have been taken to do this since we have been in government. I suppose one of the most significant was the formation of a committee comprising representatives from the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education and the business community. I am sure Senator Teague will be aware, as he takes a close interest in these matters, that that committee has produced a report with very interesting recommendations on more opportunities for applied research. There is no doubt that the climate is now right for the kinds of measures to which Senator Teague referred in his question. Our Government is certainly interested in removing any obstacles in the way of such research. I should say to those who express some criticism of our enthusiasm for more applied research to be carried out in co-operation between business and our higher education institutions that we do not see these developments as undermining the traditional role of university research because most of the research funds in universities are still devoted to what is called pure research, and I think that is very important. At the same time, most of our universities now have companies attached to them whose purpose is to attract research funds from industry. Of course, many of the CAEs, particularly our institutes of technology but not only them, are now also actively seeking research funds. We are very interested in facilitating this and, if Senator Teague has any particular proposals in mind, I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss them with him. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Minister to the last part of my question which asked whether the Government will now remove out of date and artificial barriers to participation in these activities, specifically by our colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology which to date have been precluded from much research. Is the Government considering giving departments of excellence in our colleges, in particular, the opportunity to be involved? Senator RYAN —Yes, we have a whole range of these sorts of things under consideration. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister have any information on the rate of new capital investment by private enterprise in Australia? If so, can he indicate the pattern of such new investment in the various States and Territories? Senator WALSH —The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics information on that subject was released on 24 January and is therefore a little obsolete. But it does show that in the June quarter of 1985 capital investment had continued to rise and that in 1984-85 as a whole, compared with the previous financial year, nationally there was an increase in new private fixed capital investment of 10 per cent. That increase was spread across all States with the exception of Queensland. Queensland alone had a negative change in the volume of new fixed private capital investment. As I said at the beginning, those figures are somewhat dated and should shortly be superseded by the release of another ABS bulletin. But it is reasonable to assume that as interest rates continue to fall that will have a beneficial effect on investment. If I may interpolate, the only thing that makes me worried about that is that the Leader of the Opposition, in the document that was leaked yesterday, has forecast that interest rates will continue to fall. That disturbs me a little because as Treasurer in the discredited former Government he was wrong about just about everything, and I hope that he is not wrong with that prediction. In this area, as in so many others, Queensland is dragging down the rest of Australia. It has the lowest rate of capital formation. But lest Queenslanders think they come last in everything I think it ought to be noted that Queensland leads the country in a number of other areas of statistics and it has the highest figures on a number of things, for example, unemployment, industrial disputes, bankruptcies, venereal disease, ex-nuptial births and teenage pregnancies. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, but he may feel that the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is a more appropriate person to answer the question. Is the Minister aware of a proposal to build a $30m resort at Leura in the Blue Mountains? Is he aware that the proposed site consists of 9.6 hectares on the escarpment or cliff line and that the site is bounded on three sides by the Blue Mountains National Park and is only 40 metres from National Estate land? Can the Minister say whether the Australian Heritage Commission was aware of the proposed development and whether any environmental impact studies were done before approval was given for the Australian Industries Development Corporation to finance the resort? Further, can the Minister say whether or not any foreign capital is being used to finance the resort? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the tourist development at Leura to which Senator Haines has referred. I became aware of it because of the Australian Industries Development Corporation's involvement in financing that development. The AIDC is a body which operates in respect of its commercial decisions independently of government. But the Executive Officer of the AIDC saw fit to inform me that the AIDC had potential investment in this development. I am not able to answer precisely those parts of Senator Haines's question relating to an environmental impact statement and so on. This is some months ago and my recollection is perhaps not as good as it used to be, but I know that the Executive Officer of the AIDC referred to those issues and, at the time, I was satisfied that the AIDC had made proper inquiries about this. Whether it amounted to an environmental impact statement having been done or not, I am not sure. I will look into that question for Senator Haines and provide her with a more detailed answer as soon as possible. On the question of whether or not foreign capital is involved, I am not able to answer that precisely but, of course, the AIDC does make foreign borrowings. I will look again at that question in some detail. Perhaps in the meantime, while I am looking at that, Senator Haines might let me know the relevance of that part of the question. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services who will, of course, be aware that a number of child care centres were threatening not to open because of the Government's changes in funding arrangements. How many have not opened as a result of those changes? Senator GRIMES —As was predicted in this chamber many times, no centres have failed to open because of the changes in funding to child care, nor will there be any, I expect. The changes are working very smoothly. They were introduced to make funding more equitable and to ensure that the burden of funding children's services was spread more equitably throughout the community on the basis of people's capacity and ability to pay. Although there will still be complaints from a small group of people who do very well out of the children's services system who believe that we should be providing child care free 24 hours a day for anyone who wants it and paying wages to those who work in child care at any level that they like, I believe that the changes will continue to go smoothly. What is more important, we will continue every week to open new child care centres to provide more places in the children's services system for those many people in the community who need them but who, at the moment, can not get access to them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to an article in the Australian on Monday headed `US fears WA unions may cut off navy fuel'. In the body of the article the following view is expressed: The US is concerned that the fuel supplies it buys in WA on a regular basis could be cut off by leftist-motivated trade unions at the time of greatest need-when the US fleet was engaged in a growing confrontation. It says that this concern applies particularly to JP5 jet fuel, which is not stored by the Australian Navy in large enough quantities to help the US Navy. Has the American Administration expressed directly or indirectly to the Australian Government the types of concerns mentioned in the article and, if so, what has been the Australian Government's response? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australian and United States officials have discussed the US Navy's request to store diesel and turbine fuel in Western Australia to supply United States ships on routine port calls. At present United States ships in the Indian Ocean are refuelled at sea from tankers. Refuelling from land-based stocks is both more efficient and cheaper than refuelling at sea because it does allow oil to be purchased in much bigger lots. I am advised by the Minister that the United States Government has not raised the issue of industrial disputes in connection with proposals for fuel supply in Western Australia. That is quite contrary to what appeared in what was in fact an inaccurate article published on Monday. If I can add a few more things on this topic, because it has generated some public interest, we have proposed to the United States a basis for agreement which is designed both to satisfy United States needs and to protect Australian interests, including, of course, Australian sovereignty. In particular, we have stipulated that the fuel is to be stored for routine operational needs and not as a strategic stockpile. We have also made it clear that agreement for fuel storage will not constitute prior approval for ship visits to Western Australia. All ship visits will continue to be considered on a case by case basis by the Australian Government. I further add that in no sense at all will this proposal, if agreed, constitute any form of home porting for United States naval ships. In fact, there is no difference in principle between the arrangements now being discussed by Australia and the United States and the arrangements that have existed for several decades concerning fuel exchange between the two navies. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of many complaints about certain anomalies in the operation of legal aid? In particular, is the Minister aware that differences in priorities and even eligibility criteria between the States give rise to criticism that legal aid does not provide equal access to all citizens throughout Australia? Furthermore, can the Minister request the Attorney-General to investigate claims of misuse of legal aid to prolong Family Court disputes where one partner continues an ongoing appeal process to the detriment of the other partner and the children of that former marriage, where the court has ruled specifically? Is anything being done to standardise legal aid eligibility throughout Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —A number of complaints are made to the Attorney-General about eligibility for legal aid. As agencies must apply criteria so as to ensure that limited resources are used to provide aid to those who most need it, I guess that that is to be expected. There can often be situations which arise in which one party is eligible in a family law matter and the other is not. Strict merit criteria, quite apart from the financial ones, are also employed in making these eligibility decisions, and that again can be another reason for apparent discrimination in eligibility decisions which in fact are reasonable in all the circumstances. Because of the existence of independent legal aid commissions established by State legislation, albeit pursuant to Commonwealth-State agreements, in all States except New South Wales and Tasmania, there are differences in eligibility criteria, as Senator Reynolds has implied in her question. These were identified by the Legal Aid Task Force, which reported last year. The Commonwealth does regard it as highly desirable that there be a greater degree of uniformity in the use of Commonwealth funds and it will be pursuing this in consultation with the State legal aid commissions. Senator COLLARD —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate when this Government will stop expecting farmers to put up with burdens which reduce their incomes well below that of the rest of the community? When can farmers expect some real relief in areas of, firstly, excessively high interest rates which are protecting the dollar and the accord; secondly, excessive tariffs and secondary industry protection; thirdly, excessive rises in government taxes and charges which are rising faster than the rate of inflation; and, fourthly, excessively regulated labour markets which are causing an internal cost structure that reduces our competitiveness? Senator WALSH —I might have expected a question like this from the Government side of the Senate by way of a dorothy dixer; I did not expect it from the other side. Senator Collard complains about tariffs. As an increasing number of farmers are realising, the structural defects associated with the high levels of protection in the Australian economy were set in concrete in the 1960s by Black Jack McEwen who was the then Leader of the Party to which Senator Collard belongs. An increasing number of farmers are becoming aware of that fact. Senator Collard referred to what he called the excessive value of the Australian dollar. The Fraser Government, for all its period in government, because it had no effective wages policy, maintained as a deliberate policy the overvaluation of the Australian dollar because that was the only mechanism it could think of in the intellectual vacuum in which it operated. It was the only measure it could think of which could hold down excessive wages growth and therefore inflation. This Government has abandoned that policy of deliberately and continuously over- valuing the Australian dollar, because we have a policy which has contained wages growth so effectively that even in a period of high economic growth, almost without precedent in Australia, unit labour costs have fallen to the lowest point in 17 years as has the level of industrial disputes. That policy the Opposition is committed to torpedoing, should it ever be returned to government. Senator Collard referred to the labour market. We know what the Opposition's policy on wages is, and that is to allow the free market to operate-the same policy which the coalition tried in 1981 when it abandoned centralised wage fixing. That was followed by a wages explosion in the two following years of 14 and 13 per cent respectively. Notwithstanding that experience, the Opposition, which my colleague the Treasurer rather colourfully said a while ago has a habit of returning like dogs to its vomit, has returned to that policy because it cannot think of anything else. It reminds me of a story attributed to Maynard Keynes which I saw repeated in the weekend Press. Keynes was asked what he would do if evidence could be produced that proved his economic theories to be wrong. He said, `I would change my mind. What would you do?' We know what the Opposition does. The Opposition, when confronted with empirical evidence which shows that its policies and methods fail, does not change its mind but still sticks to the narrow, ideological, dogmatic track on which it operates. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Is the Department of Immigration about to eliminate the necessity for Japanese tourists to have entry visas into Australia? If this is so, why not have a similar change introduced for other countries, such as the United States of America? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen Press reports, as I am sure Senator McIntosh has, that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is allegedly about to remove the necessity for Japanese tourists to have visas. That in fact is not so. Many tourism organisations in Australia have asked the Federal Government and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to look at the possibility of removing the visa requirements for Japanese tourists to Australia if the Japanese Government would consider doing so for Australian visitors to Japan. The Minister and the Department are looking at this matter but it is extremely early days. There has been no similar request for people from the United States of America or elsewhere. I think it is a pity that such a report should have resulted in the outburst of bigotry and nonsense that we heard from Mr Bruce Ruxton but I am afraid that that is the sort of thing we expect from Mr Ruxton. Incidentally, I noticed also that Mr Ruxton is the last person in Australia, or perhaps the world, who is still supporting President Marcos against Mrs Aquino, even when he had left Australia. However, the Minister will look at this. When I read this report I asked the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to give me some information on visas. The Department pointed out, interestingly enough, that in fact visas sometimes assist visitors to a country like Australia in that the possession of a visa guarantees people coming to this country from long distances the right of entry when they come here. The Department also told me that visas result in shorter processing times at points of entry. I think the Department ought to go away and look at what happens at points of entry in Australia, having spent 2 1/2 hours in a line in Sydney recently, not having a visa but having a guarantee that I would actually get back into the country. I think the Department ought to really look at that. Among the main reasons we have visas for all countries except New Zealand is that we are, in fact, a country which takes in large numbers of refugees and migrants. Unlike Japan, we are a country which has many good reasons to restrict entry to various people, particularly people who are likely to bring to this country, through their possessions or through themselves, diseases which do not exist here. I know that tourism is important to Australia and it certainly would be easy if we had no visas, but in Japan and most other countries visas are issued within 48 hours. In fact, they are issued on the spot if that is necessary. I believe the service is generally quick and courteous. We would have to take a careful look before we made the changes suggested by the various tourism organisations. All I can say is that such a change is not imminent. Such a change would involve a fair bit of investigation and a fair bit of negotiation with the Japanese Government. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the Minister confirm, as he stated in the Senate in September 1983, that Ministers have to make a declaration at meetings of the Cabinet or its committees of any matter that may give rise to a conflict of interest? Can he also confirm Mr Dawkins's reported statement that, when the ministerial committee investigating the Bell Group Ltd takeover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd first met, Mr Dawkins raised the question of whether any of the seven Ministers had shares in either company? Did anyone other than Mr Dawkins raise this issue at that meeting or at any subsequent meeting of the committee and what was the result of it having been raised by Mr Dawkins or by anyone else? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney quoted from something which I allegedly said in September 1983. I am sure that I did say that but I have not, of course, referred recently to that statement. Senator Durack —Why not? It's relevant. Senator BUTTON —My God, I am continually being coached here by Senator Durack as to how to perform my job. He is the dopiest coach one could possibly imagine. If Senator Durack does not mind, I will decide what I read myself. I need no assistance from him in respect of this matter. I am happy to accept Senator Chaney's word that I said that. As to the second part of the question, yes, Mr Dawkins did raise the issue of any conflict of interest by Ministers in the group of seven. That was raised by Mr Dawkins. The answer to that question is that no Ministers on the group had a conflict of interest. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I seek clarification from the Minister. Is he saying that Mr Dawkins was the only Minister to raise the issue of conflict of interest or the ownership of shares, and is he saying that there was no response from any Minister with respect to that point when it was raised? Senator BUTTON —I am beginning to get some instinctual understanding of why the previous Government was such a failure. If Senator Chaney had a meeting of his Cabinet and someone raise an issue, was it then incumbent upon each Minister to then raise the same issue for discussion? I should have thought not; and it is not so in this Government. Senator Chaney —What happened? That is what we want to know. Senator BUTTON —That is not what the honourable senator asked me. He asked what other Ministers raised the same issue. Senator Chaney —Did any other Minister? Senator BUTTON —All right-`Did any other Minister raise the same issue?' The answer to that question is no, because all the Ministers who were there are reasonably intelligent people, and no other Minister raised the same issue, it having been raised by Mr Dawkins. Senator Chaney —Did any Minister respond? Senator BUTTON —Yes, Ministers responded; I do not-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, you have asked your supplementary question. Senator Chaney —He keeps answering a different question. Senator BUTTON —Oh, come on! The PRESIDENT —The Minister is entitled to answer as he answers. Senator BUTTON —I do not recall the precise nature of the responses. As I said in my answer to Senator Chaney's original question, no Minister present had a conflict of interest. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It refers to the apparently widespread practice of motor-cyclists not wearing helmets. Are motor-cyclists required to wear helmets in every State? In what circumstances are exemptions granted? Does the widespread incidence of non-helmeted motor-cyclists indicate that the law is not being enforced as strictly as it should be, and, if so, does this not mean that taxpayers and other motor-cyclists and motorists are having to meet the cost of the avoidable injuries that they sustain? Senator GIETZELT —I was asked a question somewhat similar to this one in the last session of Parliament, by, I think, Senator Sanders. The circumstances are that motor-cyclists are required to wear helmets in every State, so the answer to that part of Senator Childs's question is yes. The honourable senator also asked in what circumstances exemptions are granted. The Government is advised on such matters by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which in February 1984 accepted advice from eminent medical experts that there is no known medical evidence or condition which precludes the wearing of helmets by motor-cyclists compatible with safe riding. I believe that the States, however, are reviewing their exemption policies in the light of that advice. However, the Government does not believe that there is widespread non-compliance throughout Australia with the current laws. The Office of Road Safety advises me that Australian helmet-wearing rates are extremely high and compare favourably with rates in other countries. So, whilst there is from time to time public concern-in point of fact, in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald there is a letter by a spokesperson representing the Royal Australian College of Surgeons on this very matter-the Government is convinced that there does not appear to have been or to be a situation in which taxpayers and other motorists are having to meet the costs of avoidable injuries that are sustained. Therefore, the fears that have been expressed by Senator Childs and others are not borne out by the facts. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Senator Cook —Make it sensible. Senator WALTERS —I always do. Will the Minister inform the House, first, how much of taxpayers' funds has been spent by the Department of Social Security on publicising the so-called social security amnesty? Secondly, how many overpaid recipients of government social security benefits have responded to the publicity campaign? Thirdly, what is the net saving to the Commonwealth as a result of the responses that his Department has received? Fourthly, is the Minister aware of any obvious causes of fraud? Lastly, does the Minister expect the amnesty to be cost-effective? Senator GRIMES —The good senator asked questions of detail which I have not got but which I will obtain. I can assure her, though, that the Minister for Social Security and the Government would not have taken this step if they did not believe that the result would be cost effective. I will get the information on the other questions as soon as possible. Senator COLEMAN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Will pensions and benefits be increased in May? If so, by how much? Will rent assistance for the unemployed commence at the same time? How many Australians will benefit from the Government's increases? What will be the cost to the Government's revenue of those measures? Senator Lewis —Put it in a Press release. Senator GRIMES —I wish it was a dorothy dix question as I would be able to give all the answers, Senator Lewis. Yes, the pensions will be increased on 1 May by 4.2 per cent. That will, of course, benefit all pensioners and beneficiaries in this country who total, from memory, approximately 3 million. Yes, rent relief will be introduced for some unemployed, particularly those who have been living away from home for more than six months in May. I have not got the details at my fingertips. I will give those details to the Senate-and to Senator Lewis in the form of a Press release, if he likes-as soon as possible. Senator LEWIS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and is about the Fullers Agencies (Australia) Pty Ltd lease on Bowen Island at Jervis Bay. I ask: Why was formal notice of termination of the Bowen Island lease given to the lessee without the lessee being given any opportunity to respond to the allegations made by Dr Pratt which led to the Minister's determination? Why has the Minister refused to consider the rebuttal of those allegations by the lessee? Why has the Minister failed to respond to my request of 4 March for a further report from an independent source in view of the disturbing allegations made to the Prime Minister in a letter dated 21 February 1986? Finally, why will Mr Scholes not have the simple decency and courtesy to meet these people? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Lewis will be aware that there is a conflict between the lessee and the Minister or the Government in these circumstances. In that atmosphere one has to respond in a way that does not, in any way, impinge upon the rights of the parties concerned. The response that has been provided to me is along the following lines: The recent lessee of Block 6, Jervis Bay Territory, Fullers Agencies (Australia) Pty Ltd, has not vacated the island following expiration of the lease on 31 December 1985. Following consultation with the Australian Government Solicitor, notice was given to the lessee on 5 December 1985 and recovery action commenced in the Magistrates Court. The hearing was set down for 25 February this year and the action has been held over by the Court for hearing in May. The matter of compensation is, therefore, being pursued separately. Implementation of the management program for Bowen Island by the Australian Capital Territory Parks and Conservation Service is being hindered by the continuing presence of residents and personal property. Supervised public use of Bowen Island has not been introduced as planned because of continuing private occupation of the Island. A ranger will be stationed on Bowen Island once vacant possession is available. Resource requirements for full implementation of the management program are being assessed. Following the freedom of information inquiry, Fullers Agencies (Australia) Pty Ltd has submitted to all members of Parliament-I appreciate that Senator Lewis has asked his question in response to that matter-a number of allegations relating to the departmental submissions upon which the decision of the Minister, Mr Scholes, not to renew the lease was based. I think the honourable senator will appreciate that action is following in this matter. Therefore, a detailed response has been prepared for the Deputy Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory Operations Branch and is currently under consideration. That is as much information as I am able to give at this time. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Attorney- General been drawn to an article on page 43 of the 28 March to 3 April edition of the National Times? Was the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ian Temby QC, aware, or should have been aware, that Ron Meldrum QC, appointed by Mr Temby to prosecute six defendants in an alleged $32m tax fraud, was a party to a tax avoidance scheme known as the St John's scheme? Is it correct that the documents disclosing Mr Meldrum's participation in the St John's tax avoidance scheme were in the possession of Mr Temby QC and formed part of the prosecution case? In view of the fact that an apparent conflict of interest now exists between the prosecution and the continuation of the case, particularly as some of the defendants were promoters of the scheme entered into by Mr Meldrum, will the Minister ascertain the attitude of Mr Temby to the continuation of Mr Meldrum as prosecutor? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been advised by the Attorney-General that, in relation to this matter, he has been informed by the DPP, Mr Temby, as follows: Mr Meldrum was retained as senior counsel by the Melbourne office of the DPP. At the time of his retainer no DPP lawyer was aware of Mr Meldrum's involvement in the tax avoidance scheme known as the St John's scheme. No DPP lawyer was aware of his involvement until the matter was raised in a letter dated 26 February 1986 from Messrs Phillips Fox, solicitors of Melbourne for four defendants, to the DPP. There were, amongst the some 8,000 exhibits comprising some 40,000 documents tendered during the prosecution case, two documents referring to Mr Meldrum's involvement. These two documents were tendered by consent of all parties subject to later argument as to relevance as part of a large number of documents in cartons. Prior to their tender the documents were in the possession of the DPP together with other exhibits. It was not known by any lawyer that there were any documents relating to Mr Meldrum's involvement until receipt of the letter dated 26 February. Nor could the existence of the documents have been reasonably expected to have been known by any DPP lawyer until preparation for the arguments as to the relevance of the documents of which they formed part took place. The DPP considers that no conflict of interest presently exists between the prosecution and the continuation of the case and Mr Meldrum is to continue to be retained as senior counsel. The question of the retention of counsel is one for the DPP as part of his statutory functions. Mr Temby discussed the matter with the Attorney-General shortly after the matter came to his attention. Senator WATSON —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the difficulties many mining and construction companies are having in getting urgently needed spare parts through Customs? Does the Minister not agree that it is a ludicrous situation when urgently needed spare parts can be landed in Australia from, say, Singapore within 14 hours of a request and yet it takes a further 7 to 14 days for such goods to be cleared through Customs? Will the Minister investigate the procedures to expedite Customs procedures for this type of equipment? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the particular incident to which Senator Watson refers. I do not know whether it happened in Tasmania or elsewhere. Certainly in respect of most Customs clearances the procedures have been so improved that goods are now capable of being cleared through Customs within four hours. Whereas it used to take a number of days. That improvement is generally recognised, I think, by the importing community. There may be some particular difficulties associated with parts for heavy machinery which I will certainly have inquired into. I will give Senator Watson a full answer as soon as I can. Senator COOK —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of reports in this morning's Press that the Opposition is seeking public sector expenditure to be reduced to 28.5 per cent of gross domestic product? What would be the consequences of attempting to reach this target? Is this objective compatible with recent promises the Opposition has made regarding new spending? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is no, it is absolutely incompatible with the irresponsible spending promises which the Leader of the Opposition has been running around all over the country making for the last six months. The report concerns this year. I make it clear that I am talking about 1985-86. If outlays as a proportion of GDP were of that order this year it would be necessary to take about $3 billion off present expenditures. If one adds to that the cost of the irresponsible promises of the Opposition on expenditure to which I have referred, including the latest $500m grab bag from the National Party of Australia, which amounts to $1.9 billion, for an expenditure target in this Budget of 28.5 per cent of GDP to be met, it would require about $4.9 billion being taken off existing expenditures. I do not know where the Opposition proposes that $4.9 billion should be cut from existing expenditures. But if Mr Howard has a specific proposal for cutting off that $4.9 billion, I wish he would send it to me and I guarantee to look at it. If the Waste Watch Committee has a specific list of reductions of existing outlays which adds up to $4.9 billion, I would appreciate it if that Committee did the same thing. I do not know whether the Opposition's objective has the endorsement of the National Party, but one possible way such a target could be met is the adoption of the motion moved at Yass on 1 April by a Mr Barry Walker, a stalwart of the National Party and former president of the Yass Shire, which demanded that 20 per cent be cut off welfare outlays in the first year and another 20 per cent in the next year. If that were to be done, the target of reducing public sector expenditure to 28.5 per cent of GDP could be met. However, I think it should be borne in mind that, if that were done, every mother who is receiving family allowance would have it reduced by 40 per cent, every old digger who is getting a veteran's pension would have it cut by 40 per cent, every pensioner would have his pension cut by 40 per cent, every unemployment benefit recipient would have it cut by 40 per cent, and so on. A 20 per cent cut in welfare expenditure, defined rather more broadly than social security, would yield savings of $2.8 billion. So, if Mr Walker's proposal were adopted, that is, to cut 40 per cent off welfare outlays as Mr Walker demands, it would more than meet the Opposition's requirement. I find it rather ironic that this pillar of the National Party should move a motion at the meeting at Yass on 1 April, which was carried by acclamation, that welfare expenditure should be cut by 40 per cent when I read the tear-jerking stories on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald two days ago which quoted a Mrs Pat Boyd of the Women's Rural Action Committee as saying: We've got families of five or six people living off a weekly income of $70 to $80. We had one family who had been living for weeks off the pension cheque of an elderly relative. Let it be noted for the record that if the proposal of the National Party were to be adopted, that pension cheque would be reduced by 40 per cent. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows his answer to my question relating to the ministerial committee on the Bell-BHP takeover when the Minister said, after Mr Dawkins had raised the question of ministerial shareholdings, that there was no conflict of interest. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Did Mr Dawkins disclose any shareholding in the Bell company on the part of his mother? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the question is no. I repeat: No Minister had any conflict of interest. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women been drawn to the comments of Mr Charles Blunt MP, citing media speculation on the family allowance as evidence of the Hawke Government's lack of concern for families? Is there any substance in Mr Blunt's assertions? Senator RYAN —I am entirely in sympathy with the answer given by Senator Walsh some weeks ago, and about which he reminded the Senate yesterday, that Ministers do not speculate on rumours about budgetary decisions. Everybody in this place knows that. Presumably Mr Blunt knows that. It is entirely mischievous to try to stir up fear and anxiety amongst the needier people in our community on the basis of rumour and speculation in the Press. Senator Walsh has pointed out today the announced intention of some members of the National Party regarding social welfare expenditure. I simply reassure those people, particularly poor women struggling with families who really depend on their family allowances, who have been unnecessarily worried and concerned by this kind of scaremongering by Mr Blunt, and remind them of the record of our Government in assistance to poorer families. They can take heart and reassurance from remembering that our Government has substantially increased social welfare expenditure for poorer people. For example, significant increases in assistance have been given to single parent families with dependent children and to poorer families by way of very dramatic public housing increases. There has been an enormous increase in expenditure on children's services, particularly on community-based child care for which my colleague, Senator Grimes, ought to be congratulated. I remind honourable senators that the vast majority of the extra 10,000 places already achieved and the 20,000 places to be achieved over the next three years will go to needier families whose subsidy continues to be very substantial. I also remind those people who are worried about what our Government will do for the poorer sections of the community of the great benefit of Medicare, the universal health insurance system. Although I regard, as does Senator Walsh, speculation about possible decisions that are to be made as entirely improper, I point out that our Government has an outstanding record of targeting increased assistance to the poorer members of the community. There is no reason to think that that record will be undermined in any way by forthcoming decisions. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the rules relating to grants of assistance to or for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders which, for the first time, give power to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to remove elected officials if, in his opinion, they are not acceptable. Have these rules been referred to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board? How does the Government propose to protect the human rights of Aboriginal Australians from arbitrary political ministerial decisions? Senator RYAN —I inform Senator Macklin that in the past when an Aboriginal organisation has formally accepted the terms and conditions of an offer for grant funds the Commonwealth as one of the contracting parties has, in most cases, been obliged to continue the funding of that organisation until the end of the financial year. Under the former conditions for grants, there was no provision to withdraw funding if it were found that during the year the financial control of the organisation had fallen into the hands of a person or persons with a proven record of mismanagement or misappropriation of grant funds. The new provisions will enable the Minister to withdraw funding if such a situation arises. I am sure that all honourable senators would agree that a Minister must take all possible steps to ensure that public funds are properly administered and acquitted. I add that this responsibility is especially great in funding disadvantaged sections of the community, such as members of the Aboriginal community who receive such funds. It is not in their interests that grants made available to assist them be used for any other purpose. It is certainly not in the interests of their standing in the general community to permit situations which are deleterious to the Aboriginal community to continue. As to the individual rights of people involved in such hypothetical cases, I hope that existing legislation in New South Wales is adequate to protect any suggestion of infringement of rights. Similarly, as Senator Macklin is very well aware, the Commonwealth has a plethora of machinery under which administrative decisions can be properly investigated and appealed against if individuals feel that they have been unjustly treated. Senator MACKLIN —I ask a supplementary question. I reiterate the first part of my question. Have these rules been referred to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board? Senator RYAN —I do not have information on that part of Senator Macklin's question. I will get it as soon as I can. Senator COONEY —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment concerned about the effect on wildlife, in particular on koalas, of the clearing of the Cobobonee native forest for pines in the areas adjacent to Lyons, west of Heywood in western Victoria? Does this mean that the boundary delimiting the presence of koalas in Australia will be contracted to the east? If the Minister is concerned, does the Minister intend to do anything about that concern? Senator RYAN —I will have to seek detailed information on the part of Senator Cooney's question which refers to a particular area of Australia where koalas may be under threat, but I am sure that I can answer in general terms on behalf of the Minister and me. We would be very concerned if native fauna were to be undermined or threatened in any way. I am sure that the Minister responsible will take whatever steps are necessary to protect those koalas. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the recently announced $100m drug offensive and, specifically, to the initiatives directly relating to law enforcement. Can the Minister outline what new commitments and funding are to go to the following agencies as a direct result of the offensive: The National Crime Authority, the Australian Federal Police and the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence? Can the Minister confirm that the programs listed under the law enforcement area have all been committed previously? If so, does he not agree that in respect of the so-called drug offensive, the Government has foreshadowed no new action in the crucial area of apprehension and prosecution of those involved in the production and distribution of illegal drugs? Senator BUTTON —As the question asks for some detail on expenditures and so on, I ask the honourable senator to place it on notice. Senator GIETZELT —On 11 March Senator Sir John Carrick asked a question and a supplementary question on both Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the projected airport at Badgerys Creek. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) has provided me with the following information. One of the findings of the second Sydney Airport site selection program was that there seems to be no good reason why the principles which appear to address traffic distribution between multi-airport systems in metropolitan overseas would not equally apply to Sydney. If so, we can look forward to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport essentially catering to commercial and business activities and the second airport accommodating leisure travel and other activities which cannot be accommodated at Sydney. If this occurred, the split would generally be for leisure and business rather than international, interstate, intrastate and so on. This specialisation will result in little need to travel between the two airports. The planning for Badgerys Creek allows for a variety of possible future roles. Decisions as to the role the second airport will initially fill have yet to be made. The Government is convinced that if Sydney's future aviation opportunities are to be preserved the second airport must be set aside now and be capable of being developed to perform any one of a number of possible roles. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the Report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 9 April 1986, namely: The construction of the National Bicentennial Science Centre at Section 28, Parkes. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I incorporate in Hansard a ministerial statement on the 1986-87 migration program. The statement read as follows- The purpose of this statement is to announce the Government's migration program for 1986-87. In doing so, I would first like to draw the attention of honourable members to the demographic and economic issues relevant to Australia's population and immigration policies in the longer term. While current economic and social circumstances are important in setting immigration programs, the Government is conscious of the importance of the questions of the longer-term benefits and costs which must be addressed if Australia is to exploit its full potential. Immigration intakes of recent years have combined with decreasing natural increase to produce population growth rates well below historical experience. Since 1946 the average annual population growth rate has been 1.85 per cent; as recently as 1983-84 it fell to as low as 1.15 per cent. About half of post-World War II population growth has been due to natural increase and the other half directly the result of migration. However, immigration has had a significant indirect stimulus through natural increase. Although Australia's population is still slowly increasing by virtue of natural increase alone, this will persist only while the age structure of our popoulation remains relatively young. The level of Australian fertility is currently 10 per cent below the long-term population replacement level and there is little chance of a recovery. Although Australia's level or mortality is low, still declining, and satisfactory by global comparisons, the crude death rate will rise as the population progressively ages. With a continuation of these trends in births and deaths, Australia's population would begin to decline half-way through the next century, in the absence of immigration. While still relatively young, the Australian population is also ageing progressively. Honourable senators will be aware that this development has significant welfare, taxation, labour market and economic consequences. Short of substantial increase in recent levels of immigration, the ageing of the population will accelerate sharply early in the next century. If current levels of immigration are retained, the aged dependency ratio would increase by 58 per cent by the year 2021. This ratio broadly relates those in retirement age to those available to the labour market. A 58 per cent increase in this ratio would have dramatic and far-reaching social and economic consequences. No society and no Government can responsibly ignore these trends. Immigration cannot reverse ageing of the population but it can retard the process. Over the last decade or so, the average age of new settlers has been some five years younger than the average age of the resident population. To retard the ageing process significantly will require a sustained return to more traditional, historical levels of immigration programs. Population is not merely a question of numbers, growth rates or age profiles. The distributional impact of migration, both international and internal, cannot be ignored. The Government is conscious of the propensity of migrants to settle in existing urban communities, but it does not regard this as an issue which can be properly addressed in a migration context alone, given that people in Australia are free to choose the place in which they will live and work. Recent research demonstrates that migrants are at least as mobile and flexible as their Australian-born counterparts, particularly in the early years of settlement. Equally, proper concerns about environmental issues are relevant to population growth and immigration programs. Ultimately, however, the capacity of a nation to address environmental concerns largely resides in areas other than immigration, including capacity to generate economic wealth, a sufficient tax base and technological sophistication. Immigration levels cannot be determined in isolation from permanent and long-term departures. In recent years permanent departures have fluctuated from a low of 19,500 in 1980/81 to a high of 25,000 in 1982/83. They have resulted in substantial losses of skilled workers. Accordingly, the contribution of net permanent migration to the Australian labour market has been substantially less than the contribution of permanent settlers alone. I turn now to the economic implications of immigration. Recent research undertaken by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) and my Department is relevant to our understanding of the role of immigration in the Australian economy. It is generally accepted that research of this kind is complex and based in part on econometric models, and that the findings have to be seen in that light. However, the more significant research findings are sufficiently important to include in this statement. Until recently, many Australians, and not least Australian opinion leaders, have subscribed to the populist view that during periods of high unemployment or economic downturn immigration is disadvantageous to the employment prospects of Australians seeking to enter the labour market. These mistaken perceptions need serious attention. I draw the attention of honourable members to three of the CEDA research findings. The first is that immigration has contributed positively to economic growth and development. The second is that immigration, even in the very short term, does not adversely affect the employment prospects of the Australian resident population, with few localised and particular exceptions. The third is that the skill, education, age and self-sufficiency profiles of a particular intake are perhaps more important than the overall scale of any one intake. In relation to this question of education and skills, the Government has noted the call for higher levels of skilled labour and business migration. The Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) suggested that the skill composition and base of the Australian labour force could be enhanced in the medium term from increases in these programs. Whilst agreeing with these views, the Government is equally committed to upgrading the skill base of the Australian community by appropriate education, training and retraining policies and programs. In the long term, population policy objectives and economic rationality will be best served by a progressive return to more traditional levels of immigration. This return must be gradual, in part because the lead times in immigration are significant. Australia faces as much international competition for people with positive economic attributes as it does for commodity and capital markets. If anything, the level of competition is likely to sharpen in the medium to longer term. The Government sees properly managed population growth and immigration as an important strategy for economic policy options. All economic policy instruments involve short and long-term benefits and costs, and immigration is no exception. In looking at the long-term future the Government is concerned to awaken Australia's interest in, and appreciation of, the population dimension. The appendices to this statement, which I shall seek leave to table at the end of my speech, underpin the statement and provide a basis for an informed understanding of where we are and where we are headed. I recently asked the National Population Council to develop and advise me on long term population options for Australia. I expect that the Council's advice and the statement I have made will both serve to elicit public comment on these longer term population and immigration issues. It should be noted that, if it were decided that Australia's population by the year 2000 should be about 19 million, then that outcome would be achieved by an average annual immigration program of 120,000 or if it were decided that there should be a population target of some 30 million by the year 2038, the 250th year of European settlement of this continent, then such an outcome would be reached with an average annual migrant intake of 160,000. Both outcomes would be more likely were fertility rates to recover to higher levels. In either event, both could be achieved by manageable progressive increases in recent levels of immigration to intakes comparable to those experienced in the 1940s and 1960s when the population base and Australia's absorption capacity was substantially less than it is now or will be in the future. Australia's aim should be to see its immigration program in the context both of humane and community concerns and of population and economic development needs. Our understanding must be that immigrants, carefully selected, create more jobs than they take. It is against this philosophical and factual background that the Government has considered the migration program for 1986/87 and indicative planning levels for the subsequent two years. In developing the program the Government has had the benefit of formal advice from employers, trade unions, community groups, State Governments, local Government representatives, academics and the National Population Council. We propose a program of 95,000 visa issues and change of status approvals in 1986/87. This compares with an expected outcome of 89,000 in the current year. It represents a modest initial increase, and one I expect will be achieved. For the two subsequent years the Government has set indicative planning levels of 110,000 and 125,000, respectively. These levels are no more than indicative for planning purposes. They could represent the beginnings of a possible gradual increase in immigration which may thereby, subject to community support following from consultation on resources and needs, return by managed steps to historical intake levels of 160,000 to 170,000 or about 1% of population at that time. These are decisions for the future-but the foundations are being laid. I announce one major change and initiative to the structure of the migration program of interest to all honourable members. The Government has decided to develop the concept of an Independent and Concessional Migration category to attract a wider and more numerous number of people with the potential to contribute to Australia's economic and social needs. This category is based on the principles of the current extended family (Category C) program, which as honourable members would know, covers sponsored adult siblings and non-dependent children. Applicants will be required to achieve a pass mark of 70 points on the existing points system which relates to the age, employability, education and skill characteristics of the potential migrant. In recognition of the economic support that family in Australia can provide, concessionary points will be given to adult brothers and sisters and non-dependent children (10 points out of 70) and nephews and nieces (5 points). In summary, the new Independent and Concessionary Migration Category brings benefits from the economic gains to Australia from the people likely to succeed in their migration applications, whilst recognising the economic and social advantages of the extended family nexus. This Category is not one of entitlements but one of optimising human and economic realities. Effectively, the Government is concerned here with attracting people Australia needs, motivationally, economically and in terms of population building and the retardation of ageing. Would-be independent migrants with no family ties but who adequately meet the criteria of employability, self-sufficiency, youth, skills and or education will still be eligible to be included in our expanding migration program. At the same time, I emphasise that the Government maintains its commitment to reunion of immediate family. The family unit for us is the Australian family unit based on husband, wife, dependent children and retired parents. For aged parents of independent means, spouses and dependent children, entry is virtually automatic. On present levels of demand, I estimate a program of 26,000 visas in 1986/87 compared with an estimated outcome of 25,000 in 1985/86. A sensitive element has been the Vietnam Family Migration Program, which relies on the continued co-operation of the Vietnamese Government. It needs to be understood that in return for their responsibility to integrate into and contribute to Australian society, one of the rights given to migrants is to be reunited with immediate family. But this right does not flow over to the extended family. Extended family members are given preference for migration, more so in Australia than in the United States or Canada, but they must qualify for migration on the basis of the potential contribution they can make to Australian society. Skilled migration will continue to play a vital role in filling specific labour market needs. We propose 16,000 visa issues compared to a planning level of 14,000 in the current year. In an increasingly competitive environment, greater efforts will be made to attract business migrants and talented entrepreneurs with a target of 2500 visa issues, some two-thirds higher than the expected 1985-86 outcome. I shall seek leave to table a summary of the compositional elements of the 1985-86 and 1986-87 migration programs at the end of this statement. The Government reaffirms its commitment to its refugee and special humanitarian programs which will remain for planning purposes at their 1985-86 levels, namely 12,000 plus a contingency reserve of 2,000. This reflects a balance between a minor decrease in need for the resettlement of Indochinese, particularly Vietnamese, a minor increase in East European caseloads and a largely stable level of need in other areas. In line with our desire to increase community involvement in humanitarian resettlement and to recognise the resource implications of funding refugee travel to an extent not undertaken by comparable migrant intake countries such as the USA and Canada, there will be a change in the balance between persons receiving passage assistance and those responsible for funding their own travel to Australia. Fewer refugee travel costs will be funded by the Australian taxpayer. This Government reaffirms its commitment to immigration as a positive, needs-based, economically desirable and socially advantageous instrument of economic, population and social policy. It reaffirms Australia's sovereignty by maintaining non-discriminatory, but selective, universal selection principles. I reiterate that the Australian Government alone decides and will continue to decide who can enter and stay in Australia. It affirms its vision for the future, one of managed, gradual expansion of the migration program. It wants a better society for all Australians and sees immigration, properly controlled, as a powerful weapon in achieving that objective. This Government emphasises the balance that is required between choosing those who will make the biggest contribution to Australia and those admitted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, in particular immediate family and refugees. In this context, both the program that I have announced and the longer term thinking and debate about our future, which I encourage, continue to reflect the principles of immigration which my predecessors, of all political persuasions, have firmly embraced. I seek leave to table a fuller statement from which I have drawn in making these remarks and which includes the appendices to which I have referred. Senator WALSH —I table a more comprehensive statement which includes the appendices referred to in the summary statement. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.10) —The Opposition welcomes the statement that has just been incorporated in Hansard by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Of course, debate on this matter could go on for quite some time because the statement is one of great interest as it points in a new direction in terms of this Government's thinking in respect of immigration. Certainly the Opposition welcomes the changed direction, which clearly recognises the very important reality that immigration can be an area of very great benefit to the country as a whole. Certainly the statement recognises the favourable economic impact of immigration and this should lead to decisions being made by this Government which enhance the economic potential of the country and improve the lot of every Australian by improving the overall level of immigration into this country. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, in his statement takes to task those who think that by restricting immigration we are somehow helping the unemployed. The statement seeks to make the opposite point: By introducing more skilled immigrants, including those with economic skills, into this country we can expand job opportunities for all Australians. That is a reality that has been recognised and acknowledged by the Opposition over a long period but it has taken the Government considerable time to understand it. Senator Chipp —I think you mean the trade unions. Senator MESSNER —I was just going to say that obviously the Government has had some conflict with the trade union movement on this matter. It is pleasing at least to see that apparently people in the Government have been finally able to convince the unions as to the wisdom of that policy. One other point should be mentioned. Over the last three years of the Hawke Government there has been a changed direction in respect of immigration. More emphasis is being placed on family reunion rather than immigrants who have economic skills that can add to the benefit of the country. While there is a humanitarian streak that must be acknowledged in respect of that policy-many of us have heard of heart-rending cases, of individual cases of people who have relatives in this country at present but have been excluded from entering Australia. However, it must be acknowledged that where a system of priorities has to be established, from the overall point of view we must try to improve the lot of individual Australians who are already here and giving economic emphasis to immigration is an aspect that ought to be taken into account. Over the last three years the Government has lost its way on that matter as there has been an imbalance in its approach. However, we acknowledge that this statement prepares the way for a different approach and also an expanded program. That points us in the right direction but it is sad that it has taken the Hawke Government three years to acknowledge it and to do something about it. By the Government's own claim these three years have been times when economic fortunes in this country have been improving and, as a result, one would have expected that the Government could have come to realise that fact earlier. From the point of view of future policy, perhaps it has learned from past mistakes. We acknowledge that fact. The three-year period of inaction followed the time when the Fraser Government was in office and emphasis was placed on the economic skills of individual immigrants. That was a feature of the Fraser Government's policy. The Opposition is glad that the Government has seen the light. The Opposition acknowledges that this statement points out what it believes to be a basic reality. It is good that apparently the Government has finally been able to overcome the trade union movement and has got it to see the truth of this point. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.16) —The Australian Democrats also congratulate the Government on the policy, although we have some misgiving on its projected attitude towards refugees. I have prepared a rather thoughtful speech but, because of the little less than enthusiastic interest in the subject and because the Senate is anxious to get on to the Estimates, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my speech of 4 1/2 pages. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Democrats welcome, indeed applaud, the ministerial statement of the Honourable Chris Hurford outlining the Government's migration programme for 1986/87. Thank God we are now able to look at the issues of immigration away from the hype and motive of a beat up for political gain. The Minister's statement explains quite clearly why there is a need to increase the migrant intake. Firstly, the annual population growth rate in Australia is falling. In fact, on present trends without migration, Australia's population will begin to decline half-way through the next century. Secondly, without an increase in migration there would be a 58 per cent increase in those in retirement age. This would have the most serious effects for the Australian economy. Just consider the numbers on social welfare, the effect on taxation for those in the work force and what the effects on the labour market would be. What an increased migration program would do is not to reverse this trend but certainly to slow the growth of the ageing process. The numerous reports and research projects undertaken clearly indicate that the view that during periods of high unemployment or economic downturn, increased numbers of migrants means that Australian unemployed are further disadvantaged, is quite incorrect. It is now generally agreed that immigration, in fact, contributes to economic growth and development. The Government in increasing the migrant numbers is, in fact, expanding two existing categories; the Family Re-union category and the Skilled Migrant category, to create a new category. What the Government is really doing is planning migration to fit in with what it perceives as being Australia's economic policies and needs. Its thinking behind this is that if migrants are carefully selected they will, in fact, create more jobs than they take. The initial increase is quite small, a matter of 6,000, from 89,000 to 95,000. This will increase to 110,000, in 1987-88 and 125,000 in 1988-89. By slow gradual increase we may return to the old levels of 1% of the population. In these objectives the Government should be congratulated. There is only one problem I have with the Minister's statement, on page 12 of the statement he says `the Government reaffirms its commitment to its refugee and special humanitarian programs.' His commitment is to leave things as they are at the moment, namely at the 1985-86 levels-12,000 plus a contingency reserve of 2,000. Taking last year's figures, refugees amounted to just over 9,600 while the special humanitarian program migrants made up about 5,200. Certainly as far as refugees are concerned, it is hardly a strong commitment on the part of the Government. Mr Hurford justifies this figure by saying that there has been a decrease in the number of Indo-Chinese refugees and Eastern European refugees. While he is correct with the latter, he is not correct in the case of Indo-Chinese refugees. There are a number of other refugees who would, indeed, fit the criteria for the new category created by the Minister, and I urge the Minister to consider taking these people first. There are in the Middle East, Iranian and Afghan refugees some with links with Australia who are educated or have business skills. The same applies to a small number of African, Central and South American refugees. And while Mr Hurford is reappraising Australia's immigration policy perhaps he could look at the eleven Irian Jayan refugees in Australian territory who Mr Hurford would like to divert to anywhere in the world, other than Australia. The Democrats do not suggest for one moment, that Australia must take enormous numbers of the 10 million refugees in the world, this would be neither to their benefit nor to our's. But there are cases of refugees who have been sitting in camps for 4 or 5 years rotting with no country prepared to take them. Some, even a small added contribution by Australia to the third country re-settlement of these people would help. The most disturbing aspect of the Minister's statement in relation to refugees is where he says `fewer refugee travel costs will be funded by the Australian taxpayer.' What he is saying is that the 5,000 or so special humanitarian program migrants come to Australia unfunded and that he intends that some, if not all, of the 9,600 or so refugee cases will also have to come unfunded by the Australian Government. What he is trying to do is to maintain the refugee intake only if either individuals or community groups are prepared to pay for these people to come to Australia. This is, indeed, a retrograde and most disturbing step. How is the Government going to decide who will be funded and who will not be funded? Are they going to say that refugees from certain origins will have to come here under private arrangements or will they fund refugees with certain skills? And if refugees cannot get funding is he really going to leave them where they are? These questions should be answered by the Minister. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 6, Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2. Prior to the sitting of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 11.17 a.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 833) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Do recipients of German restitution payments, having recently had this money exempt from the definition of income under the Social Security Act 1947, now face difficulties actually registering for pensions. (2) Why are these German restitution recipients being asked for documentation of proof that these payments are compensation and not income, given that the Ministerial decision was that all these monies were to be exempt from now on. (3) Why is the Australian Government insisting on asking for non-existing proof when this documentation of proof is not available from the German Government. (4) Will the Minister for Social Security immediately put into effect the intention of his decision and make restitution payments exempt under the definition of income forthwith. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Any recipient of German restitution payments may lodge a claim for a pension or benefit in the usual way. The client should advise the Department that he or she is receiving German restitution payments. (2) Under the recent variation in the treatment of German restitution payments, such receipts are not treated as income unless they contain a clear component for loss of income. Restitution in respect of factors such as loss of health or freedom, or damage to property is disregarded. However, a clearly identifiable amount paid as restitution for damage to professional advancement or loss or earnings falls within the definition of income in the Social Security Act. It is therefore necessary to establish the nature of the restitution in each individual case and it is in each client's interest to provide any relevant documentation. (3) Experience shows that relevant documentation is available in a proportion of cases. However some clients may not have retained or received such a document. Enquiries have therefore been instituted with the relevant authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany to ascertain what information might be made available in such cases. (4) Revised guidelines consistent with the above were issued to all regional offices of the Department on 16 December 1985. (Question No. 970) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) What is the determined policy of the Department in relation to de facto relationships. (2) How is this policy implemented in departmental assessment of individual claims for benefits. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In assessing eligibility for social security payments and the rate payable, persons living in de facto marriage relationships are treated in the same way as legally married persons under the provisions of the Social Security Act. (2) Where it is necessary for the department to reach a conclusion as to whether a de facto relationship exists it follows a comprehensive set of guidelines. These have been drawn up after close study of guidance from Courts and specifically the findings of the Federal Court on appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (Question No. 973) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What is the determined policy of the Department in relation to de facto relationships. (2) How is this policy implemented in departmental assessment of individual claims for benefits. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Department of Health assesses en- titlement for services or benefits on an individual basis and marital status (including de facto relationships) is not a consideration in the assessment. In some cases, eligibility for payment of a benefit by the Department of Health depends in part on receipt of benefits paid by other agencies (e.g. pensions). In these cases, the assessment of entitlement for the original benefit is not a function of the Department of Health.